The Monarchy under Charles

[TLLK]

According to what's been conveyed to the royal reporters, Harry is not ready to take on full-time royal work, so I'm not sure being part-time is all due to William. Plus we're not taking into account Camilla's role. She only does about 250-300 engagements a year, a far cry from the other senior members. If Harry, William, Kate and Beatrice upped their workload, some would think they were overshadowing Camilla.

Good points soapstar.
I agree that the decision to be part-time royals was not one made solely by William and Harry. There are other members and factors to be taken into consideration and ultimately the preservation of the monarchy and its transition to the next reign must be considered as a top priority IMHO. The Cambridges and Harry are merely a part of the entire package.
Also I believe that the realities that would come with a slimmed down monarchy are already taking place now with QEII's grandchildren rather than with the generation that precedes them. QEII's children and cousins continue the status quo with their engagements, patronages, and ceremonial work. In the meantime, the part-time younger generation are mostly focusing their attentions to a select group of organizations that fall under their foundation's umbrella in addition to tours and their ceremonial duties: honorary regiments, investitures (William)etc..

IMHO there are two courts that are functioning side by side now. The major one is headed QEII/DoE and includes her heir, his spouse, her other children and their spouses and the cousins. The minor court is headed by Charles and is moving his children and daughter-in-law into their places for when his reign begins. Everyone still answers to the current monarch, but one group is being prepped for the next reign right now.

 

[Ish]

A lot of people here like to quote Richard Palmer

Well Palmer says the people he talks to say Charles is determined to take the family in a different direction.

Fewer engagements, fewer charities. I think under Charles, the obsession with counting royal engagements will come to an end.

This from Jan 2016


Read more: Hundreds of charities to lose royal support as Charles overhauls Queen's worthy causes | Royal | News | Daily Express

Given as it seems like every other day Richard Palmer is throwing a hissy fit on Twitter about how he was told one thing by sources only for something different to happen, I'm not sure I'm inclined to believe a thing that he predicts.

Just in the last few weeks he's been upset because royal sources assured him in January that the Queen would not be reducing her patronage when she turned 90 and that Harry went to Toronto after his Caribbean tour when KP had previously denied that he would do such a thing. He was also extra whiny when Andrew issued a denial of the various press claims regarding his daughters and his relationship with Charles.

As for Charles reducing the numbers game... Charles is the one who has more engagements annually than anyone except for (some years) his sister. I don't buy for a minute that he's going to drastically reduce his numbers or require anyone else to reduce theirs. William might do that, as he already tends to prefer to have (or appear to have) a deeper role with one or two charities as opposed to having a larger number of engagements with a larger number of charities. But Charles has already found a balance that enables him to be involved with charities that mean a lot to him, while also doing a large number of engagements.

 

[Curryong]

I just hope that in the new reign all this streamlining of engagements doesn't mean an abandonment of many valuable charities that now operate under the banner of the Princes Trust. Streamling has its pros and its cons but Prince Charles's work with these charities over forty odd years shouldn't be allowed to wither away on the vine IMHO. Perhaps they could be divided up between the Cambridges, Harry (and wife if he has one) and the King and Queen in the next reign.

 

[Osipi]

I just hope that in the new reign all this streamlining of engagements doesn't mean an abandonment of many valuable charities that now operate under the banner of the Princes Trust. Streamling has its pros and its cons but Prince Charles's work with these charities over forty odd years shouldn't be allowed to wither away on the vine IMHO. Perhaps they could be divided up between the Cambridges, Harry (and wife if he has one) and the King and Queen in the next reign.

As the Prince's Trust is so unique to Charles and has seen him pour decades of work into it, I'd not be surprised one bit if in the new reign, it simply changes from the Prince's Trust to the King's Trust.

Charles has put many people that he trusts and knows will run the Trust to do the best possible according to Charles' vision of it. There's no reason to suppose this will not continue into his reign as King. I can no more see Charles abandoning things that mean something to him than I could see him getting rid of all the pomp and circumstance and traditions that go along with a British coronation. There will be minor upgrades I bet to both but the heart of both will remain the same.

 

[Ish]

I agree - I don't see the Princes' Trust simply being inherited by William with the title, or being broken up among his children. I could see some charities being passed on to Charles' sons, daughter(s)-in-law, and grandchildren in time, but not as a huge drop.

I could see the Cambridge and Harry Foundation being split into two during Charles' reign. Charles will take on the monarch's charities and the Prince's Trust will change into the King's Trust. The Cambridges and Harry will likely take on some, but not all to Charles' charities. At this point I think the new Prince and Princess of Wales will have their own foundation, and Harry and his wife will have theirs.

