The Monarchy under Charles

[Ish]

Technically speaking, Charles is capable of divorcing Camilla, marrying a younger woman, and having more children who will be HRHs. Unlikely, but possible.

Likewise, Edward could have more children as well. It's just unlikely.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I was only including those who were a) unmarried or b) married to a woman of child-bearing age.

Of course Charles and Edward could divorce their present wives, marry dolly birds and have more children or their wives could pass away and they could to that but...

let's not wish that on them.

 

[Roslyn]

Thanks, Ish. I was wondering whether someone would point out that technically Charles and Edward could end up producing more HRHs. I was tempted.

 

[Ish]

I was only including those who were a) unmarried or b) married to a woman of child-bearing age.

Of course Charles and Edward could divorce their present wives, marry dolly birds and have more children or their wives could pass away and they could to that but...

let's not wish that on them.

I was just being a brat.

I honestly can't see Andrew getting married again unless Sarah is the bride, and I think the pair of them have decided that they work better when not married. Likewise, even if something happened to Camilla, I don't think Charles would remarry, although the scandal that would erupt if he divorced and married for a third time might be amusing. I've never followed Edward enough to say whether or not I think another marriage is in his future, but it does seem like unlike his siblings he waited a lot longer and put more thought into who he married, so it does seem a bit unlikely.

That said, I'm still not sure why people think the BRF needs to be slimmed down. Arguments for how to slim it down and why slimming it down isn't necessary have been provided, but the people who think it should be slimmed down don't seem to have provided a reason. Anyone care to venture on that one?

 

[cepe]

I was just being a brat.

I honestly can't see Andrew getting married again unless Sarah is the bride, and I think the pair of them have decided that they work better when not married. Likewise, even if something happened to Camilla, I don't think Charles would remarry, although the scandal that would erupt if he divorced and married for a third time might be amusing. I've never followed Edward enough to say whether or not I think another marriage is in his future, but it does seem like unlike his siblings he waited a lot longer and put more thought into who he married, so it does seem a bit unlikely.

That said, I'm still not sure why people think the BRF needs to be slimmed down. Arguments for how to slim it down and why slimming it down isn't necessary have been provided, but the people who think it should be slimmed down don't seem to have provided a reason. Anyone care to venture on that one?

I dont understand it either, with the exception of security the royals aren't costing the tax payer.

Didn't the idea come from some one off comment in the 1990's?

 

[Dman]

Ish, I just think a slimmed down Monarchy would be more effective and modern.

 

[Ceallach]

When Zara got married, people were shocked to see William and Kate on the same discount flight as them. Andrew took a helicopter there costing thousands. Andrew has a reputation for such things. The Queen pays off his bills like that one but Charles is expected not to do the same. Many other second sons have jobs and Andrew will be expected to pay his way. The downside is you may see him in more questionable business deals, such as with the Kazakhstan people, like Prince Michael or Lord Linley. Charles makes about 16 million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall and other enterprises and mostly pays his way from that, and is not on the public purse except possibly for security. Cornwall may be inherited but he works at it, and William is taking classes to be prepared to work at it and mostly pay his way when Charles is King. Harry has inherited much from Diana and may be expect to not take much from the public purse except possibly security. Charles will also probably cut security for Andrew's daughters, for whom Andrew was not able to acquire public roles. There will still be free tickets to wimbledon, but you won't be paid to attend or take a helicopter there. But as it stands presently the British Royal Family costs much less than the Presidents of other countries like the US and France and it is mostly for buildings that brings in money from ticket sales. Charles thinks he can make it even more affordable.

 

[Iluvbertie]

How can it be more effective when the demands for a royal to do things is increasing to have fewer royals undertake all those duties - thus wearing them out more?

The idea of a slimmed down royal family I believe came from a staff member making an off the cuff comment about something he had heard said from someone else who may have been at a meeting - third hand at best and not confirmed.

The issue though was more about the roles of Beatrice and Eugenie rather than any suggestion of excluding those royals who have made their lives supporting the monarchy.

As I have said currently there are 15 royals who regularly carry out duties on behalf of HM and the government and receive official recognition in the CC. Of those 15 - 8 are over retirement age but also they do around 50% of the engagements with Anne only about 18 months away from retirement age and she does around 15% on her own.

