The Monarchy under Charles

[muriel]

I suspect Camilla's children will certainly be on the estate, even if they are not in the main house for Christmas.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would imagine his siblings will still attend as Margaret attended for many years. If his siblings don't attend there wont be a big turn out!

Yes but remember The Queen Mother was also still alive so Margaret was spending Christmas with her own mother and taking her children along and her children have continued to be invited by their Aunt Lilibet simply because they have always done so.

We have already seen Anne and her children miss Christmas with Charles when they missed it the year that Savannah was born.

I can see the siblings going sometimes but can also see the grandchildren wanting to spend Christmas with their spouses' families and so the sibling could be with his/her own children and grandchildren.

I don't think Charles wants to have his siblings around much and will have them at the Christmas Luncheon before the Sandringham Christmas.

That is also assuming that The Queen leaves Sandringham to Charles - she could leave it to anyone as it is private property not state owned - and Charles may decide to spend Christmas somewhere else as well.

 

[vkrish]

I think starting from The Queen turning 90, Charles will start taking over Centanoph, Trooping The Colour, Opening The parliament, and finally Christmas Speech (in that order only..?) one each year..
Or maybe even earlier..

 

[Ish]

I think starting from The Queen turning 90, Charles will start taking over Centanoph, Trooping The Colour, Opening The parliament, and finally Christmas Speech (in that order only..?) one each year.. Or maybe even earlier..

I think it will be a sad day when the Queen doesn't do these things herself.

Regardless of her age, so long as she's able to I don't see why Charles has to do any of them - personally I think the things you've listed here are more "the monarch's duty" than anything.

The meeting with the Commonwealth - also the monarch's duty - is a bit different as it involves travel out of Britain, and the Queen seems to be limiting her travel at this point. But watching her in this past year, it certainly seems like despite her age HM is still fully capable of doing the things you've listed.

 

[RockingGoodTime]

Given his age and experience as heir, the Prince of Wales may well have the opportunity to make sweeping changes upon ascending the throne. What if he refuses to step into role of hand puppet that many expect of him? There are two issues that come to the front of my mind.
First, does anybody really think he’s going to stop championing the underprivileged? As a pensioner King with a lot of experience handling politicians, he might well find expression that is apolitical while promoting an agenda semi-independent of the government. Maybe the Crown will find new expression in its charity work?
Second, upon ascending the throne, he will be expected to turn over the Crown Estate revenues to Parliament in exchange for a percentage of the Crown Estate revenues. Even though there is a long history of monarchs and Parliaments making these kinds of agreements, what if he simply does not renew it? What if Court uses the money to pay all the expenses, including security, and paid income taxes on the balance? That looks so much like the current arrangement with the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Cornwall right now. Would a pensioner King be bullied into making an agreement that diminishes the Monarch’s independence and dignity if he simply did nothing to renew the agreements?
His past actions indicate he may have ideas for radical change. He will be a great King and will do as much as he can for the benefit of all of his subjects.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Given his age and experience as heir, the Prince of Wales may well have the opportunity to make sweeping changes upon ascending the throne. What if he refuses to step into role of hand puppet that many expect of him? There are two issues that come to the front of my mind.

If he tries the parliament will object - as it did in the 1640s - and as the monarch now reigns with the approval of parliament the parliament will remove him.

First, does anybody really think he’s going to stop championing the underprivileged? As a pensioner King with a lot of experience handling politicians, he might well find expression that is apolitical while promoting an agenda semi-independent of the government. Maybe the Crown will find new expression in its charity work?

The monarch is totally apolitical, even if other members of the family are more outspoken - I do believe that Charles knows that as King he can't publicly support one side of politics over the other and given the number of politicians he has rubbed the wrong way he won't be able to do so privately either, unlike his mother, as they will soon let it be known that he is still interfering - outside his authority.

Second, upon ascending the throne, he will be expected to turn over the Crown Estate revenues to Parliament in exchange for a percentage of the Crown Estate revenues. Even though there is a long history of monarchs and Parliaments making these kinds of agreements, what if he simply does not renew it? What if Court uses the money to pay all the expenses, including security, and paid income taxes on the balance? That looks so much like the current arrangement with the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Cornwall right now. Would a pensioner King be bullied into making an agreement that diminishes the Monarch’s independence and dignity if he simply did nothing to renew the agreements?
His past actions indicate he may have ideas for radical change. He will be a great King and will do as much as he can for the benefit of all of his subjects.

