The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3881  
Old 11-07-2018, 03:25 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Meghan is at 97 at the end of October, not counting her engagements (26, I believe) prior to marriage, and Sophie is over 200. Harry is at 170 something. How are your numbers right?
Now I understand, I wasn't precise in my language: I used 'days active' by Iluvbertie (see this post). My apologies.

However, I mainly used the number to establish the number of active members and I don't think that changes: I think we can both agree the current number is 15 (unless you would want to include Timothy Laurence, prince Michaal, princess Michael, princess Beatrice, princess Eugenie and the Duchess of Kent as they were the once that I excluded because of a limited number of engagements/days active).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
And as I said, it's a matter of timing issue with York princesses. No one is needed right now as the youngest working royals still carries out fewer engagements than their elders. However, it wouldn't be the case once the children come of age. I do have to wonder if the Yorks weren't so unpopular, what would've happened to the York princesses, or at least Beatrice. i see that as more of either way situation, but since the public generally has such strong dislikes for the Yorks, it was a easy no. The royal family has enough PR spins to deal with. It was certainly easy enough to add the Wessexes into the mix once their private ventures imploded. So it doesn't seem one or two extra person would really break the bank.
Indeed, nobody is needed right now. If they want to stay at about the same number of active members the York princesses should be added sometime in the next 5 years or so; as Harry only recently started full-time it would be perfectly reasonable to start while in their mid-thirties).

The same reasoning applies to H&M's children: they won't be needed by the time they are old enough to start royal duties as the BRF will have adjusted to a smaller number (going from 15 to about 12 in the next 10 years and going down to about 8-10 in 20 years and stabilizing at that point.

Of course, if the next 20-30 years show that 8-10 full time royals is not enough, they will first call upon the York princesses, probably the Wessex children and in 30 years on the Sussex children to help out. However, that seems an unlikely scenario.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3882  
Old 11-07-2018, 03:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Now I understand, I wasn't precise in my language: I used 'days active' by Iluvbertie (see this post). My apologies.

However, I mainly used the number to establish the number of active members and I don't think that changes: I think we can both agree the current number is 15 (unless you would want to include Timothy Laurence, prince Michaal, princess Michael, princess Beatrice, princess Eugenie and the Duchess of Kent as they were the once that I excluded because of a limited number of engagements/days active).
Yea, same for my calculation for number of working royals. As for using events than days, I tend to use number of events since you really can't count a whole year due to down time in royal events. Summer is mostly silent and Christmas and New Year. And of course, one can't always plan the events on the same days. But I do think we have to factor in optics. There is a desire for a smaller monarchy right now because the Queen had 4 kids and her cousins are still working. But when you take most of those engagements away in three decades, all of sudden, there is a drastic decline, and now the feeling might be quite different if the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall are still posting the same numbers.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3883  
Old 11-07-2018, 03:48 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
I decided to look back to see what the numbers of active members were 10 and 20 years ago:

Jan 2009: 13 (excluding the Cambridges, Sussexes and adding the duke of Edinburgh & duchess of Kent)
Jan 1999: 11-12 (excluding Camilla, the Wessexes, the Cambridges, the Sussexes; and adding the duke of Edinburgh, duchess of Kent, Queen-mother, princess Margaret; I am not sure how active the Queen Mother was aged 99)

Going back to the start of her reign:
The queen started with 7 active members (not counting queen Mary who passed away a year later): herself, the duke of Edinburgh, the queen-mother, the princess Margaret and the duke and duchess of Gloucester and the dowager duchess of Kent as active members.
She purposefully enlarged that number to include 3 more members in the next 10 years, raising the number to about 10 (as expected:) the duke of Kent and therefore also the duchess of Kent, and (not-necessarily expected:) princess Alexandra.

It seems that having about 10-12 active royals has been the Queen's average for most of her reign. The current 15 seem to be the highest number in many decades; imo mainly because the queen doesn't want to ask her eldest cousins (the Kents) to retire and also wanted to make sure that her grandsons became full-time royals (bad optics if they would wait another 5-10 years). Slimming down the monarchy (a wish Charles apparently has had for quite some time) could therefore very well include going down to 10 or less.
Reply With Quote
  #3884  
Old 11-07-2018, 03:58 PM
M. Payton's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,850
Why is there an argument about something that has not happened yet and is far off in the future.........
Reply With Quote
  #3885  
Old 11-07-2018, 04:07 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Payton View Post
Why is there an argument about something that has not happened yet and is far off in the future.........
Because it seems to be part of the argument as to why some think H&M's children should be HRH and others don't see the need. Hopefully they live long and fulfilling lives; independent of the form that might take and the titles they might have
Reply With Quote
  #3886  
Old 11-07-2018, 04:21 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Hopefully they live a long and fulfilling lives; independent of the form that might take and the titles they might have
Absolutely agree. Whatever the title I think we all hope that they have the freedom to live the life they want and do the things that make them happy.
Reply With Quote
  #3887  
Old 11-07-2018, 04:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Because it seems to be part of the argument as to why some think H&M's children should be HRH and others don't see the need. Hopefully they live long and fulfilling lives; independent of the form that might take and the titles they might have
We can all agree with that.
Reply With Quote
  #3888  
Old 11-07-2018, 06:14 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,537
Exactly that! I take my cue from how Harry and Meghan live their unofficial lives....very privately! I can well imagine that they would want the same for their child/children.