There would be a huge drop off in engagements carried out is the number of royals is restricted too much and what sort of organisations etc would miss out - small towns and villages with a library or hospital to open, smaller realms who don't get the senior royals thus increasing their calls to remove the monarchy altogether if they aren't seen frequently. This is the role for people like Edward and the Kent's and Gloucester's - to fly the flag for the smaller and less fashionable causes and places leaving the big headlines events to the big names in the family.

Cut out Edward and who takes on The Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme for instance? What out Outward Bound or the National Ballet - both have Andrew as patron and both love having him as he is very involved behind the scenes as well as openly.

There are 1000s of invitations turned down now with 15 but reduce the number and another 2000 or so would have to be turned down. Make the family too small and the connections to the smaller places goes and they also look forward to the visit from a royal - why should only the big and prestigious art galleries for instance get a royal visit when the out of the way ones miss out because the big name royals are too busy but a minor royal could include the visit to the smaller art gallery and give that royal touch to their event.

A consequence of making the royal family smaller could be the loss of many smaller charity events and thus charity money as people do like to see a 'royal'. Would you go to the local fair if is was to be opened by the mayor or Princess Beatrice? Some people wouldn't care but having a real princess turn up would probably see the numbers grow, even if just the little girls still dreaming of being a princess take along one parent, and that increases the money coming into that event.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Zara got married, people were shocked to see William and Kate on the same discount flight as them. Andrew took a helicopter there costing thousands.

Please provide a link to this as I have been unable to find any mention of Andrew travelling by helicopter to the wedding, although he did have to travel back from Germany where he undertook an engagement on the 27th.

Andrew has a reputation for such things. The Queen pays off his bills like that one but Charles is expected not to do the same.

The travel expenses of all royals when on official duties was paid by the Civil List with The Queen then reimbursing the government for the expenses of Andrew and many other members of the family so it is of no concern of anyone anyway as this is evidence of The Queen subisdising the work of the family - she should be applauded for this - how many other employers get their employees to pay the official expenses of their jobs but the British public have that arrangement at the moment - even if they don't realise it.

Charles won't do so because he believes that the British public should pay for the engagements undertaken on their behalf rather than the monarch.

Many other second sons have jobs and Andrew will be expected to pay his way.

Going back through the second sons in the royal family:

Andrew served in the navy for 20+ years and since then has worked for the monarchy and nation

George VI served in the navy for 10 or so years before taking on a life of royal duties.

George V served in the navy for about 10 years before spending the next 15 years doing nothing much with the occasional royal duty before he became King.

Prince Alfred - again in the navy for about 20 years and then inherited the Dukedom of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Frederick, Duke of York - served in the army until he had to step up to be Regent for his older brother in Hanover.

In fact for 2nd sons of the monarch the expectation is that they will do royal duties after 10 - 20 years in the military - exactly as Andrew has done and is doing.

The downside is you may see him in more questionable business deals, such as with the Kazakhstan people, like Prince Michael or Lord Linley

You make a good point here as to why he should remain doing royal duties actually.

Charles makes about 16 million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall and other enterprises and mostly pays his way from that, and is not on the public purse except possibly for security.

Charles supports himself, Camilla, William, Kate, George and Harry from the Duchy of Cornwall income. Of course there security is paid for by the British public - as would be the case for any person deemed 'at risk' with Harry having more than others due to threats since his service in Afghanistan.

Cornwall may be inherited but he works at it, and William is taking classes to be prepared to work at it and mostly pay his way when Charles is King.

Cornwall isn't 'inherited' as it is a different Duchy to the norm. To be The Duke you have to fulfil TWO criteria - eldest son of the monarch AND heir apparent. Being one of those doesn't make you Duke e.g. if Charles dies before The Queen, William couldn't be Duke of Cornwall as he wouldn't be the eldest son of the monarch and so the Duchy income wouldn't go to him. Of course assuming Charles becomes King William will fulfil the criteria and so will become Duke of Cornwall and expected to support himself, Kate, George, and any future siblings until he becomes King.

Charles will then have access to the Duchy of Lancaster estate which currently provides The Queen with an income of around 13 million pounds from which she supports the rest of the royal family and thus subsidises the work of the royal family on behalf of the nation.

That is a separate income from the Sovereign Grant which is simply the payment to cover expenses, maintain the royal palaces and pay the transport costs. As, in real terms, it is about a third of the level it was in 1992 there is a massive backlog in works that need to be done - but that is because the British public and government refused to maintain their heritage - so be it.

