The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:17 PM
SOS SOS is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
What would the rule be though ? If Harry lost the HRH on the basis that he is not a full-time working royal, then Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and the York princesses for example would have to lose it too and , again, i don’t think the Queen would agree to that.

All rules that have been laid out since the Victorian era to define who is an HRH Prince/Princess in the UK have never been specified in terms of working status but rather in terms of proximity of blood to a sovereign of the United Kingdom with a difference, however, between patrilineal and matrilineal descent, which was consistent with the old rules of male preference primogeniture.

Having said that, I agree that, in the future, HRH should be linked to an expectation of doing at least significant part-time royal work, but that should be clear from birth. When the King of Sweden recently took away the HRH from Prince Carl Philip’s and Princess Madeleine’s children, he justified it exactly in those terms, i.e. the rationale was to clarify who would be expected to have an official role and publicly represent Sweden in the future and whio would not.

But those are issues for Charles and-/or William to decide when they are kings. I don’t see a slimming down occurring now that late into the present Queen’s reign.
Maybe the rule can be that royals who are expected to become working royals, like the children of the monarch or heir, are given the HRH title. If they don't become a working royal or later stop being a working royal, they will lose the title. If one of the royals unexpectedly becomes a working royal they will get the HRH title. If a royal was a working royal but they retired they can keep the title.

If the Queen applies it right now, Harry and Andrew will lose the HRH title. Eugenie, Beatrice and Michael can choose if they want to become a working royal.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:29 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mokane, United States
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes the queen did but times have changed and ther'es not going to be funding for various cousins or whatever picking up the patronages. The trend ha been for most monarchies to reduce their working members to a very few.. just the monarch and consort, and the heir and consort... with possibly one younger sibling helping. That was the model the RF were adopting but Hary has now puled out of it...
Williams cousins are pretty much all engaged in careers of their own.. and probably would not want full tiem royal life..
This is all very true. However, most if not all of the Queen's grandchildren who have their careers (Peter, Zara, Beatrice, and Eugenie) still hold patronages as a part of their own personal charitable work. Granted they've never claimed these to be on behalf of the Queen but they do know and understand what it means to be a patron for a worthy organization. While I agree that they won't be asked to become full time working members of the RF (though I somewhat believe that the York girls should be given the option) I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see any of the four of them, and later on Louise and James, take on a few of the patronages that will need to be filled by the loss of Andrew, Prince Philip, and HM. I doubt that we'll see Harry and Meghan's relationships end with their patronages unless the organizations choose to end them but it's always a possibility. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that even if they don't become full time working members of the RF it's too early to rule out them taking over some of the patronages on their own as a sort of compromise situation, particularly when Charles and even William come to the throne.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
This is all very true. However, most if not all of the Queen's grandchildren who have their careers (Peter, Zara, Beatrice, and Eugenie) still hold patronages as a part of their own personal charitable work. Granted they've never claimed these to be on behalf of the Queen but they do know and understand what it means to be a patron for a worthy organization. While I agree that they won't be asked to become full time working members of the RF (though I somewhat believe that the York girls should be given the option) I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see any of the four of them, and later on Louise and James, take on a few of the patronages that will need to be filled by the loss of Andrew, Prince Philip, and HM. I doubt that we'll see Harry and Meghan's relationships end with their patronages unless the organizations choose to end them but it's always a possibility. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that even if they don't become full time working members of the RF it's too early to rule out them taking over some of the patronages on their own as a sort of compromise situation, particularly when Charles and even William come to the throne.
Its hard to know what will happen. Charles has not wanted to take on other relatives because of the costs.. but now it looks as if he has no choice but to use some of his more distant relatives.. as I don't think Harrry nad meghan will be able to take on any more than they already have...
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,299
In the immediate future I expect there to be a visible upsurge in support, for those left 'holding the Baby' - the first indication of which we saw at the Cambridge's engagement today..
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mokane, United States
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
In the immediate future I expect there to be a visible upsurge in support, for those left 'holding the Baby' - the first indication of which we saw at the Cambridge's engagement today..
I agree. But I do think that what's left of the Royal Family will rally brilliantly and make it quite clear that no matter what path Harry and Meghan are on, the rest of them are on a path to both protect and strengthen the monarchy. I realize that the York girls and the Phillips children don't actually perform duties on behalf of the Queen apart from a rare occasion here or there like the Maundy service but I fully expect to see a very public upswing in their sightings and activities that will reflect quite well on the Queen and Company. They may not be "official" but they'll do their bit to show just where the support lies, I imagine.
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:35 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOS View Post
Maybe the rule can be that royals who are expected to become working royals, like the children of the monarch or heir, are given the HRH title. If they don't become a working royal or later stop being a working royal, they will lose the title. If one of the royals unexpectedly becomes a working royal they will get the HRH title. If a royal was a working royal but they retired they can keep the title.

