Duke of Cambridge: What Now for William? Future Duties, Roles, Responsibilities

[Ish]

I just don't understand the idea of someone becoming ill for the Cambridge's to move into full-time royal duties. It shouldn't take that to get them to do so, IMO. The decision should be based on The Queen & Duke of Edinburgh's age, timing for them to step up and that they have the full staff to support them in their roles.

I'm thinking William's Air Ambulance job will have to be flexible for him and Catherine to fulfill their royal duties.

It could be a money thing. If they've decided that they only have the funding to do (say) 2,000 engagements a year, then in order for William to do more than what he's previously done someone else has to do less. If the Firm is concerned that one of the older royals is going to be cutting back drastically due to their health - and in 2013, it really did look like the DoK or Princess Alexandra might retire (in my opinion, the DoE isn't likely to ever retire) because of their health, then it would have freed up a number of engagements - if they collectively do say 200 engagements in a year, then without them there's an extra 200 engagements that someone could do. The idea in 2013 could have been that William would do a "transitional" year with things a bit open so that if the DoK and Princess Alexandra decided they didn't/couldn't continue doing their engagements then William could take over that funding and do an extra 200 engagements a year.

 

[Dman]

It could be a money thing. If they've decided that they only have the funding to do (say) 2,000 engagements a year, then in order for William to do more than what he's previously done someone else has to do less. If the Firm is concerned that one of the older royals is going to be cutting back drastically due to their health - and in 2013, it really did look like the DoK or Princess Alexandra might retire (in my opinion, the DoE isn't likely to ever retire) because of their health, then it would have freed up a number of engagements - if they collectively do say 200 engagements in a year, then without them there's an extra 200 engagements that someone could do. The idea in 2013 could have been that William would do a "transitional" year with things a bit open so that if the DoK and Princess Alexandra decided they didn't/couldn't continue doing their engagements then William could take over that funding and do an extra 200 engagements a year.

I'm just saying that it shouldn't take someone to become ill for him and Catherine to step up their duties. Even with the Air Ambulance job for the next two or three years, he and Catherine will have to get the balance right on fulfilling their royal duties. They can't disappear weeks and months at a time like before. That presented problems and William admitted to that.

 

[Ish]

I'm just saying that it shouldn't take someone to become ill for him and Catherine to step up their duties. Even with the Air Ambulance job for the next two or three years, he and Catherine will have to get the balance right on fulfilling their royal duties. They can't disappear weeks and months at a time like before. That presented problems and William admitted to that.

Except if they don't have the money to fund William and Catherine doing more engagements - which has been said by Charles' office - then they can't exactly do more right now. The money has to come from somewhere - either they need more money (which isn't likely to happen), or else the money needs to be redistributed - someone else needs to stop doing engagements in order for them to be able to fund William and Kate doing more.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see them do more. I don't think they're helping their images with the way things have been handled. Even if they simply change things around so that they're doing the same number of engagements, but better spread out throughout the year - doing say 1 or 2 engagements each a week (which would only add up to 52 - 104 engagements annually) wouldn't change their numbers, but would establish an image of them regularly working.

 

[Lady Nimue]

IMVHO-The senior royals were also concerned about the health of 3 members: DoE, DoK and Princess Alexandra during 2013. Should something had happened to them to remove them from the full time list, I do believe that William and Catherine would have been requested by HM/PoW to move onto the full time list. By Sept. of 2013, the DoE was still recovering from his medical concerns in the summer of 2013 and the Queen and PoW might have been asking William to be "flexible" just in case.

Exactly so. I see it the same way. The 'transition year' was the BRF hedging it's bets (perhaps). Or just some good old-fashioned dithering.

^^^ My thoughts exactly miche and when the Queen and DoE do start to slow down their duties will be picked up by Charles and Camilla not W&K.

Yes, and then William and Kate will step into Charles' and Camilla's role.

I think that possibly HM doesn't want a possible repeat of the 80s. The monarchy was extremely popular in those years due to Diana and, to a lesser extent, Sarah. However, when that popularity ended, it was a terrible crisis for the whole House of Windsor. Popularity now isn't necessarily what's best for the long run.

Hearty agreement!

