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
 
  #1761  
Old 08-14-2014, 12:10 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,669
Why should the older royals retire if they don't want to do so?

Harry has recently said he wants to stay full-time in the army until he is 55 - so another 25 years for him with around 100 a year. That was what Andrew was doing when he was serving full-time in the navy and Harry has a right to expect that same level of understanding.

William and Kate could step up a bit - but he has just signed on for a 2 years stint in the Air Ambulance so has a full-time job which will limit him to around 100 or so for the next couple of years. This year, even with an overseas tour under his belt he is still doing less than the two older Duke's.

Kate is probably going to have another baby, if not two more, in the next couple of years so for her reaching around 300 a year is probably a decade or so away.

It seems as all people want are to see the younger royals and throw out the hard working older royals.

The older royals do NOT get paid anything for doing their duties other than have their expenses covered e.g. the salary for their private secretaries who arranges their work schedule is covered by the Sovereign Grant but for the rest they are reliant on any money's left to them by earlier monarchs.

We seem to want to get rid of those who have had a commitment to royal work for decades and force the younger ones, who seem reluctant to take it on, into a role they don't want.

The Kent's are different as they are closer to 80, and both have had illness last year (but then so did Philip and no one is suggesting he retires and he is older than all of them) - the Duke will be 80 next year and Alexandra in 2016 but again it is the cult of youth and throw away the experience and dedication of these royals who have served their country.

My view - if they wish to continue then they should do so.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1762  
Old 08-14-2014, 12:25 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I'm starting to think that now would be a good time for the Queen's cousins to retire from royal life. They could be thanked for their long service and dedication tot he firm, but that there are now younger royals who are ready to take on the work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Perhaps they don't wish to retire. Don't they get some sort of recompense- in cash or in kind- from HM for performing duties? For the most part, the work doesn't look too hard or unpleasant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Do you mean now or when Charles is King? Where is the money for 1500 extra engagements going to come from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Now is as good a time as any. It will allow the public to focus on the Queen's own family.

The Kents and Gloucesters retiring would allow this money to be diverted to the young royals.
I find myself a little bemused by the call for the Kents and Gloucesters to be unceremoniously dumped to make room for William, Catherine and Harry. Worse, there is the implication that the only reason they are working Royals is for cold hard cash which would turn it into "just another job". Not charity and not for HM. Just another job.

Both the Queen and her children's generations were bought up on an absolute adherence to that oh so old-fashioned notion of noblesse oblige. And for that they work, they represent HM and HM's Government in more ways than we imagine. The multitude of engagements they carry out are their way of life not a 9-5 grind that they can't wait to shove onto the new kids.

They are all personally just as invested in their charitable endeavours as William, Catherine and Harry are, The difference being that while they do not get much media coverage they do give value for money as shown by the the spread of royals during the centenary of the outbreak of WWI.

As to the idea of mandatory retirement? Well HM and the DoE show little sign of cutting back so why would the others. HM would let them retire if they wish but it seems that in the main they do not wish and the ageist wittering for the New, Young, Personable, Pregnant, Elligible royals to elbow them out is pretty ugly just as the notion that there are now younger royals who are ready to take on the work is a nonsense.

HM relys on her relatives and so too will Charles. That is not to say that the shiney new young royals are going to work as hard as their father, aunt or uncles let alone the DoE and HM. This may be because at this time they have yet to find their niche or because they see their present and future lives in a whole new way.

Either way, none of them show the least burgeoning interest in noblesse oblige. In fact William is starting what is essentially a full-time job with EAAA and Harry has spoken of staying in the Army indefinitely, as indeed did the last "spare", Prince Andrew.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1763  
Old 08-14-2014, 08:31 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 282
My argument for the Queen's cousins to be retired isn't based on age, I just don't see them as necessary now that there is a third generation taking on more royal duties.

Some people are quick to point out that Beatrice and Eugenie are not necessary to the firm, party based on age and distance from the throne, so the same argument should stand for the Kents and Gloucesters too.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1764  
Old 08-14-2014, 08:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,416
The royals don't get paid for engagements but to do the engagement cost money. The people that work for the royals are paid, the cost of travel, plus things such as clothing and hairdressing all cost money.

So if the Cambridges went from 120 engagements a year each to doing 450 each, more money would be needed to cover the expenses of these engagements.

