The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1101  
Old 01-16-2013, 01:31 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Currently there are 15 members of the RF who do duties:

2 aged over 80
2 more aged over 70
5 in their 60s
1 in his 50s
2 in their 40s
2 in their 30s
1 in his 20s

Add 20 years

The top 4 will be gone and there will be 5 possibly in their 80s (although possibly even some of them will be gone so say 2 of them still with us)
1 in his 70s
2 in their 60s
2 in their 50s
2 in their 40s (assuming Harry finds someone to marry him)
and up to xxx about to enter their 20s.

Those are the ones who won't get the chance to spend their 20s doing their own thing but who will have to step up to the plate in their early 20s.

15 down to 9 won't happen over night but will happen gradually and by the time there is only 9 the next generation will be ready to start to take on a working role as well.

This is the cutting down that Charles and the Way-Ahead group are talking about - not stopping the current working royals from doing what they are doing but more allowing all the future children of younger siblings of the monarch to do their own thing. There is no intention of going from 15 to 4 the instant the present Queen dies but rather to go from 15 to about 10 over time and only adding 4 or so in each new generation - two children and their spouses.

Harry hopes to have a career in the army -meaning another 20+ years if he is good enough - although he might be like Andrew and told that he won't be getting any further promotions so it is better to leave on his own terms rather than sit around while younger and better people are promoted past him.

Sure some charities might have to have a non-royal patron but there is nothing stopping children of younger siblings e.g. Eugenie and Beatrice from having patronages and both currently do have them but they also are going to have real jobs rather than spend their lives in doing nothing but making small talk and shaking hands.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1102  
Old 01-16-2013, 07:32 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Let's face it: the BRF is an incredibly wealthy family and this does not sit well with a lot of the British, especially those working as journalists.

Even on doing Royal duties, it is likely that the younger members of the family are bemoaned by the public - they either wear to expensive clothing, are driven to the event, receive subservience from the "people", get freebees or gifts... the list is endless. So for the younger members of the RF it is far better not to become "working Royals", as they are only seen as overpayed servants who owe "the people", but to manage to live their life out of the spotlight.

It is not soo bad for those who are already working Royals, but as could be seen just today with an article in the Daily Mail about B&E's upcoming trip to Germany that the media does not want them representing the UK. So why should they bother? It's IMHO a good thing to represent the UK with a member of its RF in a foreign country but less so in the UK itself.

So the decision to "slim down" the RF is not a measure against some members but a way to give them a quieter, very comfortable life outside the spotlight (and thus public critizism). The people of the Uk should get used to the idea that it's just the monarch, his or her spouse and the heir plus spouse who are "the Royal family" and who Royal duties.

I guess we won't see that much public pageantry like Tropping etc. because the "people" wiill bemoan that but we might see an increase of events where the monarch honours other people much more publically.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1103  
Old 01-16-2013, 07:54 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
I see the monarchy becoming more scaled down in the future. By the time Prince Harry has grandchildren, their lives will be very different. They will be royal but they will lead a more normal life than their grandfather. I don't think they will have a lot of restrictions put of them and will have more normal lifestyle. I can see them working at a job full time, and doing things that their grand father and great-grandfather King Charles would never have dreamed of but would have liked to do perhaps if given the chance.
I agree..They will have jobs...as the the Dutch Royals,except the Heir,already have and each and everyone considers normal since decades......earning their own and no freeloaders in the family...like at present still in the UK...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1104  
Old 01-16-2013, 04:29 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
There aren't any 'freeloaders' in the BRF. There are only two who received money from the old Civil List - the money they were given to fund their official staff and to pay for things like State Visits. It wasn't money they could spend on anything they like.

They were also given money for the maintenance of the state owned palaces but had no say over how that money was to be spent e.g. The Queen couldn't priotise the maintenance but had to do what maintenance she was told to do.

The new system gives them one payment, rather than multiple payments, is still to cover those same expenses - the running costs of the office of Head of State such as salaries for the secretaries and the costs of the State Visits. Now because many of these staff also work for them privately it works out better for The Queen to get the funds rather than have the government pay casual employees to do the work and have to hire an appropriate venue.

The Queen has been repaying to the government any moneys paid to her children and cousins under former legislation that paid them for their work - so The Queen is supporting the entire working RF from the Duchy of Lancaster income, except the Wales' who are supported from the Duchy of Cornwall.

