The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #701  
Old 02-17-2020, 07:57 PM
Count langley's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 32
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.
__________________

__________________
Count Langley
Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 02-17-2020, 11:02 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count langley View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:13 AM
Count langley's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
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.
__________________
Count Langley
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
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.
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:35 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,471
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.
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:40 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
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).
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:57 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
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.
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 02-18-2020, 03:01 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 02-18-2020, 03:06 AM
kbk kbk is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count langley View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 02-18-2020, 03:38 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 695
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
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 02-18-2020, 04:27 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
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).
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 02-18-2020, 11:28 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
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".
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 02-18-2020, 11:36 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 02-18-2020, 05:50 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,410
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.
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 02-18-2020, 07:43 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 02-18-2020, 08:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 02-18-2020, 08:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 02-18-2020, 08:54 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 02-18-2020, 10:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 02-18-2020, 11:31 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla parker bowles, camilla parker-bowles, camilla's family


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
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1678 08-15-2021 08:22 AM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 797 05-31-2021 02:27 PM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 122 09-27-2020 08:03 AM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 42 09-25-2020 03:53 AM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family buckingham palace 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 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 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 names plantinum jubilee 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 unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:37 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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