The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A genuine question to those who support a large family of royals carrying out royal duties: When the Queen and DofE have gone, would you then like to see Beatrice and Eugenie wheeled out, perhaps even Prince and Princess Michael to become full time royals to share the workload?

Yes especially the York Princess'. I am a firm believer that if you enjoy the privilege of a position, (title, wealth, social standing) then you must also take up the responsabilities. If Beatrice and Eugenie don't work as Royals, then they should give up their titles, get jobs and earn any wealth they get that way and don't use their relationship to the Monarch to get favours or social standing. Not saying that they don't want to work as Royals though but they don't seem to do much for their position.
 
If Beatrice and Eugenie choose to join "The Firm" either full or part time (personally I don't think you can be a part time royal and do something else) and are comfortable with what they're going to take on, then I have no issues with that. The more representation the royal family gets the better as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps they are giving them time to dabble but also to find their way. Marriage and children may be on the horizon for them sooner rather than later.

It is worth remembering that Sophie didn't come into her own until her mid to late 30's and has served the BRF exceptionally well with Edward at every major royal wedding, throughout Europe.

She now seems to be giving credence to the theory that when you reach 40 you start aging backwards and without a needle in sight! She is one elegant lady and a credit to the firm.

On a more serious note, Charles as King, is not going to squander the knowledge and personal relationships the Wessexes have acquired as the BRF 'go to' team. They don't just talk fashion at these occasions and both Edward and Sophie have a lot to offer.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt that the minor royals will continue on serving their patronages and presidencies once Charles comes to the throne but it's his own family that should be the major focus though.
 
Yes especially the York Princess'. I am a firm believer that if you enjoy the privilege of a position, (title, wealth, social standing) then you must also take up the responsabilities. If Beatrice and Eugenie don't work as Royals, then they should give up their titles, get jobs and earn any wealth they get that way and don't use their relationship to the Monarch to get favours or social standing. Not saying that they don't want to work as Royals though but they don't seem to do much for their position.
IMHO it is possible for the York girls to keep their titles and have outside careers. Dutch princes Friso and Constantijn were able to do so very well.
 
Yes especially the York Princess'. I am a firm believer that if you enjoy the privilege of a position, (title, wealth, social standing) then you must also take up the responsabilities. If Beatrice and Eugenie don't work as Royals, then they should give up their titles, get jobs and earn any wealth they get that way and don't use their relationship to the Monarch to get favours or social standing. Not saying that they don't want to work as Royals though but they don't seem to do much for their position.

Thing is, both of these girls do work supporting charities and patronages but they're not part of the "official Firm" and for the most part, not listed on the court circular. I really don't see the Queen throwing any more favors towards the York girls than she does any of her other grandchildren (excluding William as the heir to the heir). As far as titles and social standings go, they could move to Hawaii, open a automotive repair service and study belly dancing but the fact will still remain that they are princesses of the United Kingdom.
 
Maybe if there were fewer royals overall working, but doing considerably more engagements each, this would be a solution.
 
Maybe if there were fewer royals overall working, but doing considerably more engagements each, this would be a solution.

What we see is not all they do. There is no mention in the CC that the Queen spends hours on the Red Boxes every day (bar Christmas Day); there is no mention of planning meetings, putting together speeches/presentations; and all the other prep work required.

Then they have the engagements.........
 
Thing is, both of these girls do work supporting charities and patronages but they're not part of the "official Firm" and for the most part, not listed on the court circular. I really don't see the Queen throwing any more favors towards the York girls than she does any of her other grandchildren (excluding William as the heir to the heir). As far as titles and social standings go, they could move to Hawaii, open a automotive repair service and study belly dancing but the fact will still remain that they are princesses of the United Kingdom.

If the young women are doing charitiy work etc than that's fine and yes as you say they could move away and they would still be Princess. What I'm saying is that if you have benefits from a job,(Princess) then you need to be taking on the responsabilities. The York girls get a huge amount of social standing, simply of their birth and they should be giving more back in return. If they don't want that, that's fine but thn they need to give up the perks. Easier said than done, for sure, and mmaybe they want to do more and are nor being given the opportunity, I don't know.
 
If the young women are doing charitiy work etc than that's fine and yes as you say they could move away and they would still be Princess. What I'm saying is that if you have benefits from a job,(Princess) then you need to be taking on the responsabilities. The York girls get a huge amount of social standing, simply of their birth and they should be giving more back in return. If they don't want that, that's fine but thn they need to give up the perks. Easier said than done, for sure, and mmaybe they want to do more and are nor being given the opportunity, I don't know.

