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
 
  #1501  
Old 03-05-2014, 03:43 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 990
Windsor Castle is open to the public year around so if the monarchy is moved from BP to there. It will lose the income from its tours while events are held in its state rooms.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1502  
Old 03-05-2014, 03:44 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,322


Brilliant response and well thought out. (Iluvbertie)

The only issue that Chrles has with the wider royals is not them personally (I think he is v family orientated) and certainly not the work that they do but with how it's financed.

My understanding is that because of the historical funding via Civil list being inadequate (could any of us survived without a pay rise for nearly 20 years?), HMQ has funded everyone's work from her D of Lancaster budget( except Charles and his family). I've read that Charles believes that the funding the Monarchy receives should pay for this. And I agree.

He doesnt need to get rid of any of the royals or throw them out. He needs to sort out the Monarchy's financial management; get a maintenance programme in place and put aside capital funding (capital expenditure is for new building works, ie new culverts, etc). I think that he is probably helping the Queen sort this out at the moment. He is good at choosing the right people and I think this will give a sound basis for the future.

The history of financing the royal family in the modern day has been riddled with short term thinking. Charles is capable of sorting it out.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1503  
Old 03-05-2014, 05:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 244
I would like the future monarch to be more like the Irish President - purely a figurehead without all the unnecessary hangers on the Queen currently has.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1504  
Old 03-05-2014, 05:58 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I would like the future monarch to be more like the Irish President - purely a figurehead without all the unnecessary hangers on the Queen currently has.
There are others better qualified than me to answer this. All I will say ids that they are not hangers-on. Hangers on do nothing and make no contribution to people's lives and the State. None of the current full-time royals are in that category.

It sounds like you want a presidency and not a monarchy.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1505  
Old 03-05-2014, 06:39 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,396
Cepe and Iluvbertie: I agree almost completely and what an excellent discussion of funding.
I just finished watching Prince Andrew's "Come work here at BP" video. I assuming/hoping (yes I know) that the family has decided that there are some major tasks to take on and that single royals can take them on to add some meaning/challenge to the work they do (beyond the official openings and press moments) while moving the firm forward in a positive way.
I think it would be excellent to take ask someone like PA to figure out a way to preserve BP while keeping it a safe place to work and letting it earn it's own way into the future.
Because that's the trick, isn't it? To preserve while transforming in a meaningful way. For both the family and the historic places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post


Brilliant response and well thought out. (Iluvbertie)

The only issue that Chrles has with the wider royals is not them personally (I think he is v family orientated) and certainly not the work that they do but with how it's financed.

My understanding is that because of the historical funding via Civil list being inadequate (could any of us survived without a pay rise for nearly 20 years?), HMQ has funded everyone's work from her D of Lancaster budget( except Charles and his family). I've read that Charles believes that the funding the Monarchy receives should pay for this. And I agree.

He doesnt need to get rid of any of the royals or throw them out. He needs to sort out the Monarchy's financial management; get a maintenance programme in place and put aside capital funding (capital expenditure is for new building works, ie new culverts, etc). I think that he is probably helping the Queen sort this out at the moment. He is good at choosing the right people and I think this will give a sound basis for the future.

The history of financing the royal family in the modern day has been riddled with short term thinking. Charles is capable of sorting it out.
__________________
“The two important things I did learn were that you are as powerful and strong as you allow yourself to be, and that the most difficult part of any endeavor is taking the first step, making the first decision"Robyn Davidson
Reply With Quote
  #1506  
Old 03-09-2014, 10:58 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
There are others better qualified than me to answer this. All I will say ids that they are not hangers-on. Hangers on do nothing and make no contribution to people's lives and the State. None of the current full-time royals are in that category.

It sounds like you want a presidency and not a monarchy.
I don't see how wanting the monarchy to reform is like wanting a presidency.

My argument about minor royals being hangers on isn't so much that they are unnecessary now, but that they weren't necessary in the first place, just as Beatrice and Eugenie aren't needed now. I am sure the monarchy would have continued just fine even if the Queen's royal cousins had led private lives.

