The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[padams2359]

The Future of the British Monarchy

I think it will be very similar to Victoria, Edward VII & George V. Charles III will be the transition from Elizabeth II to William V.

 

[Durham]

In my humble opinion The Firm needs a thorough re-think of the concept. When Queen Elizabeth started her Reign, it was the start of the media era: her Coronation was the first live Eurovision broadcast.

But the workings of the monarchy remained the same as under her father King George V and under her grandfather King George V: see and be seen. The people need to see the royal family and the royal family needs to see the people. But now, in the 2020's, we have reached a visibility of both the royal family as well the people, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. On TV, in newspapers and magazines, online. And the people talk back: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok or forums like this one. An unstoppable stream of news, reviews, comments, etc.

That begs the question why, in this multimedia age, the extended royal family has to conduct 3,000 public engagements each year with barely any ripple or impact. Even on forums for royalty addicts like this one, the Duke of Gloucester visiting a cutlery company or the Princess Royal passing by Dogs For The Deaf barely causes any ripple.

That brings the question why the taxpayer should fund the travel, the assistance, the logistics, the security for Princess Alexandra to open a day centre in the East Midlands for example? Couldn't the local Mayoress of the local town do it just as well? Or the local noble family with bonds to the locals. Why not the Duchess of Rutland opening it?

The charities? Take an example to the new Dutch King: at the start of his Reign he dropped almost all charities. Explanation: "the King wants to be a King for ALL people". Only a handful institutions established by or connected to the Crown kept him as a Patron, like the Royal Academy of Sciences, the War Graves Foundation, the Praemium Erasmanianum. But no longer the Gouda Cheese Association, the North Sea Seal Rescue Centres, the Friesian traditional costumes conservation, etc.

This would mean the British King or Queen or senior British royals opening the new multi-billion pound High Speed Line to the North, baptizing a new submarine for the British nuclear component, opening a new university medical centre: these are not everyday occurrences.

Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland are more or less comparable with the UK in population and fare excellently well with only a president + consort (or only a King and Queen). It brings up the fair question how sustainable it is to have a daughter, or a cousin or a granddaughter of the head of state to go to Lodge Coaches in Chelmsford, to the Scouts Camp in Roxwell, to Railworld in Peterborough, to Corgi Hosiery in Dyfed, to Shed Company in Colchester, etc. Lovely visits undoubtedly, by the extended royal family. But even on THIS board it will barely receive attention, let alone in mainstream media. And it pops up the question: how do the French, Spaniards, Germans, Italians, Polish survive, their local events being starved from royal visitors ?

This is a fair question and I do have no doubt that the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge have their thoughts about it as well. If the rumours about a slimline royal family are true, then we know that this fundamental question I popped up above, was and is into their considerations.

I'm neutral on the idea of a large extended working royal family vs a system just focused on the monarch plus those in direct line. The large extended model is actually relatively new in a historical context. Both have their pluses & minuses, supporters & detractors.

I am reminded of comments made by Lade Pamela Hicks (frustratingly I can't remember where I heard them) where she said that the role of royalty was to "spread a carpet of happiness". That's an interesting phrase & not easy to rationalise or measure. The unsung work of members of the royal family going about their ordinary duties does feed into a certain sense of Britishness that's not easy to quantify. Simply put there is a large constituency of people who treasure their royal family & want to see them in person not via social media. It's about an emotional link. I'm sure local worthies are wonderful people but they can't compete with the heartfelt connection that some British people do have with their royal family.

I take the point about the UK's peer group (although I'm not sure about the inclusion of Spain & Poland here) but of course the international aspect/commitments of the London based monarchy is a complicating factor.

The idea of corgi hosiery does brighten my world no end

 

[Denville]

I would also add that being the monarch will tend - if he or she is doing it right- to make that person appear dull. The monarch is not supposed to have any - or at least not to offer up any - opinions, for example. Yet, the Queen is known personally to have a sparkling wit and is a fine pantomime. ....

I doubt if she's all that interesting as a person.. but seh's a decent good well meaning woman who has done her duty a long time. But the Royal role does have restrictions which can make someone seem dull. Charles has always been more controversial, and he is aware that he'll have to rein that in when he is King...

 

[Lilyflo]

I doubt if she's all that interesting as a person..