I'm not clear on what perks you're talking about here for the York girls to give up. AFAIK, they are privately funded either through their father or mother and I would imagine they have their own resources such as trust funds that were set up for them from QEQM. Their security is also privately funded by their father.
 
I'm not clear on what perks you're talking about here for the York girls to give up. AFAIK, they are privately funded either through their father or mother and I would imagine they have their own resources such as trust funds that were set up for them from QEQM. Their security is also privately funded by their father.

Social standing for starters, you can't tell me that doors aren't opened for them, simply because of their position as Princess' And any wealth, which may be private, would originally have been obtained because of their parents position as members of the royal family. The York daughters have an immensily privileged position, socially, financially etc.
 
Except you can strip them of their titles and they will still have all of this. The Phillips have it, as do the Wessexes and Armstrong-Joneses and in their day the Lascelles. All without royal titles or obligations of royal duties.

It can be argued that the Yorks got the short end of the stick, by being born to the titles that they have without the position that the Wales/Cambridges have. Much like the Kents and Gloucesters before them they haven't been given a free pass by the public or institution because of their titles - even if they are allowed, like Prince Michael or the Yorks, to pursue a private career, they have far more of their private life made public and criticized than they would if they didn't have titles. Further, if they're not seen as doing enough in the way of working they're criticize as lazy, and if they're seen as taking advantage of the wealth or social connections that they have as a result of their birth then they're made out to be royal hanger ons. This is despite the fact that in all reality they do perform functions and duties similar to what their other royal relatives do - Beatrice in particular has been involved in charities and has represented the government abroad - without getting the same recognition in the CC - which is controlled by the Queen, not them. For all we know, Beatrice at least could want to fulfill a part time or full time royal role, but is being told no.
 
Social standing for starters, you can't tell me that doors aren't opened for them, simply because of their position as Princess' And any wealth, which may be private, would originally have been obtained because of their parents position as members of the royal family. The York daughters have an immensily privileged position, socially, financially etc.
You can say the same about any other child of a wealthy or powerful parent, such as Chelsea Clinton, Bill Gates's children, etc... That is the way the world works and, quite simply, that is the way monarchies work.

I don't think Charles has encouraged his nieces and nephews to take on major duties because he correctly perceives the public wants a slimmed down monarchy. The public mood may change as the reality of fewer public engagements sets in, but I think people will adjust. I can't see the public rising in protest because there aren't enough royal family members to open all the new hospital wings in the country.

William will probably not have four children, and I doubt Harry will either. I expect Harry's children will have the HRH title. That would allow William the flexibility to utilize them as full-time royals if necessary. If it is not necessary, Harry's children will have several options. They could go into the military or follow Beatrice and Eugenie precedent of the monarch's grandchildren making their way in the private sector.
 
You can say the same about any other child of a wealthy or powerful parent, such as Chelsea Clinton, Bill Gates's children, etc... That is the way the world works and, quite simply, that is the way monarchies work.

I don't think Charles has encouraged his nieces and nephews to take on major duties because he correctly perceives the public wants a slimmed down monarchy. The public mood may change as the reality of fewer public engagements sets in, but I think people will adjust. I can't see the public rising in protest because there aren't enough royal family members to open all the new hospital wings in the country.

William will probably not have four children, and I doubt Harry will either. I expect Harry's children will have the HRH title. That would allow William the flexibility to utilize them as full-time royals if necessary. If it is not necessary, Harry's children will have several options. They could go into the military or follow Beatrice and Eugenie precedent of the monarch's grandchildren making their way in the private sector.

Interesting statement - are you saying that in order to carry out royal engagements, you have to be an HRH? so, for example, Lady Louise Windsor can never carry out a royal engagement?

The more I think about it the more obvious it becomes, but it isnt how Ive considered it - Ive always seen royal engagements/patronages/charities as an extension of working on behalf of the monarch. Plus of course receiving funding to run the offical office

:ermm:
 
I think the reason why Edward and Sophie chose to have their children styled as the children of an Earl instead of the children of a Prince was so that they could grow up without the pressure of having been royal.

