The Monarchy under Charles

[miss whirley]

Yeah, I've never known Palmer to have a scoop, he always reports things after the fact. He even gets out-scooped by the fiction-peddling Daily Fail. Embarrassing.

Like Royal Norway said, there's no way Charles would push his siblings into retirement. Even if we remove sentiment and sibling loyalty, it makes no sense. They would continue to live in very expensive housing, without doing royal duties. What a PR mess that would be for the BRF. Might as well let them continue. They cost the government much less in security than the Wales branch, to boot.

I don't think it was the intention to ever cut off the established working royals. They get grandfathered in. The intent is not to add more. Keep out Beatrice and Eugenie. Then let attrition take over.

 

[Dman]

The idea is to have a small working firm. The Kent's, Gloucester's, and Wessex's have served well, but there will be changes under the new Monarch.

Now, I don't know if Charles will totally cut them off, but the focus will be on Charles's family. The minor royals can continue supporting their charities and patronages. Edward and Sophie, now and into the future, have The DoE Awards to handle.

The Cambridge's and Prince Harry goal is to focus on charities and other organizations that they can be hands on with. I don't think they will be extending their patronages to the hundreds. Supporting tons of charities sounds impressive and grand, but I think those days are over.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

If Charles was going to cut them off, then he must be a very cold person, and he's not.

 

[Osipi]

The idea is to have a small working firm. The Kent's, Gloucester's, and Wessex's have served well, but there will be changes under the new Monarch.

Now, I don't know if Charles will totally cut them off, but the focus will be on Charles's family. The minor royals can continue supporting their charities and patronages. Edward and Sophie, now and into the future, have The DoE Awards to handle.

The Cambridge's and Prince Harry goal is to focus on charities and other organizations that they can be hands on with. I don't think they will be extending their patronages to the hundreds. Supporting tons of charities sounds impressive and grand, but I think those days are over.

I don't think Charles would ever kick anyone to the curb either but with the new monarch, comes a new monarchy and I think we'll see that reflected mostly in the way the BRF takes on causes. It won't be the opening of St. Joe's Home for Wayward Skunks or Miss Dalton's Fine School of Basket Weaving but will be centered more so on issues such as mental health which can encompass many different organizations.

This is generally the way the Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry is organized now with some of their causes extending even to an international scope as we've seen with the Invictus Games which easily could fall under a couple of the issues that this foundation supports. The more people you get working together on any cause or issue, the more the message gets out there and social media will make it so much easier to reach more people faster. Its the way things work now.

We can't expect the monarchy to operate as it did 30 years ago and without changes, the Firm risks being outmoded, stagnant and irrelevant to the people.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I agree there will be changes. I think Charles's siblings live in property which they own or are on very long leases, so the housing won't be an issue. I do think that Charles's emphasis will be on a small royal family as is the way with the Continental and Scandi royalty.

Charities and causes will be, I believe, squirrelled away more and more into Foundations headed by senior royals, and numbered in the dozens for each, not the hundreds.

There would be nothing at all stopping Anne or the others carrying on with their favourite charities, and I expect they will, but I do think the days of make-do work is finished for the BRF once Charles becomes King.

 

[miss whirley]

I remember a fairly recent interview with Anne where she talked about how she planned to have the same workload as her parents when she was their age, "that it was in the blood".

Anne doesn't think she's being sent out to pasture during her brother's reign. And she would have a much better idea of Charles' plans than anyone on the royal forums.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If we look beyond Charles immediate accession it seems clear that in time the intention is for the royal family to focus on the monarch and spouse, heir and spouse and children of the heir. Siblings will become less important so that when they are downgraded from sibling to uncle/aunt they will be retiring and even possibly their spouse will have to have their own job and not do royal duties at all.

That is what I think the British public are really wanting - not all the hangers-on but a few really identifiable royals in direct succession.

 

[Osipi]

First and foremost, the Queen reigns. She does not rule.

Over the decades since Charles left the Royal Navy, he's carved out his own role as the Prince of Wales. He started the Prince's Trust with his pension from the Navy and being a man who takes walks to relax, got himself involved in many, many different things besides waiting for the "top job". With his involvement in different things and taking an active hands on part in them, he was in the position to know what works and what doesn't work. He would then write his "black spider" letters. He was not political but concerned. To be honest, I truly believe that Charles' legacy lies more in his decades as the PoW and what he's accomplished. As King, it remains to be seen what his reign will entail or the length of it. My crystal ball is broken.

