The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1881  
Old 10-31-2014, 08:30 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,096
I don't think we can take anything for granted, especially the relationship between siblings. A perfect example is Prince Laurent of Belgium. Here was someone visibly estranged from his parents, his siblings and the demands of royal life but, with the ascension of his brother Philippe, suddenly he is the "go to" guy. He has Philippe's back just as Philipe has his. He is in a position that no one could have imagined possible.

Now we know Charles has adult sons but that is not the same as having siblings and I would be very surprised if they all suddenly faded into the wallpaper.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1882  
Old 10-31-2014, 08:41 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,534
The BRF all believe in service and support for charities and the military in particular. It is going to carry on what it has been doing for the past 100 yrs. They dont live in each others pockets and some posters seem to think that this means they dont like eachother. I dont agree with this view. they are siblings with different interests who dont live close to each other adn whose life of duty is not a 9-5, M-F life.

I dont see any dynamic change. I see efficiencies in operations at BP and a reduction in the need for King Charles to use his own money to pay for royal duties. As the older members die, they wont be replaced. So organic change
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1883  
Old 11-01-2014, 06:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
With Charles as king, I can see him downsizing the working family to just his own family and his siblings. But it may also be feasible for his siblings to retire too. If the new King and Queen, Prince and Princess of Wales, and Harry and wife do 500 engagements each, then that would be a sufficient number to keep the public happy. Plus the duchy of Lancaster would only have to support 2 extra royals, rather than the current 8.
Harry has already indicated that he wants to stay in the army until 55 or so - or for another 25 years - so he won't be on the full-time roster for a quarter of a century.

He may also never marry. He does appear to have trouble finding a woman who wants to stay with him for very long, as other than Chelsy, his relationships barely last a year or so, so it is possible he may never marry. If he does why should his wife have to give up her life to support his family while he continues in the army anyway? Kate didn't have a career to give up as she hadn't ever started actually working but surely Harry's wife, if he finds one, will be a woman who has had to work for a decade or more and thus has a career of her own.

There is no way Camilla will do 500 in a year - she has never done it and as she is approaching 70 now will never be expected to do so.

It is normal for royals, from around 70, to begin to slow down a bit (The Queen was over 600 regularly in her 60s but around 400 ever since she turned 70 or so)

400 would be the maximum you could expect from the royals in their 70s -and that would be the monarch and spouse and heir and spouse only if over 70.

10 years from now Anne will also be in her mid-70s so would also be slowing down.

Andrew, Edward and Sophie won't be increasing their numbers from around 300 to 500 as they move further from the throne.

William and Kate will have to be at around 900 or so a year to maintain the current numbers of around 4000 as Harry will be limited to around 100 as a full-time officer in the army and as he becomes increasingly irrelevant (as Andrew is now) it would make more sense to let him stay in the army for as long as possible so that he doesn't end up like Andrew - despised and seen as a waste of space as the next generation become the focus of the nation's attention (it is what happened with Margaret and Andrew and the only reason it didn't happen to the two previous generations was that Edward VIII didn't marry and have children so his 2nd brother remained relevant - but his younger brothers - particularly the Duke of Gloucester was despised as the years went on) and the same with Victoria's younger sons.
Reply With Quote
  #1884  
Old 11-01-2014, 08:10 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
There are two people being overlooked during Charles' reign.

George and his sibling. George can begin performing royal duties in his teens. He does not have to attend college. The lack of higher education has not been a hindrance for the Queen nor Princess Anne. Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra also began working for the firm as teenagers.

If George was interested in pursuing his education, he can attend classes online. Technology is advancing where you can take classes from anywhere in the world at your convenience. He and his sibling can be full time royals while attending college online.
Reply With Quote
  #1885  
Old 11-01-2014, 08:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
If George was interested in pursuing his education, he can attend classes online. Technology is advancing where you can take classes from anywhere in the world at your convenience. He and his sibling can be full time royals while attending college online.

Why should George & sibling have to sacrifice their education especially in the 21st century when it is more accessible than it was when the Queen & Princess Anne were 18.

Distance education isn't for everyone. Some students (me) benefit from attending lectures & having greater interaction with lecturers than is possible online.

University also serves a social function. It will allow the young royals to mix with a far greater range of society than they will get at school (assuming they will go to public school rather than the local comprehensive).





Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #1886  
Old 11-01-2014, 08:25 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,487
If George doesn't go college, he will join the military like almost every male member of his family has. His parents would probably encourage him to go to college since that were they met. Once William is Duke of Cornwall, he is financially independent of his father and considering that William and Harry were allowed to explore their own pursuits outside a royal life, William would let his own children do the same.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1887  
Old 11-01-2014, 08:54 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
I see a pattern here.

