The Monarchy under Charles

[Roslyn]

I agree with you. But isn't that what monarchy is all about? The very existence of Kings and Queens not to mention an aristocracy has nothing to do with merit, it's all about elitism. From there it's a very short leap to honorary promotions.

Precisely. And in an era of increasing equality in all levels of society, when the very existence of such elitist and increasingly anachronistic institutions is questioned more and more, elements like these un-earned promotions attract attention to the "specialness" of the Royals in a way that is unhelpful to them and their cause.

I say "unearned" promotions rather than "honorary" for the reasons I have stated in another thread. I have no trouble with honorary appointments as long as it is made unambiguously clear they are honorary, as it was with Prince Michael's honorary naval ranks, etc.

As for the argument it is reasonable for the heir, at least, to get increasing ranks since you can't have a head of the armed forces having to salute officers who are senior to him in earned rank, this argument falls apart when you look what happens in the USA. I could be wrong but the American President seems to actually make decisions; the British Monarch seems to just do what he/she is advised by cabinet. Even if the President does not have more power, he is still Commander-in-Chief and there have been many presidents who served and attained fairly junior ranks, and of course Barack Obama has never been in the services. Perhaps the difference is the President is there because he has been voted in by the people and isn't just there because of accident of birth.

 

[Skippyboo]

The question is did the Queen act alone or the Navy make the decision in the Queen's name? The Honors List - most of them are not picked by the Queen but by the government and awarded by the Queen. So if you are a big party donor you are more likely to a gong than the plumber in Sheffield who volunteers with the elderly each week.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The question is did the Queen act alone or the Navy make the decision in the Queen's name? [...]

It is not so relevant. Her Majesty can do nothing without a ministerial backing: The King is inviolable, the ministers are responsible. The Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister are accountable for the promotion of the Duke of York.

When the Minister of Defence or the Prime Minister would have opposed the promotion of the Duke, this would not have happened. It is as simple as that. The Queen's personal opinion is pretty irrelevant in this sort of automatic promotions. Now the Duke of York and Prince Michael have been promoted, this is the expression of the Government's decision with the Queen's assent.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

If Charles had castles restored, would this help England's tourism?
​

 

[Winnie]

If Charles had castles restored, would this help England's tourism?
​

I would certainly think so. Plus many jobs both during restoration and competition would serve the local citizens. Just depends on their location and if people really want to stay there

 

[Roslyn]

I agree, and I certainly think that if Charles decides it's a good idea and sets his mind to it, he will do a good job.

Here is a link to the documentary on the restoration of Dumfries House and I recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it. It gives an insight into Charles' way of thinking and his dedication to such projects, and what they can achieve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMSN37hMnhQ

 

[Iluvbertie]

When people are talking about castles what are we meaning?


Those basically completely ruined castles - then no way can they be restored - the current approach by archaeologists is to NOT restore ruins but to preserve and conserve but not restore as they wouldn't be true restorations but really recreations using a modern interpretation of what a castle etc was like.


Next question - most castles were built over centuries - therefore to what century or time period would the castle be restored??? Another reason why archaeologists don't believe in restoring these places.


We also don't really 'know' what a specific castle was like. We know what castles were like 'in general' but not the specifics of castle xxxx compared to castle yyyy.

 

[hernameispekka]

When people are talking about castles what are we meaning?


Those basically completely ruined castles - then no way can they be restored - the current approach by archaeologists is to NOT restore ruins but to preserve and conserve but not restore as they wouldn't be true restorations but really recreations using a modern interpretation of what a castle etc was like.


Next question - most castles were built over centuries - therefore to what century or time period would the castle be restored??? Another reason why archaeologists don't believe in restoring these places.


We also don't really 'know' what a specific castle was like. We know what castles were like 'in general' but not the specifics of castle xxxx compared to castle yyyy.

I think they mean renovate. Use old pictures/paintings to try and recreate certain rooms, restore murals, fix mold etc. Not build up a ruin.