I think the purpose of the monarchy should solely be as head of state. The majority of the engagements carried out by members of the wider BRF are, arguably, waving and ribbon cutting, which may draw attention to charities and the like but I don't see why the BRF needs to have this involvement.

We on this forum know in great depth who the BRF are, but if Kents and Gloucesters were to simply retire or cease carrying out engagements, I am pretty sure over 95% of the public wouldn't even notice.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1507  
Old 03-09-2014, 03:02 PM
Victorian-Dandy's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: York, United Kingdom
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I don't see how wanting the monarchy to reform is like wanting a presidency.

My argument about minor royals being hangers on isn't so much that they are unnecessary now, but that they weren't necessary in the first place, just as Beatrice and Eugenie aren't needed now. I am sure the monarchy would have continued just fine even if the Queen's royal cousins had led private lives.

I think the purpose of the monarchy should solely be as head of state. The majority of the engagements carried out by members of the wider BRF are, arguably, waving and ribbon cutting, which may draw attention to charities and the like but I don't see why the BRF needs to have this involvement.

We on this forum know in great depth who the BRF are, but if Kents and Gloucesters were to simply retire or cease carrying out engagements, I am pretty sure over 95% of the public wouldn't even notice.
Most of the public might not notice but the charities that rely on royal patronage to help fill the coffers would.

Their patronage makes a huge difference, it brings in not only much needed money but publicity and that is something that is invaluable especially for the smaller charities which many of the minor royals support.
Reply With Quote
  #1508  
Old 03-09-2014, 03:47 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I don't see how wanting the monarchy to reform is like wanting a presidency.

My argument about minor royals being hangers on isn't so much that they are unnecessary now, but that they weren't necessary in the first place, just as Beatrice and Eugenie aren't needed now. I am sure the monarchy would have continued just fine even if the Queen's royal cousins had led private lives.

I think the purpose of the monarchy should solely be as head of state. The majority of the engagements carried out by members of the wider BRF are, arguably, waving and ribbon cutting, which may draw attention to charities and the like but I don't see why the BRF needs to have this involvement.

We on this forum know in great depth who the BRF are, but if Kents and Gloucesters were to simply retire or cease carrying out engagements, I am pretty sure over 95% of the public wouldn't even notice.

If the monarchy is to be solely Head of State then there is no need for anyone other than the monarch and so Philip could have stayed in the navy, as could Charles and William stayed in the airforce until called upon to be King or until they reached retirement from that force.

You can't have it both ways - a Head of State is ONE person so if solely a Head of State then no one else is involved - ever - and that is a presidency not a monarchy. A monarchy includes a family.

Even before WWII that wasn't happening with George V wanting his younger children and their wives to carry out royal duties including sending the second son and his wife to Australia to open the new (now old) parliament house of that country leaving behind their young baby. He had his other sons and their wives also doing things. George V changed the monarchy into one that was closely involved in British charities and were out and about - to show the flag of The Firm - that they were involved and useful to the nation.

That idea continued with George VI, especially after the abdication and during WWII - show the people we can be of use in their day to day lives.

That has continued.

The role of the minor royals is to do the work with the smaller less fashionable charities and to visit the smaller communities - even those overseas. Just because a person lives in a smaller community - one that The Queen or Charles would never visit doesn't mean they are less deserving of a royal visit. Having friends who teach in a couple of small village schools and seen the work and effort they have put in when Alexandra or the Duchess of Gloucester visited their village school for a prize-giving ceremony I can assure you that those two villages will long remember their 'royal visit'. I still value the picture my friend had taken of her and Princess Alexandra and the children in front of the steps of the school - she and the families of those children all treasure that picture and the memories of that morning.

Don't underestimate how important those visits are to the people concerned - 100,000s if not 1000000s of people in the UK and elsewhere who have 'met' or 'spoken to' or even 'seen' a royal will have seen one of the Kent's or Gloucester's even if they have never seen The Queen.

Notice that it is the Wessex's who are the most frequent visits to the Caribbean nations now and the Duke of Kent tends to be the one sent to places like Malta and the Falklands. Why should these places be denied a royal visit?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1509  
Old 03-11-2014, 02:48 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 544
royal-blue,
The Queen's cousins represented the Queen when former colonies became independent. It wasn't just cutting ribbons.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1510  
Old 03-11-2014, 04:24 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 378
If you ad up all the cost of having changing Presidents, their elections, their security, homes, pensions, travelcost etc etc added up, I'm very sure, they cost more in the end then the royal family (if you add up all they cost and all what they earn for their country).

I would be glad, if we had a royal family in Germany, it would come not at a greater cost and be more meaningfull to it's people. Who knows the names of the last 5 or 10 German Bundespräsidenten? NO ONE - and NO ONE cares about them! A royal family gives the country a face to its inhabitants and to the tourists who come to get a glimps of them.

Same is true for the Swiss Bundespräsidenten ...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1511  
Old 03-24-2014, 01:23 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 244
I agree with your point. The current BRF does have a very large cast compared to other European royal families. I believe Charles will be quick to wield the axe.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1512  
Old 03-24-2014, 01:44 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I believe Charles will be quick to wield the axe.
Exactly what is Prince Charles going to do? Strip his two brothers, sister and cousins of all their patronages, all their planned engagements and take them on himself? He. Needs. Them.
Unless he wants the public to cry out because their exposure to royals has been cut, patronages deprived of a royal patronage when they've had one for years because Charles, William, Catherine and Henry cannot take on it all, he's going to keep his brothers, sisters, cousins and nieces to be used when necessary and until they pass away or find other jobs.

I genuinely do not understand the logic behind people thinking that Charles wants to "axe" his family from working for their country. Yes we saw the "new image" at the diamond jubilee, but that future isn't going to come to light for another 20 years or so.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1513  
Old 03-24-2014, 02:06 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,780
Its been starting to sound like any or all changes will be made when Charles ascends the throne and he's lying in wait ready to pounce once he's got that crown on his head. Its not going to work that way.

I seriously believe that for the most part, the way Charles' reign will be carried out has already been very well planned by the family's Way Ahead committee This is a firm that doesn't run on whims but very carefully planned out strategies that have been in place for a very long time. Yes we did see the "new look" at the Jubilee but I think this was done for the purpose of illuminating the continuity of the monarchy and perhaps signal that it is realistic to think that there will be another monarch on the throne in due course.

I really don't think we'll see Charles making any real abrupt changes when he becomes monarch.
__________________
“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
  #1514  
Old 03-24-2014, 02:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 1,607
^^^Excellent post Osipi. IMHO the changes have already begun most notably with Eugenie and Beatrice. Each is going to have a career outside of the BRF and will undertake a few royal engagements. I expect this to continue when their uncle ascends to the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1515  
Old 03-24-2014, 02:20 PM
RoyalDaisy's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Exactly what is Prince Charles going to do? Strip his two brothers, sister and cousins of all their patronages, all their planned engagements and take them on himself? He. Needs. Them.
Unless he wants the public to cry out because their exposure to royals has been cut, patronages deprived of a royal patronage when they've had one for years because Charles, William, Catherine and Henry cannot take on it all, he's going to keep his brothers, sisters, cousins and nieces to be used when necessary and until they pass away or find other jobs.

I genuinely do not understand the logic behind people thinking that Charles wants to "axe" his family from working for their country. Yes we saw the "new image" at the diamond jubilee, but that future isn't going to come to light for another 20 years or so.
AMEN - I agree 100%.

I dont think the the balcony appearance meant a great deal except the continuity of the monarchy.

Charles problem doesnt seem to be the # of royals, but the fact that the The Monarch has been paying for most of them from her personal income. He doesnt agree with that, and I think he's right. Previous posters have commented on the need to address financial issues so I wont repeat (again I agree).

AS for comparisons with other countries - I'll give one example - Denmark has 4-6 royals who represent via patronages etc c. 5.6m people
UK has 11-15 (not all f/t) who represent via patronages etc c. 66m people. Greater population equates to more work IMO.

I haven't included the population of the other realms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1516  
Old 03-24-2014, 02:22 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Exactly what is Prince Charles going to do? Strip his two brothers, sister and cousins of all their patronages, all their planned engagements and take them on himself? He. Needs. Them.
Unless he wants the public to cry out because their exposure to royals has been cut, patronages deprived of a royal patronage when they've had one for years because Charles, William, Catherine and Henry cannot take on it all, he's going to keep his brothers, sisters, cousins and nieces to be used when necessary and until they pass away or find other jobs.

