The Monarchy under Charles

[Osipi]

My point was that, for example, Anne. Christmas at Sandringham today means spending Christmas with her mother and father and her siblings. In Charles' reign, I think she would be most likely be happier being the Grand Matriarch herself with her own kids and grandkids around her than attending her brother's celebrations at Sandringham.

Its the passage of time and how families grow and what was close and immediate then may not be next year.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Does he? We have had stories for years that he has issues with each of his siblings. Sure Andrew denied a rift this year - but was that for PR purposes or for real? We don't know.

Charles could easily have Andrew Parker-Bowles and Camilla's children and grandchildren at Sandringham rather than his siblings and assorted nieces and nephews.

That would make more sense in many ways. Why should Camilla be denied the right to see her own children and grandchildren just so Charles' brothers and sister and their children (who also have their own in-laws etc with whom they have rarely, if ever, had Christmas since joining the royal family).

Do you really think Camilla will still have to leave Sandringham on Christmas Day to see her own family when she is the Princess Consort? That would obviously also mean that everyone else had to leave other than William and Harry and their families - but William is making it clear he has no intention of spending every Christmas at Sandringham and then Harry will follow William's lead. That would probably see a situation arise whereby Charles is alone at Sandringham from around about 4.00 on Christmas Day - solution - have Camilla's family join his at Sandringham.

 

[royal rob]

Previous ..sounds like nearly all families and christmas. Which side will they go too who's upset because they have gone to other side who thinks it's time to start their own christmas tradition etc etc


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

The fact remains that any Christmas celebration (or any other holiday for that matter) is centered on the monarch as far as I've seen.

There's a reason for the "extended" family get together beforehand. All close connections gather together and then off they go to their own specific family gatherings.

Whether or not Camilla's kids, grandkids and ex husband participate at Sandringham celebrations is as it alway is. At the monarch's discretion. For all we know, Charles probably would prefer to enjoy a night with Andrew Parker-Bowles much more than he does with his brother Andrew.

25 years from now, we may see the same with George preferring to spend time with his wife's family every other year than with Grandpa Charles (ok.. relying on longevity here).

Reminds me of the first Christmas I was married to my ex. We told his family we were going to my family and told my family we were going to his. Stayed home and had pizza and played cards with friends. Go figure.

ETA: Another point to make that I just thought of that might put this thread back on the topic is what constitutes a monarch's holiday celebrations and hiatuses do not actually apply to the monarchy. Its their own private times away with whom they wish to spend it with. We may, in the future, never ever see a PM spend time at Balmoral ever again because with Charles, they hear enough from him already and will gracefully decline the invite. Who knows??

 

[Curryong]

Just one tiny query on that, as I don't have my Sandringham and the Royals book handy. I know Queen Victoria insisted on all her children, grandchildren and their spouses and families spending Christmas with her at Windsor if they possibly could, but what about later royals? Did King George V invite his siblings and their families, and the Yorks and the Lascelles and Fifes to Sandringham Christmases? Did the Queen's father when monarch have the Kents, Gloucesters and the Princess Royal and family and also cousins from his father's side (the Fifes?) to stay each Christmastime? Or is this a reasonably new tradition, confined to this reign.

 

[Osipi]

I think, looking at the reign of HM, that longevity has played a big part. Although we kind of expect that the Christmas Eve is strictly immediate family of the Queen, since she became the monarch, her family has spread and branched out quite substantially.

George VI was 56 when he died. George V was 70 and was the founder of the actual House of Windsor. He had grandchildren but if memory serves me right, no great grandkids when he was alive. George V had 6 children. George VI had 2. Some descendants (grandchildren) of George V are still alive and kicking and part of the Windsor extended family. Descendants and grandchildren of George VI make up a lot of the extended family now too.

With HM, The Queen reaching 90, her immediate family has burst into a lot of branches on the family tree extending to great grandchildren. Everyone loves Gan-Gan and she's a true matriarch of her family and its her family that surrounds her. Not by royal command or because of protocol or tradition but actually because they want to be there and do make time for her. I would bet my last jog to put in the nog that HM would be as happy to have the Tindall great grand kids and Phillip great grandkids there as much as the Cambridge great grand kids.

Its not about the monarchy nor tradition or how other members do it. Its all about family.

