The Monarchy under Charles

[Dman]

With Queen Elizabeth II's reign, the Royal Maundy service is held in a different church every year. Do you think this will remain the same under King Charles III?

Yes, i believe Charles and Camilla will continue conducting this service in different churches as well. First service will likely be at Westminster Abbey.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Yes, i believe Charles and Camilla will continue conducting this service in different churches as well. First service will likely be at Westminster Abbey.

Is there a symbolic reason for King Charles III to have the first Royal Maundy service at Westminster Abbey?

 

[Dman]

Is there a symbolic reason for King Charles III to have the first Royal Maundy service at Westminster Abbey?

I think it will be held there first due it's the place where the King will be crowned.

 

[Skippyboo]

For the Queen's coronation they had to shut down Westminster Abbey to build the seating out for the coronation. Depending on the date of the coronation, it could be closed.

I would think that they would just go to whatever church is on the schedule. The church for 2017 is probably already known to the people in the know. If Queen died a month before, are they going to switch it?

Apparently the Queen has requested that it isn't held in London more than once every ten years. The last time it was held at Westminster Abbey was famously right before the Royal Wedding. So it isn't likely for London until 2021.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[muriel]

I was always under the impression that Charles owned Highfrove and birkhall outright along with some property in Transylvania and other places - part of the fuss over highgrove was that is was in lieu of somewhere else in Kent (turns out it was cause it was closer to Camilla) and that he inherited birkhall from his grandmother as personal property. ?

As you have clearly demonstrated, perception based on incorrect information can be quite dangerous .

 

[Rudolph]

Nothing really new. It says the Queen has given de-facto day to day control of the Royal Family to Charles.

Prince Charles prepares to transition to be king | Express Comment | Comment | Daily Express

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Nothing really new. It says the Queen has given de-facto day to day control of the Royal Family to Charles.

Prince Charles prepares to transition to be king | Express Comment | Comment | Daily Express

Caption under the first picture: "Prince Charles, Duke of Wales" ....

 

[AdmirerUS]

Magnificent seven? Who is that source and when was the letter sent? Tragic journalism.

 

[Dman]

Charles and his family should be the main ones we see working within the firm.

 

[Skippyboo]

Technically there was only six on the balcony since the River Parade took out Philip.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

We see this focus on the core royal family in all monarchies. Cousins, nephews, uncles, nieces and aunts massed on a balcony is maybe not sending the right signal. When I see that massive deployment of the extended royal family on the balcony (after the Trooping) I sometimes think: phew... Autumn Kelly, Xan Windsor, Mike Tindall and all the likes... The UK is unique in unloading two touringcars on that balcony...

 

[Rudolph]

The Queen is still the Queen and she's ultimately in charge but I do think she consults and defers to Charles on many matters, especially long term planning for the Firm.

In fact I think William's opinion is sought out more and more. It was 'rumoured' during the Jubilee celebrations that Beatrice went not her uncle Charles but her cousin William when seeking a bigger role within the family but was politely rebuffed.

Charles has a clear idea of the direction he wants to take the family and I think the Queen is responsive to this.

 

[miss whirley]

The Queen is still the Queen and she's ultimately in charge but I do think she consults and defers to Charles on many matters, especially long term planning for the Firm.

In fact I think William's opinion is sought out more and more. It was 'rumoured' during the Jubilee celebrations that Beatrice went not her uncle Charles but her cousin William when seeking a bigger role within the family but was politely rebuffed.

Charles has a clear idea of the direction he wants to take the family and I think the Queen is responsive to this.

I would certainly hope William would be consulted on whether Beatrice should be a working royal. While Charles would support her for roughly 20 years, afterward William would be the one to support her for roughly 30-40 years. Then George would.

It's not just a decision that effects Charles and I think he is the first one to realize it.

 

[Mirabel]

The Queen is still the Queen and she's ultimately in charge but I do think she consults and defers to Charles on many matters, especially long term planning for the Firm.

I keep hearing that the Queen is turning more and more of such decisions over to Charles.
It's quite understandable for a ninety-year-old woman who must consider the future.