Can't happen as there the changes to the arrangements that were made a couple of years ago whereby the monarch gets 15% of the Crown Estates to support the monarch in their official duties and maintain the state owned palaces is now law. That changed the old arrangements that had operated at the beginning of each reign since George III - which was the monarch handed over the money so that parliament paid for the court system, the defence forces etc - not something that parliament would ever hand back to the monarch.

Charles will still have the income of the Duchy of Lancaster to fund his private needs - as he now has the Duchy of Cornwall.

Charles has to abide by the legislation of the land and if he tries to go beyond that he will be removed very quickly.

 

[RockingGoodTime]

Charles may have more latitude to march to his own beat than simply following his mother's example. Two things stand out: 1) Parliament would have to consult the Realms, which may not be pushed around so easily, before it could just throw him out; and 2) tradition is a good reason to renew the Sovereign Grant agreement, but Charles does not necessarily have to comply with tradition. Taking the revenue from the Crown Estates has seemingly been one of his goals for a great number of years, and now the Sovereign Grant is funded by the Crown Estates. He may like the current arrangement, or he may make his own agreement with Parliament. From afar, he seems like a man with bold ideas, and the age and experience to implement them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles may have more latitude to march to his own beat than simply following his mother's example. Two things stand out: 1) Parliament would have to consult the Realms, which may not be pushed around so easily, before it could just throw him out; and 2) tradition is a good reason to renew the Sovereign Grant agreement, but Charles does not necessarily have to comply with tradition. Taking the revenue from the Crown Estates has seemingly been one of his goals for a great number of years, and now the Sovereign Grant is funded by the Crown Estates. He may like the current arrangement, or he may make his own agreement with Parliament. From afar, he seems like a man with bold ideas, and the age and experience to implement them.

The Sovereign Grant isn't an agreement. It is a piece of legislation signed into law by The Queen - no further agreements will be made as this is it. The previous system was a convention not backed by legislation but the Sovereign Grant ACT made it a law which can only be changed by another law - and there is no way Parliament is going to increase the amount given to the monarchy.

As for the other realms - just as they can become a republic on their own so can the UK - if they wish to remove Charles they will do so and the other realms have a couple of choices - agree with the UK keep Charles themselves and thus split the monarch, or become a republic and many of them have been talking about that and are really just waiting for Charles to become King (or the Queen to die) for that process to begin again in their own realms. Remember that she started as Queen of 54 nations and will leave no more than 16 to Charles who will probably leave even fewer to William.

 

[RockingGoodTime]

Thank you for your comments. However, the Act as Enacted sets the duration of the Sovereign Grant Provisions to 6 months after the end of the prior reign. Charles will have the opportunity to make his own arrangements when he ascends. For a bit of light reading, Section 16 discusses duration: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/15/crossheading/the-sovereign-grant/enacted.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have read the act and a time limit won't change anything - it is still an Act of Parliament and Parliament won't agree to giving any more to the monarch - and not will the British people.

The Crown Estates were used to fund the running of the country. George III gave them to parliament in return for enough money to fund his official duties. That has been the practice for the last 200+ years and there is no way that the Parliament or the people of the UK will allow the monarch of the day to have any more power than they have now - so getting any more of the Crown Estates means exactly that.

Parliament have set the precedent and will never give up that right - and no king would be stupid enough to try to take back powers that have been given away or taken away in return for a lavish lifestyle particularly when so many people in the country are struggling to make ends meet at the moment it is even seen as offensive to get as much as they do now.

Charles was supportive of capping the figure at 15% and there is no reason to think he would want any more - and it is always possible that he might struggle to even get that much.

 

[royal-blue]

I was wondering whether it would be feasible for Charles (or another future monarch) to use Sandringham as their weekend retreat, instead of Windsor as is currently the case. It is less than 3 hours away and it seems a shame that such a grand estate is used only a handful of times a year.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Feasible possibly but probably won't happen as the main house is open to tourists for most of the year which supplements the running costs of both the Sandringham estate and other royal properties.

 

[DukeofMontpelier]

I feel anything is possible if the want it to happen. They could open up Windsor to the public and make Sandringham the weekend and holiday go to place.

The Duke of Montpelier

 

[Spheno]

Windsor Castle is closed to the public! It's something new

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/visit/windsorcastle

 

[Iluvbertie]

I feel anything is possible if the want it to happen. They could open up Windsor to the public and make Sandringham the weekend and holiday go to place.

The Duke of Montpelier

The State Apartments at Windsor are open to the public most days of the year now. They are closed on days like Garter Day - as they are being used.