The HRH, combined with recognition in the CC, is what makes any engagements, patronages, charities, etc a royal duty. Beatrice and Eugenie perform many royal duty like functions, but don't get the recognition for it in the CC therefore they aren't doing royal duties. Louise and James may one day perform similar duties, but they themselves aren't royal. The same applies to Peter and Zara.

The engagements that you describe are a part of working on behalf of the monarch, the other part is being recognized by the monarch for such work in the CC. Not all engagements get recognized, and therefore if they aren't recognized they aren't a royal duty. The funding at this point comes completely from either the Queen, through the Duchy of Lancaster, or Charles, through the Duchy of Cornwall. Asides from security there really isn't that much public funding of the extended BRF anymore.
 
I think the reason why Edward and Sophie chose to have their children styled as the children of an Earl instead of the children of a Prince was so that they could grow up without the pressure of having been royal.

The HRH, combined with recognition in the CC, is what makes any engagements, patronages, charities, etc a royal duty. Beatrice and Eugenie perform many royal duty like functions, but don't get the recognition for it in the CC therefore they aren't doing royal duties. Louise and James may one day perform similar duties, but they themselves aren't royal. The same applies to Peter and Zara.

The engagements that you describe are a part of working on behalf of the monarch, the other part is being recognized by the monarch for such work in the CC. Not all engagements get recognized, and therefore if they aren't recognized they aren't a royal duty. The funding at this point comes completely from either the Queen, through the Duchy of Lancaster, or Charles, through the Duchy of Cornwall. Asides from security there really isn't that much public funding of the extended BRF anymore.

I get all that bit - thank you. But if Lady Louise Windsor at some time in the future, carried out an engagement and it was in the CC - is it a royal engagement?
 
I get all that bit - thank you. But if Lady Louise Windsor at some time in the future, carried out an engagement and it was in the CC - is it a royal engagement?

As Ish explained, a royal engagement is carried out by someone with the title of His/Her Royal Highness combined with the recognition in the CC. Otherwise we could call it a royal engagement if the Queen asked the Prime Minister to make an appearance and it was recognized in the CC.

I don't think Lady Louise is the best example because she is technically HRH Princess Louise, her parents have just decided not to use that title. The better questions would be whether it would be a royal engagement if the Queen asked Zara or Peter to make an appearance for her. I would argue that Zara and Peter can't make royal appearances because they don't have royal titles.
 
It's debatable as to whether or not Louise and James are royal. Personally, I think that regardless of whether or not they are, any event that results in them being recognized in the CC using titles that aren't royal wouldn't count as a royal engagement for them.

It can be tricky - consider Tim. He gets recognized in the CC for stuff he does with Anne. For Anne this is a royal engagement and a royal duty. For Tim it's not, because he's not royal. The same extends to Anne's children and to the Wessex children.
 
Social standing for starters, you can't tell me that doors aren't opened for them, simply because of their position as Princess' And any wealth, which may be private, would originally have been obtained because of their parents position as members of the royal family. The York daughters have an immensily privileged position, socially, financially etc.
Rank has its privileges. It is a fact of life. Their father was son of a Queen. Ours was not. They have born social standings which we do not. They must live in a "gold fish bowl" all their lives which we do not. They certainly should have many more doors open to them because of this birth. Newspaper follow their every move and print daily about it. Media certainly don't care a bit about ours. Also a fact. But, then, more is expected of them by the public. Definitely not of you or me. Two sides to every coin. We shouldn't covet their lives as it might not be as great as it seems to be born into Royalty.
 
Last edited:
I'd be willing to bet that for every though that we mere mortals think how great it would be to live in palaces, wear stunning jewels and seem to have each fancy and whim become realities, those that are royal would think how nice it would be to be totally ordinary and become invisible in the masses and actually be able to sneeze without it being heard around the world. When we really think about it, there's more of a downside to being royal than privilege. Palaces are drafty and cold for the most part, the jewels are far too valuable to wear without heavy insurance and protection officers and frankly, from some of the schedules I've seen the royals keep as far as duties and engagements, their time is strictly planned down to the minute and they don't have the luxury of saying "excuse me, but I need to use the bathroom. I'll be right back". The world would be buzzing should a piece of the royal toilet paper be stuck to the royal shoe! Royal life certainly isn't what its cracked up to be.

I think the slimming down of the monarchy has already entered its transitional stage with Anne and Edward's children not having royal titles nor being royal. Its clear to them that in the future, they'd be minor royals at best. They're free to pursue any occupation or career they wish, can support their own charities and patronages should they want to and for grand occasions, they're still members of the extended royal family.