 

[Queen Camilla]

It could be a money thing. If they've decided that they only have the funding to do (say) 2,000 engagements a year, then in order for William to do more than what he's previously done someone else has to do less. .... The idea in 2013 could have been that William would do a "transitional" year with things a bit open so that if the DoK and Princess Alexandra decided they didn't/couldn't continue doing their engagements then William could take over that funding and do an extra 200 engagements a year.

The theory fails because Sophie & Edward have dramatically increased the number of royal engagements this year even though Prince Philip and Princess Alexandra are back.

 

[Dman]

I really like the fact that Edward & Sophie decided to fully commit themselves to royal duties during the Queen's Golden Jubilee year. Although, I think the main focus should be on the younger and closer to the throne royals, the amount of work the Wessex's do is amazing.

 

[muriel]

I really like the fact that Edward & Sophie decided to fully commit themselves to royal duties during the Queen's Golden Jubilee year.

Lets not forget the Wessex's hands were forced. Edward's companies had more or less failed commercially, and Sophie had been busted by the Fake Sheikh. Also, this was the period around the time of the deaths of QEQM and Princess Margaret, and after the death of Diana. There were relatively few royal women, allowing Sophie to morph into, what was described in the Press as the 2nd senior most royal lady in the land.

 

[Skippyboo]

Plus Camilla wasn't married to Charles yet and was in the slowly coming out in public phase in 2012.

William can do investitures to help the Queen out. But if she becomes seriously incapacitated, a regent would be need and the Prince of Wales would have to be the regent. William could fill in for the stuff that Charles does such as the foreign tours. If we are in a regency, then most likely William & Kate's part time role is over and it's full time for the rest of their lives.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[miche]

And don't forget that Edward company was caught breaking the media agreement by stalking William at University
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1566416.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...en-and-agrees-to-stop-making-royal-films.html

 

[Rudolph]

The Queen funds Sophie and Edward, Anne and Andrew. Charles funds Camilla William, Kate and Harry. They're separate

The Queen has much more money at her disposal even though Charles is responsible for five senior royals plus he operates what is essentially an equal court to BP. As of 2013 Charles alone employs 161 staff. It starts to add up fairly quickly.

This is the reason his Personal Private Secretary William Nye stated Charles will have to look carefully at how much longer he could continue to fund his children if the balance of work changes.

 

[cepe]

Queen also funds the Glos., DoK and Princess Alexandra. All the funding from theQueen is for work related expenses.

 

[Rudolph]

You're absolutely right. I didn't mean to overlook them its just many people say if Sophie and Edward cut back then the money can be used for W&K. I was pointing out that the funding comes from different sources.

Frequently Asked Questions | The Duchy of Cornwall

Where does the Duchy’s surplus go?

Since 1337, the revenues from the Duchy have either passed to an eldest surviving son and heir or where there has not been one, the Sovereign. These revenues can be spent as the Heir or Sovereign see fit. However the current Prince of Wales chooses to use a substantial proportion of his income from the Duchy estate to meet the cost of his public and charitable work as well as the public and private lives of his family, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince George and Prince Harry.

 

[cepe]

I see no reason why any of the current f/t royals should be expected give up their work with their charities and partonages to enable the Cambridges to take up royal duties. Teir time will come, and it isnt now.

I also dont think that the money that the PoW gives to his charitable causes should be reduced either.

People can come up with whatever means of funding these two that their imagination can conjure but they will not be full time until HMQ dies or is incapable for some reason, IMO.

 

[Dman]

I don't the idea should be to stop the minor royals from working and supporting their charitable organizations but some of their duties could be picked up by the younger royals.

I still think the Starlight Children's Foundation and its royal patron, Princess Alexandra, could pass that role down to Catherine. I think she could bring a great deal of press attention to the very worthy cause.

 

[cepe]

but why ahould she? The only reason you have given is that you think the Cambs should do more when we have been told v clearly that they are part time.

 

[Skippyboo]

We already seen William take over 2 patronages that his father and grandfather transferred to him with the Fields in Trust and British Sub Aqua Club.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

but why ahould she? The only reason you have given is that you think the Cambs should do more when we have been told v clearly that they are part time.

cepe, I only said that because I think Catherine could bring a lot press attention to the foundation and Catherine and her family business, Party Pieces, have raised money for the foundation. It's not to say Princess Alexandra have done a great job in her royal patronage. I just think Catherine could really help shine a light on Starlight.