 

[Ish]

Just one tiny query on that, as I don't have my Sandringham and the Royals book handy. I know Queen Victoria insisted on all her children, grandchildren and their spouses and families spending Christmas with her at Windsor if they possibly could, but what about later royals? Did King George V invite his siblings and their families, and the Yorks and the Lascelles and Fifes to Sandringham Christmases? Did the Queen's father when monarch have the Kents, Gloucesters and the Princess Royal and family and also cousins from his father's side (the Fifes?) to stay each Christmastime? Or is this a reasonably new tradition, confined to this reign.

I'm not sure if you've mixed up the siblings of Georges V and VI or if I've misread your post, so I'm just going to add this to clarify who we're discussing:

George V's siblings were Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence (died in 1892), Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife, Victoria (never married), Maud, Queen of Norway, and Alexander (died at birth). His mother, Queen Alexandra, died in 1925. I don't know if Louise and her family did Christmas at Sandringham. I would assume that Victoria did - she lived with her mother up until her mother's death and is described as having been close with her brother. I would assume that as the wife of a foreign monarch, Maud did Christmas in Norway.

George VI's siblings were Edward VIII, Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, Henry, Duke of Gloucester, George, Duke of Kent, and Prince John (died in 1919). His mother, Queen Mary, outlived him. I don't know about every year, but Kyle posted a picture of the last Christmas at Sandringham under George VI (in 1951). The then Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, their children (the Queen's cousins), and Queen Mary are all present. Not pictured is the Lascelles family so I'm not sure if they weren't there, or if they were there but were excluded from the photo.

This is a guess on my part, but I'm kind of inclined to believe that having at least most of the siblings if not necessarily all of the monarch and their children at Sandringham (or Windsor for the years it was done there) is something of a BRF tradition.

 

[Ish]

George VI was 56 when he died. George V was 70 and was the founder of the actual House of Windsor. He had grandchildren but if memory serves me right, no great grandkids when he was alive. George V had 6 children. George VI had 2. Some descendants (grandchildren) of George V are still alive and kicking and part of the Windsor extended family. Descendants and grandchildren of George VI make up a lot of the extended family now too.

George V's eldest great-grandchild is Prince Charles (1948), followed by Anne (1950), then the current Earl of Harewood (1950). His youngest great-grandchild is Lady Gabriella Windsor (1981), followed by Lady Rose Gilman (1980), then Lord Frederick Windsor (1979). George V has 6 great-great-grandchildren who are older than his youngest great-grandchild.

 

[Jmsrichie01]

My point was that, for example, Anne. Christmas at Sandringham today means spending Christmas with her mother and father and her siblings. In Charles' reign, I think she would be most likely be happier being the Grand Matriarch herself with her own kids and grandkids around her than attending her brother's celebrations at Sandringham.



Its the passage of time and how families grow and what was close and immediate then may not be next year.

Hmm. Perhaps. The siblings don't all seem too close.

But even Princess Margaret attended Christmas at Sandringham Evan in old age, no? Perhaps because of the Queen Mother, but perhaps because of the monarch.

 

[Curryong]

I'm sure Margaret loved Christmases at Sandringham with her mother and sister, and the memories of when her father was alive. Of course, we have to remember Margaret was in quite bad health for the last few years of her life, so it was probably a relief to go to well-loved surroundings and not have to organise Christmas celebrations herself.

Anne of course is a little different. She's usually in excellent health, and I'm sure she can organise anything! She has a husband as well as children and grandchildren, so if she and her family is missed off the list to stay at Sandringham in the future Batcombe is an excellent alternative. All the same, I do think that most of the royals thoroughly enjoy their Christmas at Sandringham with all its traditions.

 

[Osipi]

George V's eldest great-grandchild is Prince Charles (1948), followed by Anne (1950), then the current Earl of Harewood (1950). His youngest great-grandchild is Lady Gabriella Windsor (1981), followed by Lady Rose Gilman (1980), then Lord Frederick Windsor (1979). George V has 6 great-great-grandchildren who are older than his youngest great-grandchild.

Thank you. If there's one thing I can depend on here is that there is someone that will willingly put the facts into good order and also throw some interesting facts into the mix.

@Jmsrichie01 As you've stated:

Hmm. Perhaps. The siblings don't all seem too close.

But even Princess Margaret attended Christmas at Sandringham Evan in old age, no? Perhaps because of the Queen Mother, but perhaps because of the monarch.

That's the entire point I was trying to put across. The Queen Mother was Margaret's mom and Elizabeth is her sister. We know that these three women were extremely close with each other.

Charles, in his reign, may find an evening more enjoyable spending it with Andrew Parker-Bowles than with his brother Andrew.