Sandringham doesn't have State Apartments so what is open is some of the private rooms e.g. the comfy sitting room, which is one of the first rooms you enter.

Even now when the Queen goes to Sandringham and Balmoral she has to stay elsewhere on occasions as the main homes are open to tourists whereas at Windsor that isn't the case - she can be in her private apartments while tourists traipse all over the State Apartments.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The state apartments at Windsor Castle has been open to the public for years already, take a trip it's a wonderful place.

 

[cepe]

Sandringham and Balmoral are privately owned - open at HMQs discretion

Windsor is owned by the State and is an official residence, the same as Buckingham Palace.

Swapping between is the 2 types is probably not an option.

 

[muriel]

I was wondering whether it would be feasible for Charles (or another future monarch) to use Sandringham as their weekend retreat, instead of Windsor as is currently the case. It is less than 3 hours away and it seems a shame that such a grand estate is used only a handful of times a year.

Sandringham and Balmoral are privately owned - open at HMQs discretion

Windsor is owned by the State and is an official residence, the same as Buckingham Palace.

Swapping between is the 2 types is probably not an option.

Nothing stops Charles or any future monarch from using Sandringham more often than it currently is.

Actually Sandrigham is used more than a handful of times a year, we are just not aware of its use. In addition to staying for around 6 weeks over Christmas, HM and the DoE often visit for a private weekend.

Charles and Camilla also visit. The times that I am aware of include for the Sandringham Flower Show in the summer, and then again in the autumn when C&C typically host a weekend "for the arts" - typically authors, artists, playwrights etc. Recently C&C entertained Harald and Sonja, the King and Queen of Norway, at Sandringham. There may be other trips during the shooting season as well.

Other family members must visit regularly as well. William and Harry appear to be fond of Sandringham, and the shooting.

 

[cepe]

Every example is using Sandringham for private visits. Possible exception is Sandringham Flower Show but that's it. I think having their own space, with no interference from outside as to when and how it is used, is something they enjoy.

The other issue is that although the properties look large, they don't have the large rooms that HMQ uses for events at Windsor or Holyrood.

Muddying uses can muddle the costs as well.

And if the revolution ever came, they have their own property - bought and paid for - that they can call their own.

I'd put money on them keeping official and private separate.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The other thing to remember is that when they visit during the summer etc they don't stay at the big house but in one of the smaller houses on the estate that isn't being let out because the big house is open to the public. It is open from Easter until early November except for one weekend - which fits in with when the royals use it.

 

[royal-blue]

I would actually like Charles to make all relatives of the monarch living in palaces to pay rent, apart from the monarch and spouse of course.

My reason for this is that the extended family of the head of state shoudl not be housed at public expense.

Many will argue that they are unable to earn a living in their own right if they are royals, but even in the current situation with the Queen as monarch, I see no reason why Charles shouldn't pay rent to live in Clarence House. He can use the Duchy of Cornwall income. Likewise, the Queen pays for the offical expenses of other royals, I don't see why they cannot pay rent out of this.

This would show the public that the royals are not above the rest of us.

 

[cepe]

I would actually like Charles to make all relatives of the monarch living in palaces to pay rent, apart from the monarch and spouse of course.

My reason for this is that the extended family of the head of state shoudl not be housed at public expense.

Many will argue that they are unable to earn a living in their own right if they are royals, but even in the current situation with the Queen as monarch, I see no reason why Charles shouldn't pay rent to live in Clarence House. He can use the Duchy of Cornwall income. Likewise, the Queen pays for the offical expenses of other royals, I don't see why they cannot pay rent out of this.

This would show the public that the royals are not above the rest of us.

Those at KP do pay rent, although I don't know about the Cambridges and Harry. I once read that Prince Michael of Kent paid £145k for KP. That money does not go to the Queen.

The money the Queen gives the working royals comes from her income from the Duchy of Lancaster and it pays for staff and travel. Point of interest is that it must cover gross pay including pension and NI - this is usually around 20-25% on top of gross salary.

The accommodation in London for working royals such as Anne, Andrew and Wessexes is ad hoc, depending on engagements.

I think that Beatrice and Eugenie should pay rent on their accommodation in SJP - but I dont know if they do or not.

For the Monarch, accommodation does come with the job. As for Charles, had rooms in BP until HMQ died. He spent Duchy money refurbishing Clarence House (internal works).

