The Monarchy under Charles

[Queen Angelique]

Unlike 1952 I don't see everything shutting down for 3 days or so in the immediate aftermath of the Soveriegn's death. Some places might close on the day of the funeral but there will be many people who will still need services as there will be an upturn in travel of people wanting to pay their respects.

The Coronation will be a large spectacle and again places will close on the day near the route but that will be offset by a large increase in tourists into the country - not just for the day either but over the course of the year to see various displays that will be up to mark the occasion.

I SO hope that the Coronation will be a really Royal, Majestic and a wonderful opulent spectacle, with all the gorgeous Royal pomp and circumstance of old. Heavens, we all know how rare such gorgeous Coronations have become! I say, Britannia please rise to the occasion, when it will eventually occur.......

 

[scooter]

Unlike 1952 I don't see everything shutting down for 3 days or so in the immediate aftermath of the Soveriegn's death. Some places might close on the day of the funeral but there will be many people who will still need services as there will be an upturn in travel of people wanting to pay their respects.

Really? I think you will see full scale mourning for more than a day when QEII dies.

 

[Artemisia]

I'm inclined to agree with you, Scooter.

Elizabeth II has been a Monarch for the entire duration of most citizens of the United Kingdom and other Realms; the mourning for her, especially given the sort of popularity, reverence even, she now enjoys will be sincere and most probably on quite a grand scale.

 

[Osipi]

Charles, I think, has made more of a difference in the UK than his mother has. He had the freedom to actually get out there and do it.

One thing I think we won't have to ever worry about is how Charles will put a mark on the monarchy. If we have to gauge making a difference, I think he will be remembered mostly for the differences he made while being the Prince of Wales. Its very likely that Charles' reign will be remembered more as a bridge between Elizabeth II and William V. (did I get it right this time?)

When I think about it, if Charles does come to the throne in 5-10 years time, in a way it gives Charles the leeway to slow down and just be the monarch he is supposed to be. His Prince's Trust is established and well under good management, he has to curb in his points of view on things, and if William takes over the Prince's Trust, he's training his son.

 

[AnnEliza]

And yet Edward VII lived up to the challenge as Prince Charles undoubtedly will.
Elizabeth II is a fantastic Sovereign, but there were great Monarchs before her, and there will be ones in times to come.

Yes, I have no doubt Charles will live up to the challenge.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Unlike 1952 I don't see everything shutting down for 3 days or so in the immediate aftermath of the Soveriegn's death. Some places might close on the day of the funeral but there will be many people who will still need services as there will be an upturn in travel of people wanting to pay their respects.
QUOTE]

Really? I think you will see full scale mourning for more than a day when QEII dies.

I don't think the government would order three days of everything closing, shops, restaurants, businesses etc. That is what happened when George VI died.

Sure there will be mourning with people putting flowers outside BP and queuing to walk past her coffin etc but not to the official extent of 1952.

My parents were on their honeymoon and my dad was told to get everything they would need for the next three days as there would be nothing open - and the only place they could get something to eat was the hotel where they were staying and only the people staying there were allowed to be served - food only mind you, no alcohol and if they hadn't arrived by the time everything shut down, even if they had booked in, they couldn't book in.

That is the sort of mourning I don't see happening - a complete shut-down of the country for three days.

 

[Osipi]

That is the sort of mourning I don't see happening - a complete shut-down of the country for three days.

Like you, I think that life will go on as normal when HM passes. Maybe one day of national mourning. I don't see any mass hysteria either as we saw when Diana died.

I think what there will be though is that between the time of the death of Elizabeth II and the coronation of her son, we'll see a lot of focus on the life of HM and it'll be more of a celebration of her life and time as a monarch.

 

[Angelkiss]

If I can put my two cents in, I believe that in the future when William and Harry have their children, their children will be the monarch(yes Harry's included) and then when the grandchildren come around, Harry's will not be apart of the "official" royal and will probably have normal lives. William has stated that he only wants 2 children, and I just don't see just his family will be the monarch that would lead to too much work for so little people, that's why I believe Harry's children will play a big role in the monarch.