In the current reign, there might not be funds. In the next reign, the Cambridges will be the only 2 working royals being supported by the Duchy of Cornwall not the 5 that its paying for now until George grows up.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1765  
Old 08-14-2014, 08:40 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,325
The older and minor royals could pass on some of their roles and charities to the younger royals who are interested in the organizations. Putting the older royals out to pasture probably isn't a good idea.
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
Reply With Quote
  #1766  
Old 08-14-2014, 08:44 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
The royals don't get paid for engagements but to do the engagement cost money. The people that work for the royals are paid, the cost of travel, plus things such as clothing and hairdressing all cost money.

So if the Cambridges went from 120 engagements a year each to doing 450 each, more money would be needed to cover the expenses of these engagements.

In the current reign, there might not be funds. In the next reign, the Cambridges will be the only 2 working royals being supported by the Duchy of Cornwall not the 5 that its paying for now until George grows up.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
But if WK&H were to take on the engagements being done by the Queen's cousins now, as well as current number, this would cost no more than now, and it would allow the young three to be better prepared to take on a further increase in work when the Queen and Philip are no longer working.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1767  
Old 08-14-2014, 12:35 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
The older and minor royals could pass on some of their roles and charities to the younger royals who are interested in the organizations. Putting the older royals out to pasture probably isn't a good idea.
It could be that the youngers don't want to do anything in which they're not interested.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think they even spend much time with the charities of which they are patrons if it's not going to be a photo op. Just my opinion.

And, to put another clarification on this, I think William is lazier than Kate; and probably more selfish too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1768  
Old 08-14-2014, 02:22 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
My argument for the Queen's cousins to be retired isn't based on age, I just don't see them as necessary now that there is a third generation taking on more royal duties.

Some people are quick to point out that Beatrice and Eugenie are not necessary to the firm, party based on age and distance from the throne, so the same argument should stand for the Kents and Gloucesters too.
Personally, I like the Dutch system where membership of the royal house is restricted to relatives of the current monarch up to the second degree of consanguinity (and their respective siblings, when applicable), while the line of succession is slightly broader and goes up to the third degree.

That means in practice that the royal house includes siblings, children and grandchildren of the current monarch, while the line of succession includes all of the above plus great-grandchildren, nephews/nieces, and surviving uncles/aunts (in case there are any), but not any cousin.

If applied to the current BRF, that would mean automatic exclusion of the Kents and the Gloucesters both from the royal house and the line of succession, but would still translate into a fairly large royal house, including the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, plus Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine and Harry; Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie; Edward, Sophie, James and Louise; Anne and Timothy Laurence, Peter and Autumn, Zara and Mike Tindall. Prince George, Peter's and Zara's children, and Princess Margaret's children would not be part of the royal house, but would still be in the line of succession, exactly in the same positions where they are today.

Once Charles ascended the throne, George would enter the royal house, but Anne's, Andrew's, and Edward's children would be excluded, though still remaining in the line of succession. Margaret's, Peter's and Zara's children would be out both of the royal house and the line of succession.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1769  
Old 08-14-2014, 03:47 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 282
Under the next monarch, if the King and Queen, Prince and Princess of Wales, Anne, Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Harry aim for 500 engagements each, they will total around 4,500 a year which is more than adequate. The Kents, Gloucesters, and of course the York girls are not necessary in the future.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1770  
Old 08-14-2014, 04:00 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,866

Nowadays the Kents and the Gloucesters seldom undertake engagements on behalf of the Royal family.
Prince Charles may need Prince Edward and Sophie, The Countess of Wessex, to represent the Royal family in Europe as the couple knows the fair number of the current royals.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #1771  
Old 08-14-2014, 04:28 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
It could be that the youngers don't want to do anything in which they're not interested.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think they even spend much time with the charities of which they are patrons if it's not going to be a photo op. Just my opinion.

And, to put another clarification on this, I think William is lazier than Kate; and probably more selfish too.
I had great respect for William for his flying work in the RAF, but when it comes to actual royal work, disappointingly, they are both seem to lack any real interest in the Firm.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1772  
Old 08-22-2014, 04:16 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Will Camilla actually be Princess Consort?
Quote:
Although not answered directly, the inference from officials was also that Camilla would also not be crowned alongside the Prince of Wales. Rather, she will probably assume a similar place to that of the Duke of Edinburgh during the 1953 coronation.

Many people, myself included, continue to advocate the continued usage of the title of Queen by the wife of the King, not just because of personal admiration for the Duchess of Cornwall, but also to avoid the situation where denying the title to one consort may see the end to it altogether, and a consequence being no Queen Catherine as well as no Queen Camilla.