Most people seem to approve Charles' desire to pare down the monarchy.

Yet I can't help feeling sorry for Beatrice, because the public life seems to be the only thing in which she has a genuine interest.

 

[tommy100]

Its only natural the Queen allows Charles more and more access and say in the running of the Royal Court and the Royal Family. Without being too morbid she is in her 90's so its only fair decisions about long term actions are taken, at least in consultation, with Charles as they are going to effect his reign as much as hers.

 

[Countessmeout]

People seem happy the royal family is slimming and I honestly wonder why. Do they think it will be less expensive because honestly that is the only concern I see. People do realize the total family will cost the same if there us 50 members as it does if there us 10? The sovereigns grant which is supplied by tax payers, will not shrink as the family does. All that will happen is there will be less people for that money to support. Less work for the same amount of money. Security costs for people like Edward and Andrew are already privately funded.

There is really no need to slim down the monarchy. It will naturally anyways. Princess Alexandra, the Gloucesters and kents are close to retiring. Anne and Edwards kids are private. Edward has had a place carved out taking over for his dad. In 20 years when will is king, his aunts and uncles will be retired or close to. It will leave him, Kate, Harry and his wife. Even with less patronages, there us a huge scope of work that would be hard got four To cover. Many patri ages that have had patrons for generations.

The reality is William will need support. It is plain bad thinking to cut loose his cousins totally. They may not be needed now, but down the line they will. Unlike his dad, will only has one sibling. And his fathers cousins, unlike the queen's, are private citizens. Allowing the yorks to do some duties now, but still live relatively private lives is a great balance. So when the day comes when will is king and he needs support, he won't have to call, them out of retirement, when they may not be willing. Eugenie has a perfect balance. She works a full time job, attends some family events, and has a handful of patronages. It would not be hard for her to increase that a bit when older.


I think in the end the shift don't be to only immediate family. I think we will simply see similar to the continentals. Where younger siblings and such still have patronages and attend events but they are encouraged To Have jobs and private lives. Like they attempted with Edward and Sophie. Charlotte and any younger siblings will be encouraged to a proper education and career paths. She may be duchess x one day and support her brother and dad, but still work. The Dutch are a great example.

 

[PetticoatLane]

If this story is true, and it's a thread that's been running for quite some time now, Charles and William must stand firm and insist that the Yorks lead largely private lives.

Much as I'm sure they're nice girls who could bring something to the Firm, this is totally outweighed by the PR disaster which would befall the RF if they were to become full-time royals. It would become a monkey on Charles and then William's backs for literally decades.

Unfair as I'm sure it is, the 'narrative' around the Yorks is already set in the minds of I'd say the majority of the British public - that they're work shy and grasping to hang on to their super privileged standard of living.

 

[cepe]

People seem happy the royal family is slimming and I honestly wonder why. Do they think it will be less expensive because honestly that is the only concern I see. People do realize the total family will cost the same if there us 50 members as it does if there us 10? The sovereigns grant which is supplied by tax payers, will not shrink as the family does. All that will happen is there will be less people for that money to support. Less work for the same amount of money. Security costs for people like Edward and Andrew are already privately funded.

There is really no need to slim down the monarchy. It will naturally anyways. Princess Alexandra, the Gloucesters and kents are close to retiring. Anne and Edwards kids are private. Edward has had a place carved out taking over for his dad. In 20 years when will is king, his aunts and uncles will be retired or close to. It will leave him, Kate, Harry and his wife. Even with less patronages, there us a huge scope of work that would be hard got four To cover. Many patri ages that have had patrons for generations.

The reality is William will need support. It is plain bad thinking to cut loose his cousins totally. They may not be needed now, but down the line they will. Unlike his dad, will only has one sibling. And his fathers cousins, unlike the queen's, are private citizens. Allowing the yorks to do some duties now, but still live relatively private lives is a great balance. So when the day comes when will is king and he needs support, he won't have to call, them out of retirement, when they may not be willing. Eugenie has a perfect balance. She works a full time job, attends some family events, and has a handful of patronages. It would not be hard for her to increase hat a bit when older.