 

[cepe]

We do not "renovate" castles in Britain. We leave them alone. What we do is put in guides, perhaps have a building which explains the history using models, graphics and maps but we do not rebuild or restore. English Heritage and the National Trust would have a blue fit!

What Charles did re Dumfries house was instigated because priceless Chippendale furniture, specifically designed for the House was to be sold off. He raised money through the PRince's Trust (and got a lot of criticism at the time) - about £20m.

He saved the furniture, and the house and has developed small businesses on the site to help make it self-funding in the future.

He didn't restore or renovate it.

 

[Roslyn]

I envisage restoration of the Cardiff Castle variety, not rebuilding crumbled Gothic churches.

http://edwardshart.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/John-Edwards-Cardiff-Castle-2008.pdf

We do not "renovate" castles in Britain. We leave them alone. What we do is put in guides, perhaps have a building which explains the history using models, graphics and maps but we do not rebuild or restore. English Heritage and the National Trust would have a blue fit!

But if a building has not reached the stage of being beyond restoration, is it not a good idea to at least think about restoring it? As Charles says in the doco, should we not at least try to do something about it?

What Charles did re Dumfries house was instigated because priceless Chippendale furniture, specifically designed for the House was to be sold off. He raised money through the PRince's Trust (and got a lot of criticism at the time) - about £20m.

He saved the furniture, and the house and has developed small businesses on the site to help make it self-funding in the future.

He didn't restore or renovate it.

But now, because the furniture is still there, a piece of history has been preserved.

 

[hernameispekka]

We do not "renovate" castles in Britain. We leave them alone. What we do is put in guides, perhaps have a building which explains the history using models, graphics and maps but we do not rebuild or restore. English Heritage and the National Trust would have a blue fit!

What Charles did re Dumfries house was instigated because priceless Chippendale furniture, specifically designed for the House was to be sold off. He raised money through the PRince's Trust (and got a lot of criticism at the time) - about £20m.

He saved the furniture, and the house and has developed small businesses on the site to help make it self-funding in the future.

He didn't restore or renovate it.

I used renovate wrongly, as this is not my first language. But ofc the lived in palaces/castles is "renovated" as in restored when murals crack too much or if mold is found in a bathroom. Just as churches have their ceiling murals repainted I would think it normal that castles does to?

 

[cepe]

I used renovate wrongly, as this is not my first language. But ofc the lived in palaces/castles is "renovated" as in restored when murals crack too much or if mold is found in a bathroom. Just as churches have their ceiling murals repainted I would think it normal that castles does to?

Sorry - I didn't realise (I think your English is good). We maintain the palaces/castles that are lived in; some would use the word conservation.

But the rules are very strict and therefore the cost is enormous for buildings such as Windsor Castle.

 

[hernameispekka]

Sorry - I didn't realise (I think your English is good). We maintain the palaces/castles that are lived in; some would use the word conservation.

But the rules are very strict and therefore the cost is enormous for buildings such as Windsor Castle.

I understand that there are lot of rules (as it should be). But if he hired specialists to restore parts, I think it would be good

 

[Skippyboo]

One of the largest departments in the Royal Household is the Royal Collection where the take care of the art, furniture, tapestries etc that has been collected through out the years. This department was relatively small but the money brought in by touring the palaces and gift shops are used to finance its activities. So when you tour BP or Windsor Castle, you are helping to preserve its contents.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

Next question - most castles were built over centuries - therefore to what century or time period would the castle be restored??? Another reason why archaeologists don't believe in restoring these places.

Another aspect along these lines is that it is better to preserve the area where the ruins are because if left as much as possible in their original state (of decline even), historians and archaeologists and anthropologists can better determine more of the history of the site.

To recreate something that existed long ago would just be a replica. It would be like replacing the standing stones at Stonehenge with concrete blocks as it once was in its heyday. It may last but so much would be lost.

Charles, I think, is very interested in the preservation of things whether it be animal, vegetable or mineral. This is one reason why I believe that he will retain as much of the traditions as he possibly can.