It does though seem pretty inescapable that Camilla will take on the title of Princess Consort, and those around her say she has no interest in taking on a higher title herself. The issue can only be kicked into the grass for so long, and whilst I don’t suspect there will be a U-turn on the matter, one day in the future I do think people will still react with surprise to find that we have a King with no Queen.
I think this is just wrong and both Charles and Camilla will do untold damage to the monarchy. It sets a bizarre precedent and if Camilla has no interest in becoming Queen she should have never married Charles in the first place or Charles should abdicate when the time comes.

No more Queen consorts because Camilla is "not negotiable" will be a sad ending to the British Monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1773  
Old 08-22-2014, 06:10 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 892
I wonder how 'non-negotiable' Camilla would have been if Charles had been given the ultimatum, throne or Camilla, like Edward VIII. Second, it galls me that a mistress overthrew a Princess of Wales. To be blunt, women like Camilla, it's always about themselves, not about the institution and the broader picture.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1774  
Old 08-22-2014, 06:40 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by AristoCat View Post
I wonder how 'non-negotiable' Camilla would have been if Charles had been given the ultimatum, throne or Camilla, like Edward VIII. Second, it galls me that a mistress overthrew a Princess of Wales. To be blunt, women like Camilla, it's always about themselves, not about the institution and the broader picture.
I respectfully disagree with you on the point that Camilla is "all about herself". If anything, she will rarely draw attention to herself and admirably supports Charles. I think its also unfair to lay the blame of "overthrowing" the Princess of Wales on Camilla. The marriage was a mess and unless we were actually part of it, we really have no clue of where to really lay blame.

I also hope that they leave the Queen Consort title as it is and Camilla wears it proudly. She's shown since her marriage to Charles in 2005 that she can and does carry out her role with grace and dignity. I don't expect her to be crowned along side Charles though. As stated previously, she most likely will take the same role in the coronation as the Duke of Edinburgh did in 1953.
__________________
“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
  #1775  
Old 08-22-2014, 07:15 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
But surely Camilla's interests shouldn't enter into a decision as monumental as this? Can anyone imagine if William made this announcement at the time of his wedding. Kate has no "interest" in becoming Queen.
Poor William can't spend Christmas with the Middletons without charges he is thumbing his nose at tradition and yet here is Charles and Camilla seemingly doing away with the biggest tradition of all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1776  
Old 08-22-2014, 07:26 AM
Cris M's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by AristoCat View Post
I wonder how 'non-negotiable' Camilla would have been if Charles had been given the ultimatum, throne or Camilla, like Edward VIII. Second, it galls me that a mistress overthrew a Princess of Wales. To be blunt, women like Camilla, it's always about themselves, not about the institution and the broader picture.
A statement like "a mistress overthrew the Princess of Wales" is what galls me.

No one overthrew Diana. Be careful, you're sounding like a Diana fanatic worshipper at the Daily Mail comments section.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1777  
Old 08-22-2014, 07:46 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,367
Before this goes even further, let's be clear.

Any and all posts relating to the Charles/Diana/Camilla triangle (marriages, affairs, etc.) will be deleted without notice.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #1778  
Old 08-22-2014, 11:34 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,325
The decision on Camilla's future HRH The Princess Consort title has nothing to do with Catherine's future title once William comes to the throne.

I think Camilla has proven that she didn't need to be officially called The Princess of Wales to do her duty as Charles's wife and as a senior member of the royal family. She's done a beautiful job as the Duchess of Cornwall and I think she'll do a wonderful job as The Princess Consort or Queen. I think since it's been agreed that Camilla will be titled The Princess Consort, I think that's how it should be.
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
Reply With Quote
  #1779  
Old 08-22-2014, 11:59 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,016
^^^Where's the documentation that Cam won't be Queen Consort? Camilla will be so loved by the people when it comes around to coronation time that they will not stand for "Princess Consort". Nor should they.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1780  
Old 08-22-2014, 12:17 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
^^^Where's the documentation that Cam won't be Queen Consort? Camilla will be so loved by the people when it comes around to coronation time that they will not stand for "Princess Consort". Nor should they.
I don't there's anything saying that Camilla can't be Queen Consort. The Palace said that when Charles comes to the throne, Camilla would be titled Princess Consort. A PR tactic of course and it worked. The Palace and Clarence House current position is that it will be her title when Charles is King.

I think it really don't matter anyway. Princess Consort or Queen, people will get used to it after a while. No matter what, Camilla will be Queen, even with a different title. She's the current Princess of Wales but it's not the title that she officially go by.
__________________

__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
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




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:51 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]