The Monarchy under Charles

[Empress]

I would really hate to see the monarchies dwindle to less than the current number. It would really be a sad day when we only had immediate members with titles.

[BeatrixFan]

I think in the future though it may be nessecary. I mean, Denmark has a smaller RF than Britain but Denmark is smaller than the UK so it makes sense. It's either a doubled work load for a smaller family or an equal half work load for a larger family. I personally think that the first option is going to be the best choice. Although by rights they should, alot of the public don't know who the Kents and Gloucesters are and so they don't recieve recognition. That wont change until the media cover the 'minor' Royals more. And if they do that, the RF is criticised for being too big. It's a Catch 22 situation. I think it's inevitable that the family will get smaller once the older generation dies off.

[sirhon11234]

But the downsizing of HRH is already going to happen. Once TRHS The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die the HRH will forever be dropped from the titles and their sons will be known as "His Grace". But then what will happen with all those jewels.

I doubt Beatrice and Eugenie will drop their titles.

[BeatrixFan]

Oh exactly. The HRHs will go, so will their duties and perks. I can't see any Royals dropping their titles. The jewels will stay with the families just as the Westminsters have jewels.

[Empress]

Well, titles will not pass on through Beatrix and Eugenie, so the only grandchildren of the Queen who will pass on titles are Harry and Wills, and now James, although his title is not strictly royal I suppose. So that will of course make the "family" smaller, since QEII only had one sibling, and her children do not carry royal titles as well.

Hopefully Wills and Harry will have large families of well behaved children so that we will have more royal titles again, instead of seeing them all disappear back into the Crown.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Are you asking what AFAIK means?

"As far as I know."

Yes, thank you!
My only excuse is that I'm old!

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Empress

Well, titles will not pass on through Beatrix and Eugenie, so the only grandchildren of the Queen who will pass on titles are Harry and Wills, and now James, although his title is not strictly royal I suppose. So that will of course make the "family" smaller, since QEII only had one sibling, and her children do not carry royal titles as well.

Hopefully Wills and Harry will have large families of well behaved children so that we will have more royal titles again, instead of seeing them all disappear back into the Crown.

That would be very interesting indeed! And what of their children? Would they marry into other royal families?
Less royals means more demand. Simple equation of economics of supply and demand!

[Royal Fan]

Will Kent and Gloucester ever be Royal again maybe as Baron or Viscount Stylings

[Mermaid1962]

I only know about these things because I asked, too.

Originally Posted by Russophile

Yes, thank you!
My only excuse is that I'm old!

[muriel]

Originally Posted by LadyCat

You're probably pretty close Muriel. Except for the titles of B & E. I think Eugenie may give hers up without a fuss, however I feel Andrew (probably at the insistence of Sarah) will fight for keeping them. Call me jaded, but Sarah has nothing to talk about and sell herself with if she is no longer the mother of two princesses.

Cat

Couldn't disagree with you. I suspect Andrew will fight for titles for his girls. B&E will have to work very hard to be veiwed in the eyes of the public as assets to the royal family, which I suspect is the only way they can retain any public relevance. Them each doing a spread on Talter on their 18th birthday are certainly ominous signs............... of them morphing into C list celebs!

As grand daughters of the Queen, they may enjoy having huge birthday parties at Windsor, but they are going to loose all of that in a few years time. The nearest they will be making it to a royal residence will be Royal Lodge.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Russophile

What's Charles going to do about all those castles, etc.? That's a lot of money to upkeep. Balmoral is theirs, isn't Windsor as well? Costs a lot of money to heat and light. Will they become museums to offset the costs?

I think the royal properties will stay, but will probably be worked a bit harder to raise revenues. There may be a bit of a realignment of properties within the family.
> Windsor is owned by the state, but is very closely identified with the royal family. I suspect C&C will spend most weekends there, like the Queen.
> Sandringham and Balmoral and privately owned by the family and will probably continue to be used. Charkes wil probably send quite a lot of money doing the two properties up, and converting them to Highgrove style eco-houses with orghanic gardens etc
> Highgrove (owned by the Duchy of Cornwall), Birkhall and the new place in Wales (not ready yet, to be run partly as a B&B) will be freed up, to be used by the next generation
> The Castle of Mey, as pointed out, has been bequethed to the nation and is now operated by a Trust. Its a beautiful building, but is not very big
> Gen next (Wills and Harry) and their respective families will need to be accomodated. Depending on how long the Queen lives, it may be that Wills moves to the property being developed by the Duchy of Cornwall near Hereford. That leaves Harry, who will probably get given a cottage some place. Once Charles succeeds to the throne, the boys will probably be reaccomodated. They are likely to want properties in the Cotswolds or the West country as that is where they grew up and where most of their friends are. They will probably both end up with a flat each in London - in either Buck House, Clarence House or St James'. Once Charles moves to Buckingham Palace, Wills will probably move to Clarence House
> It has been suggested previously that Charles may prefer to continue to live at Clarence House and use Buck House as "the office." I personally doubt it - he is not a man known for modest living, and is unlikely to turn down the chance to put his stamp on the building
> It will be interesting to see who inherits Highgrove (Wills or Harry), and whether Charles will be able to give up his beloved house and gardens which he has lovingly nurtured over the last 25 years.