Oh I disagree but I suppose it depends on what people find interesting. She has decades of anecdotes about the people she's met & places she's seen, which she could deliver with wit & mimicry. I'm sure her years as head of state have given her a unique insight into politics & politicians. She knows more about horses than almost anyone & also a lot about gun dogs - plenty would find that interesting.

 

[Denville]

Oh I disagree but I suppose it depends on what people find interesting. She has decades of anecdotes about the people she's met & places she's seen, which she could deliver with wit & mimicry. I'm sure her years as head of state have given her a unique insight into politics & politicians. She knows more about horses than almost anyone & also a lot about gun dogs - plenty would find that interesting.

She may be OK company in private (among people who like dogs and horses).. but honestly she's never struck me as someone who is comfortable with social situations. She IS stiff and shy, I think now, just as much as she was a girl.. and I don't think she could have done the job of "keeping her opinions to herself" so well, over all these years if she had been someone who had a lot of opinions like Charles has I know it is what seh's supposed to do, and yes IMO it does mean that the monarch has to come across as a bit dull.. but I think it is a role that comes relatively easy to the queen...Not that she's necessarily any the worse for that.

 

[Pranter]

I for one would love to sit down and talk to The Queen (and Anne) about dogs and horses. I think a great many ppl at least have an affinity for dog discussion. I've heard little snippets of things the Queen has asked/talked to ppl about so it is apparent she does have a good range of knowledge. I don't consider her dull/boring at all.

That said I do much prefer the style of the younger royals and how they engage with ppl though. It's a very different era.


LaRae

 

[Betsypaige]

Oh I disagree but I suppose it depends on what people find interesting. She has decades of anecdotes about the people she's met & places she's seen, which she could deliver with wit & mimicry. I'm sure her years as head of state have given her a unique insight into politics & politicians. She knows more about horses than almost anyone & also a lot about gun dogs - plenty would find that interesting.

Yep. She loves horses, horse racing and doggies ...the Queen is my kind of gal, lol. She’s on the reserved side, which is also me, but that’s also why people who know her say that HM would surprise you with how witty she is. I think I’d have a lot to talk to her about of given the chance...she’s extremely interesting to me

 

[Lilyflo]

She may be OK company in private (among people who like dogs and horses).. but honestly she's never struck me as someone who is comfortable with social situations. She IS stiff and shy, I think now, just as much as she was a girl.. and I don't think she could have done the job of "keeping her opinions to herself" so well, over all these years if she had been someone who had a lot of opinions like Charles has I know it is what seh's supposed to do, and yes IMO it does mean that the monarch has to come across as a bit dull.. but I think it is a role that comes relatively easy to the queen...Not that she's necessarily any the worse for that.

She probably is a bit stiff in some situations but have you ever seen clips of her mingling with diplomats & politicians where she's quite forthright & funny? I remember one where she laughed as she told the PM Ted Heath that he was expendable. In others, she's relaxed & jolly as she chats to world leaders & their spouses. Then there's the social situation of appearing to relish dancing with the staff at the annual Ghillies Ball. I think she knows exactly when to be reserved & stony-faced & when she can lighten-up & relax.

 

[Osipi]

She probably is a bit stiff in some situations but have you ever seen clips of her mingling with diplomats & politicians where she's quite forthright & funny? I remember one where she laughed as she told the PM Ted Heath that he was expendable. In others, she's relaxed & jolly as she chats to world leaders & their spouses. Then there's the social situation of appearing to relish dancing with the staff at the annual Ghillies Ball. I think she knows exactly when to be reserved & stony-faced & when she can lighten-up & relax.

I call it being in "Queen mode" and putting on her "Queen face" when she's in public. I think she believes that when she is being the monarch and representative of the Crown, its not about her personally but rather her position and her duty to the people. She instinctively, over many, many years, knows exactly what the situation calls for.

Behind the scenes, its been reported that she's funny and witty and a wonderful mimic and full of life. She is reported to love it when things go wrong and there are glitches that occur and things aren't perfect as it breaks up the monotony of everyday Queen life. This is a woman that consented to be portrayed as a "Bond girl" jumping out of a helicopter, doing a mic drop scene with Harry and the Obamas for a trailer to the Invictus Games. This is a woman who when sitting on a beach, had a woman approach her and state "Oh! Did you hear that the Queen may be here today? I hope I see her!" and the Queen just smiled at the fact she wasn't recognized as she was dressed as everyday woman.

She's also the woman most likely to be voted the most iconic and successful diplomat in the known world.

 

[Betsypaige]

I call it being in "Queen mode" and putting on her "Queen face" when she's in public. I think she believes that when she is being the monarch and representative of the Crown, its not about her personally but rather her position and her duty to the people. She instinctively, over many, many years, knows exactly what the situation calls for.

Behind the scenes, its been reported that she's funny and witty and a wonderful mimic and full of life. She is reported to love it when things go wrong and there are glitches that occur and things aren't perfect as it breaks up the monotony of everyday Queen life. This is a woman that consented to be portrayed as a "Bond girl" jumping out of a helicopter, doing a mic drop scene with Harry and the Obamas for a trailer to the Invictus Games. This is a woman who when sitting on a beach, had a woman approach her and state "Oh! Did you hear that the Queen may be here today? I hope I see her!" and the Queen just smiled at the fact she wasn't recognized as she was dressed as everyday woman.

She's also the woman most likely to be voted the most iconic and successful diplomat in the known world.

All this. Plus, I’ve read that the BRF give each other joke gifts for Christmas, so obviously that includes the Queen. She takes her duties extremely seriously, but I don’t think she takes life seriously. My favorite photos of her are from the Highland Games when she and Charles laugh uproariously - that’s not a woman who’s stuffy and dull.

 

[Count langley]

I am an ardent supporter of The British Monarchy. When Charles ascends the throne, it is imperative that he scale down the monarchy in order to keep it alive for his heirs. I would suggest the following:

1. Create a distinction between the a Royal House and the Royal Family. The Royal House would be the full-time (working) royals and would be limited to the sovereign, the sovereign’s spouse, the sovereign’s surviving spouse, the heir apparent, spouse of the heir apparent (including a surviving spouse of the heir), Children of the sovereign and of the heir, along with their spouses. The eldest grandchild of the heir apparent.
A. This would relegate the Gloucester’s, The Kent’s, and York
sisters to non-working Royal Family members.
2. The children of the Sovereign’s sons not in the direct line of succession be granted the style of “Highness” instead of “Royal Highness.”
3. Only members of the Royal House should be granted Grace and Favor residences for services rendered to the Crown.
4. Abolish the Coronation, but have a ceremony similar to the Dutch Enthronement. I believe this would better pave the way for Camilla to become Queen Consort, without the anointment or Crowning.
5. Streamline the Royal Household, while including more women in key roles.

These are just a few of my thoughts, I could be completely off mark here, but I wish to see the monarchy survive for future generations.

 

[Countessmeout]

I am an ardent supporter of The British Monarchy. When Charles ascends the throne, it is imperative that he scale down the monarchy in order to keep it alive for his heirs. I would suggest the following:

1. Create a distinction between the a Royal House and the Royal Family. The Royal House would be the full-time (working) royals and would be limited to the sovereign, the sovereign’s spouse, the sovereign’s surviving spouse, the heir apparent, spouse of the heir apparent (including a surviving spouse of the heir), Children of the sovereign and of the heir, along with their spouses. The eldest grandchild of the heir apparent.
A. This would relegate the Gloucester’s, The Kent’s, and York
sisters to non-working Royal Family members.
2. The children of the Sovereign’s sons not in the direct line of succession be granted the style of “Highness” instead of “Royal Highness.”
3. Only members of the Royal House should be granted Grace and Favor residences for services rendered to the Crown.
4. Abolish the Coronation, but have a ceremony similar to the Dutch Enthronement. I believe this would better pave the way for Camilla to become Queen Consort, without the anointment or Crowning.
5. Streamline the Royal Household, while including more women in key roles.

These are just a few of my thoughts, I could be completely off mark here, but I wish to see the monarchy survive for future generations.

Only working royals have grace and favour apartments already. Those who don’t work pay rent. Well queen pays for Prince Michael.

The York’s are not working royals already. And the Kent’s and Gloucester’s aren’t going to get bumped after decades of service until they choose to retire.

The Highness vs royal highness would require legal changes. Doesn’t exist now.

I don’t get why people think slimmed down is good. Do you think you pay per individual?? Or that HRH comes with pay cheque? Honestly asking because I don’t get why you are desperate for a slim down.