If the Queen applies it right now, Harry and Andrew will lose the HRH title. Eugenie, Beatrice and Michael can choose if they want to become a working royal.

Fair enough, but making anyone a "working royal" implies allocating them public funds (either directly or indirectly) and that is something politicians/ Parliament/ the public are increasingly reluctant to do beyond the monarch and the heir properly.


Furthermore, I find it problematic to define what a working royal is. Is Prince Constantijn a working royal ? What about Princes Joachim and Carl Philip ? And Princess Madeleine or Infanta Elena ? Note that all of the former are HRHs; some of them do part-time (very little) royal work while others currently do no work at all in practice.



Again, the problem is that the HRH style has never been linked to working status and, up to today, no European monarchy defines it in those terms. Instead, they all use criteria of proximity of blood to a monarch or heir, or being the heir yourself (or a former monarch upon abdication), or being married to a person in one of those aforementioned categories .



Personally I think an HRH should be expected to be at least a part-timer and be reimbursed then only for the events he/she attends on behalf of the Crown. The heir and the heir's eldest child (if an adult) should be expected to be full-timers and be fully funded / have no other private activity. And I am OK with limiting HRH to children of the monarch, the heir, and children of the heir, plus spouses/widows.



Cadet children of the king/queen, born as HRHs, may keep their HRH when their elder brother/sister becomes monarch and even stay as part-timers, but they would naturally slow down to give room to the adult children of the new monarch who would replace them. Since they are only part-timers, they would simply have fewer engagements and get reimbursed less often. Throughout their adult life, however, they would rely primarily on private income.
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mokane, United States
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Personally I think an HRH should be expected to be at least a part-timer and be reimbursed then only for the events he/she attends on behalf of the Crown. The heir and the heir's eldest child (if an adult) should be expected to be full-timers and be fully funded / have no other private activity. And I am OK with limiting HRH to children of the monarch, the heir, and children of the heir, plus spouses/widows.

Cadet children of the king/queen, born as HRHs, may keep their HRH when their elder brother/sister becomes monarch and even stay as part-timers, but they would naturally slow down to give room to the adult children of the new monarch who would replace them. Since they are only part-timers, they would simply have fewer engagements and get reimbursed less often. Throughout their adult life, however, they would rely primarily on private income.
I do think this is all quite a good compromise but would add the caveat that security would only be fully funded for the monarch and the heirs (along with spouses) and minor children of said heirs. Otherwise security should only be provided during work on behalf of the monarch or when a specific and credible threat is in play.
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:59 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 729
It is only fair that Archie be given HRH, as is his right, when Charles becomes King.
He deserves to decide some things about his own self once he is an adult.
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 01-15-2020, 02:32 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOS View Post
I think the Queen should ask the York sisters to step up. They need a long-term solution because most working royals are getting old.

Maybe royals should only carry the Royal Highness title if they're working royals. It feel more fair and it makes the royal family more flexible. Harry would lose the HRH title, but if he wants to become a working royal again and the Queen or King allows it, he will get the title back.

The sisters of Queen Beatrix, the sisters of King Juan Carlos, the brothers of King Willem-Alexander, the sisters of King Felipe all are HRH and all of them have a life outside the Royal House.