 

[nascarlucy]

I see the monarchy becoming more scaled down in the future. By the time Prince Harry has grandchildren, their lives will be very different. They will be royal but they will lead a more normal life than their grandfather. I don't think they will have a lot of restrictions put of them and will have more normal lifestyle. I can see them working at a job full time, and doing things that their grand father and great-grandfather King Charles would never have dreamed of but would have liked to do perhaps if given the chance.

 

[scooter]

^A la Zara. Grandchild of the sovereign, with a mostly real, but still highly privileged, life.

 

[fearghas]

^A la Zara. Grandchild of the sovereign, with a mostly real, but still highly privileged, life.

All the perks and none of the responsibilties?

 

[vkrish]

At Trooping the Colour..

I hope Charles will be fit to ride at Trooping by himself, atleast for the first 10 years of his reign. His father rode till he was 85 (2006), I dont think Charles is anyway less fit/robust than him.
King George VI took carriage in 1950, and couldnt even attend in '51.
And by the time Charles becomes King, Duke of Kent would have gone (atleast from horseback) and Harry would have joined. I wonder Anne will still be there on horseback well into Charles' reign.
After her it will be just Will&Harry behind the King I gues..

 

[NGalitzine]

All the perks and none of the responsibilties?

Perhaps, but also the down side like having unwanted media attention on her private life.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I hope Charles will be fit to ride at Trooping by himself, atleast for the first 10 years of his reign. His father rode till he was 85 (2006), I dont think Charles is anyway less fit/robust than him.
King George VI took carriage in 1950, and couldnt even attend in '51.
And by the time Charles becomes King, Duke of Kent would have gone (atleast from horseback) and Harry would have joined. I wonder Anne will still be there on horseback well into Charles' reign.
After her it will be just Will&Harry behind the King I gues..

Harry riding will depend on him having the appropriate rank in one of the relevant regiments. I am sure he will eventually but he won't be given honourary rank in an army regiment while still a serving officer with strong links to one of those regiments (Household Cavalry).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Harry's grandchildren will need to have their own lives - just like the current grandchildren of earlier younger sons of a monarch - the children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

As for Harry's kids - the precedence is being set with Beatrice and Eugenie that the children of the younger sons will also have to work for themselves and I expect the same for Harry's children.

The future of the BRF is a smaller working unit - no doubt. They aren't going to continue with 15 working members as they have now but in time that will be reduced to half a dozen - the monarch and spouse, heir and spouse and maybe a sibling or two.

 

[cepe]

Harry's grandchildren will need to have their own lives - just like the current grandchildren of earlier younger sons of a monarch - the children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

As for Harry's kids - the precedence is being set with Beatrice and Eugenie that the children of the younger sons will also have to work for themselves and I expect the same for Harry's children.

The future of the BRF is a smaller working unit - no doubt. They aren't going to continue with 15 working members as they have now but in time that will be reduced to half a dozen - the monarch and spouse, heir and spouse and maybe a sibling or two.

I don't agree. The half dozen you describe would be, for most of the time, be 4 adults plus children. It's not enough. Harry, his spouse and children will be active - the Royal Foundation spells that out to me as it is based on the original Foundation of Prince William and Harry. That would give you (all things being equal) 8 adults and some children.

I also think that Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie will carry on till they drop; and there is every chance that Louise and (speculating here) James could be part time. I cannot see that the Royal family could survive dropping somewhere in the region of c. 450-600+ patronages (est at c. 150 per FT royal). I know that the number is subject to debate but the eventual loss of Charles and Camilla and then Charles' siblings would put too much pressure on William and his direct family.

I am also waiting for someone to tell me the source of the on-going tale of Charles and the smaller monarchy.

 

[Dman]

There's no doubt Anne, Andrew, Edward & Sophie will continue on with their duties but the main focus will be on Charles & Camilla, William & Catherine and Harry and his future wife. I really think that's the best thing for the future of the Monarchy.

 

[cepe]

There's no doubt Anne, Andrew, Edward & Sophie will continue on with their duties but the main focus will be on Charles & Camilla, William & Catherine and Harry and his future wife. I really think that's the best thing for the future of the Monarchy.