William also has his inheritance from Diana but he doesn't need to touch that as Charles is supporting him although there are rumours that he has dipped into that money to assist the Middleton's buy their new home at Bucklebury.

Harry has inherited much from Diana and may be expect to not take much from the public purse except possibly security.

Harry costs more in security due to his service in Afghanistan. His public duties will also be paid for by the taxpayers - so if he does a lot of engagements he will cost a lot but if he continues to do around 50 a year not so much.

Charles will also probably cut security for Andrew's daughters, for whom Andrew was not able to acquire public roles.

Charles won't control who gets security as that is a decision for the Metropolitan Police and Andrew's daughters lost theirs when Eugenie left university. Most of the royals only have security now when doing public duties and not when on private time. Only the children of The Queen, Camilla, William, Kate, George and Harry have it 24/7 - not even Sophie has 24/7 anymore.

There will still be free tickets to wimbledon, but you won't be paid to attend or take a helicopter there.

No royal gets paid to go to Wimbledon now and none take helicopters there. The Middleton's get as many free tickets to Wimbledon as do the York girls it seems.

The royals don't get paid any money to just be royal or to turn up to events. Their expenses in getting their are paid but they actually support themselves either from private sources or from The Queen with Charles supporting only his own immediate family.

But as it stands presently the British Royal Family costs much less than the Presidents of other countries like the US and France and it is mostly for buildings that brings in money from ticket sales. Charles thinks he can make it even more affordable.

The problem with this section is two-fold - one no one can actually point to any statement from Charles suggesting that he is going to cut expenses. It is one of those statements that was reported as coming from him by a junior staff member and has grown into a fact with no evidence at all.

If they do cut down the number of engagements - fine - but they will also be seen less, and the ordinary people will miss out.

 

[Dman]

I don't think the suggestion is to stop the minor members of the royal family from working and supporting their charities and other organizations but to raise the profile of the younger members of the royal family and bring them to the forefront of the "Firm."

 

[Iluvbertie]

That will happen anyway - it is the circle of life. Even now there is far more coverage of any engagement involving the younger royals than those of The Queen's generation or Charles except for The Queen and Philip and Charles and Camilla.

Based on press coverage most people would assume that Andrew and Edward don't do anything at all and yet they are amongst the top 5 workers in the family but there is virtually no coverage of what they do.

 

[Dman]

That will happen anyway - it is the circle of life. Even now there is far more coverage of any engagement involving the younger royals than those of The Queen's generation or Charles except for The Queen and Philip and Charles and Camilla.

Based on press coverage most people would assume that Andrew and Edward don't do anything at all and yet they are amongst the top 5 workers in the family but there is virtually no coverage of what they do.

I think the coverage should be focused on the younger members of the royal family, as the older generation had they're time in the sun during the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000's.

I think although the older royals don't receive much coverage on their royal duties, they'r work still remain effective.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But other than The Queen - who is the monarch, her consort, her heir and his wife the concentration is on William, Kate and Harry.

The reason there isn't much at the moment is that they aren't doing much - 11 between them so far this year so there isn't much to cover. That works out at about 3% of the total so far this year of the total engagements that have been done. If they were doing engagements there would be coverage but the press can't provide cover when the people aren't doing things on which to report.

Last year they did a total of 4.5% of the total engagements of the royal family but their coverage of those engagements was way more than 4.5% of the coverage because they are the ones that sell papers and so are the ones on which there are reports when they actually do something.

 

[Dman]

There's the argument-the younger royals should be doing more.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Harry is a full-time officer in the army so he has an excuse for not doing more and that will remain that way probably for the next decade or so.

William will start stepping up more this year and Kate well that will depend on when she has her next child as she won't really be doing a full load until they are at school no doubt - so another decade or so for her as well as Harry.

 

[Ish]

There's the argument-the younger royals should be doing more.

I don't think that's what Bertie was trying to say at all - at least not here.

Your argument seems to essentially be that there isn't enough focus on the younger royals and too much focus on the older ones.

This ignores the fact that the younger royals - William, Kate, and Harry - get by far the most coverage. Look at just these forums. Kate's current events has gathered 212 posts since January, William's has 98 in the same time span. Anne's has 14 in that time span, the entire Wessex family has 88.