The difference with the York ladies is that these are no siblings to a King but out of courtesy and prudence I would leave HRH Princess Beatrice of York and HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank as they are. They will be the last grandchildren of a monarch via a junior son to have this style and form of address. No need to take it away from them. They embody a situation which once was Selbstverständlich but is no more.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 01-15-2020, 03:09 PM
hel hel is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Kitchener, Canada
Posts: 656
I discovered something today that I did not know: the Royal Ballet School's patron is HM and its president is Prince Charles, but its vice-president is Lady Sarah Chatto. I wonder if that model, where Royal-Adjacent members of the monarch's family might be employed in "non-patron, but supportive" honorary positions to give the organizations cachet, while not receiving Sovereign Grant money.
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 01-16-2020, 01:13 AM
Claire's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
The recent events will be tough on William and his family in the long run with two Senior royals of his Generation gone. Harry's Part supporting a King William, plus a wife of Harry who would have taken on the royal bread and Butter job will be very hard to replace.
There is no one else from their generation doing engagements. I would love to the York girls to be given the opportunity - however will it be fair in the long run if it is just until Charles becomes king or till the young Cambridge's are of age. At the moment it is a wait and see attitude - until we know what Harry and Meghan are willing to do - possibility until they know themselves - the question will remain unanswered.
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:08 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
There is no one else from their generation doing engagements. I would love to the York girls to be given the opportunity - however will it be fair in the long run if it is just until Charles becomes king or till the young Cambridge's are of age. At the moment it is a wait and see attitude - until we know what Harry and Meghan are willing to do - possibility until they know themselves - the question will remain unanswered.
If harry had let the RF know years ago that he couldn't do the job/didn't want to, they could have arranged something. Now its a lot more difficult to take on some relatives for the several years until George (anad maybe Charlotte) are old enough Esp when Harry had been givene the responsible Comonweatlh job.
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:07 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,744
I do agree that a couple of William's cousins will be utilized in the future. A year ago I didn't believe that. But with Andrew, Harry, and Meghan now all but officially out of the firm there isn't enough stop gap royals until the Cambridge children can take over. Once Anne turns 70 this year, there will be only four working royals under the age of 70 - Edward, Sophie, William and Catherine. And the Wessexs are both in their mid-50s.

Charles and William will have to sit down and discuss who might be the needed to step in. I'm not sure Beatrice and Eugenie are the best choice. The Yorks are rather tainted right now, and it doesn't help that both women are very close to their parents and let their mother tag along at their appearances. And both women have flirted a bit too much with the celebrity social set. After the Sussex mess I think there will be a lot of wariness about the now murky line between celebrities and royals.

Anne's children would be a better choice, even though they don't have titles. William is closer to them than he is to the Yorks. And since these cousins would be his support system in the firm we can't overstate the value of his trust. Zara might not be a viable option. She has her successful sporting career. But Peter could work and if Autumn was willing to join him, you'd get two firm members for the price of one. Meaning that you'd only need one residence for the couple (Frogmore? if the Sussexes totally transplant to N. America). Personally I think that's another big drawback for Beatrice and Eugenie. You would need to supply two royal residences for the two of them.

Peter has been a good support system for William. He was there in Balmoral comforting William when Diana died. And just recently he was in Sandringham when the Sussex "crisis" talks were taking place. He and Autumn both seem reliable and not flashy. A lot like the Wessexes, actually. And that's the kind of members they really need right now.
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:08 AM
Claire's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 982
I actually below the Commonwealth job is the one they want to keep - travel, high profile and favorable press. But we are only speculating. We have no idea at the moment.
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:14 AM
Claire's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 982
[QUOTE=miss whirley;2283812]I
Anne's children would be a better choice, even though the don't have titles. QUOTE]

I don't think Anne's children will touch this with a stick. They have had many years outside of this nonsense - will they really be tempted.
But where does this leave us - with James and Louise? Too young. And Charles doesn't want them

I just find this whole situation ironic - The flaw of Charles' idea of a smaller monarchy is showing even before he becomes king. People that were sidelined are now going to be depended upon - Edward and Sophie , and possibly Beatrice and Eugenie. They might have to address the Andrew issue sooner then the public want.

Personally I don't think they will be anything - just less patronages and engagements for the overall family.
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:36 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 729
I don't see any point in wanting to change access to the HRH.
It marks a relationship to the sovereign by birth (or marriage) not necessarily that the person should work for the Queen.
However, I notice that most HRHs do carry out charity works because the British Royal Family are brought up to be helpful to the community.
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:37 AM
pkl's Avatar
pkl pkl is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 60
Again, I really can't see the problem here. Do the BRF need to have so many engagements and patronages? In my opinion, they don't. In Norway, for instance (yes, a smaller country in population, but much bigger land), we only have the king and the queen, the crown prince and somethimes the crown princess for such things. Princess Astrid too, but not so much. Almost nothing from her. That's it. My point is, they are so few, but still soooo popular in Norway. Why can't the british monarchy just change like that? Is tradition all that matters?
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 01-16-2020, 04:25 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
I do agree that a couple of William's cousins will be utilized in the future. A year ago I didn't believe that. But with Andrew, Harry, and Meghan now all but officially out of the firm there isn't enough stop gap royals until the Cambridge children can take over. Once Anne turns 70 this year, there will be only four working royals under the age of 70 - Edward, Sophie, William and Catherine. And the Wessexs are both in their mid-50s.
There has been noting said anywhere that indicates that any of the charities and patronages that Harry and Meghan have taken on for the "Firm" or handed down from the Queen will be bereft of their involvement. There will be no need to take on additional family members to take over these patronages. It, however, may indicate that the Sussexes are not going to take on gobs more from the "Firm" (Andrew's specifically) and focus more on their foundation.

Even if any of the cousins did step up and in to do royal work, the expenses incurred while doing them would be covered by the Queen through the Sovereign Grant as she does now for Anne, Edward and Sophie and her cousins and RPO security would be available for their royal duties only.

Remember too that how the Sovereign Grant works is related to a percentage of the profits that the Crown Estates accrue. It would be the same whether there were 5 working royals for the "Firm" or 50.

I don't predict much of a change actually. The Sussexes will continue on with the charities and patronages they've already taken on, remain HRH and start up their own Sussex Royal Foundation. The difference will be part time residency in Canada. How that's even going to work right now is up in the air and not clear.

They're not leaving the "Firm" or the family. They're streamlining things perhaps so that they can put more focus on their young family (which I do expect to grow) and who knows what else will be decided on.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 01-16-2020, 04:57 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkl View Post
Again, I really can't see the problem here. Do the BRF need to have so many engagements and patronages? In my opinion, they don't. In Norway, for instance (yes, a smaller country in population, but much bigger land), we only have the king and the queen, the crown prince and somethimes the crown princess for such things. Princess Astrid too, but not so much. Almost nothing from her. That's it. My point is, they are so few, but still soooo popular in Norway. Why can't the british monarchy just change like that? Is tradition all that matters?

Of course there is no need for that. Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Finland, Portugal, etc. all thrive well without a daughter or a niece or a grandson of the President cutting a ribbon here or laying a first stone there.

When in France a new hospital is opened, one can expect le Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, le Préfet de Département, le Maire, etc. bursting of pride and posing for the local newspaper. I don't think any Queen or Princess is missed here.

The case for a big "Royal Firm" is pretty wobbly.
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:32 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 879
A very much slimmed down monarchy could work if the focus is more on the activities that they must do & less on the activities that they choose to do. I think the monarch is the only one with defined responsibilities so if you start from there as the core work & treat everything else as optional, it should be possible to cover that work with only the monarch, the Prince of Wales & their spouses.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


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
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 768 02-15-2020 04:49 PM
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1503 01-07-2020 10:25 AM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 118 01-24-2018 10:35 PM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 39 11-29-2017 10:53 AM




Popular Tags
althorp archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy bangladesh belgian royal belgian royal family birthday celebration chittagong crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher danish royalty denmark diana princess of wales duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of sussex dutch royal family dutch royals family search felipe vi french royalty future future wife of prince hussein germany haakon vii hamdan bin mohammed hill history israel jerusalem jumma king salman lithuania lithuanian palaces mailing meghan markle memoir mohammed vi monaco royal monarchism mountbatten netflix norway history official visit pakistan prince charles prince daniel prince harry princess margaret pronunciation qe2 queen maud rown royal children royal tour russian imperial family saudi arabia spanish history state visit state visit to denmark sweden tracts trump united kingdom valois visit from sweden working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:47 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×