Just because Catherine and William are part-time royals, doesn't mean they can't take a few more patronages.

 

[Osipi]

The Starlight Childrens Foundation has always been a part of Kate's life well before marriage to William and I do think, in time, it will become hers. It just seems so fitting. Not wanting to nudge Princess Alexandra out of the picture, I can see Kate being there and willing to help wherever possible though.

All things in good time. There's really not a rush to switch things around right now but this charity is one I can definitely see where its heading in the future.

 

[miche]

Why do they have to take up patronage that already has a royal patron?

 

[Mermaid1962]

The problem, as I see it, is that if William and Catherine take on a lot of charities now, they will be overwhelmed by work when Charles becomes the King and will have to let some go. Remember what happened when Diana quit many of her charities after her divorce. A lot of organizations were left in the lurch for a royal patron and it caused bad feelings. It looked as though Diana quit her patronages in a fit of pique. That likely wasn't the case, but it sure looked like it at the time. If the Cambridges stick with a few organizations now rather than many, it will ease the transition when they have to take on their new roles.

I don't the idea should be to stop the minor royals from working and supporting their charitable organizations but some of their duties could be picked up by the younger royals.

 

[Mermaid1962]

It's not a case of a charity having two patrons. It's a matter of a younger royal helping out an older one and perhaps taking it on when the older royal retires/dies.

Why do they have to take up patronage that already has a royal patron?

 

[miche]

The older ones are not asking for help and they clearly don't want any help

 

[Ish]

The older ones are not asking for help and they clearly don't want any help

It's more of a case of us deciding it's more important to see William doing stuff than Princess Alexandra, so who cares that she's devoted 60 years to the BRF she should be pushed aside. (Sarcasm)

I don't agree with the idea that the older, further down the line of succession royals should be pushed into retirement in order to allow William and Kate to do more. To me, that's ageist, and it's basically saying that the sacrifices that the Kents and Gloucesters have made in order to support the Queen aren't to be valued. I think if and when the DoK, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, and Princess Alexandra chose to step back then some of the money that's currently going to their duties should be redirected towards the duties of the Cambridges and Harry - not because I think them doing engagements is more important than the Kents, Gloucesters, or the Queen's younger children doing so is, but because it's clear that the income of the Duchy of Cornwall is not enough to support five working royals (and really, during the 80s when it was supporting two full time royals, Charles was only paying 25% tax; now he's supporting 2 full time royals, 3 part time royals, and the personal lives of 5 adults and soon to be 2 children, while paying 50% tax).

Do I think William and Kate should be seen to do more? Yeah. Do I understand the reasons why they aren't? Yes. It's not as simple as laziness or skirting their duties - although the way things are being handled, it is cultivating that image - it's finances. The Duchy doesn't have the money to support 5 full time royals. The Queen is choosing to support her children and her cousins - who have been doing this far longer than William and Kate and should be respected for it, particularly when it comes to the Gloucesters and Kents.

That said, I don't think we can expect the Gloucesters and Kents to continue on in the same way we expect the Queen and DoE to do so. I think they're far enough removed from the direct line that it's only a matter of time before they each retire from anything other than the big family events. To me they've already done above and beyond their duty to the crown, and as they get older and have more health problems I think they'll retire (in contrast, the Queen and DoE are more likely to keep working until they can't). When this happens and they chose to retire then I'd like to see some of these funds diverted to supporting Charles' children's engagements, assuming that the current conditions persist until then.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

BP should make these things clearer - this saying nothing is hurting a lot of images.

 

[Ish]

Honestly, I think the problem is ultimately more of a distribution one than anything.

Last year, Bertie's numbers had them at a bit more than 100 collectively. If they had arranged it so that they each did 52 engagements a year, max, with 1 engagement a week, then they would have had an appearance of regularly working. Now 2013 was a tricky year with George's birth (and 2015 will be equally as tricky), but I still think if we saw William about once a week, with a bit of a paternity leave, then they would have less of an image of skirting the work. If William were to maintain the numbers he's at this year - 119 according to Bertie's numbers - then if next year he shot for 2 or 3 engagements a week, he'd look more active while doing the same overall amount of work (although that's assuming the numbers continue; this year there was a major tour and he wasn't working; next year there'll be a pregnancy, paternity leave, and he'll be working. We should expect his numbers to drop).