The only royals who get direct tax money is the sovereign. The sovereigns grant doesn’t get reduced because less royals. Just means Charles will have less people to support. Tax payers will pay same amount for less work. All those bonus royals don’t have tax provided security, don’t get paid expenses from tax. Their grace and Favor apartments would likely just stage empty as there would be hard to fill with non royals for security purposes.

 

[Count langley]

Only working royals have grace and favour apartments already. Those who don’t work pay rent. Well queen pays for Prince Michael.



The York’s are not working royals already. And the Kent’s and Gloucester’s aren’t going to get bumped after decades of service until they choose to retire.



The Highness vs royal highness would require legal changes. Doesn’t exist now.



I don’t get why people think slimmed down is good. Do you think you pay per individual?? Or that HRH comes with pay cheque? Honestly asking because I don’t get why you are desperate for a slim down.



The only royals who get direct tax money is the sovereign. The sovereigns grant doesn’t get reduced because less royals. Just means Charles will have less people to support. Tax payers will pay same amount for less work. All those bonus royals don’t have tax provided security, don’t get paid expenses from tax. Their grace and Favor apartments would likely just stage empty as there would be hard to fill with non royals for security purposes.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the British Monarchy as it exist today. But when you see what is happening in other European Monarchies,slimming down may be the only way to continue. The younger generation doesn’t have the same emotional attachment toward the royal institutions as the older generations.

As far as the HRH is concerned,there is precedent. Queen Victoria granted the title “Highness” to her Schleswig-Holstein grandchildren. Edward VII granted it to Princess Maud and Princess Alexandra of Fife.

As far as the Grace and Favor residences are concerned. I fully understand your point and don’t disagree; however, perception and reality doesn’t always get discerned to the general public.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The other European monarchies are only the monarchs of one country. The monarch of the UK is the monarch of 16 sovereign nations (or more if you count the four constituent countries of the UK itself) as well as is the Head of an organisation that covers 2.4 BILLION people (or almost a third of the world's population). That means there are more calls on their time than for the European monarchies.

George V removed the title His/Her Highness from the possible titles of the BRF in his 1917 LPs. Re-instating them would be going backwards.

They simply need to keep doing what they are doing in practice now - not giving HRH to the children of younger sons (daughters already can't pass it on). That means no HRH for Archie and siblings when Charles becomes King and putting Louis on the same level as Charlotte and thus not able to pass it on.

With no HRHs under 30 (well be the end of next month) other than George, Charlotte and Louis, it won't be that long until the numbers simply reduce naturally. It two and a half years time there won't be any working royals under 40 when William and Catherine have both turned 40.

In 30 years there with my proposal the only people the world will really see with HRH will be George and spouse, Charlotte and Louis (I would also not have Louis' wife become HRH - so again on a par with Charlotte) and any children George has. I would expect William to be King and the others in William's generation along with his aunt and uncles to have disappeared from public view except for those major royal events.

 

[Alison H]

We're still in a transitional period socially. In the Queen's generation and that of her cousins, the idea of the upper-classes spending their time doing good works was still very much alive. I don't think it's that younger people aren't attached to the monarchy, but younger people have not grown up in the days of the Countess of Grantham organising concerts to raise funds for good causes. I still think that the Kents and Gloucesters do a lot of good work, but that's going to end when this generation retires, and Princess Margaret's children have never been working royals, so there'll be a natural "slimming down". It worries me that there just won't be enough royals to go round, with Andrew, Harry and Meghan out of the picture, but that will have to be dealt with.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Currently the whole family does about 3500 engagements a year.

That number could easily be handled by 7 people at 500 per year (which is how many Charles and Anne do now). If everyone worked as hard as they do then 7 can do it - so Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, Edward, Sophie and Anne are all that are needed (with the Queen chipping in a few hundred as well).

 

[Lilyflo]

There are many engagements that wouldn't be greatly missed if they weren't done. For example, it's of little consequence to the British public whether the Duke of Kent attends a concert, the Duchess of Gloucester attends a dinner or Princess Alexandra visits a flower show.

The monarchy only needs to cover the duties of the monarch, which can be done by the Queen supported by Charles & William. When Charles is king, he can do most of it himself, supported by William. They can also cover the most important charity events, supported by Camilla & Catherine. The monarchy can survive with a small core group of people and in fact, probably has more chance of surviving in this way.