I think in the end the shift don't be to only immediate family. I think we will simply see similar yo the continentals. Where younger siblings and such still have patronages and attend events but they are encouraged To Have jobs and private lives. Like they attempted with Edward and Sophie. Charlotte and any younger siblings will be encouraged to a proper education and career paths. She may be duchess x one day and support her brother and dad, but still work. The Dutch are a great example.

Re security costs - Edward and Andrew (as with all working royals) have state-funded RPOs. Not privately funded at all.

Beatrice and Eugenie used to have RPOs but these were withdrawn - £500,000 being quoted as the annual cost for both (not each). Andrew now pays for their security.

 

[tommy100]

The problem is they way the Yorks are perceived as being 'pushy'. No one would or indeed has complained about the girls doing a few odd visits to charities etc, (indeed Zara and Lady Sarah Chatto support various charities as well as working) the problem is they (or Andrew) want to create a full time royal role for themselves. Rightly or wrongly that seems at odds with what Charles wants under his reign and indeed, is at odds with William and Harry at present.

It would be interesting to know if this letter had anything to do with Eugenie now getting a new home at KP as that was, apparently, one of the things Andrew wanted. Maybe thats how they resolved it, no royal role but have the apartment at KP.

 

[PetticoatLane]

I think the only way the Queen has more or less got away with having so many relatives 'on the payroll' as it were, is that the Kents and Gloucesters are so low key now that the vast majority of people wouldn't recognise them if they passed them in the street.

Much as they probably deserve more media coverage for the work they do, not getting that coverage actually works in their favour. They have the privilege of living in palaces, access to all sorts of benefits that go with being TRH, security and an income provided by HM but still able to live largely private lives. None of them do masses of events, but they've got a pretty good deal.

 

[Mirabel]

People seem happy the royal family is slimming and I honestly wonder why. Do they think it will be less expensive because honestly that is the only concern I see. .

I honestly don't think it would be a problem, if certain family members were not so unpopular.

For example, take Princess Alexandra- I don't recall anyone ever complaining about her doing royal duties, since she was very popular.

But the York girls are not (I put that down mostly to their parents, who have a lot to answer for).

I'm convinced that's the reason why Charles won't accept them, and also why they may not marry well (by RF standards).

 

[miss whirley]

I honestly don't think it would be a problem, if certain family members were not so unpopular.

For example, take Princess Alexandra- I don't recall anyone ever complaining about her doing royal duties, since she was very popular.

But the York girls are not (I put that down mostly to their parents, who have a lot to answer for).

I'm convinced that's the reason why Charles won't accept them, and also why they may not marry well (by RF standards).

I honestly don't think that's the issue. If it were, Beatrice and Eugenie would just be replaced by Louise and James to carry on the peripheral royal work that the Kents and Gloucesters are doing now. But I see no evidence that in 10-15 years Louise and James will be groomed for duty, quite the opposite.

There are too many working royals. Even The Queen wasn't expecting this many. Prince Andrew wasn't expected to cut his Navy career short. Edward and Sophie were expected to be private citizens with their own career passions, but they had to be absorbed into the royal machine because they were having financial difficulties and pr mishaps. If I were to guess, I'd say in 10-15 years the surprise add-ons (Andrew,Edward,Sophie) are the ones who will be replacing the Kents and Gloucesters. With William, Catherine, Harry, and Mrs. Harry taking on the main stage royal work.

 

[Osipi]

I don't really see Beatrice and Eugenie as people that need to be a part of the actual working "Firm" to do what they do. I don't believe that they're doing these charities and patronages and gala events to make the "Firm" sit up and take notice of them nor are they going to drop anything that they're already doing should the decision drop "definitely not in any shape or form working for the "Firm". Neither of these girls, I believe, have ulterior motives.

I don't believe that it matter to either of them if they work for the family or not. They do what they do because its what they want to do. They are princesses of the royal blood but its not something that has gone to their heads as far as I can see.

 

[Andy T]

These things go in cycles. In the 30s, apart from the George V & Queen Mary, there were 4 adult Princes, three with spouses, and the Princess Royal, plus an outer ring of cousins.