William doesn't need to work until he is Duke of Cornwall and has access to the income from the duchy. His son doesn't need to work until he is Duke of Cornwall and has access to the income from the duchy.

Princess Anne worked for the firm since age 18 but never received a duchy's income. She was not granted an additional title until 20 years of service to the firm.

Princess Anne is considered a 'minor' royal by those that consider William a senior royal. A senior royal who doesn't need to work until he is promoted to Duke of Cornwall.

Princess Alexandra worked for the firm since age 15 but is considered a 'minor' royal.

The 'minor' royals work for the firm for decades without the recognition but the 'senior' royals are not expected to work unless they are giving titles and access to millions of pounds of income from the duchy.

Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra are referred as 'minor' royal by those that insist that William should remain part time.
Reply With Quote
  #1888  
Old 11-01-2014, 09:03 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,487
No, it about not forcing a teenager to be a full time royal. If the Cambridge children want to go to university, they should be allowed to do so. Princess Anne wasn't a full time royal as a teenager. She did her equestrian as a young woman.

Also going into the military isn't doing nothing. George is a future head of the armed forces. He is going to grow up surrounded by the military. He and his future brothers are most likely going to spend time in uniform.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1889  
Old 11-01-2014, 09:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,320
The vast majority of comments in this thread are based on 2 assumptions:

*that Charles wants to slim down the monarchy and that some Royals will made or encouraged to 'retire' when Charles become King

*that the number of engagements carried out by the royals needs to be maintained for the monarchy to be functional

But why? Would the monarchy really come to a crashing halt if half the number or engagements were carried out? I doubt for example the media would notice except when they produce league tables of the number of engagements carried out.
Apart from a few comments by some 'unnamed source' why do people assume Charles wants to his family to retire. In time the main RF will become naturally smaller as Charles has two sons to the Queen's 4 children.
Reply With Quote
  #1890  
Old 11-01-2014, 09:18 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
JMO.
The person that benefits the most from the firm should work the most for the firm. No one should be 'forced' to work for their future. It should be something that they aspire to do on their own without having to wait until they are handed the keys to the kingdom.
Reply With Quote
  #1891  
Old 11-01-2014, 10:17 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
Going back through history:

Under Victoria the children didn't do much at all - and she was happy with that and objected often if the PoW did do things as it was seen as upstaging the monarch.

Under Edward VII - again he and his wife did the work with a little being done by the PoW and his wife but not much (George V's biographer refers to him spending his time gluing in stamps and shooting things as DoY and PoW)

George V changed things in the 1920s - why? After the fall of many European monarchies in 1918 he believed that his family had to be more visible to be relevant and so he started getting his sons and daughter and daughters-in-law working in charity etc. What would he have done with adult grandchildren we don't know as the eldest was still a child when he died and the eldest HRH was not even 10.

Again with George VI we don't know what use he would have made of adult grandchildren.

When The Queen became Queen she was short on workers - she had her Uncle Henry (not popular and had been close to a disaster as GG of Australia so had to be low key), her Aunts Alice and Marina who worked for her. She had to convince her mother to continue working. Her grandmother died just over a year into her reign. She also had a younger sister and cousin. Of course she also had her husband. So she started her reign with 7 workers but...they had to do very long tours of the Commonwealth and Empire and they were all doing heaps and heaps of things.

The Kent boys both went into the army and served for 20+ years each. The Gloucester boys took a different route with William going into the Civil Service and Richard into architecture. The belief was that the boys would have careers while the girls would work for the Firm. The exception was that the elder boy who would inherit the titles would take on a lot of duties in time with Richard having to ditch architecture when his older brother and father died so close together. About the same time the Duke of Kent also left the army but only after his 20 year career.

Anne didn't start working full-time until into the 1980s - after her equestrian career had ended - she did get involved in some charity work e.g. Save the Children during the 1970s but largely it was into the 1980s when she was a working royal and she was in her 30s. She regularly did around 600 a year but over the last few years is down to around 500 so already appears to be slowing down.

Charles was also nearly 30 when he was expected to take up full-time royal duties after university and the military. Charles has only regularly approaching 600 for the last 5 years and usually has been around 400-450.

Andrew had 20+ years in the navy before taking on a full-time role in his late 30s - remembering that he entered the navy straight from school and so still in his teens.

Edward also worked until into his late 30s before being asked to take on a full-load of royal duties in 2002.