I'm still of the opinion that by the time Charles does ascend the throne, the way we look at royal duties and engagements will also have gone under a transition. Many charities and patronages may be umbrella'd in organizations such as the Prince's Trust and the Royal Foundation and many becomes global efforts such as we've seen lately with Walking With The Wounded and with conservation/endangered species effort.

We'll have to wait and see what happens but it should make for some interesting discussions. :D
 
I think the reason why Edward and Sophie chose to have their children styled as the children of an Earl instead of the children of a Prince was so that they could grow up without the pressure of having been royal.

The HRH, combined with recognition in the CC, is what makes any engagements, patronages, charities, etc a royal duty. Beatrice and Eugenie perform many royal duty like functions, but don't get the recognition for it in the CC therefore they aren't doing royal duties. Louise and James may one day perform similar duties, but they themselves aren't royal. The same applies to Peter and Zara.

The engagements that you describe are a part of working on behalf of the monarch, the other part is being recognized by the monarch for such work in the CC. Not all engagements get recognized, and therefore if they aren't recognized they aren't a royal duty. The funding at this point comes completely from either the Queen, through the Duchy of Lancaster, or Charles, through the Duchy of Cornwall. Asides from security there really isn't that much public funding of the extended BRF anymore.
Unfortunately for Lady Louise Windsor and James, Vicount Severn, their parents are the living embodiment of everything that can possibly go wrong when someone is a royal or even dating a royal and trying to have a career let alone a 'life'.

Edward's attempts to be independent of his heritage outside of the military were doomed to fail. He was accused of being lazy when he had the guts to say "the military life is not for me". His attempts to create a career have all been met with derision and accusations of "using the BRF" to his advantage. There is no way he could "not" be the son of the Queen and, with a lot of support from his family and friends he basically gave up the attempt.

Any lingering ideas that he could ever have a job were futher reinforced when he started to date Sophie and her doomed attempt to retain her career was both painful and humiliating. That they both triumphed and live a comfortable family life and carry out royal engagements is a tribute to their innate sense of duty.

I think that is why their children are titled the way they are. They are the Queen's grandchildren but it will be easier for them when they are older and become the Kings nephew and neice and later cousin. They are a generation behind their older cousins and the challenges of Beatrice and Eugenie so that too will cushion the adverse "royal" effect.

Fortunately for both their father and Uncle Andrew, the pressure will effectively come off when they too become one step further from the throne as the King's Uncles.
 
Last edited:
Rank has its privileges. It is a fact of life. Their father was son of a Queen. Ours was not. They have born social standings which we do not. They must live in a "gold fish bowl" all their lives which we do not. They certainly should have many more doors open to them because of this birth. Newspaper follow their every move and print daily about it. Media certainly don't care a bit about ours. Also a fact. But, then, more is expected of them by the public. Definitely not of you or me. Two sides to every coin. We shouldn't covet their lives as it might not be as great as it seems to be born into Royalty.

Who said anything about coveting their life, I certainly don't. My statement was simple, if you have privileges because of who you were born to, then you have responsibilities to take on. I don't have a problem with wealth, inherited or not, but being in such a position means that you have a responsibility to those who don't. If you don't use your position to help others, if you are just slumming round all day enjoying the privileges then you are nothing more than a parasite. Perfect examples would the jet setters type people People born into royal families have even more of a responsibility because they have privalages because of an anachronistic system, that frankly in a modern democracy shouldn't exist.
 
Beatrice and Eugenie have, of course, taken on a number of patronages but when they attend events as the patron of those organisations they don't get credit in the CC and so they aren't doing royal duties but they are still doing the same sort of things anyway e.g. this coming week Eugenie will be opening the new Children's High Dependency Wing at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital - of which she is also the patron - but that won't, in all likelihood, be an official royal engagement that gets a mention in the CC. If it was Kate doing the opening, or Sophie, or Camilla etc it would be an official engagement but when done by one of the York girls it isn't.

Ex-patient Princess Eugenie to open children's unit at Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital in Stanmore - Get West London

Last year when the girls went to Berlin, at the behest of the government, they weren't there officially according to the CC either.

Go back to the winter Olympics - Kate presented medals - official recognition in the CC but Eugenie also presented medals and no official recognition.

The girls are doing the royal charity stuff but aren't getting recognised in the CC.

