Andrew's future outside of the working BRF

[Duc_et_Pair]

We see in Belgium and Denmark, where spares still receive an income from the State (Princess Astrid, Prince Laurent and Prince Joachim) that they remain in a sort of twilight zone.

At the one hand they are paid royals but at the other hand there are barely enough public events for the Number 5 and Number 13 of Belgium and for the Number 6 of Denmark. It hinders them to pursue their own life and career, at the other hand the money is too good to say "no".

The siblings of the (future) heirs Elisabeth, Christian, Catharina-Amalia, Ingrid Alexandra and others now know they will never receive one cent of income from the state and have to pursue an own career and earn their own income outside the Royal House. And you see that for an example an Amadeo of Belgium, a Félix of Luxembourg, a Constantijn of the Netherlands indeed all earn their own income, buy an own house. Some of them even become extremely rich (Mabel of Orange-Nassau, Bernhard van Vollenhoven) which would have been impossible when they would still be members of the Royal House.

So for the sake of the siblings of Prince George, and for the children of Prince Harry and Prince Edward: I hope they can pursue their very own career indeed. The examples of David Armstrong-Jones , Peter Phillips and Zara Phillips are actually good ones, I think.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

We see in Belgium and Denmark, where spares still receive an income from the State (Princess Astrid, Prince Laurent and Prince Joachim) that they remain in a sort of twilight zone.

At the one hand they are paid royals but at the other hand there are barely enough public events for the Number 5 and Number 13 of Belgium and for the Number 6 of Denmark. It hinders them to pursue their own life and career, at the other hand the money is too good to say "no".

I think there are two different categories of persons we are talking about in this discussion:

1) Junior princes who get an earmarked sum in the Royal Household budget such as Prince Joachim of Denmark, or Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent of Belgium.

2) Junior princes who do not receive a specific set amount from the State, but are reimbursed from the Royal Household lump grant when they perform official duties on behalf of the monarch. That is the case, as far as I understand, of Prince Carl Philip of Sweden (and previously his younger sister, Princess Madeleine), and I believe is also the case now of the Princess Royal, the Earl of Wessex and, previously, the Duke of York in the UK.

Whereas #1 is being phased out in most monarchies, I don't see #2 going away anytime soon. In the UK in particular, I don't see a scenario in the near future where siblings of the monarch will not be at least part-time working royals, and I don't see why Charlotte and Louis should be different when George is King.

Personally I am not a fan in particular of the Spanish model where the children of the King (e.g. King JC's daughters) are officially members of the Royal Family (and undertake official duties) while their father is on the throne, but cease to be so when their brother, the Prince of Asturias, becomes King himself. It is unfair on the Infantas, who are caught up between having a public role and building a private career, just to be ditched from official public duties later, and it is also a heavy burden on a young royal couple with underage children like Felipe and Letizia, who all of sudden have to shoulder pratically all royal duty alone, relying possibly only on aging parents/ parents-in-law.

[Tatiana Maria]

For my reply to some above posts see The Future of the British Monarchy, since this is no longer about Andrew's future.

[royal-blue]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Margaret was a lose cannon from the mid-50s onwards. It is well-known that she was frequently rude to people and always expected to be treated as The Queen's sister and as a Princess. She was very much a 'don't you know who I am' person.

It is clearly a failing - even the late Duke of Gloucester and Kent were known to pull that 'don't you know who I am' idea and the Duke of Gloucester was far from respected as GG of Australia due to his attitude, which was not all that well received down here.

The BRF can't afford another generation with entitled spares so really needs to be clear with Charlotte and Louis that they have to make their own way in the world.

I am beginning to think that Charles needs to even separate the heir child in each generation from the rest so HRH for the heir apparent and HH for younger siblings (or even have younger siblings only as Lord/Lady)

I completely agree. The days of a bloated royal family carrying so many thousands of royal duties a year are assumably now gone.

Louis and Charlotte could be the next Anne and Edward, but could also turn into the next Harry or Andrew.

A smaller royal family reduces the risk of controversy or negative press.

While I love the ide of having a British monarch, I think the BRF should be there to be ambassadors for the nation, not a huge ensemble of extended royals wanting to be in on the act.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Margaret was a lose cannon from the mid-50s onwards. It is well-known that she was frequently rude to people and always expected to be treated as The Queen's sister and as a Princess. She was very much a 'don't you know who I am' person.

It is clearly a failing - even the late Duke of Gloucester and Kent were known to pull that 'don't you know who I am' idea and the Duke of Gloucester was far from respected as GG of Australia due to his attitude, which was not all that well received down here.