The history therefore is there for the royals to actually have their 20s and even early 30s for themselves with it getting later and later before they have to devote themselves to royal duties.

William and Kate will be the same - late 30s to mid-40s I suspect as they won't be really needed for another decade or so to replace those older generation who are closing in on retiring.

Harry I suspect won't be full-time for another 20+ years and his wife never. I see a changing of the guard happening - living a real working life until 40+ and then working as a royal until 80ish so 20 years in the real world and 40 years of duty and small talk. I also see the spouse of any but the heir sticking to their own careers (assuming that they have had one which any self-respecting young woman or man would have these days).
Reply With Quote
  #1892  
Old 11-02-2014, 12:22 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 3,054
Wow that is an extensive history that you have wrapped up very neatly. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #1893  
Old 11-02-2014, 01:21 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,102
Second that. Beautifully summed up history. Gives a good perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Going back through history:

Under Victoria the children didn't do much at all - and she was happy with that and objected often if the PoW did do things as it was seen as upstaging the monarch.

Under Edward VII - again he and his wife did the work with a little being done by the PoW and his wife but not much (George V's biographer refers to him spending his time gluing in stamps and shooting things as DoY and PoW)

George V changed things in the 1920s - why? After the fall of many European monarchies in 1918 he believed that his family had to be more visible to be relevant and so he started getting his sons and daughter and daughters-in-law working in charity etc. What would he have done with adult grandchildren we don't know as the eldest was still a child when he died and the eldest HRH was not even 10.

Again with George VI we don't know what use he would have made of adult grandchildren.

When The Queen became Queen she was short on workers - she had her Uncle Henry (not popular and had been close to a disaster as GG of Australia so had to be low key), her Aunts Alice and Marina who worked for her. She had to convince her mother to continue working. Her grandmother died just over a year into her reign. She also had a younger sister and cousin. Of course she also had her husband. So she started her reign with 7 workers but...they had to do very long tours of the Commonwealth and Empire and they were all doing heaps and heaps of things.

The Kent boys both went into the army and served for 20+ years each. The Gloucester boys took a different route with William going into the Civil Service and Richard into architecture. The belief was that the boys would have careers while the girls would work for the Firm. The exception was that the elder boy who would inherit the titles would take on a lot of duties in time with Richard having to ditch architecture when his older brother and father died so close together. About the same time the Duke of Kent also left the army but only after his 20 year career.

Anne didn't start working full-time until into the 1980s - after her equestrian career had ended - she did get involved in some charity work e.g. Save the Children during the 1970s but largely it was into the 1980s when she was a working royal and she was in her 30s. She regularly did around 600 a year but over the last few years is down to around 500 so already appears to be slowing down.

Charles was also nearly 30 when he was expected to take up full-time royal duties after university and the military. Charles has only regularly approaching 600 for the last 5 years and usually has been around 400-450.

Andrew had 20+ years in the navy before taking on a full-time role in his late 30s - remembering that he entered the navy straight from school and so still in his teens.

Edward also worked until into his late 30s before being asked to take on a full-load of royal duties in 2002.

The history therefore is there for the royals to actually have their 20s and even early 30s for themselves with it getting later and later before they have to devote themselves to royal duties.

William and Kate will be the same - late 30s to mid-40s I suspect as they won't be really needed for another decade or so to replace those older generation who are closing in on retiring.

Harry I suspect won't be full-time for another 20+ years and his wife never. I see a changing of the guard happening - living a real working life until 40+ and then working as a royal until 80ish so 20 years in the real world and 40 years of duty and small talk. I also see the spouse of any but the heir sticking to their own careers (assuming that they have had one which any self-respecting young woman or man would have these days).
Reply With Quote
  #1894  
Old 11-02-2014, 01:49 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
I think the problem is people have a different definition of full time.

Princess Anne, while in her 30s through mid 40s, averaged between 650-750 events per year.

In her 60s she is averaging 550.

Is full time 400-500 events per year or 700-800?

Last year only Prince Charles had more than 500 engagements.

Princess Anne had number in the 400s.

The Queen, Andrew & Edward in the 300s.

Is the new full time 300-400?

Or is there a different definition of full time based on the age of the person?
Reply With Quote
  #1895  
Old 11-02-2014, 05:32 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
I have read some people's opinion that full-time is 600 while others say 400.