 

[Denville]

We're still in a transitional period socially. In the Queen's generation and that of her cousins, the idea of the upper-classes spending their time doing good works was still very much alive. I don't think it's that younger people aren't attached to the monarchy, but younger people have not grown up in the days of the Countess of Grantham organising concerts to raise funds for good causes. I still think that the Kents and Gloucesters do a lot of good work, but that's going to end when this generation retires, and Princess Margaret's children have never been working royals, so there'll be a natural "slimming down". It worries me that there just won't be enough royals to go round, with Andrew, Harry and Meghan out of the picture, but that will have to be dealt with.

that's true. For Charles as well, the idea of the upper classes doing good works in a more modern setting is important I think. but he knows that that is changing. I think they'll have to do less or younger royals will problaby be willing to do a normal job but help out with a few favoured patronages.. but they will keep up a day job or a "normal life" most of the time.

 

[kbk]

2. The children of the Sovereign’s sons not in the direct line of succession be granted the style of “Highness” instead of “Royal Highness.”

What do you mean by "direct line of succession"? There are hundreds (even thousands?) of people who can claim British throne based on their direct descent from Electress Sophia of Hanover. The current HRHs and their own descendants are 59 people who are closest to the throne.

You mean the first 6 people, like it is with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which makes them to obtain the Sovereign's assent for marriage?


I can't imagine people who for 60, 70 years of their life enjoyed full royal status with HRH style would no be demoted now, especially when they spent their entire lives serving the Crown. When George V limited the use of Royal styles and titles back in 1917, the only affected person was the little Alastair of Connaught. Changes you've suggested could have much wider effects.

 

[Nice Nofret]

I cannot see any need to slim down the BRF - as it! is allready on its way!


The Queens cousines will retire/die in the next 10 years - probably earlier.
From the Queens children only Charles, Edward and Anne are doing royal work;

From the Grandchildren only the York girls (appart from Charles son(s) could / would do anything; the others are allready out of the equation.
From Charles line - one took himself out (though he might come back)



So in some short years time, there will be only Charles, the Cambridges with Children, the Wessexes (without children) and mybe one or two of the York Girls...


How much more slimming down needs to be done?





I don't expect childrearing Royals to push the full workload; after all they also work on much after an age, when other people are long retired

 

[Lilyflo]

Please do not respond to this post with any party political comments.

The opposition party (Labour) is holding a leadership election so the winner will be a potential Prime Minister. I think it's interesting to hear their views on abolishing the monarchy and also to record them here:

Sir Keir Starmer said: "No, I wouldn't. I think I'd downsize it."

Rebecca Long-Bailey said: "I think we have got more important things to worry about. I wouldn't vote to abolish the monarchy."

Lisa Nandy said: "I'm a democrat, so I would vote to scrap it. But this is not the priority of the country."

Good to see they recognise that abolishing the monarchy isn't a priority for us (for now anyway).

 

[Durham]

Please do not respond to this post with any party political comments.

The opposition party (Labour) is holding a leadership election so the winner will be a potential Prime Minister. I think it's interesting to hear their views on abolishing the monarchy and also to record them here:

Sir Keir Starmer said: "No, I wouldn't. I think I'd downsize it."

Rebecca Long-Bailey said: "I think we have got more important things to worry about. I wouldn't vote to abolish the monarchy."

Lisa Nandy said: "I'm a democrat, so I would vote to scrap it. But this is not the priority of the country."

Good to see they recognise that abolishing the monarchy isn't a priority for us (for now anyway).

Food for thought.

Just to put this in a historical context here is a quote from a well known parliamentary speech from 1894 made by the great Labour MP Keir Hardie on the birth of the future Edward VIII:

“This boy will be surrounded by sycophants and flatterers by the score and will be taught to believe himself as of a superior creation".

 

[Durham]

What do you mean by "direct line of succession"? There are hundreds (even thousands?) of people who can claim British throne based on their direct descent from Electress Sophia of Hanover. The current HRHs and their own descendants are 59 people who are closest to the throne.

You mean the first 6 people, like it is with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which makes them to obtain the Sovereign's assent for marriage?

I understand direct line to mean those individuals who will definitely be the monarch so long as as they outlive the monarch (or the person above them in the line of succession) & who can't be pushed down the line of succession by the birth of somebody else.

There are only three people who that applies to at the moment. A future eldest child of George of Cambridge would be the next individual who would meet that criteria.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

At the moment i am not worried that the Number of working royals in the next reign wouldn’t be enough. Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, Anne, Edward and Sophie will definitely be full time working royals. I think it’s fully possible that Beatrice and/or Eugenie will help out part time too.

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester is around Charles and Camilla’s age so i think they will continue to help out for as long as their health allows it. Their son, the Earl of Ulster will never be a working royal but he is a retired Major in the Army (King’s Royal Hussars) and have served in both Kosovo and Iraq so perhaps Charles could use him in some form of military Capacity ? With The Duke’s of Edinburgh, York, Sussex and Kent not there anymore, there won’t be any more royals with experience from the front line.

But the Kent-line won’t do any more royal engagements once The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra dies or decides to stop.

 

[Somebody]

Currently the whole family does about 3500 engagements a year.

That number could easily be handled by 7 people at 500 per year (which is how many Charles and Anne do now). If everyone worked as hard as they do then 7 can do it - so Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, Edward, Sophie and Anne are all that are needed (with the Queen chipping in a few hundred as well).

I agree with some of the others that this number of engagement does not necessarily need to be maintained. Because increasing the number of engagements will also lead to less involvement with each of the organizations. It seems the younger royals prefer to focus on specific causes - next to doing some of the more 'standard' royal engagements. So, while I expect the numbers to increase, I don't expect them to increase their number to the same numbers as the generation before them - and I don't think that's needed either.

 

[Iluvbertie]

At the moment i am not worried that the Number of working royals in the next reign wouldn’t be enough. Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, Anne, Edward and Sophie will definitely be full time working royals. I think it’s fully possible that Beatrice and/or Eugenie will help out part time too.

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester is around Charles and Camilla’s age so i think they will continue to help out for as long as their health allows it. Their son, the Earl of Ulster will never be a working royal but he is a retired Major in the Army (King’s Royal Hussars) and have served in both Kosovo and Iraq so perhaps Charles could use him in some form of military Capacity ? With The Duke’s of Edinburgh, York, Sussex and Kent not there anymore, there won’t be any more royals with experience from the front line.

Currently the entire family does around 3500 per year.

7 people could easily handle that - if everyone worked as hard as Charles and Anne.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Please do not respond to this post with any party political comments.

The opposition party (Labour) is holding a leadership election so the winner will be a potential Prime Minister. I think it's interesting to hear their views on abolishing the monarchy and also to record them here:

Sir Keir Starmer said: "No, I wouldn't. I think I'd downsize it."

Rebecca Long-Bailey said: "I think we have got more important things to worry about. I wouldn't vote to abolish the monarchy."

Lisa Nandy said: "I'm a democrat, so I would vote to scrap it. But this is not the priority of the country."

Good to see they recognise that abolishing the monarchy isn't a priority for us (for now anyway).

Is Rebecca the one who said she wanted Meghan to be queen? She doesn't seem to have a firm grasp as to how it works.

 

[Leopoldine]

Currently the entire family does around 3500 per year.

7 people could easily handle that - if everyone worked as hard as Charles and Anne.

THAT is the problem. All of the tote-board charts determining which BRF members are worthy of respect, based on "engagements".


And what if newcomers and young new principals in the BRF didn't cotton to Prince Philip's competitive "who wins with most engagements" polemic. It is still Prince Philip's game, after all of this time and Charles and Anne still competing for who has the most visits to places.

No wonder Harry took the high road.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Currently the entire family does around 3500 per year.

7 people could easily handle that - if everyone worked as hard as Charles and Anne.

But once Charles and Camilla is King and Queen they are expected to embark on lots of foreign state visits (something The Queen stopped doing in 2014) and extensive tours around the Kingdom and the Commonwealth and Charles will be handling the ”Red Box” and is expected to hold a lot of time consuming audiences etc. They won’t have time to keep this score every year. And William and Catherine’s children are still children and they want to be as present parents as possible. And if William will be taking over The Prince’s Trust from Charles, it inevitably means a lot more of time consuming trips for him too.

There will still be space for Anne, the Wessex’es, Bea, Eugenie and The Gloucester’s.

 

[Curryong]

The Gloucesters are older than Prince Charles and may well want to slow down. As for the York sisters it's doubtful IMO that Eugenie at least would be wanting to do dozens of Royal engagements a year as well as a fulltime job and her own patronages. Both sisters might very easily be starting families in the next couple of years.