The way I see it...their children will have the best of both worlds and will be able to live and do whatever they want with their own lives without the responsibilities, stress and strain that will fall on their cousins.
Reply With Quote
  #3889  
Old 11-07-2018, 06:19 PM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
The current two oldest generations of the BRF have seen tremendous changes in their lifetimes regarding public sentiment about the monarchy, ways of connecting with people and attitudes towards titles and how they should be passed on. It seems foolish to assume the method of “royal work” and number of working royals needed decades from now is an easily predictable.

But it is safe to say that letting baby Sussex be born without an HRH gives the BRF maximum flexibility to move forward into Charles’s (and then William’s) reign with whatever version of official royal family size seems right to them. When his time comes, Charles can decide to make all his grandchildren HRH or issue new letters patent. But he doesn’t need to decide for certain just yet.
Reply With Quote
  #3890  
Old 11-07-2018, 06:23 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
If I understand things correctly it really it doesn't matter if the Queen issues new LP's or not. When Charles is the King any Sussex children will be HRH unless they (parents/Charles) don't want them to be.




LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #3891  
Old 11-07-2018, 06:52 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
That's the gist of it Pranter. With the Cambridge children, it was kind of a new thing that needed to be considered because of the Queen's longevity and dealing with great grandchildren in direct line to the throne. That's why the photos of all three heirs to the throne with the Queen is so special.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #3892  
Old 11-07-2018, 07:19 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
That's the gist of it Pranter. With the Cambridge children, it was kind of a new thing that needed to be considered because of the Queen's longevity and dealing with great grandchildren in direct line to the throne. That's why the photos of all three heirs to the throne with the Queen is so special.
There was already a rule about the eldest son of the eldest son of the heir being born a royal highness and prince of the UK (as king George V was very well aware of that possibility during his life time there were also 4 generations). However, a very recent development was that the first child regardless of gender would be the future sovereign and the LPs didn't account for that.
Reply With Quote
  #3893  
Old 11-07-2018, 07:28 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Thanks for that part about the Cambridge first child. That actually was the *sole* reason that the Queen issued the LPs before George was born and after the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013.

With Harry's children, there is no dire need to solve the HRH problem for them at this time and let things go according to how they're always done. They just might make an announcement before the impending birth and then again they may not. We'll just have to watch and see what happens.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #3894  
Old 11-07-2018, 07:30 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
If I understand things correctly it really it doesn't matter if the Queen issues new LP's or not. When Charles is the King any Sussex children will be HRH unless they (parents/Charles) don't want them to be.




LaRae
Exactly--the moment Charles becomes King, any Sussex children will immediately become HRH.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
There was already a rule about the eldest son of the eldest son being born a royal highness and prince of the UK (as king George V was very well aware of that possibility during his life time there were also 4 generations). However, a very recent development was that the first child regardless of gender would be the future sovereign and the LPs didn't account for that.
Yes, I also pointed this out earlier in the thread this morning--in post #482

Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Charlotte and Louis did not exist and George hadn’t been born yet when the LP that elevated them to HRH were issued.

William’s first born son was always going to be an HRH because of the 1917 LP.

But if Charlotte had been born first she would not have been an HRH despite being the heir to the throne, yet her first younger brother would have been. That is why the new LP were issued for William’s children.
Reply With Quote
  #3895  
Old 11-07-2018, 08:58 PM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
IF the rumours are true that Charles wants a smaller royal family then he has to be seen as 'walking the walk' and not just 'talking the talk'.

He has already made it clear that the York girls are surplus to requirements as working royals.

There are only four HRHs in their generation and already two are regarded as too many for the needs of the family.

With William already having three children Charles is well on the way to having more HRH grandchildren than the Queen has.

Only a fool wouldn't realise the problems the York girls are having because they are HRHs but not working royals. They are despised and have been almost all their lives.

Although when they were born there was no question of them not being HRH but the mid-90s that decision was being questioned and is certainly questioned largely in the vocal media and its supporters.

That would be the future for Harry's children if they are HRH.

There was no necessity for any announcement at the time of Harry's wedding in the same way as there was at Edward's as Edward's children would automatically be HRH unless something was said but Harry's are not automatically going to be HRH.