 

[TLLK]

A lot of people here like to quote Richard Palmer

Well Palmer says the people he talks to say Charles is determined to take the family in a different direction.

Fewer engagements, fewer charities. I think under Charles, the obsession with counting royal engagements will come to an end.

This from Jan 2016


Read more: Hundreds of charities to lose royal support as Charles overhauls Queen's worthy causes | Royal | News | Daily Express

IMHO the transition has already started with the Queen's grandchildren and how they approach their engagements/duties. Why set them up to replicate the system that is very likely to be replaced with a new model?

In the future when Mr. O'Donovan's annual engagement tally comes to its end there might be someone else ready to take on the task or it will quietly fade into history.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There are a number of people who do a tally - myself on this board, for instance (and yes I will update soon for the rest of the year) so the count will continue. Whether anyone will write letters to The Times or The Telegraph each year who knows.

 

[cepe]

I agree - I don't see the Princes' Trust simply being inherited by William with the title, or being broken up among his children. I could see some charities being passed on to Charles' sons, daughter(s)-in-law, and grandchildren in time, but not as a huge drop.

I could see the Cambridge and Harry Foundation being split into two during Charles' reign. Charles will take on the monarch's charities and the Prince's Trust will change into the King's Trust. The Cambridges and Harry will likely take on some, but not all to Charles' charities. At this point I think the new Prince and Princess of Wales will have their own foundation, and Harry and his wife will have theirs.

I see it as coming together under one umbrella, a single Windsor Royal Trust. A key function would be bringing charities together to reduce overheads and increase income on one level; and perhaps to have a way of combining single interest groups such as veterans, animal welfare or hospice care.

I watched a video tonight which said there is over 110,000 charities in the UK. Finding a way to maximise their achievements must be worthwhile.

The key fact of the Princes Trust is that currently unlike HMQs work or the Royal Foundation is that there is access to funds to help the charities from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Duchy of Lancaster cant do that because (a) there isn't enough return on investment and (b) what there is being spent supporting royal duties being undertaken by junior royals.

The Royal Foundation depends on donations.

in the longer term, fewer royals could mean more funds for charitable causes making the BRF more active in achieving results.

 

[Skippyboo]

I don't see how Charles as King can be actively fundraising for The Prince's Trust or the Dumfries House He can't be inviting fat cats to the palace in exchange for a donation like he does now as King.

The extra funds of the Duchy of Cornwall will be in William's hands to fund what projects he wishes.

 

[cepe]

under the combined Royal Trust. Lancaster income would also be included. Makes the money go further.

Plainly the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster could make donations to Royal Windsor Trust.

It could work. All this separate work is ridiculous.

 

[MARG]

. . . . If Princess Anne was 'allowed' to do more engagements than Charles, I don't see what's stopping Harry or Beatrice.

I disagree. I don't think Anne doing less than 20 more engagements than her brother, when they've each done more than 500 engagements (looking at last year's numbers) is a hugely noticeable difference. I do think Harry becoming a full time royal and doing 200+ engagements while William is only a part time royal doing ~100 engagements is something that would be critiqued.

There is also the fact that what counts as a royal engagement is determined by the Queen, as she controls the CC. There is a lot done by Beatrice that would likely get CC recognition if done by William or Catherine, but doesn't get CC recognition.

But a way to guess at what will change is to look at how things are now...

According to what's been conveyed to the royal reporters, Harry is not ready to take on full-time royal work, so I'm not sure being part-time is all due to William. Plus we're not taking into account Camilla's role. She only does about 250-300 engagements a year, a far cry from the other senior members. If Harry, William, Kate and Beatrice upped their workload, some would think they were overshadowing Camilla.

I am definitely in the "there is a reason" brigade. Nobody cares if numerically Anne does more "engagements" than Charles because the nature of many of his engagements has changed and become more high profile. When he is doing diplomatic duties for HM it is harder for the media to ignore him without running foul of the international press who are following their diplomats, statesmen and royals.

Camilla's role is really not an issue as just about everyone knows, she has significant health issues, was an exceptionally late starter and it was made clear at the outset she saw her foremost resonsibility as support her husband. In the event, she has fulfilled many more engagements than first envisioned, many unrecorded with Charles.