So they are using their position - as they should use it - but aren't getting the official recognition from their grandmother. She may be congratulating them privately but not officially recognising their efforts.

Beatrice is actively involved in a number of charities in a range of roles:

1. Global Ambassador for Children in Crisis,
2. A co-founder of The Big Change Charitable Trust, as well as
3. Patron of York Musical Society,
4. Patron of York Theatre Royal,
5. Patron of The Sick Kids Friends Foundation,
6. Patron of Forget Me Not Children's Hospice,
7. Patron of Bromwood African Education Foundation,
8. Ambassador to the Teenage Cancer Trust and
9. Patron of the Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre

Eugenie has:

1. Patron of the Orthopaedic Hospital's Redevelopment Appeal
2. Ambassador of the Teenage Cancer Trust
3. Member of the Committee of the Young Marlburian Foundation

On top of that they both have full-time jobs - Eugenie in New York and Beatrice with Sony in London (currently doing an internship).
 
Who said anything about coveting their life, I certainly don't. My statement was simple, if you have privileges because of who you were born to, then you have responsibilities to take on. I don't have a problem with wealth, inherited or not, but being in such a position means that you have a responsibility to those who don't. If you don't use your position to help others, if you are just slumming round all day enjoying the privileges then you are nothing more than a parasite. Perfect examples would the jet setters type people People born into royal families have even more of a responsibility because they have privalages because of an anachronistic system, that frankly in a modern democracy shouldn't exist.

I find the use of the word "parasite" offensive, especially when referring to people who are simply spending their own money. I don't even like the term "parasite" when people refer to healthy adults who receive government assistance.

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are transitioning from college into the workforce. In addition to holding several jobs and internships, both women have been involved in charitable causes. The bottom line is that the princesses do not receive taxpayer funds, they are not violating any laws, and they seem like decent human beings.

Prince Charles will probably not be utilizing them as full-time royals, but the whole family seems to be dedicated to doing some sort of public service, whether it is representing the UK during personal appearances, serving in the military or performing charitable work. As others have noted, when Prince Edward and Sophie tried to work at regular jobs, they came under withering criticism. I think it will be easier for Beatrice and Eugenie because they will not be part of Charles's immediate family. It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

But, no, I don't think you can call another human being a parasite because they have decided to enjoy their wealth. As long as it isn't costing me anything, I don't think it is my business.
 
...I don't think you can call another human being a parasite because they have decided to enjoy their wealth. As long as it isn't costing me anything, I don't think it is my business.
You've got my vote. I also think that once a point of view is personalised, it loses impact.

The Yorks dont have to work if they dont want to (but they do); they dont have to have patronages (but they have); they dont have to support HMQ or the Government (but when asked, they do).

What on earth is there to complain about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have a problem with wealth, inherited or not, but being in such a position means that you have a responsibility to those who don't. If you don't use your position to help others, if you are just slumming round all day enjoying the privileges then you are nothing more than a parasite.

Then the exact same could be said for William, Catherine and Henry at the minute. They do very little with their position and aren't and won't be full time members of the family for some time. Are they parasites as well?

The point you seem to be missing is Beatrice and Eugenie do use their positiont to help others and they aren't slumming around enjoying the priveliges. You just have to look at the two sets of current events thread to see that. They're not going to be doing 200 engagements a month, they're not required to do so and if they were The Queen would ask them. Seeing as she hasn't even asked the second in line to the throne and his wife to make more of an appearance to themselves she doesn't seem to be too bothered by Beatrice and Euegnie enjoying some form of private life.
 
A write-up mentioned:

King Charles III could well be presented with a kingdom bristling at inherited privilege, of which the monarchy stands out as a prime example.
To ensure that the throne lasts long enough to pass to his heir, Charles will have to convince his people that the Crown will continue to represent the heritage, the traditions and the finest values of Britain. :crown5::crown5::crown5:
 
IMO, the extract from the write-up could hardly be considered thought provoking, deep of well thought through in any way!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO, the extract from the write-up could hardly be considered thought provoking, deep of well thought through in any way!

IMO, it is thought provoking. The monarchy is definitely a prime example of inherited privilege. The article immediately had me thinking about whether, in a society that is very different from the one in which HM had her coronation, the crown represents the heritage, the traditions and the finest values of Britain, whether it can continue to do so, and, if so, how Charles can convince the people of that.
 
God knows how that ever got out of the rubbish bin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom