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
 
  #1521  
Old 03-24-2014, 04:05 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalDaisy View Post
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.
This makes it an unfair comparison as the BRF do have the other realms as well as the rest of the Commonwealth to consider which brings their total well over 1 billion and covering the full extent of the globe and some of its most remote regions. They therefore need a number of royals to visit these countries as we saw in 2012 when every member of the family, except The Queen and Philip visited somewhere overseas officially that year - and it took all of them to cover the Commonwealth that year.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1522  
Old 03-24-2014, 04:32 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
This makes it an unfair comparison as the BRF do have the other realms as well as the rest of the Commonwealth to consider which brings their total well over 1 billion and covering the full extent of the globe and some of its most remote regions. They therefore need a number of royals to visit these countries as we saw in 2012 when every member of the family, except The Queen and Philip visited somewhere overseas officially that year - and it took all of them to cover the Commonwealth that year.
Denmark has overseas territories though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
With all due respect to HMQ, I can't see her doing 150 engagements a year at 98 years old
__________________

__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1523  
Old 03-24-2014, 04:48 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Denmark has overseas territories though
Denmark has two overseas territories, the United Kingdom has 14. The Faroe Islands is just under 2 hours away from Denmark, Greenland is just under 5. Not exactly London to the British Virgin Islands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
With all due respect to HMQ, I can't see her doing 150 engagements a year at 98 years old
I can, quite easily. Baring illness or injury 150 engagements over 365 days, wouldn't be an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I think the working "Firm" should be slimmed down in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
That will slim down the royal family considerably over time.

30 years from now I think the total working family will be around 8.
The key in both these posts is "future" and "over time". By members passing away, by royals choosing a different course etc "the firm" will slim down. I'm not mad, I do understand that. However, certain posters talk as if the minute Charles is King, heads or going to rollll.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1524  
Old 03-24-2014, 05:02 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
Everything you have said is totally realistic and is likely going to be the way it happens. The monarchy will naturally slim down as HRH members of the family pass on.

I also believe Charles will issue new LP when he ascends dictating that the style of HRH will only be for the children of the eldest child of the Monarch, thus Harry's children will not be entitled to it. That itself will naturally slim the Monarchy down. I also believe that is why Edward and Sophie chose not to use HRH for their children. I think deep down they knew their children would never be needed for duties, and I also believe that they were coerced into their decision. We were led to believe it was their choice, and if may well have been, but I also believe they were sort of told to do it.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #1525  
Old 03-24-2014, 05:11 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Denmark has two overseas territories, the United Kingdom has 14. The Faroe Islands is just under 2 hours away from Denmark, Greenland is just under 5. Not exactly London to the British Virgin Islands.
There may be 14 overseas territories but 3 of them have no permanent population and Pitcairn has never had a royal visit.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1526  
Old 03-24-2014, 05:24 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 264
Imagine for a moment that Andrew and Edward had led entirely private lives or stayed in the military and done a handful of engagements a year - would the monarchy have been disadvantaged in any way?

My favourite other royal family is the Norwegian RF, with only the King, Queen, Crown Prince and Princess, and also the King's daughter and his sister who have largely private lives but still contribute occasionally.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1527  
Old 03-24-2014, 05:32 PM
RoyalDaisy's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
I was trying to compare like with like (esp re population). The majority of engagements take place on "home soil". The work overseas is in addition for both but I dont have the numbers and therefore cant compare. I think that was a fair comparison.

No need to be snippy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1528  
Old 03-24-2014, 06:39 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Denmark has overseas territories though.



With all due respect to HMQ, I can't see her doing 150 engagements a year at 98 years old

150 is quite easy - she frequently does 8 or so audiences in a day now - with ambassadors and High Commissioners who are taking up their positions or relinquishing them.

150 = 20 such days now

Philip managed over 200 last year and he was out of action for nearly 4 months and his were out and about type engagements whereas 150 for The Queen where she meets with her PM 50 times a year and holds 12 council meetings along with meeting 50 Ambassadors/High Commissioners or other policitians, Maundy Service (could be at Windsor), Trooping and Ascot = 120 there already. Only another 30 'received xxxx' or less than 1 a week and she is easily at 150 with only being 'out and about' 7 times in the year. Not even a State Visit or Reception in my list.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1529  
Old 03-24-2014, 06:44 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
150 is quite easy - she frequently does 8 or so audiences in a day now - with ambassadors and High Commissioners who are taking up their positions or relinquishing them.

150 = 20 such days now

Philip managed over 200 last year and he was out of action for nearly 4 months and his were out and about type engagements whereas 150 for The Queen where she meets with her PM 50 times a year and holds 12 council meetings along with meeting 50 Ambassadors/High Commissioners or other policitians, Maundy Service (could be at Windsor), Trooping and Ascot = 120 there already. Only another 30 'received xxxx' or less than 1 a week and she is easily at 150 with only being 'out and about' 7 times in the year. Not even a State Visit or Reception in my list.
Are there any CC figures available for the Queen Mum in her final few years?
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1530  
Old 03-24-2014, 07:09 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Yes - but The Queen Mum was the Consort and not the monarch and so didn't need to do the above listed activities - many of which can't be handled over to Charles unless there is a formal Regency.

The Queen Mum did 62 engagements from her 98th to her 99th Birthdays and she, of course, was only ever the Consort to the monarch so can't be compared to her daughter but can only be compared to Philip.


41 of The Queen's current total of 82 engagements have been done inside BP or Sandringham where she has 'received' somebody or held and audience or a council meeting and these engagements will continue. Those 41 don't include 'receptions' or 'luncheons' inside BP such as the Luncheon with the new King and Queen of The Belgians.

The out and about engagements are the ones that she will continue to cut back.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1531  
Old 03-24-2014, 07:17 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Yes - but The Queen Mum was the Consort and not the monarch and so didn't need to do the above listed activities - many of which can't be handled over to Charles unless there is a formal Regency.

The Queen Mum did 62 engagements from her 98th to her 99th Birthdays and she, of course, was only ever the Consort to the monarch so can't be compared to her daughter but can only be compared to Philip.
And why compare? She was her own woman and earned her keep. Her war work alone sets her apart. I suppose some would rather see her in block housing to end her days.
__________________
“For is there any practice less selfish, any labor less alienated, any time less wasted, than preparing something delicious and nourishing for people you love." Michael Pollan, Cooked
Reply With Quote
  #1532  
Old 03-24-2014, 07:31 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
And why compare? She was her own woman and earned her keep. Her war work alone sets her apart. I suppose some would rather see her in block housing to end her days.

I was replying to a question that came out of the discussion about how many engagement we could expect The Queen to be doing in 10 years time.

I suggested 150 and Royal-Blue said that they couldn't see The Queen doing 150 at 98 and then asked if the figures were available for The Queen Mother so I went and counted the figures for TQM at 98 but felt it necessary to point out that comparing the figures for TQM at 98 with HMTQ at 98 would be unfair as their roles were different and that Philip was the one with whom TQM should be compared as their roles are/were the same - the consort.

If people are going to make comparisons - and many do (I remember being asked for the 'league table' on the engagements thread as many people like to compare who is doing more than others) then at least compare like with like.

The Queen Mum was the consort and Philip is the consort and thus those two are comparable. Philip's war work was also exceptional - he risked his life in battle while The Queen Mum went about her work on the Home Front.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1533  
Old 03-24-2014, 08:10 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,670
150 engagements a year at the age of 98?

My mother died last year at the age of 98. She was in extremely good health for a person that age and did not have dementia but by 98 most people just aren't capable of doing very much. If in her last year Mum had had the sort of care and resources that are available to HM, I imagine it would have been possible to get her up and dressed and into a car and taken off to a nice morning tea or lunch somewhere for an hour or two every couple of days, but why be so cruel to her? Just being taken to an appointment with a specialist tired my mother out terribly and since she was quite deaf it was difficult to have a conversation with her.

If HM is in a similar condition at that age I can't imagine her being able to do much more than hand-shaking and smiling and making pleasant conversation with a selected group of people, and I imagine this is the sort of thing that QEtWM did. I certainly can't imagine HM delivering speeches at 98, and if she was still managing to read her way through those red boxes I don't think it would be reasonable to expect her to be wheeled out to some engagement or other every two or three days as well.

No, by the age of 98 I don't think HM will be able to be counted on to do 150 engagements per year, and I don't think she should even be encouraged to do so. If she's still with us then, just let her sit in the sun and watch TV in peace.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1534  
Old 03-24-2014, 10:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
The Queen Mother was still attending luncheons and receptions as well as receiving a variety of people.

The Queen will still be expected to read her boxes, meet weekly with the PM (there are c 50 of my 150 engagements by the way), attend 12 council meetings a year - up to 62, attend Garter, Trooping, Thistle and Ascot (another 5 - allowing her to only go to Ascot 2 times rather than 5 now) and Epsom plus receiving in audience - meet, shake hands with and small talk for about 10 minutes at a time - 50 ambassadors/high commissioners and we are at 120 or so quite easily.

This is NOT having her go outside BP for the most part but have the people come to her and if she can't do that then she will have to abdicate as only she can do this stuff and it is really the important part of her job.

Attending Garden Parties in BP or Receptions and Luncheons is also possible - and could easily add another 20 - 30 with again not actually leaving home.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1535  
Old 03-24-2014, 11:12 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,670
I'd hate to see her unable to perform her job competently. I hope she doesn't linger on past the point she can do her boxes and discharge her other duties. I hope she dies quietly in her sleep one night after a happy day spent with family and friends, maybe after one of her horses has won a Group 1 race.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1536  
Old 03-24-2014, 11:16 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Totally agree Roslyn.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1537  
Old 03-24-2014, 11:37 PM
SElizabeth's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 668
N. Nofret: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).

Your insight into the cost of a royal and an elected member as president or a member of congress sure has hit the nail on the head for me. If people here in the US would just take a damn good look at all the perks and freebies that these people get it would shock the hell out of them and the elected officials they put in office. It just isn't the president who gets the perks, it's his entire family on both side, wife's and his, our elected congress all think they are kings in their own little minds and they rob the people of America blind and we (some of us) let them......they get way more money then the king of Belgium gets to live on, and the perks, how I wish I had their medical insurance so I could go to the doctor's when needed, yet they want to take more medical (medicare) off the people that are seniors, our govenors in our states, that is another whole story in itself, in fact in Illinois, most of the goveres have been or still are in prison for corruption and dirty money............I just had to comment because if I could I would vote them all out of office and start with some *REAL AMERICANS* that want to fix this country, but no, come election the same old crap will be elected in again and again and again.......and one vote doesn't mean much anymore. Sad state of affairs in this country........and the rich men in this country have come out and said :stop complaining poor people, you have it good here.............wish he was in the shoes of the homeless families that are out of their homes all because of the crooked banks and companies. And the list could go on forever and still no body listens in my government!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1538  
Old 03-24-2014, 11:49 PM
SElizabeth's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 668
Sorry doe my RANT about the cost of the so called royals here in America. I think the European royals are way more self conscious in doing a job for the people then my government and they cost less also. As for Charles, I don't think he will kick the members of the Firm to the curb, he needs them because he can't to everything and be everywhere at the same time..........not enough of him to go around even if his children get more involved.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1539  
Old 03-25-2014, 12:25 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,889
Not to hijack the thread from Charles by any means but had to throw this in.

People were complaining about William and Kate's $10,000 Maldive vacation for four days which they paid for themselves. Today on the news its been stated that Michele Obama's Chinese suite is costing the American taxpayers $8,400 a night. Hmmm.. No contest. American politicians are far more expensive than any royal family in my eyes. Anyways, back to Charles and the monarchy.

HM has always been known to be quite frugal when it comes to spending and never has seemed to me to be one focused on the lavish type of lifestyle. She is most happiest in the country I think. Charles is like his mother in this respect I think. He prefers the solitude of the Scottish countryside over the glitz and glimmer of the playgrounds of the rich and famous. I do think, however, when it comes to financial matters and how they should be managed, he has more business acumen than his mother does and I do think he'll make this a focus when he becomes the monarch. He will run a tight ship and some of the perks that some of the working royals have become accustomed to may be curtailed. Andrew is the first one to come to mind in this respect. I can see Charles perhaps pulling the purse strings tighter and telling Andrew if he must present himself so lavishly, its out of his own pocket. I don't see him actually putting the freeze out on anyone that has served the Crown but he'll be astute enough to know where the unnecessary spending is.

Other than that, I don't think much in the monarchy will change. He's been understudying his mother for far too long and knows how it worked for her and well.... if it ain't broke, you don't fix it.
__________________
“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
  #1540  
Old 03-25-2014, 03:21 AM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
Perks and security for the royal family pale in comparison to the cost of the current first family, and all living past first families. I think Charles will let the existing wording of LPs let the HRHs go by the way side. Anne's children are not HRHs, Edward and Andrew's grandchildren will not be HRHs. QE2 has been on the thrown for 60+ years, but keep in mind, from 1900 to 1953, 5 different monarchs sat on the thrown. The RF expands and contracts. KG5 had 6 children, KG6 had 2, with one passing on no HRHs. QE2 has 4 with one passing on no HRHs. The 2 with 1 generation down having HRH are 2 each. It is a self cleaning system. It is the years of no changes that has people talking. I think Charles may go to a pay per appearance system, but I don't think he will mess with the titles.
__________________

__________________
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
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 AM.

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]