The BRF can't afford another generation with entitled spares so really needs to be clear with Charlotte and Louis that they have to make their own way in the world.

I am beginning to think that Charles needs to even separate the heir child in each generation from the rest so HRH for the heir apparent and HH for younger siblings (or even have younger siblings only as Lord/Lady)

It's a tricky situation though, requiring tact and a great deal of skill to manage appropriately. After all, the spare is the spare for a reason: an accident or illness may befall the heir before he/she marries and has children, or they may be sterile. The spare needs to have the right training throughout their early life so they are prepared and ready to step into the lead role if needed. In the above scenario, even the HHs would need some limits imposed on their behaviour... just in case. And I think that it is inevitable that any spare is bound to be imbued with a certain sense of entitlement; how they handle it depends on the individual and the training they receive... and the examples they see in action.

[MsJulie]

A hard situation to be a spare…..and any Royal Family needs to remember that. So royal families use the spare to carry out extra duties and then all of a sudden say ‘ oh we don’t need you!’ And along the spare was lead to believe they had a job and were important. IF from the very beginning, and I mean at the youngest of ages, the spare knows they are the spare, then not needed, they should not be doing any extra duties. These young’s spares should be using their education to follow a career, not a royal career as some families have had them do.
BUT look at Prince Albert….thank goodness for the “spares” his sisters have stepped up and helped 100% for a very long time and a long time to come I believe.
A situation that needs a lot of thought and work to make the spare or spares and royal families know what to do and expect…jmoo

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

It's a tricky situation though, requiring tact and a great deal of skill to manage appropriately. After all, the spare is the spare for a reason: an accident or illness may befall the heir before he/she marries and has children, or they may be sterile. The spare needs to have the right training throughout their early life so they are prepared and ready to step into the lead role if needed. In the above scenario, even the HHs would need some limits imposed on their behaviour... just in case. And I think that it is inevitable that any spare is bound to be imbued with a certain sense of entitlement; how they handle it depends on the individual and the training they receive... and the examples they see in action.

Going back through history it seems only one spare has handled it well - and that was George VI (George V became the heir at too young an age i.e. early-mid 20s for it to really be an issue). The rest have all played out in some way with a sense of entitlement simply for being the son of the monarch.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Going back through history it seems only one spare has handled it well - and that was George VI (George V became the heir at too young an age i.e. early-mid 20s for it to really be an issue). The rest have all played out in some way with a sense of entitlement simply for being the son of the monarch.

He didn't handle it very well, though, not personally. It's historical record that he was in a complete panic and freaked out to at least his mother, wife, cousin, and probably more, very justifiably since he had no training and almost no warning.

Elizabeth and his sense of duty carried him through, but he drank and smoked vastly more to cope with all the ever-mounting stress and it undermined his delicate health and finally killed him. He made a heroic sacrifice for his country, but I don't know if that's really "handling it well". Most spares don't pay with their lives...

[Iluvbertie]

I was referring to his behaviour as the 'spare' and not to his behaviour at the time of the abdication ... through his teens, twenties and thirties he behave in an exemplary fashion, unlike his own 2nd child and other 2nd children throughout history in the BRF.

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

I completely agree. The days of a bloated royal family carrying so many thousands of royal duties a year are assumably now gone.

Louis and Charlotte could be the next Anne and Edward, but could also turn into the next Harry or Andrew.

A smaller royal family reduces the risk of controversy or negative press.

While I love the ide of having a British monarch, I think the BRF should be there to be ambassadors for the nation, not a huge ensemble of extended royals wanting to be in on the act.

Back when HM drafted Princess Alexandra and the Duke of Kent and other relatives into royal service, it was a different time. Limited and controlled Television and radio and newspapers were the only media outlets. Royals had to get out there.

It's different now, what with "savvy" media.

Another thing is the plethora of "Royal Experts". There must be 200 of them now.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I was referring to his behaviour as the 'spare' and not to his behaviour at the time of the abdication ... through his teens, twenties and thirties he behave in an exemplary fashion, unlike his own 2nd child and other 2nd children throughout history in the BRF.

But he had a massive inferiority complex and a crippling stammer partly because of that, as well as a habit of worshipping and deferring to the people around him -- so of course he was perfectly happy to keep his head down and draw as little attention as possible. Even for his own exemplary behavior (which included an absolutely horrible temper), there were doubts when the time finally came about whether he'd really be suitable and up to the job.