So basically Britain has a self-supporting family representing them but they love the headlines that is costs the taxpayers xxxx - it does at the time but at the end of the year The Queen repays that money so no cost to the taxpayers, except for security of course but those cops would be being paid for their duties anyway and they would be on duty protecting the elected Head of State and family anyway.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1105  
Old 01-17-2013, 07:13 AM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Queen has been repaying to the government any moneys paid to her children and cousins under former legislation that paid them for their work - so The Queen is supporting the entire working RF from the Duchy of Lancaster income, except the Wales' who are supported from the Duchy of Cornwall.

So basically Britain has a self-supporting family representing them but they love the headlines that is costs the taxpayers xxxx - it does at the time but at the end of the year The Queen repays that money so no cost to the taxpayers, except for security of course but those cops would be being paid for their duties anyway and they would be on duty protecting the elected Head of State and family anyway.
I was wondering since many years..Why are they doing this two-way? First paying the royals from Civil List, and then Queen repaying that money. I feel it pretty ridiculous.People will just see that royals are supported by taxpayer. They never appreciate that Queen is paying it back.
SO why dont they altogether remove all the royals(except Queen and DoE) from Civil List? And let the Queen support them? I feel its pure common sense. Maybe there is some point I missed..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1106  
Old 01-17-2013, 07:24 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
SO why dont they altogether remove all the royals(except Queen and DoE) from Civil List? And let the Queen support them? I feel its pure common sense. Maybe there is some point I missed..
There are no royals on the Civil List except The Queen and the DOE.

The Queen does support all of her children other than the Wales' from the Duchy of Lancaster funds. Security costs come from the government but like Iluvbertie said they'd be paid for the same thing somewhere else in the country anyway.

The Queen repays any money the government happened to use on other royals, at the end of the year instead on a week by week basis. IluvBerties post says just that.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1107  
Old 01-17-2013, 02:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Also the monarchy is no longer supported directly by the tax payers. At the beginning of each reign the new monarch signs over the revenue from the Crown Estate to the government in return for a civil list. Now a new agreement is in place. The Civil List is done away with and the monarch will receive 15% of The Crown Estate to fund the monarchy (except for security). The monarchy is probably the best run part of the government in terms of its ability to watch costs and make cuts where possible. This has been the case ever since Sir Michael Peat and Lord Airlie undertook a review of the whole Royal Household and how things were managed. They put things on a much more business orientated footing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1108  
Old 01-17-2013, 06:03 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
To explain why the younger royals are paid money from the government and then The Queen repays it needs some explanation which is quite simple.

Up until 1992 younger members of the royal family were added to the Civil List at 21 or marriage or some other appropriate time - by legislation - so to remove those payments from them meant repealing different acts of parliament which would take time and money while it was easier to achieve the same thing for the money to be still paid to the royals from the government and then have The Queen repay the money.

Until 1992 the following people were on the Civil List - The Queen, The Queen Mother, Philip, Margaret, Andrew, Anne, Richard, Edward (Duke of Kent) and Alexandra but after the disastrous 1992 The Queen agreed that only The Queen, The Queen Mother and Philip would keep the money they were paid from the government for being royal while The Queen would refund the other money.

As each of those other people who were paid and the Queen is reimbursing the government die the reimbursement bill will go down - so now she doesn't have to repay any moneys that were paid to Margaret but still repays the rest.

Prince Edward was never on the Civil List because he hadn't married in 1992 and so had never had the relevant legislation passed on his behalf so The Queen pays his expenses out of love alone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1109  
Old 01-17-2013, 06:06 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Prince Edward was never on the Civil List because he hadn't married in 1992 and so had never had the relevant legislation passed on his behalf so The Queen pays his expenses out of love alone.
Ah yes, for love alone. Nicely said Ilovebertie!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1110  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:44 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Middleofnowhere, United States
Posts: 17
Am I the only one who wonder how things will work out between Charles and Andrew?

Andrew seems determined, in spite of everything, to have Beatrice and Eugenie as working members of the family. Andrew paid for his daughter's trip to Germany. Charles has made his feelings quite known on the subject. I don't think he has any personal problem with his nieces, but the shadow of their mother is troubling to him. I think that he doesn't trust that she won't intrude on royal engagements and has taken a very hard line with respect to their working status within the family.