I genuinely do not understand the logic behind people thinking that Charles wants to "axe" his family from working for their country. Yes we saw the "new image" at the diamond jubilee, but that future isn't going to come to light for another 20 years or so.
I doubt he will fire anyone but I think there is a possibility he will give the minor royals the opportunity to retire and be allowed to live a normal life for once.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1517  
Old 03-24-2014, 02:29 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,417
IMO, the main royals that should be seen on a regular bases and the main focus of the attention is Charles & Camilla, William & Catherine, Harry and his future wife.

I'm sure the minor royals will continue to have their patronages, presidencies and continue to attend family events but I think the working "Firm" should be slimmed down in the future.
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
Reply With Quote
  #1518  
Old 03-24-2014, 02:45 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
IMO, the main royals that should be seen on a regular bases and the main focus of the attention is Charles & Camilla, William & Catherine, Harry and his future wife.

I'm sure the minor royals will continue to have their patronages, presidencies and continue to attend family events but I think the working "Firm" should be slimmed down in the future.
I agree with this - I also think this is what the public want.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1519  
Old 03-24-2014, 03:28 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 565
Some people can't seem to seperate two different issues:

1- what will happen to the current royal family when Charles becomes monarch

2 - things Charles might do to slim down the RF in the future

For 1 I would say nothing will happen to the current RF, over time they will become less and less prominent but I can't see Charles as King getting rod of them or kicking them out of Royal residences etc.

For 2 I think Charles will do some things within his power to try to ensure the focus of the RF in the future will be the King/Queen and their immediate heirs.

Personally I agree with both,I'd hate to see the current RF especially the Kents and Gloucesters and Charles' siblings 'got rid of' but I do think in the future having cousins of a sovereign living in Royal palaces with police protection etc will be hard to stomach for many people and so the RF should move with the times.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1520  
Old 03-24-2014, 04:01 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
I think that the intention is that everyone who is currently a working member of the family - the children and spouses of The Queen and her cousins and their spouses, except Michael and Marie-Christine, will continue until they choose to retire or they pass on.

However I don't think Beatrice or Eugenie, or in time Harry's children, will ever take on royal duties as their main occupation.

That will slim down the royal family considerably over time.

e.g. 10 years from now it is highly likely that 4 of those who currently carry out royal duties will have passed on or be retired - The Queen (if she is alive she will, of course, be still doing the boxes etc but probably only doing around 150 engagements a year - down from her present total of around 350 - so the daily grind of things like visiting a dance group will be off her list), Philip, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra.

In that time there will only be Harry's wife to add to the current available list of working royals - unless Andrew also remarries. Beatrice and Eugenie won't be working for The Firm and will only be seen at the big events.

That means that the current 15 will have been reduced to 12 in the next 10 years.

Add another 10 years and in all likelihood the Gloucester's will have retired. I am having Charles live into his 90s as an average of his closest ancestors, his parents, and his grandparents - taking into account that unlike his grandfathers he has never smoked or been a heavy drinker. I also don't see Camilla with us then, or if she is I suspect she also will be doing fewer that 150 engagements. The other one who will have reduced heavily by then, I suspect will be Anne. That takes that 12 number down to 8 - 9 as there would have been no new additions - George will only be rising 21.

Assuming William and Kate really are conservationists then they will only have 2 children so in 30 years George will probably be adding his partner and his sibling his/her partner to the mix but by then Anne, Charles, Camilla, The Gloucester's, Kent's, The Queen and Philip and Andrew, Edward and Sophie will all be gone or retired or so reduced they won't really be contributing large numbers leaving 8 at most - the monarch and spouse, the monarch's sibling and spouse, the monarch's children and their spouses while the monarch's sibling's children will be doing real jobs in the real world.

30 years from now I think the total working family will be around 8.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles of wales, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, titles


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
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 283 01-29-2014 08:57 AM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 03:36 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 letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman palace pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit sweden wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:15 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]