As to the dynamics of Harry and, to a lesser extent Beatrice, doing more engagements than William or Catherine? That would definitely be a minefield. We can just see the nitpickers sharpening their calculating skills and launching an offensive at the Cambridge's suppposed laziness, freeloading, ad nausem, ad infinitum. The the only way to prevent this is to keep Harry's profile lower than his brother and have William, Catherine and Harry do some joint engagements to blur the edges. Unfortunately that just doesn't leave any room for Beatrice at all. That does not mean she does nothing, just the it is not "counted".

 

[Skippyboo]

The topic of this thread is the monarchy under Charles. Under Charles, William is the heir apparent to the throne and the Duke of Cornwall. Neither him or Kate will be part time royals then. It doesn't matter what they are now because this thread isn't about now. It's about the future.

 

[Ish]

The topic of this thread is the monarchy under Charles. Under Charles, William is the heir apparent to the throne and the Duke of Cornwall. Neither him or Kate will be part time royals then. It doesn't matter what they are now because this thread isn't about now. It's about the future.

This comment has been made twice now and I'm confused... given as the bulk of the conversation here has either been about how things are now and how we expect that to change, or about how things are being done now to set up the future, I'm not entirely sure where we're being off topic.

In order to speculate about the future, you have to look at what's happening now. I could go and say "I think William is going to run away to Africa and never do a single duty when his father is King, and George is going to jet around in a flying pram" but unless I have something that is happening now to support that prediction, then my prediction is really just making stuff up. While that might make me qualified to write for the Daily Mail, it wouldn't actually help this discussion in any way.

But, let it be known - you heard it here first. William's running off to Africa and George is working on getting that flying pram. Prams with wheels are just so lower class.

 

[Rudolph]

It's being pointed out because many people are commenting on the state of affairs right now as opposed to when Charles is king. Under Charles, William, Catherine and Harry will have many more responsibilities than they have now.

When Charles is king, William for example will be Duke of Cornwall. That in of itself brings with it a ton of responsibility.

Of the 'younger' royals, it's only William who has his future pretty much mapped out for him. What Beatrice will be doing is anyone's guess.

 

[Osipi]

I just see it as that things don't come into focus for the next reign under Charles in an instant when the pronouncement is made "The Queen is Dead. Long Live the King!".

Coronation plans for Charles are probably pretty much already worked out and planned. One reign is winding down and it would be quite a lapse of judgment to just say "oh well... " and not implement the gearing up of how something will be.

Its called transition. Its more than placing a crown on a new monarch's head.

 

[Skippyboo]

There was a bunch of post about William being a part time role and how it affects Kate, Harry, Bea and Eugenie. That's is what's happening now. William is going to be a full time royal under Charles. With the air ambulance contract ending in 2017, we could see it sometime next year. So all of this discussion about part time William and how it affects other royal isn't an actual problem anymore when Charles is King. He will be a full time royal. Kate will be a full time royals. The money from the Duchy of Cornwall doesn't have to support 5 working royals. So if the money was an issue now, it's not an issue under Charles.

 

[Ish]

You know, I was going to write a response but this argument isn't worth it.

 

[tommy100]

I wonder if Charles will continue the usual Christmas traditions like his mother? I can see him continuing to host a larger family gathering at BP before Christmas to allow all the family to be together but I do wonder if he would continue to invite all the same royals as the Queen does now to Sandringham? I mean it would seem a bit odd IMO for Charles to invite all his siblings and cousins but not Camilla's children and grandchildren. I suspect any change will be somewhat gradual though.

 

[Osipi]

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong here but from what I understand, when HM is "at home" whether it be at Sandringham, Balmoral or Windsor Castle, its pretty much that the people that come to stay are at her invitation. This, I believe, also applies to things like the Boxing Day shoot.

The Christmas traditional times for just family are those family members that the Queen feels she is close to. The large, extended family gathers at BP before HM leaves to spend the holidays at Sandringham. At Sandringham, its close immediate family.

I expect that Charles would very much stick to this tradition. Perhaps some of the relatives that are now invited to Sandringham will be relegated to the BP Christmas lunch. Maybe not. We don't really have any clue how Charles really feels about those closely related to him. I wouldn't be expecting Charles to invite Camilla's family from before her marriage to Charles to the intimate "family only" traditional times but they well could be invited to come and spend some time afterwards. Or, Camilla may feel the most comfortable going to Ray Mill or her children's homes for the celebrations.

This is an area where I think we'll just have to watch and see what happens.

 

[Countessmeout]

I actually think, if they feel comfortable enough to accept, camillas family coming. As you said, it is about close family event. William and Harry have been close to their step siblings long before Charles and Camilla married. It wouldn't be awkward and uncomfortable. Nor do I think his siblings would have much issue.