Charles did something that I've only seen once and nearly fell off my chair. When the black spider letters were deemed to be published, I would say that 98% of the feedback at the Daily Mail was very supportive of Charles. I had never seen this before on the DM and probably never will again.

Duch, you do know that you do not have to degrade, denigrate, berate or malign other members of the BRF to make Diana look good right? When that happens, it shows the difference between admiration and respect for a person and obsession.

 

[Lady Nimue]

[One does] not have to degrade, denigrate, berate or malign other members of the BRF to make Diana look good right? When that happens, it shows the difference between admiration and respect for a person and obsession.

Good point.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles did something that I've only seen once and nearly fell off my chair. When the black spider letters were deemed to be published, I would say that 98% of the feedback at the Daily Mail was very supportive of Charles. I had never seen this before on the DM and probably never will again.

That was a fun day wasn't it. To see all the predictions about the coming fall of Charles only to see the overwhelming agreement with his letters in the DM and elsewhere as it was shown what a wonderful caring man the UK's next monarch is - a man who truly cares about his people and the issues that affect them.

 

[Curryong]

There's always the chance isn't there of the pendulum swinging too far the other way. So that Charles the reasonable, the wise, was always ready to accommodate his wife's wishes, never cruel, never sarcastic, driven to the kindly and understanding Camilla by an unstable, immature and unintelligent wife. I'd say one lot of myth making about their relationship and marriage is as bad as the other.

As for denigration, I'd say that Charles's supporters have done a fair job of that on most Diana threads on this forum. Diana's been called manipulative, stupid, inherently unfaithful, a potential destroyer of the monarchy, a publicity seeker who wasn't really devoted to her charities and causes as she made out, and really, she didn't do much anyway to help AIDS, land mines or anything else did she?

I'm not sure that the general public have swallowed the line of much maligned Charles and erratic, mentally unstable Diana manipulating the press, making him miserable and driving him to adultery.

If they did, then Camilla would have been Princess of Wales these past ten years, her popularity (and his) would be sky high and there would be no questions about Camilla becoming Queen. We know their popularity isn't so great and this is at least partly because of Camilla's role in Charles's first marriage.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think that Camilla is pretty well-liked but that -when asked directly- it is "more socially desirable" to downplay this. At all cost the media will keep the framework intact. It remains Randy Andy, it remains Princess Pushy, it remains Rottweiler Camilla, it possibly remains Duchess Do-Little.

Note also that the technique of the question is almost telling the outcome. When the question is leaving only one option: "Who do you like the most in the royal family?" When then one answers: "Euh... Prince Harry" does that automatically mean that all other members are disliked? No. But tell that The Sun, The Mirror and especially The Daily Mail... pfffff

 

[Mbruno]

I always love how people think Charles' reign will be short. Sure it won't be as long as his mother's but ... if her lives to the exact same age as his mother he will reign for over 20 years - hardly a short reign.

Given the longevity of his ancestors (sure both his grandfathers died young but neither of them took care of their health and they didn't have the health care we have today) he will have a decent length of reign.

I don't see William reigning for another 30 or so years.

In fact I think Britain is in for a series of 60+ kings at accession unless one decides to abdicate, or a tragedy strikes, or the country becomes a republic.

Twenty years, even if it comes to this, is a "short reign" by contemporary standards. Queen Margrethe II and King Carl Gustaf have been on the throne for over 40 years now and Queen Beatrix, when she abdicated, had reigned for 30 years or so.

 

[Curryong]

I think that Camilla is pretty well-liked but that -when asked directly- it is "more socially desirable" to downplay this. At all cost the media will keep the framework intact. It remains Randy Andy, it remains Princess Pushy, it remains Rottweiler Camilla, it possibly remains Duchess Do-Little.

Note also that the technique of the question is almost telling the outcome. When the question is leaving only one option: "Who do you like the most in the royal family?" When then one answers: "Euh... Prince Harry" does that automatically mean that all other members are disliked? No. But tell that The Sun, The Mirror and especially The Daily Mail... pfffff

YouGov, who conducts many of these polls is a well respected organisation, however. And if we accept, as so many do, that the Queen, Harry and the Cambridges lead the Royal pack as favourites, then surely those among senior royals who come towards the bottom in poll after poll do not appear to be as accepted by the public.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In no any engagement, public outing, Trooping, State Visit, State Opening of Parliament, Jubilee, Wedding, whatever may be, there has been visible resentment or negativeness towards the Duchess of Cornwall. Her assets seem her down-to-earth approach, her easy-accessibility for everyone, her generous laughter and her witz. Camilla has come from far and it is admirable how she has found her characteristic own role inside the royal family.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Twenty years, even if it comes to this, is a "short reign" by contemporary standards. Queen Margrthe II and King Carl Gustaf have been in the throne for over 40 years now and Queen Beatrix, when she abdicated, had reigned for 30 years or so.