 

[Rudolph]

This is why I think as do some veteran royal watchers its good William and Harry hold down jobs outside the firm.

They are still contributing to society, Harry in the Army and William flying for a charity and donating his salary. Its a modern approach for this generation.

Unless the government decides to fund William, Kate and Harry directly then part-time royal work combined with full-time public service is the next best thing.

 

[SElizabeth]

It's more of a case of us deciding it's more important to see William doing stuff than Princess Alexandra, so who cares that she's devoted 60 years to the BRF she should be pushed aside. (Sarcasm)

I don't agree with the idea that the older, further down the line of succession royals should be pushed into retirement in order to allow William and Kate to do more. To me, that's ageist, and it's basically saying that the sacrifices that the Kents and Gloucesters have made in order to support the Queen aren't to be valued. I think if and when the DoK, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, and Princess Alexandra chose to step back then some of the money that's currently going to their duties should be redirected towards the duties of the Cambridges and Harry - not because I think them doing engagements is more important than the Kents, Gloucesters, or the Queen's younger children doing so is, but because it's clear that the income of the Duchy of Cornwall is not enough to support five working royals (and really, during the 80s when it was supporting two full time royals, Charles was only paying 25% tax; now he's supporting 2 full time royals, 3 part time royals, and the personal lives of 5 adults and soon to be 2 children, while paying 50% tax).

Do I think William and Kate should be seen to do more? Yeah. Do I understand the reasons why they aren't? Yes. It's not as simple as laziness or skirting their duties - although the way things are being handled, it is cultivating that image - it's finances. The Duchy doesn't have the money to support 5 full time royals. The Queen is choosing to support her children and her cousins - who have been doing this far longer than William and Kate and should be respected for it, particularly when it comes to the Gloucesters and Kents.

That said, I don't think we can expect the Gloucesters and Kents to continue on in the same way we expect the Queen and DoE to do so. I think they're far enough removed from the direct line that it's only a matter of time before they each retire from anything other than the big family events. To me they've already done above and beyond their duty to the crown, and as they get older and have more health problems I think they'll retire (in contrast, the Queen and DoE are more likely to keep working until they can't). When this happens and they chose to retire then I'd like to see some of these funds diverted to supporting Charles' children's engagements, assuming that the current conditions persist until then.

Very well said and so correct..Thank You!

 

[PetticoatLane]

BP should make these things clearer - this saying nothing is hurting a lot of images.

I'm pretty sure Charles saying, "I'm too poor to pay for them to be full-time royals" would not be a great move PR-wise. In fact, I'm pretty sure it'd be disastrous.

The only way to free up the money required would be for Charles to reduce the size of his household which,as we all know, is considerable.

 

[MARG]

I don't the idea should be to stop the minor royals from working and supporting their charitable organizations but some of their duties could be picked up by the younger royals.

I still think the Starlight Children's Foundation and its royal patron, Princess Alexandra, could pass that role down to Catherine. I think she could bring a great deal of press attention to the very worthy cause.

Oh, that's tacky!

First you dismiss HRH Princess Alexandra as "a minor royal", stripping her of the respect owed to her as a Princess of the blood, and being the Queen's cousin to boot.

Then you decide she's passed her use-by date and decide to reward an exceptionally hardworking Princess Alexandra, for a lifetime of service to the throne and to the Queen, by giving her the shove so Catherine can add yet another little sparkler to her little posey of chores.

What is wrong with you people. You think Catherine needs more gravitas and you are right. But this is hardly the way to go about it.

The cult of youth at the expense of everyone else is very ugly and totally unappealing. And, just as an aside, I don't see Catherine bringing a great deal of press attention any of her very worthy causes to date.

 

[Roslyn]

Something I'm a bit fuzzy about is precisely what this funding shortage means in practical terms. What is it curtailing? Is it stopping Kate from doing things to support her charities such as, say, attending fundraising dos?