Re your last point - the royals are not like us

EDIT: According to the DM, Prince Michael was paying £120,000 in 2011. So my recollection may be wrong
The same report said that the Cambridges were not paying for Nottingham Cottage - that it was for when they had work in London and their "permanent home" was still Anglesey.

 

[tommy100]

My understanding is that the Queens cousins who live in KP do pay a "peppercorn" rent which is a very small amount each year a couple of thousands). Prince and princess Michael are slightly different as he is not in the line of succession (at present anyway) and does not officially represent the Queen on a day to day basis. Thus the argument came about from the parliaments accounts committee that they were living rent free and unlike the other royals not working for the Queen in lieu of rent. The Queen paid their rent for several years as she felt she had promised them an apartment in the palace, I think in the mind of the Queen and her staff the couple would move to their country house, instead they sold the house in the country and made the palace their main home, as such they had to start paying rent at a more commercial rate.
IMO this should be the rule, those who don't work full time as a royal should pay rent, by this I mean for example, the York princesses, they do not carry out duties listed in the court circular and have their own jobs so should pay rent for the st James' palace apartment, I think the same should have been done when Edward and Sophie were working, they should of paid rent even if they were still in rooms at BP. I think it's fair enough for those full time royals to get a place to stay as that's where their staff and the royal court are based but any others should pay rent.
In the case of Beatrice and eugenie I imagine it was 'justified' on the grounds of security.

 

[cepe]

My understanding is that the Queens cousins who live in KP do pay a "peppercorn" rent which is a very small amount each year a couple of thousands). Prince and princess Michael are slightly different as he is not in the line of succession (at present anyway) and does not officially represent the Queen on a day to day basis. Thus the argument came about from the parliaments accounts committee that they were living rent free and unlike the other royals not working for the Queen in lieu of rent. The Queen paid their rent for several years as she felt she had promised them an apartment in the palace, I think in the mind of the Queen and her staff the couple would move to their country house, instead they sold the house in the country and made the palace their main home, as such they had to start paying rent at a more commercial rate.
IMO this should be the rule, those who don't work full time as a royal should pay rent, by this I mean for example, the York princesses, they do not carry out duties listed in the court circular and have their own jobs so should pay rent for the st James' palace apartment, I think the same should have been done when Edward and Sophie were working, they should of paid rent even if they were still in rooms at BP. I think it's fair enough for those full time royals to get a place to stay as that's where their staff and the royal court are based but any others should pay rent.
In the case of Beatrice and eugenie I imagine it was 'justified' on the grounds of security.

I can't find the article now - such a wombat. However, I agree about the peppercorn rent for the Michaels because HMQ paid it for a while but now they carry the entire cost. I dont think they ever owned a country property.
I'm not sure about the Gloucesters but I expect they pay something. KP is their only residence as they rent out Barnwell Manor.

I really agree about Beatrice and Eugenie but for all we know they may be paying rent.

 

[Osipi]

I really agree about Beatrice and Eugenie but for all we know they may be paying rent.

I don't remember where I saw it but in the back of my mind, there's a niggling reminder that Andrew is paying the rent on the apartment along with his daughter's security.

 

[cepe]

I don't remember where I saw it but in the back of my mind, there's a niggling reminder that Andrew is paying the rent on the apartment along with his daughter's security.

your are on the money - here it is

Prince Andrew to pay Beatrice and Eugenie

 

[scooter]

I can't find the article now - such a wombat. However, I agree about the peppercorn rent for the Michaels because HMQ paid it for a while but now they carry the entire cost. I dont think they ever owned a country property.
I'm not sure about the Gloucesters but I expect they pay something. KP is their only residence as they rent out Barnwell Manor.

I really agree about Beatrice and Eugenie but for all we know they may be paying rent.

The Kents had Nether Lypiatt Manor in the countryside from 1980 to 2005.

 

[cepe]

thanks for that. I'd forgotten.

 

[tommy100]

Maybe Charles will move his brothers/sisters in time to KP. Thus by the time William and Kate come to the throne it would be the 'aunt (and uncle) heap' again. That being said William and Harry May have an understandable affinity to KP meaning it will stay an important residences to them in a way it hasn't been to other monarchs.

 

[muriel]

'Queen Camilla': Is Britain really ready for the Duchess of Cornwall becoming Queen one day? - Telegraph

Is Britain really ready for a 'Queen Camilla'?

Almost two decades after Diana's tragic death, it surely wouldn't be a betrayal of her memory to give the Duchess of Cornwall her own chance to secure a place in the nation's heart, writes Cathy Newman