Given the longevity of these monarchs there is a very good chance that their heirs will all have short reigns by your definition unless the present monarch decides to abdicate - something that doesn't happen in the UK of course as they see it as a job for life (as does the Danish monarch - whose heir is already in his 40s).

The average length of reign since the Conquest in the UK for English/British monarchs is 23 years.

Very few monarchs have actually reached the 25 year reign mark with some going to 50 or 60 years upping the average. Take out the four the past 50 and the average reign drops to only 19 years. The 20th century had reigns of 9, 25, 1, 16 and 64. Most centuries have four or five monarchs. The way the 21st is shaping it is possible it will have four only and all quite old throughout the century. I don't see Charles being much under 80 when he succeeds but I also don't see William coming to the throne until he is in his 60s or even 70s as well. George could easily be in his 80s - given the health systems we have now.

 

[miss whirley]

We were talking about Camilla's close friend Jilly Cooper on another thread and it reminded me of a quote Jilly gave about the future court of King Charles and Queen/Princess Camilla-

"They have got masses of friends. They give the most lovely parties and are brilliant hosts. It could be the most glittering court," said Jilly Cooper

 

[royal rob]

We were talking about Camilla's close friend Jilly Cooper on another thread and it reminded me of a quote Jilly gave about the future court of King Charles and Queen/Princess Camilla-



"They have got masses of friends. They give the most lovely parties and are brilliant hosts. It could be the most glittering court," said Jilly Cooper

I think their party days will be behind them if and when they become take over


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[miss whirley]

I think their party days will be behind them if and when they become take over


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I don't know. I think Charles is a bit fancier than HM. It reminds me of a story published by The London Times -

An indication of the future king’s style surfaced at the general assembly of the Church of Scotland in 2000. Charles was standing in for the Queen as lord high commissioner, effectively acting as monarch. On such occasions the Queen customarily gives dinner parties for between six and 12 people. Not Charles.

He hired jugglers and fire eaters to greet guests as they arrived for a dinner and invited up to 200 people at a time. "It was entertainment on a lavish scale and quite beyond anything we had ever seen," said one former moderator of the Church of Scotland. -[London] Times Online ^ | February 13, 2005 | Nicholas Hellen, Christopher Morgan and Richard Woods

 

[JessRulz]

Alright, considering we've all said our piece - once again an ad nauseam rehashing of two decades old scandal - let us get back to the topic at hand, the Monarchy under Charles.

Further posts on the matter of Charles, Diana, who is more saintly, adultery, etc will be removed by the moderators.

 

[Lady Nimue]

We were talking about Camilla's close friend Jilly Cooper on another thread and it reminded me of a quote Jilly gave about the future court of King Charles and Queen/Princess Camilla-

"They have got masses of friends. They give the most lovely parties and are brilliant hosts. It could be the most glittering court," said Jilly Cooper

I don't know. I think Charles is a bit fancier than HM. It reminds me of a story published by The London Times -

An indication of the future king’s style surfaced at the general assembly of the Church of Scotland in 2000. Charles was standing in for the Queen as lord high commissioner, effectively acting as monarch. On such occasions the Queen customarily gives dinner parties for between six and 12 people. Not Charles.

He hired jugglers and fire eaters to greet guests as they arrived for a dinner and invited up to 200 people at a time. "It was entertainment on a lavish scale and quite beyond anything we had ever seen," said one former moderator of the Church of Scotland. -[London] Times Online ^ | February 13, 2005 | Nicholas Hellen, Christopher Morgan and Richard Woods

Sounds like great fun! Charles will be fun. He's cosmopolitan. He will be missed.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Titles for Minor Royals under Charles

IMO I think Charles should take a page from the Dutch. To streamline the Royal Family, which seems like will inevitably happen sadly, he should write a new LP stating that that those that have a more distant relationship with the monarch than first cousin should be automatically removed or excluded from being members of the Royal Family and those that are second cousins from the line of succession . Or he could just make the monarch and their spouse, the heir and his spouse, the spare and his spouse and any of their children, members of the Royal Family while the others are of the Royal House/King or Queen's Family. Also taking another page from the Dutch instead of Lord/Lady Windsor for those not in the main line I say you take the name of the house and make all the younger sons siblings HH Prince/Princess of Windsor. Yes there could be a problem with this, what about the titles. Well than you put that certain designation into the title like HH Princess Alicia of Windsor-HH Princess Alicia of Sussex. I know it has a lot of holes and things that wouldn't necessarily help but it is an alternative of making members of the R.F. seem like nobility.