Camilla's current events goes back to October and has 71 posts. Charles has 162 since April, Harry's has 331 in that time span. Andrew has had the same thread since 2011.

Yet you think that the older generation gets more coverage?

 

[Skippyboo]

I think we are forgetting the title of this thread - the Monarchy under Charles, it isn't the Monarchy now. What William and Kate are doing this year, is not what they will be doing when Charles is King. William will the heir apparent, Duke of Cornwall and be named Prince of Wales. He and his wife will be full time royals, doing multiple foreign visits a year and attending incoming state visits. All stuff Charles is doing now.

 

[Osipi]

I think we are forgetting the title of this thread - the Monarchy under Charles, it isn't the Monarchy now. What William and Kate are doing this year, is not what they will be doing when Charles is King. William will the heir apparent, Duke of Cornwall and be named Prince of Wales. He and his wife will be full time royals, doing multiple foreign visits a year and attending incoming state visits. All stuff Charles is doing now.

Although it is most probable, its not automatic that William will be created The Prince of Wales. That will be up to Charles to decide after he becomes King.

 

[Skippyboo]

Yes, I know that the PoW title is not automatic but everybody who was eligible was eventually named PoW so I am assuming that some time in the reign of his father that William will be named PoW which also assumes that Charles will outlive his mother to actually become King.

 

[Winnie]

I think we are forgetting the title of this thread - the Monarchy under Charles, it isn't the Monarchy now. What William and Kate are doing this year, is not what they will be doing when Charles is King. William will the heir apparent, Duke of Cornwall and be named Prince of Wales. He and his wife will be full time royals, doing multiple foreign visits a year and attending incoming state visits. All stuff Charles is doing now.

I do agree with your opinion. This thread is about the future, not what is going on right now. We also must remember that the overall public's opinion about the Royals in general might greatly differ from us on this forum. Not everyone cares about the "fringe" Royals like we do. Many would rather see sports figures or entertainers do openings or sponsor charities. They would rather have the Royals, other than Queen, Charles and William, in background obtaining money from their friends for charities, but not have to see them. This is something I am sure Charles knows and will address as King. No matter what we say or want, things will change. We have let the bias media form our opinions. I don't believe the future generation will stand for that. Social medias put all in spotlight 24/7. This is now a fact of life.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think we are forgetting the title of this thread - the Monarchy under Charles, it isn't the Monarchy now. What William and Kate are doing this year, is not what they will be doing when Charles is King. William will the heir apparent, Duke of Cornwall and be named Prince of Wales. He and his wife will be full time royals, doing multiple foreign visits a year and attending incoming state visits. All stuff Charles is doing now.

The discussion was widened to include who else would be doing engagements when Charles is King and that lead to a discussion about cutting down and how drastically that cut down would be. However, to ascertain the need for a particular number of type of royals necessitated a discussion of the current situation to see if the idea of a cut-down monarchy when Charles is King is even feasible. That is why the thread strayed into the current situation - so that an analysis and some speculation could take place about The Monarchy under Charles. Otherwise the thread can have no real basis if we can't look at the situation now to discuss how that might/will change under Charles.

 

[Molly2101]

I guess it's just a case of "time will tell", but I really do not see Beatrice and Eugenie doing any work for Charles when he is King. If they do then Louise and James would have to take up their HRH styles and do some engagements too, so all the charities that their parents and aunts and uncles have been connected to still retain a Royal patron.

I think many charities will lose their royal patrons sadly as we all know there wont be a Princess Louise and Prince James in the future, nor will we see Beatrice and Eugenie carrying out engagements funded by Charles. They may choose to do some of their own work, which is fine, but I should think that will be it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Even if Beatrice and/or Eugenie take on royal duties there is no need to assume that that would impact on Louise and James. After Prince Michael of Kent - doesn't do royal duties and he is equally a son of the third son of a monarch.

 

[Ish]

I can't see Louise or James ever carrying out engagements as I think they're being raised more in line with how the Phillips or Armstrong-Jones children were raised - descended of royalty, yes, but not royals themselves. As such they're not likely to ever do anything more than events where the whole family comes out. I could see James one day being poised to take over the Duke of Edinburgh Award stuff, but that's because if the Dukedom is recreated as is expected then James will one day be the Duke.