Following the death of King George VI, the core of the firm was composed of The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, with the Gloucesters and Princess Marina, dowager Duchess of Kent in the outer circle.

Fast forward to the 70s and Charles & Anne have joined the inner core, with Margaret having a lower profile than before but still more prominent than the Gloucesters and the Kents.

The adulthood of all four of the Queen's children and their subsequent marriages made the stage much more crowded once again. It was at this point that the cost of it all became a major issue, and that despite the fact that Margaret was increasingly sidelined due to health issues and the Queen Mother became less active due to her advanced age. Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah, nephew and niece to the Queen, were never full-time firm members, though.

It is likely that William & Kate, and Harry are not yet done as far as producing the next generation of Princes & Princesses is concerned. It seems likely that in 10-15 years, there will be Charles & Camilla, William & Kate and Harry + at the core of the firm, with Andrew, Edward & Sophie and Anne doing what the Gloucesters and Kents have done up to now. Therefore, much in the way that the Armstrong-Jones children never had more than walk-on parts, it seems probable that Beatrice & Eugenie will be superfluous to the firm's needs.

 

[Queen Claude]

I agree with the notion that "staffing decisions" should be made by Charles and William also having input because they are the ones who will have to deal with current decisions in the long term. However I just don't agree with the decisions being made, Countessmeout's post summarized much of my feelings about the matter.

I get the idea of not having a bloated monarchy but that is not happening, the declining birth rate amongst the royals, along with heirs and spares being allowed to pursue other interests like being air ambulance pilots and spending months in Africa on conservation projects, pretty much fixed that.

What I see as the right way to go about it is to have a performance based system where if a grandchild, niece or cousin of a monarch wishes to work in The Firm then the Chief Executive should not be opposed to it on the basis of that royal not being close enough to the crown. Now I do believe in starting small and setting limits like not making the person a full-time royal with a full-time staff right off the bat. Yeah maybe the time will come where there will be more people of a given generation wanting to be working royals that there is a need to say no but I don't think that is the current situation.

 

[sm1939]

I think it would be bad move to have the girls doing full time duties, They should get on with doing there own thing, and show up for weddings and big events.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

I honestly don't think that's the issue. If it were, Beatrice and Eugenie would just be replaced by Louise and James to carry on the peripheral royal work that the Kents and Gloucesters are doing now. But I see no evidence that in 10-15 years Louise and James will be groomed for duty, quite the opposite.

I do. If Harry does not get engaged or married in 5 years, which is unlikely but possible, I see whoever is monarch at the time starting to prep Louise to become the next Princess Alexandra but that's a different topic.

 

[Osipi]

I do. If Harry does not get engaged or married in 5 years, which is unlikely but possible, I see whoever is monarch at the time starting to prep Louise to become the next Princess Alexandra.

That is if Louise is agreeable to it.

 

[cepe]

And it all costs lots of money in transport, staff and security. And HMQ has been paying for some of the royals from her own personal income.

This does not include the cost of security. This a direct taxcost.

Please, point me to the money tree.

 

[MARG]

This entire conversation is rooted in a "rumour".

The Queen is still the Queen and she's ultimately in charge but I do think she consults and defers to Charles on many matters, especially long term planning for the Firm.

In fact I think William's opinion is sought out more and more. It was 'rumoured' during the Jubilee celebrations that Beatrice went not her uncle Charles but her cousin William when seeking a bigger role within the family but was politely rebuffed.

Charles has a clear idea of the direction he wants to take the family and I think the Queen is responsive to this.

We don't know if Beatrice approached anyone let alone William, yet here you all are discussing why Beatrice and Eugenie are "unworthy" anyway.

Why are people so ready to believe the rags when the stories are about the Yorks and cry foul and rubbish when it is about the Charles and Camilla, the Cambridges or Harry? Worse, when articles like these are published it starts a "get rid of the Yorks" campaign here.

When it comes to sins and sinners, Harry eclipses his cousins and is allowed the courtesy of growing up with a little wiggle room for the odd "lapse", yet Beatrice and Eugenie are blatantly dismissed for no other reason than being their parents children.