I agree with that - Harry and family will be a working part of the royal family into the future

 

[padams2359]

You want to know what Anne, Andrew & Edward will be doing under King Charles, go back and look at Princess Margaret's diary. Due to the big age difference between Charles & Edward, under King William, Edward and possible Andrew will be a close advisor to William. See all the time he spends with QE2, there is a reason for that.

 

[vkrish]

Yup, there will be a lot for them to do under Charles, and possibly William also, though they may not come on balcony or have the same spotlight as of now.
Had Princess Margaret not spoilt her personal life and image, she could have done more for the RF and improved the image of BRF much much more..

 

[Iluvbertie]

Currently there are 15 members of the RF who do duties:

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

Add 20 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kataryn]

Let's face it: the BRF is an incredibly wealthy family and this does not sit well with a lot of the British, especially those working as journalists.

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

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

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

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

 

[lucien]

I see the monarchy becoming more scaled down in the future. By the time Prince Harry has grandchildren, their lives will be very different. They will be royal but they will lead a more normal life than their grandfather. I don't think they will have a lot of restrictions put of them and will have more normal lifestyle. I can see them working at a job full time, and doing things that their grand father and great-grandfather King Charles would never have dreamed of but would have liked to do perhaps if given the chance.

I agree..They will have jobs...as the the Dutch Royals,except the Heir,already have and each and everyone considers normal since decades......earning their own and no freeloaders in the family...like at present still in the UK...

 

[Iluvbertie]

There aren't any 'freeloaders' in the BRF. There are only two who received money from the old Civil List - the money they were given to fund their official staff and to pay for things like State Visits. It wasn't money they could spend on anything they like.

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

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

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

So basically Britain has a self-supporting family representing them but they love the headlines that is costs the taxpayers xxxx - it does at the time but at the end of the year The Queen repays that money so no cost to the taxpayers, except for security of course but those cops would be being paid for their duties anyway and they would be on duty protecting the elected Head of State and family anyway.

 

[vkrish]

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

So basically Britain has a self-supporting family representing them but they love the headlines that is costs the taxpayers xxxx - it does at the time but at the end of the year The Queen repays that money so no cost to the taxpayers, except for security of course but those cops would be being paid for their duties anyway and they would be on duty protecting the elected Head of State and family anyway.

I was wondering since many years..Why are they doing this two-way? First paying the royals from Civil List, and then Queen repaying that money. I feel it pretty ridiculous.People will just see that royals are supported by taxpayer. They never appreciate that Queen is paying it back.
SO why dont they altogether remove all the royals(except Queen and DoE) from Civil List? And let the Queen support them? I feel its pure common sense. Maybe there is some point I missed..

 

[Lumutqueen]

SO why dont they altogether remove all the royals(except Queen and DoE) from Civil List? And let the Queen support them? I feel its pure common sense. Maybe there is some point I missed..

There are no royals on the Civil List except The Queen and the DOE.

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

The Queen repays any money the government happened to use on other royals, at the end of the year instead on a week by week basis. IluvBerties post says just that.

 

[NGalitzine]

Also the monarchy is no longer supported directly by the tax payers. At the beginning of each reign the new monarch signs over the revenue from the Crown Estate to the government in return for a civil list. Now a new agreement is in place. The Civil List is done away with and the monarch will receive 15% of The Crown Estate to fund the monarchy (except for security). The monarchy is probably the best run part of the government in terms of its ability to watch costs and make cuts where possible. This has been the case ever since Sir Michael Peat and Lord Airlie undertook a review of the whole Royal Household and how things were managed. They put things on a much more business orientated footing.

 

[Iluvbertie]

To explain why the younger royals are paid money from the government and then The Queen repays it needs some explanation which is quite simple.

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

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

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

Prince Edward was never on the Civil List because he hadn't married in 1992 and so had never had the relevant legislation passed on his behalf so The Queen pays his expenses out of love alone.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Prince Edward was never on the Civil List because he hadn't married in 1992 and so had never had the relevant legislation passed on his behalf so The Queen pays his expenses out of love alone.

Ah yes, for love alone. Nicely said Ilovebertie!

 

[Cynderella]

Am I the only one who wonder how things will work out between Charles and Andrew?

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

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

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

Granted, his sister and brothers are part of the long term plan, but I don't think we have heard the last of this.