I don't believe it is the cost, so much, as the perception, at the moment anyway, that the monarchy is top heavy. This is beside the argument about Andrew's stupidity and the occasional Harry antics.
It is just that this crisis, and it is a crisis, has evoked some questioning about the best way for the British royal family to move forward. After all, the Queen, who has done a marvellous job, is entering the last years of her reign, and it is known, through, whatever source, that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy.
Whether it will be as austere in form as Norway or Spain, or a little cosier as with Denmark, it may well be that Charles could decree a defining of a core royal family, as in monarch and consort, heir and spouse and their eldest child. He may include Harry in this or not.
As with the Netherlands, cousins, spares etc retire into private life and also perform the occasional engagement when the core royals are unavailable. They become members of the wider royal family and are only seen on family occasions. They may or may not perform charity work. That will be their choice.
This would include the cousins, Anne, the Wessexes and perhaps Harry. Andrew should certainly never be allowed to represent the monarch again. He is a prime
example of what Glover in his article called 'the rollicking, roistering Princes' who, IMO, bring shame to the royal family.
A lot of patronages of charities would have to go, and find other patrons. The core royal family would undertake ceremonial duties and have their own charitable Foundations. They would also head some national institutions. The 'make-work' aspect of many royal engagements would cease and the core royals, though busy, may well be engaged in more worthwhile work.
It is just that this crisis, and it is a crisis, has evoked some questioning about the best way for the British royal family to move forward. After all, the Queen, who has done a marvellous job, is entering the last years of her reign, and it is known, through, whatever source, that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy.
Whether it will be as austere in form as Norway or Spain, or a little cosier as with Denmark, it may well be that Charles could decree a defining of a core royal family, as in monarch and consort, heir and spouse and their eldest child. He may include Harry in this or not.
As with the Netherlands, cousins, spares etc retire into private life and also perform the occasional engagement when the core royals are unavailable. They become members of the wider royal family and are only seen on family occasions. They may or may not perform charity work. That will be their choice.
This would include the cousins, Anne, the Wessexes and perhaps Harry. Andrew should certainly never be allowed to represent the monarch again. He is a prime
example of what Glover in his article called 'the rollicking, roistering Princes' who, IMO, bring shame to the royal family.
A lot of patronages of charities would have to go, and find other patrons. The core royal family would undertake ceremonial duties and have their own charitable Foundations. They would also head some national institutions. The 'make-work' aspect of many royal engagements would cease and the core royals, though busy, may well be engaged in more worthwhile work.