 

[royal-blue]

I would like Charles to go even further:

• Scrap the royal train
• His mother's cousins to retire
• Announce that Beatrice and Eugenie will lose their title upon marriage
• A merger of the two royal duchies with the Crown Estates
• All costs of the monarchy, including all security and current Civil List payments (yes I know it's only for 2 people) to come solely from the Sovereign Support Grant (increased from merger with duchies)

 

[tommy100]

I think the Royal train will be scrapped when it can no longer be used, I can't see a new train being put into service and the current carriages are very old so even if the train carries on in Charles' reign (which it might as he uses it relatively a lot) it won't last much longer at all.
I don't think you can make the Queen's cousins retire but as they get older (the Duke of Kent has had a few health issues) they will probably do less and less until they support a few charities or military links that go with their Duchies.
I can't see Charles taking titles away from Beatrice & Eugenie, it would look petty and vindictive and would be seen as Charles doing something his mother might of disapproved. More likely the girls will be stripped of any privileges associated with the HRH title.
I read somewhere that Charles wanted the monarchy to be funded by the Crown Estates again (which it now is) so he might take this a little further but I can't see the Duchy of Cornwall going as Charles has given a lot of time and energy to it.

I do feel thought that Charles will make some big changes, I suspect he'll feel like he won't have a long reign (which of course he won't) so he might see it as his role to make big changes to the monarchy to 'improve it' for William, George and beyond.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Scrap the royal train

This would mean other means of transport and accommodation needed. The train is often used as an office on wheels and thus does double duty. It isn't a full train anyway but just a few carriages often added to a standard train when necessary.

His mother's cousins to retire

Why? They have served the Queen all their adult lives so their thanks, from the new King is - get lost you are no longer wanted or needed. Great thanks from the new King and the British people.

Announce that Beatrice and Eugenie will lose their title upon marriage

What if they are already married?

Again why?

Would you also expect that Harry's children - who will also be the children of the second son were to lose their titles?

A merger of the two royal duchies with the Crown Estates

Again why?

These are the means of providing the monarch and the heir to the throne with a private income and is the means of actually supporting their day to day lives.

Remember that they don't get any form of salary on which to live so merging these duchies would remove any independent income.

All costs of the monarchy, including all security and current Civil List payments (yes I know it's only for 2 people) to come solely from the Sovereign Support Grant (increased from merger with duchies)

Civil List hasn't existed since 2012 as it was replaced by the Sovereign Grant.

There is only the Sovereign Grant that covers the expenses of the Queen and Philip, maintenance of the royal palaces (that are millions behind at the moment), transport etc.

Adding all of the money together wouldn't cover the security costs let alone everything else.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

More likely the girls will be stripped of any privileges associated with the HRH title.

The privileges that Beatrice and Eugenie enjoys is being paid by Andrew.

I do feel thought that Charles will make some big changes, I suspect he'll feel like he won't have a long reign (which of course he won't) so he might see it as his role to make big changes to the monarchy to 'improve it' for William, George and beyond.

There are not many changes he can do with a constitutional monarchy. The cousin problem will resolve itself and he will not force anyone to retire. If he wants the monarchy to be less expensive then he must cut down on staff and that is not possible if he / the monarchy shall continue to be responsible for Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St James's Palace, Clarence House and the private part of Kensington Palace.

 

[muriel]

This would mean other means of transport and accommodation needed. The train is often used as an office on wheels and thus does double duty. It isn't a full train anyway but just a few carriages often added to a standard train when necessary.



Why? They have served the Queen all their adult lives so their thanks, from the new King is - get lost you are no longer wanted or needed. Great thanks from the new King and the British people.



What if they are already married?

Again why?

Would you also expect that Harry's children - who will also be the children of the second son were to lose their titles?



Again why?

These are the means of providing the monarch and the heir to the throne with a private income and is the means of actually supporting their day to day lives.

Remember that they don't get any form of salary on which to live so merging these duchies would remove any independent income.



Civil List hasn't existed since 2012 as it was replaced by the Sovereign Grant.

There is only the Sovereign Grant that covers the expenses of the Queen and Philip, maintenance of the royal palaces (that are millions behind at the moment), transport etc.

Adding all of the money together wouldn't cover the security costs let alone everything else.