A private holiday at a monarch's home is most likely planned at the prerogative of the monarch. Not by protocol or succession in line to the monarchy or by genetics but what makes for the best holiday gathering.

 

[Ish]

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)

Sandringham is a fairly long standing tradition. It may have been dropped for awhile, but it's been where Christmas was celebrated by the BRF for a long time. Edward VII bought the estate, but I believe it was George V who started the tradition of Christmas there. It was during his reign in 1932 that they set up a radio studio in Sandringham so that the first Christmas message could be broadcast live from there. It was broadcast live from Sandringham almost every year after that until 1959, when the Queen began pre-recording them.

I'm not sure at what point the Queen's family began doing Christmas at Windsor, as I can't find anything specific on it before 1981. But I did spend a bit of time googling it, and it looks like from 1981 - 1987 the family attended the Christmas service at St George's Chapel, implying a Royal Christmas at Windsor, but by 1988 photos and videos show that they were back at Sandringham and St Mary Magdalene Church for Christmas.

Hmm. Perhaps. The siblings don't all seem too close.

But even Princess Margaret attended Christmas at Sandringham Evan in old age, no? Perhaps because of the Queen Mother, but perhaps because of the monarch.

I believe Princess Margaret attended Christmas with her sister's family up until her passing. It's been reported that Princess Margaret's family is fairly close with the Queen, and that Prince Charles at least is close with his cousins. There have been years since Princess Margaret's death that her children and their families have continued to do Christmas at Sandringham.

Which of his siblings Charles is close with is a bit of a toss up. It's typically implied that Anne and Charles, and their families, get along well, while Charles isn't seen as close with his brothers (although Harry is close with Andrew's family).

Again, I think what Christmas for the BRF is going to look like under Charles is likely to have more to do with the size of the extended family than any perceived closeness. Sandringham isn't a large estate and the family isn't small at this point. I believe we already see the Phillips, Tindalls, and Cambridges trading off on years at Sandringham and years not at Sandringham. I wouldn't be surprised if, as Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, and even in time Louise and James begin to get marry and have their own families that we'll really see a change in who attends Christmas at Sandringham.

 

[Ish]

Anne of course is a little different. She's usually in excellent health, and I'm sure she can organise anything! She has a husband as well as children and grandchildren, so if she and her family is missed off the list to stay at Sandringham in the future Batcombe is an excellent alternative. All the same, I do think that most of the royals thoroughly enjoy their Christmas at Sandringham with all its traditions.

As we've been discussing this and I've been thinking out the scenario I've been torn between thinking that Anne will be the first of Charles' siblings to stop doing Christmas at Sandringham, and being the last of the siblings to do so.

On the one hand, her children are adults with families of their own, and I think it would be quite easy for her and Tim to host a smaller Christmas for their children and grandchildren (or to let their children begin hosting a smaller Christmas).

On the other hand, I think Anne and Charles are probably closer than either is with Andrew or Edward, and we know that the Cambridges and Harry are fairly close with the Phillipses and and Tindalls - and Charles' grandchildren are fairly close in age to Anne's grandchildren (in my experience, it's actually easier to do big family things with many small children than it is to do it with just a couple; when there's lots, they'll all entertain themselves. With just one or two, they'll spend as much time pestering the adults as playing). I also think Anne has more appreciation for the responsibility that comes with the station of being royal than her younger siblings. As much as Christmas at Sandringham might be seen as a family vacation, it does come with it the public walk to the church, and the public attendance of the church service. I wouldn't be surprised if Anne sees this as a part of her responsibility as a royal, while Andrew and Edward see it as something their parents make them do.

 

[tommy100]

And yet, just my impression, Anne would be the least bothered about not being seen my the media on her way to church. I suspect Andrew and his girls like the attention and likewise Sophie Wessex. That's not to say that's the only reason they go but I really don't think Anne is bothered about that side of it at all and would, in that regard, be happy to sit in the privacy of Gatcombe with her family.

 

[padams2359]

I think actual holidays will be Charles, Camilla and their descendants. Trooping and BP lunch will be the current and future descendants of the current monarch under Charles, then like wise with William. Current monarch's descendants will come and go for short week or weekends at Balmoral under Charles, but long term visits will be his descendants.

 

[Ish]

And yet, just my impression, Anne would be the least bothered about not being seen my the media on her way to church. I suspect Andrew and his girls like the attention and likewise Sophie Wessex. That's not to say that's the only reason they go but I really don't think Anne is bothered about that side of it at all and would, in that regard, be happy to sit in the privacy of Gatcombe with her family.

I don't think Anne needs to be seen by the media. I do think she knows that the walk to church and being seen by the public is a part of the duty of the BRF.

I disagree that Sophie likes the attention of the media, as her and her family seem to live fairly private lives. As for the York girls... given as just about every article about them is I doubt they enjoy the media attention either (especially Eugenie, who seems to want to live a private life herself).

 

[royal-blue]

I was wondering at what age Prince Charles will feel able to reduce his own royal workload, whether King or not. At 68, he is (along with his sister) by far the busiest royal but he won't be able to keep this pace for ever.

 

[Pranter]

I would say if he continues good health as his mother has, you will see him working at a fairly full pace another 15 years.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

At least another good 15-20 years.

From what I've come to know about Charles is that, like his father and his mother, he's not inclined to think a good day is one spent in an easy chair in front of the TV set and often has things going on around him. Its been quipped that this is a man that takes a brisk walk to relax.

I would also surmise that if Charles ever did slow down and take it easy more, it wouldn't be at his own preference but most likely from a medical condition or by his doctor's orders. He's a very healthy man now for the most part as far as I know. He's not a smoker or a habitual drinker and eats healthy.

Lots of busy miles in the old boy to go.

 

[Pranter]

Well 15 would put him almost mid 90's...I figure 20 would be pushing it lol


laRae

 

[cepe]

Well 15 would put him almost mid 90's...I figure 20 would be pushing it lol


laRae

He was born in Nov 1948 - 15 yrs is 83. So 20 years is entirely possible!

 

[Pranter]

Oh I was thinking he was older than he was....20 years to 25 even! lol


LaRae

 

[Winnie]

I don't think Anne needs to be seen by the media. I do think she knows that the walk to church and being seen by the public is a part of the duty of the BRF.

I disagree that Sophie likes the attention of the media, as her and her family seem to live fairly private lives. As for the York girls... given as just about every article about them is I doubt they enjoy the media attention either (especially Eugenie, who seems to want to live a private life herself).

I truly agree with you on this. I believe that when Charles becomes king, except for official duties and ceremonies, he, his wife, his children and their children will be the tight core of public appearances. His siblings will still honor their charities and we will see them when they do. But, I believe that it is getting to the point when these charities will enjoy the "top entertainers" to support them and raise money rather than royals. The younger generation seems to enjoy the showy rather than the sedate royals who just smile and shake hands. And really, those are the age group that Charles must engage to keep his country behind him. He has done a wonderful job with his trust for the youth so he know exactly where the future must head. Just my opinion, but I do see Charles as extremely progressive and wise in limiting the royal core while engaging British sport and true entertainers to spark enthusiasm back in the younger generation all under his intelligent eye.

 

[ladongas]

This is interesting and thoughtful..

...about a post-Queen Britain.

Commentary: Can Britain’s monarchy survive without the queen? | Reuters

 

[VictoriaB]

...about a post-Queen Britain.

Commentary: Can Britain’s monarchy survive without the queen? | Reuters

The writer says it himself - he is a republican, bewrare of bias. Even the most diehard republicans know that change is not going happen while the Queen is alive.

 

[eya]

Life after Queen Elizabeth II: Why Prince Charles will never hand the crown to Prince William

Half of British public wants Prince William to succeed the Queen | Royal | News | Daily Express

EPHRAIM HARDCASTLE: Prince William upstaging his father | Daily Mail Online

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Half of British public wants Prince William to succeed the Queen | Royal | News | Daily Express

The same "British public" who would like to see sporty and popular Harry to become King, rather than his dull, sleepwalking and apparently "lazy" brother William?

 

[wyevale]

For the gazillionth time, the throne is neither elective nor a 'popularity contest' ! Barring his death Charles WILL be the next King.

 

[Mbruno]

For the gazillionth time, the throne is neither elective nor a 'popularity contest' ! Barring his death Charles WILL be the next King.

Unless he abdicates of course.

 

[Mbruno]

The same "British public" who would like to see sporty and popular Harry to become King, rather than his dull, sleepwalking and apparently "lazy" brother William?

I have never seen any poll on the topic , but I doubt Harry would be a popular choice for king.

Rather than dismissing popular opinion and stating the obvious fact that Charles is the legal heir, royal watchers here and elsewhere should reflect on why Charles, at any age, has been consistently less popular than other RF members and why he is considered by some as a possible threat to the monarchy, not only in the UK, but even more so in Commonwelath realms like Australia and Canada.