Beatrice and Eugenie are another matter. They were raised differently than their younger cousins are now being raised and more likely had the sense that they're expected to fulfill at least some of this lifestyle than the Wessexes. We see this now; while they might not get all the recognition in the CC that William or Harry get, Beatrice certainly seems to have interest in performing royal-esque duties. I wouldn't be surprised if she, and possibly Eugenie, ended up fulfilling roles similar to what the Queen's cousins have fulfilled.

 

[royal-blue]

I really do think it is time that the Cambridges were doing considerably more work. They are starting to look plain lazy.

 

[muriel]

I really do think it is time that the Cambridges were doing considerably more work. They are starting to look plain lazy.

William is at Cambridge, so hardly has the time to carry out public engagements. Catherine is still on maternity leave. As you may be aware, in the UK, you are entitled to a year of maternity leave, and increasingly, a lot of professionals do have the time off. I am sure she will gradually increase her engagements when she returns from Australia.

 

[scooter]

Honestly, I think she will be pregnant again before the year is out. A 2 year age gap is very common.

 

[muriel]

Honestly, I think she will be pregnant again before the year is out. A 2 year age gap is very common.

And I don't think that is such a bad thing. Given that her primary duty to the crown is to produce an heir and a spare, she will do well to get the child bearing out of the way. For now, there are plenty of other members of the BRF that can take the pressure of public engagements, so, IMO, she should focus on getting the balance right between a public role, and the private one of bearing and rearing the future monarch and his spare.

 

[royal-blue]

Perhaps when Charles is King, he will summon the Kents and Gloucesters, and quiote likely the Wessexes and Prince Andrew, and tell them they are no longer required and give them notice to vacate the palaces or pay rent. They should be treated in exactly the same way that Princess Beatrice and Eugenie, and also Prince and Princess Michael have been treated. I expect Charles and his family could all manage to live in Windsor Castle and then open up all the other palaces all year round. This is likely to appeal to the public.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So you are saying that Charles, Camilla - probably in their 70s or 80s - William, Kate, Harry and wife (assuming he is married) are going to do around 670 engagements each a year (something no one is doing now). You are saying that Charles should be doing more in his 70s than he has ever done before at an age when his mother and father were slowing down.

The Kent's probably won't be around anyway - given that the Duke will be 80 next year and Princess Alexandra the following year but surely you aren't suggesting that people in their 80s who have served the nation and monarchy all their lives should be thrown out of their homes because of a new monarch. Far from appealing to the public I think the public would find that disgraceful behaviour for Charles.

The Gloucester's have also served the nation all their lives so again it would come across as just nasty for Charles to tell them to move out of their home and they certainly couldn't afford the rent as they have never had the chance to earn money from the outside sources that Michael of Kent has had because they have been loyal servants to The Queen and country. If the public supports that idea then they are a very ungrateful public.

As for Charles' siblings - Anne owns Gatcombe, Andrew has a 99 year lease on his home, leaving only Edward and in all likelihood The Queen has made arrangements for his lease there as well. Anne and Andrew have spent their adult lives serving the monarch and nation so again it shows how ungrateful both the public and Charles would be to throw them out of their jobs. Edward also showed how difficult it is for a senior royal (and surely the child of the monarch is a senior royal) to make a genuine living in the real world if not in the military.

Beatrice and Eugenie - I can see them not being wanted and moving out of St James' when they marry of course.

I do think that the big royal family events will be limited to Charles, his family, his siblings and their spouses but not children so the Trooping the Colour Balcony would be Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, George and any siblings, Harry, his wife but not children (he will afterall only move further from the throne so no need for his children to be there), Andrew, Edward, Sophie, Anne and Tim - not Beatrice/Eugenie/Louise/James/Peter and family/Zara and family or Margaret's family or the Gloucester's and Kent's etc.

As for all of them living at Windsor - fine - Charles and his sons and their wives under one roof with small children and then, of course their children in time.

BP open to the public more often - great - but no more balcony scenes, no state visits there etc as it takes time to set the palace up for the opening and then to turn it back into the working palace. KP also open to the public more - but what would they see more than the see now?

Would all the staff who work at BP - secretaries etc also have to move to Windsor? Presumably.

Of course Balmoral and Sandringham are different as they are private property and so will remain with the monarch and Highgrove belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall and so can't be sold.