Agree with you on all these points.

 

[tommy100]

The privileges that Beatrice and Eugenie enjoys is being paid by Andrew.



There are not many changes he can do with a constitutional monarchy. The cousin problem will resolve itself and he will not force anyone to retire. If he wants the monarchy to be less expensive then he must cut down on staff and that is not possible if he / the monarchy shall continue to be responsible for Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St James's Palace, Clarence House and the private part of Kensington Palace.

I see your point but can't agree that there aren't many changes to make. Yes the core principals and roles of the sovereign as head of state stay the same but without changing these you can change what the monarchy is about. When the Queen came to the throne she got rid of debutantes appearing at the palace for their 'coming out' and instead starting hosting garden parties for a range of people from communities all across the UK. This showed that she felt the monarchy should be for everyone not just a select few.
Charles could choose to 'update' or change the way things are run but yes, as you say, his actual role as sovereign will not change.

 

[Jacknch]

Provided we get a new Royal Yacht when Charles comes to the throne, I don't mind what changes Charles makes...

Seriously though, provided any changes are Charles' decision rather than through undue pressure or change just for change's sake, I will not mind too much about decommissioning the royal train for instance or other types of "updating".

With regard to Beatrice and Eugenie's titles, I would have preferred all the Queen's grandchildren to have been the same - either all of the titled in the same way or no titles at all. Maybe Charles can remedy the situation for future generations, whilst leaving current titles alone.

 

[Mbruno]

I see your point but can't agree that there aren't many changes to make. Yes the core principals and roles of the sovereign as head of state stay the same but without changing these you can change what the monarchy is about. When the Queen came to the throne she got rid of debutantes appearing at the palace for their 'coming out' and instead starting hosting garden parties for a range of people from communities all across the UK. This showed that she felt the monarchy should be for everyone not just a select few.
Charles could choose to 'update' or change the way things are run but yes, as you say, his actual role as sovereign will not change.

I believe certain royal events could be changed/simplified. Take for example the State Opening of Parliament. Does the monarch really need to be dressed in full regalia and wear the imperial crown ? Or would a simpler ceremony more in line e.g. with the Speech from the Throne in Canada or Prinsjesdag in the Netherlands be enough ?

Changes to the monarch's constitutional role and prerogatives are, on the other hand, more complicated because they would require specific legislation. Since 1689, it has been clear that Parliament can take away royal prerogatives. In fact, the UK Parliament did that very recently in 2011 when it passed the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act removing the Queen's power to dissolve the legislature. In the future, Parliament may decide for example to disestablish the Church of England and end the king's role as temporal head of the church. Or they may go further and institute a formal procedure for the House of Commons to elect a Prime Minister that would eliminate any involvement of the monarch in appointing the government (in line e.g. with the current constitution of Sweden). I see all the above and other similar proposals as reasonable suggestions with which Charles or William might agree to "modernize" the monarchy.

 

[tommy100]

Personally I'd like Charles to adopt rules limiting HRH to the children of the sovereign and the Prince of Wales. Personally I think that would limit the number of royals and prevent the same sort of situation we have now with Beatrice & Eugenie. I think the world has moved on from when it was okay to have lots of HRHs around.

 

[Mbruno]

Personally I'd like Charles to adopt rules limiting HRH to the children of the sovereign and the Prince of Wales. Personally I think that would limit the number of royals and prevent the same sort of situation we have now with Beatrice & Eugenie. I think the world has moved on from when it was okay to have lots of HRHs around.

As long as the "lesser" HRHs take up royal duties on behalf of the monarch, but get no (or little) money in return from the taxpayers/the State, I don't see why that would be a problem.

I would have a problem with non-working royals living off public funds. That is not the case, I guess, with Beatrice and Eugenie, or the Queen's cousins, is it ?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

With the Royal House Act 2002 the Dutch narrowed the Royal House to only those who are related to the Bearer of the Crown, not furtherer than two degrees of consanguity.