I think Charles wants them to go have a private life like his other grown niece Zara. She is only public for what she does and accomplishes which I think he is proud of her accomplishments. She worked hard and earned that, so what else is to be said?

Beatrice and Eugenie are seen as party girls usually with their mother in tow. This may not be fair, but it is what people see in the paper. I think he resents Sarah beyond words for not moving on and letting everyone get on with their lives. She wanted out of the family, but won't LEAVE. Andrew isn't troubled by Sarah. He wants to have his girls out front where Charles wants everyone outside his immediate branch of the family to back out of the spotlight.

Granted, his sister and brothers are part of the long term plan, but I don't think we have heard the last of this.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1111  
Old 01-24-2013, 11:14 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,448
We mentioned on a variety of threads, most notably in recent days the Beatrice and Eugenie trip, about Prince Charles wanting a slim line monarchy. And I've asked where is the evidence.

I found the following today on the Royal Reporter Twitter account of Richard Palmer of the Express.

Richard Palmer‏@RoyalReporter
@jennyg2k The idea of Charles wanting a slimmer monarchy seems based on a 1990s briefing by one spin doctor trying to big him up at the time

2:18 AM - 22 Jan 13 · Details

Richard Palmer‏@RoyalReporter@jennyg2k It may be true Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy but I know of nobody inside the Royal Household who is briefing that.


The evidence is rather thin IMO
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1112  
Old 01-24-2013, 11:22 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 522
Everybody should stop assuming they know what Charles wants. We have never heard from him on the subject. I was wondering if this trip to German was done so he could see how prepared the girls were. Giving them the chance to demonstrate their ability. We shall see what happens.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1113  
Old 01-25-2013, 01:44 AM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Grandma828,If at all there are plans of slimming down the monarchy, then I dont see any purpose in 'testing the preparedness' of the girls. In fact I was a bit surprised when I heard about this German trip.
Once they are 'inducted' into duties, there cannot be any looking back. They will continue well in Charles' and even William's reign. They cannot be sacked in middle and asked to fend for themselves..
So what basically will be difference between their reigns and the present Queen's reign (in terms of working royals)? Nothing..Then where is all that much spoken 'reformation' and 'modernisation'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynderella View Post
Am I the only one who wonder how things will work out between Charles and Andrew?

Andrew seems determined, in spite of everything, to have Beatrice and Eugenie as working members of the family. Andrew paid for his daughter's trip to Germany. Charles has made his feelings quite known on the subject. I don't think he has any personal problem with his nieces, but the shadow of their mother is troubling to him. I think that he doesn't trust that she won't intrude on royal engagements and has taken a very hard line with respect to their working status within the family.

Beatrice and Eugenie are seen as party girls usually with their mother in tow. This may not be fair, but it is what people see in the paper. I think he resents Sarah beyond words for not moving on and letting everyone get on with their lives. She wanted out of the family, but won't LEAVE. Andrew isn't troubled by Sarah. He wants to have his girls out front where Charles wants everyone outside his immediate branch of the family to back out of the spotlight.
Cynderella, We have to view these two things separately...

1. Charles' relation with Andrew, his perception of Sarah, his views on their kids' career, jobs, partying etc.
2. Charles views and plans for/against Beatrice/Eugenie taking up royal duties.

The first point is entirely emotional and personal.It is completely his own. And we are never gonna really know cos he s never gonna speak about it publicly with Oprah or Martin Bashir..It is not gonna affect anything in anyway. However his relation with Andrew is, or whatever he thinks of Sarah, he will definitely love B&E, though he doesnt invite paps all over and shower them with hugs and kisses in front of them.

The second thing is totally professional. Any heir apparent has to bring some change at some point of time.
It is not about "wanting his family only", it is just making the monarchy "more central"..Monarchy is always central, but with times, it has to become more and more central..Even if Sarah was as discrete and dutiful as the legendary Alice/Marina, and B&E had been so studious/hardworking, never having seen a nightclub in their lives, Charles will have to keep them out, if he wants to go with the reforms.
It is his duty to make monarchy better with times, for a better future..Nothing about his personal whims and fancies and his likes and dislikes..
But whatever he plans for B&E, he will ensure that personally they are always well-off and comfortable financially..

PS: I am not speculating/justifying the perceived plans of 'modernising' but just saying that we should view the 'two things' separately..and not mix both of them..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1114  
Old 01-30-2013, 04:40 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,132
Watching the BBC News this morning; there's talk of abdication of course. But the majority of people say if both Elizabeth and Charles abdicate, they'd be fine with that but Elizabeth cannot abdicate for Charles "not yet".
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1115  
Old 01-30-2013, 04:39 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Watching the BBC News this morning; there's talk of abdication of course. But the majority of people say if both Elizabeth and Charles abdicate, they'd be fine with that but Elizabeth cannot abdicate for Charles "not yet".
I really don't see HM ever abdicating the throne for any reason. If anything, should her health decline or she is needed to be by a declining DoE, the most that would happen is that Charles would be appointed Regent to act in her stead until she passes.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1116  
Old 01-30-2013, 05:44 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
I have no doubt Charles will become Regent. She will not abdicate. I don't think she believes in QV's approach of being The Widow of Windsor. If she did, she would slow down. The Monarch must be seen. When she cannot appear, Charles will become Regent. She will allow that. Unfortunately, Charles will not have much time to go to her for advice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1117  
Old 01-30-2013, 06:21 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
Grandma828,If at all there are plans of slimming down the monarchy.
And there is the rub. We have only ever heard gossip about slimming the monarchy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
It is not about "wanting his family only" . . . . . Charles will have to keep them out, if he wants to go with the reforms.
What reforms would those be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
It is his duty to make monarchy better with times, for a better future..
If it is his duty as King which will (hopefully) not be for some time, it must be imperative for Her Majesty to be doing it now as she has throughout her reign.

Basically, I don't understand your point. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie in Germany had to have the approval of Her Majesty the Queen to be there in an official capacity. Prince Charles probably has an opinion and I am sure his mother is not likely to create any problems for him at a later date. However, the decision is hers and hers alone. Charles is not running a shadow Monarchy that is the "real" monarchy with his mother as a doddering, somewhat benign, grandmotherly figurehead!

We keep hearing gossip. Gossip about Charles and his siblings and their children, how he is trying to sideline them, maybe doesn't like them much, maybe even loathes them heaps. But, that is just gossip. We have absolutely no verifiable source to confirm any of this.

What we do have is an ageing group of "workers" who will inevitably slow down sooner rather than later. How that is managed by Her Majesty now and His Majesty later, will remain to be seen.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1118  
Old 01-31-2013, 01:24 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 623
1)The Queen & Charles abdicating in favor of William.. Really..

As the saying goes: Be careful what you wish for...

If the Queen & Charles abdicate, do you really think they & their spouses would continue to perform royal duties. How about the Queen's other children would they support a nephew the same way they supported the Queen? The Queen had her mother & her cousins then her children. William has....

2)Just a rumor that Charles doesn't want Beatrice & Eugenie to perform royal duties.

Edward is taking over Phillip's charities.

Who takes the charities of the Queen, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester. (maybe Beatrice & Eugenie?)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1119  
Old 01-31-2013, 08:58 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
1)The Queen & Charles abdicating in favor of William.. Really..

As the saying goes: Be careful what you wish for...

If the Queen & Charles abdicate, do you really think they & their spouses would continue to perform royal duties. How about the Queen's other children would they support a nephew the same way they supported the Queen? The Queen had her mother & her cousins then her children. William has....

My thinking of Charles possible doing it would be long from now. Say in his 80's, retire to Sandringham.

2)Just a rumor that Charles doesn't want Beatrice & Eugenie to perform royal duties.

Pay Per View. An apartment and paid for events, and have careers of there choosing.

Edward is taking over Phillip's charities.

Who takes the charities of the Queen, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester. (maybe Beatrice & Eugenie?)
They will go nuts trying keep up. Even if you say, 50% of all appearances for a year are charity related.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1120  
Old 01-31-2013, 09:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,508
Charles is the rightful heir. He should inherit. It will be the same, stodgy monarchy, with a mistress as queen. He will do his job well, whatever one considers the job to be. It is the UK's problem, not anyone else's, no one, really, has a voice.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 287 08-24-2014 07:56 AM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:38 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]