 

[Ish]

Hmm...

I believe the invitees to Sandringham tend to be the Queen and DoE's children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren and their spouses, as well as Princess Margaret's children and grandchildren. The big BP dinner includes the same group, but also the Gloucesters and Kents (side note - does anyone know if any of the Lascelles family ever went to this before the deaths of the Queen's cousins?).

I wouldn't be surprised if this remained somewhat the status quo for at least a bit into Charles' reign (depending on when he becomes King). I think what will more happen is that Charles' cousins and siblings will continue to be invited to Sandringham until their own families begin to grow more - until Andrew, Edward and Sophie, David and Serena Armstrong-Jones, and Sarah and Daniel Chatto become grandparents, at which point I think we'll begin to see them doing something more with their immediate families as opposed to the big shindig at Sandringham.

For Camilla's family... I'm not inclined to believe that they have been excluded by the Queen so much as a decision was made by multiple parties that they wouldn't be there at Christmas. Consider - when Camilla and Charles married in 2005, Camilla's son was 30 and her daughter 27. Both would get married to their own spouses within a year. They likely already had their own Christmas traditions with their father and significant others established by then.

I would think that Charles and Camilla already do something for Christmas with her children and grandchildren, just not on Christmas Day.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Camilla leaves Sandringham after the Queen's speech on TV to have Christmas evening with her own children and grandchildren. Charles usually leaves about the same time to have time by himself in Scotland.

The Christmas family get together at Sandringham is about 24 hours.

Andrew and the girls also leave late Christmas afternoon to go to Sarah.

Only the Wessexes stay for an extended period of time every year.

 

[Ish]

Thank you, Bertie. I was pretty sure Camilla did something with her family at some point on either Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, but couldn't remember exactly what.

 

[muriel]

Camilla leaves Sandringham after the Queen's speech on TV to have Christmas evening with her own children and grandchildren. Charles usually leaves about the same time to have time by himself in Scotland.

The Christmas family get together at Sandringham is about 24 hours.

Andrew and the girls also leave late Christmas afternoon to go to Sarah.

Only the Wessexes stay for an extended period of time every year.

I think Charles is usually around for a bit longer, usually the shoots around Boxing Day, and possibly longer, before going to Scotland, with Camilla, for New Years Eve.

I am not sure when Andrew and or his daughters leave, and if they still have Sarah tucked away at a cottage on the estate.

 

[padams2359]

It is the Queen's longevity on the throne that throws things changing off. You would have to go back to the time of George VI to see who was there, besides Queen Mary, and she could have been pacified with additional relatives, to see who was at Sandringham, then who was excluded with the new queen. If it was G6, QE, probable QM and the two princess, you can expect the extended family of Charles' siblings to be excluded, maybe not immediately, but shortly.

 

[kyle]

: Photo

The attendees of the 1951 Christmas celebration. This is the last Christmas before the death of King George IV.

Queen Mary, Gloucester and Kent families were there in addition to the immediate family.

I also found a picture of the Duchess of Kent walking to church with family in 1988.

 

[tommy100]

There are plenty of videos of the RF celebrating Christmas at Windsor before the fire, maybe Charles will go back to this with more royals in attendance before a quiet rest of the Christmas break at Sandringham or Balmoral? It does go to show though that whilst most people now think the Queen always goes to Sandringham for Christmas and that its a long standing royal tradition, in fact new traditions are started all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5r7Wxr7X2k (1981)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ERTR_hUWww (1985)

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think Charles will reduce the number of royals at Sandringham to just William and Harry, their spouses and Camilla's family.

I don't expect he will have his siblings or his cousins there at all - nor do I expect them to be on the balcony or events like that either.

I do think he intends on reducing the visible size of the royal family as that is what he believes the British people want (whether it is or not I don't know).

I suspect he may continue the 'extended family' Christmas lunch so he has his siblings and their families for a Christmas get-together but also setting up the scenario to follow with the visible family - the one that appears in public and on public occasions to be simply the direct descendants of the monarch of the day and when only an uncle or an aunt or cousin they disappear from the public view.

 

[Osipi]

For me, looking at this scenario you've presented, I can almost hear a subtle sigh of relief as the siblings of Charles realize that they can now be relieved of the "duty Christmas" at Sandringham and pursue making their own memories with their own families. Its one thing to attend when the focus is on their parents but when it comes to attending a brother's Christmas celebrations, its a different ball of wax.

Time changes things.

 

[Spheno]

Camilla's children have their own father and in-laws to celebrate Christmas.
And Charles has good relation with all his extended family.