When we would apply this example to the British situation under Charles

"THE ROYAL HOUSE"

0 - HM The King
0 - HM The Queen

1 - HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (widower)
1 - HRH The Prince of Wales
1 - HRH The Princess of Wales
1 - HRH The Prince Henry (Harry)

2 - HRH Prince George
2 - HRH Prince (Princess) .... (the coming baby)
2 - HRH The Princess Royal (Anne)
2 - Vice-Admiral Sir Timothy Lawrence
2 - HRH The Duke of York (Andrew)
2 - HRH The Earl of Wessex (Edward)
2 - HRH The Countess of Wessex (Sophie)

--------------------------------------------------

"THE FURTHERER RELATIVES"

3 - Mr Peter Phillips
3 - Mrs Peter Phillips, née Kelly (Autumn)
3 - Mrs Michael Tindall née Phillips (Zara)
3 - Mr Michael Tindall
3 - Lady Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor
3 - Lady Eugenie Mountbatten-Windsor
3 - Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
3 - Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn

4 - Lord David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley
4 - Lady Serena Armstrong-Jones née Stanhope, Viscountess Linley
4 - Lady Sarah Chatto née Armstrong-Jones
4 - Mr Daniel Chatto

Etc.

Just a theoretic possibility. In 1917 a Letters Patent was issued to define titles. One hundred years later, in 2017, a new modernized Letters Patent could be issued. Just like the Dutch did.

 

[tommy100]

That would work well, keeping all those who work hard at the moment and in the future and making a clear distinction between the family and the Royal House of working royals. I don't want the Kents and Gloucester to give up working as they do a good job but I think something should be done to limit royal titles so people in their position don't end up carrying out duties in the future.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Does anyone truly believe that Charles will not want Harry's children to be HRH's? That isn't on.

There are only four HRHs in the second generation anyway and only two who can pass it on. In the next generation, if this next child is a girl, then there will only be one to pass it on - George. I can't really see Kate having a third child given the sickness she has suffered with these two and the increasing chances that by the time a third comes her role will need to be greater due to the age and clear frailty of The Queen. She was fairly unsteady on her feet at the Afghanistan Service, very slow and even needed a helping hand down the stairs. I have many friends that age who are like that and they are frail ladies - determined ones but still frail and slowing down.

I don't really see a need to change a great deal. The State Opening of Parliament is a tradition and is a great way to showcase the British monarchy. It is different to the continental monarchies and long-life the differences.

This is the only time that the Queen gets to wear her Crown each year. Other than State Banquets (two in a year) this is the only other time that the jewels etc of the British royal family are on show. It also attracts tourists and is an occasion for the use of one of the many carriages.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I believe certain royal events could be changed/simplified. Take for example the State Opening of Parliament. Does the monarch really need to be dressed in full regalia and wear the imperial crown ? Or would a simpler ceremony more in line e.g. with the Speech from the Throne in Canada or Prinsjesdag in the Netherlands be enough ?

I don't agree. That's what's great about the British monarchy. And I hope and believe that ceremonies like the State Opening of Parliament, Trooping the Color, the Garter Service and state visits will continue.

Or they may go further and institute a formal procedure for the House of Commons to elect a Prime Minister that would eliminate any involvement of the monarch in appointing the government (in line e.g. with the current constitution of Sweden).

I don't think or wants that to happen.

Personally I'd like Charles to adopt rules limiting HRH to the children of the sovereign and the Prince of Wales. Personally I think that would limit the number of royals and prevent the same sort of situation we have now with Beatrice & Eugenie. I think the world has moved on from when it was okay to have lots of HRHs around.

I agree with this.

 

[royalistbert]

I believe certain royal events could be changed/simplified. Take for example the State Opening of Parliament. Does the monarch really need to be dressed in full regalia and wear the imperial crown ? Or would a simpler ceremony more in line e.g. with the Speech from the Throne in Canada or Prinsjesdag in the Netherlands be enough ?
.

Then the State Opening won't be worth watching.

On a serious note we are losing so much tradition as it. I don't want anymore traditions lost. Part of wonders of civilizations is it's colourful events. It's shame that in the 21st Century we are reverting back to informal cavemen times.