Happy to hear how others feel.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by muriel

I

Happy to hear how others feel.

Muriel, IMHO a real problem in the whole discussion is that while in Britain is is absolutely self-explainable that kids inherit their parent's posession, it it not recognised by the public that the Royals gave over their inheritance in exchange to some priviledges in the 1700. So while the public thinks the Royals are taking from them, the reverse is true when the laws of the Uk are administered as they are. The so-called "Crown estate" makes at the moemnt about 5 times the gains that the government invests into the RF. If the Royals were no longer considered Royals but ancient landowners like the Westminsters or other peers, they could have a marvellous time. But if the politcal trend would turn against the Westminsters, the whole of Britian would be turned upside-down, so I guess it's much easier to focus on the Windsors...

[Russophile]

I read an article recently that a lot of businessmen/women are demanding high class amenities when they travel and there has been a big demand for castle-style housing with all the perks. HRH can go that way with some of the properties. . .

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Muriel, IMHO a real problem in the whole discussion is that while in Britain is is absolutely self-explainable that kids inherit their parent's posession, it it not recognised by the public that the Royals gave over their inheritance in exchange to some priviledges in the 1700. So while the public thinks the Royals are taking from them, the reverse is true when the laws of the Uk are administered as they are. The so-called "Crown estate" makes at the moemnt about 5 times the gains that the government invests into the RF. If the Royals were no longer considered Royals but ancient landowners like the Westminsters or other peers, they could have a marvellous time. But if the politcal trend would turn against the Westminsters, the whole of Britian would be turned upside-down, so I guess it's much easier to focus on the Windsors...

Quite right, the "costs" or value the BRF bring to Briatin certainly need to be seen in light of the history, as you so rightly point out.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Russophile

I read an article recently that a lot of businessmen/women are demanding high class amenities when they travel and there has been a big demand for castle-style housing with all the perks. HRH can go that way with some of the properties. . .

Russophile - I hate to say it, but the thought of Windsor or Sandringham operating as some form of an upmarket B&B is quite ridiculous!

[scooter]

One thing I would love to see in Charles' reign would be a whole new era of the Royal gardens at various residences. I doubt he would radically overhaul earlier sections of the garden, but I could easily envision whole new gardens where there are none presently. I admire both his and Highgrove's gardeners green thumb's tremendously. There are several great books on it. In fact in's where the Royalty shelf and the Gardening shelf intersect in my library.

[Mermaid1962]

The next step would be "The Windsors: The Reality Show."

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

I Agree seems odd

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by muriel

Russophile - I hate to say it, but the thought of Windsor or Sandringham operating as some form of an upmarket B&B is quite ridiculous!

Ya never know, they may need the bucks!

[PrinceOfCanada]

Originally Posted by wbenson

They don't get any income now from the civil list (only remuneration for official duties, and probably some cheap housing thrown in, but I doubt they would be thrown out), so their situations will stay the same.

Actually, the only members of the family that receive Civil List payments free and clear are HM, HRH Prince Philip, and HRH Prince Charles. The others do receive payment for official duties, but HM repays it out of the Privy Purse.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Muriel, IMHO a real problem in the whole discussion is that while in Britain is is absolutely self-explainable that kids inherit their parent's posession, it it not recognised by the public that the Royals gave over their inheritance in exchange to some priviledges in the 1700. So while the public thinks the Royals are taking from them, the reverse is true ... (snip)

FINALLY! Someone else who understands that the Monarchy costs the citizens of the UK precisely nothing. In fact, it is HM who is giving her inherited revenues (Crown Estate, not the Duchy of Lancaster) to run her government!