The longer it takes for any announcement from The Queen the more it looks likely that she isn't going to be issuing the LPs and so they will be Lord/Lady from birth with the eldest son known as the Earl of Dumbarton (now watch HM issue the LPs in the next 24 hours).

Going back to 2012 it was announced on the 3rd December that Kate was expecting. The Queen issued the new LPs giving HRH to all of William's children on 31st December - or nearly four weeks later.

It is now approaching that four week mark since the announcement and Meghan is further along in the pregnancy than Kate was when it was announced she was expecting. Of course the Queen could issue the LPs at any time but I am simply showing a 'timeline' of events.
The timeline comparison doesn't work here, given what's happened since the baby announcement. We've had Harry and Meghan's first major tour, immediately followed by Charles and Camilla's tour and still to come, Remembrance Day events and Charles' 70th birthday. The Queen isn't going to drop an LP announcement in the midst of all that. If there is going to be announcement, I suspect it won't come until after Charles birthday celebrations. And I do expect some kind of announcement before the baby is born, not necessarily LP related but one that clarifies how the Sussex children are to be styled at birth and once Charles is king (if they are not made HRH at birth).

I remained baffled by the insistence that the Yorks are despised simply because they are non-working royals with titles. Heck, I think it's a stretch to even say that they are despised, as they aren't in the press garnering enough unsavory headlines for the majority to hate them. Whatever ill feelings there are towards them likely has more to do with who their parents are than anything else. And on that note, I would say that unless there is some major scandal involving the Sussexes, their children will be beloved by many. We are already seeing as much excitement and anticipation for this baby as there was for the Cambridge children and in my opinion that is one of several reasons why they will end up as HRH, be it at birth or when Charles ascends.
Reply With Quote
  #3896  
Old 11-07-2018, 10:05 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Thanks for that part about the Cambridge first child. That actually was the *sole* reason that the Queen issued the LPs before George was born and after the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013.

With Harry's children, there is no dire need to solve the HRH problem for them at this time and let things go according to how they're always done. They just might make an announcement before the impending birth and then again they may not. We'll just have to watch and see what happens.
They will address this once and for all by the name the baby’s name is announced at the latest. Once the Queen passes, this is not something they would want to address. There will be too many things to deal with at the same time. Particularly thorny time if Charles wants to make Camilla Queen. They won’t let this will they or won’t they question go out that far. Even if they’ll change to HRH later, it’ll be announced when this baby comes.
Reply With Quote
  #3897  
Old 11-07-2018, 10:28 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Oh I definitely agree here. If there is one thing that the "Firm" is good at, its being prepared for all contingencies and leave nothing to chance.

What is so neat too with being excited about Harry and Meghan's first child, along the way while waiting for the birth, we learn so many of the ins and outs on how things work, how the BRF does things and never, ever run out of things to talk about.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #3898  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:28 AM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbigail View Post
I remained baffled by the insistence that the Yorks are despised simply because they are non-working royals with titles. Heck, I think it's a stretch to even say that they are despised, as they aren't in the press garnering enough unsavory headlines for the majority to hate them. Whatever ill feelings there are towards them likely has more to do with who their parents are than anything else.
Well, I think casual observers (I.e. most of the public) are confused by someone with the title “Princess” who doesn’t do royal work. And it’s confusing that the rest of the grandchildren who live or are are slated to live more private lives are without an HRH. We who watch closely know that it’s a matter of timing, that the York sisters were the last born before the BRF started seriously thinking about paring down the working roster, and that they have held actual jobs and done (albeit more quietly than their cousins) charity work. But to people who don’t understand it, seeing Princesses who mostly show up on the public radar for big celebrations, outside of restaurants or when they vacation feeds a perception that they’re spoiled and lazy...on the public dime.
Reply With Quote
  #3899  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Prince Harry and Pregnant Duchess Meghan’s Baby ‘Won’t Be Spoiled’

So this is Omid Scobie already talking about Harry and Meghan’s kid is going to be raised to have a job, ride the subway etc. Nothing really too revealing.

But we can already see the problem that’s going to hang over Harry’s children. They’re not going to be in the main line of succession, they’re not going to work for the Firm, so why are they going to need fancy royal titles.
Reply With Quote
  #3900  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:56 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Prince Harry and Pregnant Duchess Meghan’s Baby ‘Won’t Be Spoiled’

So this is Omid Scobie already talking about Harry and Meghan’s kid is going to be raised to have a job, ride the subway etc. Nothing really too revealing.

But we can already see the problem that’s going to hang over Harry’s children. They’re not going to be in the main line of succession, they’re not going to work for the Firm, so why are they going to need fancy royal titles.
IMO, a complete "fluff" piece! I guess it is articles like these that keep the royal press pack going.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:51 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×