Most spares with a little healthier ego are not happy simply to have something to do and to be ignored. Bertie was very good for the system, but it's certainly not recommended that everyone be like him. His issues aren't what most people want to deal with, either.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

I completely agree. The days of a bloated royal family carrying so many thousands of royal duties a year are assumably now gone.

Louis and Charlotte could be the next Anne and Edward, but could also turn into the next Harry or Andrew.

A smaller royal family reduces the risk of controversy or negative press.

While I love the ide of having a British monarch, I think the BRF should be there to be ambassadors for the nation, not a huge ensemble of extended royals wanting to be in on the act.

What does a bloated royal family mean anyway? I agree that the days of a monarch's cousins or grandchildren (other than adult children of the heir) being full-time royals may be gone, but I don't see any strong opposition in the UK or elsewhere to adult children of the King or Queen who are not the heir (i.e. people like Andrew, Anne, or Edward) having an official public role at least on a part-time basis or when needed. So where is this demand "to cancel Charlotte and Louis when William is King" coming from?

[royal-blue]

Even after this court case is over with, Andrew is going to have to seriously reconsider his expenditure. Even if he does have a few million in the bank, if he continues to pay for the wages of quite a few staff as well as the security for his daughters and perhaps even himself, he will need another income.

[Iluvbertie]

His only income is his naval pension. The only income he has ever had has been his navy pay and then pension. The rest has been an allowance from his mother to cover his official expenses and presumably a trust fund. That trust fund will probably be severely depleted after this case unless it has been set up in such a way that it is one that can't be accessed other than for specific purposes (like the one the late Duke of Marlborough set up to protect the Blenheim estate when there were fears about the present Duke and his 'habits').

[royal-blue]

Well the case has concluded and Andrew does seem to be living a quiet private life. I think his recent public outing with the Queen was a bad idea to put himself in such a prominent position though.

[Denville]

I dont think so. the queen wanted him there to help her and it was probalby the only way he could have gone into the Abbey without too much publicity

[Alison H]

I thought he'd be sneaked in through the toilet door or something! OK, not seriously, but I thought he'd make a very discreet entrance through a side door, on his own. The Queen made a big statement by asking him to walk in with her.

[ladongas]

Surely most people understood and accepted the fact that she wished to be escorted - and literally supported- by her son on that occasion. Andrew was just doing what his mother wanted him to do.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by ladongas

Surely most people understood and accepted the fact that she wished to be escorted - and literally supported- by her son on that occasion. Andrew was just doing what his mother wanted him to do.

I agree. Andrew did what his parent asked him to do. She wanted him and also the public to recognize the fact that he is still a member of the immediate royal family and certainly loved by his mother. She might have wanted to box his ears (as all we parents and grandparent do at times) but she still loves him as also a parent does with a wayward child. No matter how old, a parent will always forgive their children in most cases. He claimed innocent and she believed him. That is a MOM. JMO

[Tatiana Maria]

Most of the major British newspapers, including the Times and the Telegraph, recently published a statement (MailOnline link) sent to them by a palace source:

"Clearly at some point soon, thought will have to be given as to how to support the Duke as, away from the public gaze, he seeks slowly to rebuild his life in a different direction. There is, of course, a real awareness and sensitivity to public feelings. There is also recognition that the task of starting to support him as he begins to rebuild his life will be the first step on a long road and one that should not be played out every day in the glare of the public spotlight."

While there have been some sensationalistic headlines about the Duke of York campaigning to or being permitted to return to public life, the statement itself strikes me as being so full of ambiguity that I am not sure what the point of it is. What exactly is the "different direction" in which the Duke will rebuild his life, and what "support" does he from the palace to achieve it?

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The Duke of York has not been convicted of anything, so welcome back in the Firm.

But the presence or the absence of a conviction in court isn't the sole standard of suitability for representatives of the monarchy and the society. The Princess Royal was convicted in 2002 for a bite inflicted by her dog, but polls indicate that the majority of Britons are happy for her to act as their national representative, because of her other, more admirable qualities and hard work.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The Queen is the Pope of the Church of England, which preaches forgiveness to sinners. So in the eventuality that the Duke might have been a sinner, it is up to the Defender of Faith to show the teachings of her very own Church indeed.

I am not sure the Duke of York is seeking forgiveness or considers himself a sinner. If I recall correctly, the only sin for which he has apologized, and then only after huge public backlash, was his poor judgment in continuing his association with Jeffrey Epstein for so long.