 

[Curryong]

That's a very Continental way of formalising matters though. I think time and attrition will take care of most of this.

I don't believe, for example, that Princess Alexandra's children and grandchildren, or the Duke of Kent's, or Duke of Gloucester's, are regarded by the British public or the media, as members of the Royal family. In a generation or two all the Queen's cousins and their descendants will be just members of the nobility or without titles depending on their personal circumstances. If old titles like Kent and Gloucester drift away from the Crown because of it, well, that is very unfortunate, but the inevitable result of George V having a lot of sons.

After all, who regards the Harewood family as royalty today, even though Princess Mary was the daughter of King George V and Gerald and George Lascelles were first cousins to the Queen? Time marches on and with it will come the inevitable loosening of ties with the BRF of Andrew, Edward and Anne's grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It doesn't need to be formalised in any way, IMO.

 

[padams2359]

I agree. Why formalize something that has happened many times in the past? It works itself out. Where are the non-succession line descendants of Queen Victory, there has to be hundreds by now, or Edward VII and George V? With George VI only having two children, and Princess Margaret only have two children herself, it will trim down substantially on its own, then trim down again when it comes to Anne, Andrew and Edward's grandchildren.

 

[Nice Nofret]

...and those that are second cousins from the line of succession ....

The succession is regulated by law and has nothing to do with letters patent.

 

[Dman]

George Hollingberry warns Queen's death could park anarchy | Royal | News | Daily Express

 

[Osipi]

Where's that bird when I need it? Ahhhh! Here he is!

This is really a non-story. As far as Charles being an "interventionist", I think we've seen recently with the hue and cry for the release of Charles' spider letters to the public domain that Charles is quite far away from intervening in political matters but has voiced his opinions and made suggestions as to what he sees would be best in matters relating to issues he feels strongly about.

It is true that HM, The Queen will be a tough act to follow and its very possible that in this day and age, both Australia and New Zealand may decide it time to stand on their own two feet independent from the British monarchy but I think that's been a possibility for quite some time now and actually has no direct bearing on Charles being King.

As I see it, when Charles does ascend the throne, there really is nothing that will point to a constitutional crisis at all. In fact, I'd wager that Charles will pretty much stick to following in his mother's footsteps. He's spent decades already doing it and knows very well what is expected of him as King. He may be a bit more vocal than his mother but knows very well to stay away from anything that would be deemed as meddling in politics. He'll have his weekly meetings with the current Prime Ministers of the day to do that.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

George Hollingberry warns Queen's death could park anarchy | Royal | News | Daily Express

George Hollingberry, a Government whip, paid tribute to the 90-year-old monarch but said her death would be a dangerous time for the monarchy, as her eldest son's interventionist style might not be palatable.

If Charles chooses an interventionist style as king, then he must be stupid, and he's not.

"Royal commentators and constitutional experts believe she will die with the monarchy safe here in the UK and Commonwealth, but I would like to add a note of caution to that assessment because I fear they have yet to fully address what will happen on her death, which I hope is many years away."

That's because they are right, and as I and others have said many times: if the public support for the monarchy weakens, then it will still take years to abolish it in the UK, and it will be very difficult. And William and Kate are likely to become very popular when they starts doing royal duties full-time.

And when it comes to the other realms: That hasn't somthing to do with the monarchy. It's has to do with that they don't want a foreigner as head of state.

 

[TLLK]

That's a very Continental way of formalising matters though. I think time and attrition will take care of most of this.

I don't believe, for example, that Princess Alexandra's children and grandchildren, or the Duke of Kent's, or Duke of Gloucester's, are regarded by the British public or the media, as members of the Royal family. In a generation or two all the Queen's cousins and their descendants will be just members of the nobility or without titles depending on their personal circumstances. If old titles like Kent and Gloucester drift away from the Crown because of it, well, that is very unfortunate, but the inevitable result of George V having a lot of sons.

After all, who regards the Harewood family as royalty today, even though Princess Mary was the daughter of King George V and Gerald and George Lascelles were first cousins to the Queen? Time marches on and with it will come the inevitable loosening of ties with the BRF of Andrew, Edward and Anne's grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It doesn't need to be formalised in any way, IMO.

I agree that the children of QEII's cousins are not considered to be members of the royal family, though complaints from some quarters seem to start up ever June at the annual balcony appearance!

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Do you think Charles will do away with the sightseeing tours of Buckingham Palace?