I do think that less than 150 is definitely part-time. 350 plus is full-time but if a person has been at that sort of figure in their 30s - 50s and in their 60s - 70s has dropped to 200 or so they are still full-time due to slowing down with age.
Reply With Quote
  #1896  
Old 11-02-2014, 07:01 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,330
We don't know when Charles will come to the throne. If it is another ten years that will be a very different picture than if the Queen died next week. In ten years the Queen's cousins will be out of the picture and Anne will be slowing down considerably as will Charles and Camilla.

If the older members still left do 400-500 engagements a year that still leaves a considerable shortfall, even with Edward and Sophie still working. The younger members of the family will have to make up the shortfall and it's not going to be George and sibling, who will be under twelve.

The Queen had four children, Charles has only two. We know Harry wishes to be a full-time army officer but sometimes in royal life wishes come second to duty.

Why believe that Harry won't marry? His romance with Cressida lasted two years not 'barely one', and may be continuing for all we know. If Harry marries in the next couple of years or so, as the royal family is constituted now, his wife will almost certainly give up her career. If she's in her mid twenties, 26, 27, she won't have been 'working for a decade' unless she started work at a remarkably young age.

In ten years or so working royals are likely to be King Charles and Queen Camilla, working at a pace that suits their age, ditto Anne, then Andrew and the Wessex duo with the same as they do now.

The Cambridges and Harry and his wife will have to be full time royals. As a nod to their still young families they could do about 400 engagements a year each, without wrecking family time.
Reply With Quote
  #1897  
Old 11-02-2014, 10:34 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
I think the problem is people have a different definition of full time.

Princess Anne, while in her 30s through mid 40s, averaged between 650-750 events per year.

In her 60s she is averaging 550.

Is full time 400-500 events per year or 700-800?

Last year only Prince Charles had more than 500 engagements.

Princess Anne had number in the 400s.

The Queen, Andrew & Edward in the 300s.

Is the new full time 300-400?

Or is there a different definition of full time based on the age of the person?
One thing to consider is the nature of the event. It seems to me (Ilovebertie may have a better-informed opinion) that there is a slow migration away from curtain opening events and toward doing good works/bringing attention to good works. By that I mean I think that much of the family has decided the way froward is to be the standard bearer for excellent causes. As opposed to an approach where you geographically troop about and catch all the newly opened gardens, businesses and hospital wings in a county area.

Not that the latter will ever disappear, just that I see the focus of the firm shifting to a position of driving social effort/funfraising, rather than following it. You also see much more of allowing the public to access the royal life (palaces, gardens and homes open at various times in the year) and that meets some of the need to "see a royal in your village."
And social media, for much of the population, has opened up the visibility of the firm. So for people that bother to watch, every event drives more attention than it did even 10 years ago.
And as all that changes - the numbers, types and organization of events changes. You see less of all royals doing "6 events in a day near Reading" but may see 6 events focused on conservation efforts over 3 months. It requires a different kind of planning.
I think 400 events 10 years ago compared to 400 events today are a bit apples and oranges.
__________________
The Force is my tiara.
Reply With Quote
  #1898  
Old 11-02-2014, 10:04 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
I will add that to my upcoming Christmas Holiday list - I have to finish the total engagements by year that I started earlier and will do an analysis of people like The Queen, Philip, Charles and Anne on the type of engagements they were doing a decade ago compared to now to see if there is something happening. Can't start until December as am just flat chat with end of year exams, reports etc for the next month.
Reply With Quote
  #1899  
Old 11-02-2014, 11:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 3,054
Don't overwork yourself!!! Flu season is coming and those papers can't grade themselves. Besides prepping for a substitute is sometimes more of a pain than actually going to work.

The royal information can wait.
Reply With Quote
  #1900  
Old 11-03-2014, 12:57 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Don't overwork yourself!!! Flu season is coming and those papers can't grade themselves. Besides prepping for a substitute is sometimes more of a pain than actually going to work.

The royal information can wait.
I doubt Bertie has to worry about flu season yet - it's almost summer in Australia.

That said, Bertie, don't over work yourself. We'd hate to see you take on too much.
__________________

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: 9 (1 members and 8 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 309 10-31-2016 06:54 PM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 392 10-16-2016 10:14 AM
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 05:06 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 assassination best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style countess of wessex's style coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion current events danish royal family duchess of cambridge duchess of cornwall's fashion dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king willem-alexander lists margherita member introduction monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince charles prince harken in canada prince louis princess eugenie eveningwear princess madeleine fashion princess marie princess mary princess mary fashion princess stéphanie's fashion & style princess victoria celebrates her 39th birthday queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen rania daytime fashion queen rania fashion royal fashion september 2016 sheikh mozah state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats wreathoflaurels


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

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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises