The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I doubt that George and Charlotte will do 500 engagements a year when their parents aged 36 don't even do half that amount

...they do - together. xx

Some things are clearly going to change in the future. Whether for better or worse remains to be seen. Although, I do find some 'accepted' notions to be rather humours or rather optimistic.

Once William ascends, it'll be down to him, Catherine, Harry and Meghan & likely George/Charlotte/Louis starting to become part time working royals (I am unsure why people seem to believe that they would not be following their parent's example of a very soft and slow entry into royal working life.)
Maybe William will tap Bea and/or Eug for a role akin to Princess Alexandra, where they are active for a handful of patronages, but not actually anything close to full time.


I very much doubt Harry and Meghan will be keen to have their children be working royals. I would actually bet good money on the opposite. While I see them be dedicated and important assets to the BRF for the decades to come, I am quite certain they'll nurture their children to find their own paths apart from the family.
 
No I don't think they will ever be working royals.

Beatrice even had a solo mention in the CC last year for an event but that is a once a year type thing.

If Andrew had his way they would be it seems - and both girls have done the odd engagement with him but the plan going forward seems to be to cut them out totally with even suggestions that Charles intends on cutting out Andrew and possibly Edward and Sophie, but not Anne.

Do you really think Charles will cut the Wessexes and Andrew loose? I have to say that would kinda surprise me. I figured he would let them continue as they are...or at least part time royals.



LaRae
 
I fully expect the Cambridge children to be given some years to ease into being full time royals the same as their parents.

I don't think it likely they will hit 25 and turn into full time royals the next day.

The Wessexes, Andrew and Princess Anne will either be very aged or gone.

That leaves 5 Cambridges and 3 Sussexes (unless they have one more child..then 4)..so a max of 9 core members...5 of which may not even be full time royals at that point.

So there will either be a reduction of engagements or a request for Harry's kids to go full time at some point..and they will be HRH's after Charles is King...unless their parents decide to go the way of the Wessexes.




LaRae

The choice between a reduction of engagements, an increase in the number of engagements per person, a request for more family members to become full time royals, or a combination of these choices will happen before any of the Sussex children, or even the Cambridge children, turn 25.

The Duke of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Kent already are retired, and as Queen Elizabeth II is 92, the Duke of Kent is 83, Princess Alexandra is 82, the Duke of Gloucester is 74, the Duchess of Gloucester is 72, the Duchess of Cornwall is 71, the Prince of Wales is 70, and the Princess Royal is 68, there will inevitably be more retirements (or deaths) before even Prince George (the eldest of Prince Charles' grandchildren) turns 25.

If the British royal family's choice is to request more family members to become full time royals (instead of reducing engagements or increasing the number of engagements per person), it is the York princesses and perhaps (if they remain healthy and willing at that point) Prince and Princess Michael of Kent who will be on hand.

Once William ascends, it'll be down to him, Catherine, Harry and Meghan & likely George/Charlotte/Louis starting to become part time working royals (I am unsure why people seem to believe that they would not be following their parent's example of a very soft and slow entry into royal working life.) [...]

Most on this forum do seem to expect them to follow their parents' example, given the above discussion.
 
Do you really think Charles will cut the Wessexes and Andrew loose? I have to say that would kinda surprise me. I figured he would let them continue as they are...or at least part time royals.



LaRae

I am getting more and more convinced that Charles really only wants his own direct family as working royals and thus excluding his own siblings although Anne has no doubt told him what she thinks and he will let her do her own thing.
 
I am getting more and more convinced that Charles really only wants his own direct family as working royals and thus excluding his own siblings although Anne has no doubt told him what she thinks and he will let her do her own thing.


That is really interesting. I don't think Charles is going to rock Anne's boat. If nothing else I'd think the Queen would of had a word about it...and why not. She probably is one of the most efficient working royals and wouldn't be surprised if she cost the least amount of money.

It seems like we do see less of the Wessexes already but I know they tend to be overlooked by the media.

I wonder what Charles's plan is then...is he going to cut engagements back or increase workloads...maybe both.



LaRae
 
I got the impression in the press this weekend the Charles wanted Andrew out as he gives a bad impression on the monarchy, but these are very unreliable sources. The general impression was it appears Charles has forgotten his own failings and only remembers his brothers'. And of course his children have amble time to make messes themselves.


But I do agree that the Yorks and Wessexs are already moving into their new roles as the Gloucesters and Kents of this generation. Sophie and Edward have already arranged their staff and charities accordingly. Andrew will have to follow suit regardless of his preferences. Odd if you consider the amount of engagements they do in comparison to the Sussexs and Cambridges. I have actually attempted to do an age and life stage comparison on engagements of the royals, was never able to do it. Either way it is not as if the Wessexs and Duke of York are doing nothing. Can Charles ask them and the Gloucesters, Kents, ect to stop doing engagements?
 
Yes as he is the one who funds them via either the Sovereign Grant or the Duchy of Lancaster.
 
Yes as he is the one who funds them via either the Sovereign Grant or the Duchy of Lancaster.

I think Charles will allow those that work for the "Firm" now, to gracefully slow down and then eventually bow out but continue to support them as the Queen does now just for the fact that they've given long years of service to the monarchy.

I also believe that as the new reign begins, engagements are going to be more compartmentalized than they are now with each royal having their own primary area of focus. I can see Andrew continuing and focusing on his Pitch at the Palace schemes, Edward and Sophie concentrating on The Duke of Edinburgh Award, the Sussexes focusing on the Commonwealth and so forth.

Perhaps even what we see as singular patronages such as hospitals, museums and galleries and the military will all be under an umbrella with perhaps the Prince's Trust and the Royal Foundation merging into a giant, overhead machine encompassing more and more that draws organizations and incentives and projects into working with others with similar goals.

I believe that perhaps a day of engagements where in the morning, a royal opens a hospital wing, has lunch with another charity/foundation, attends a reception at a gallery and then a dinner with another cause are going to be more streamlined. Streamlining also makes it much easier for the work the monarchy does to encompass issues and causes globally rather than just in the backyard of London and the UK.

Perhaps, as time passes and Harry and Meghan's children grow up and have children of their own, we'll be seeing the minor royals following in Beatrice and Eugenie's footsteps as being part and parcel of the British Royal Family but the causes and the charities that they do take on will be their own personal endeavors and not through the "Firm". The minor royals (as with Andrew and Pitch, Beatrice and Eugenie and Edward and Sophie with the DoE Award etc), they're personally giving back to the people and supporting causes on their own rather than working for the monarchy.

Perhaps I'm having a caffeine induced pipe dream but it makes sense to me. :D
 
Last edited:
But I do agree that the Yorks and Wessexs are already moving into their new roles as the Gloucesters and Kents of this generation. Sophie and Edward have already arranged their staff and charities accordingly. Andrew will have to follow suit regardless of his preferences.

This is very interesting. How are Anne's staff and charities organised, in comparison?
 
I got the impression in the press this weekend the Charles wanted Andrew out as he gives a bad impression on the monarchy, but these are very unreliable sources. The general impression was it appears Charles has forgotten his own failings and only remembers his brothers'. And of course his children have amble time to make messes themselves.


But I do agree that the Yorks and Wessexs are already moving into their new roles as the Gloucesters and Kents of this generation. Sophie and Edward have already arranged their staff and charities accordingly. Andrew will have to follow suit regardless of his preferences. Odd if you consider the amount of engagements they do in comparison to the Sussexs and Cambridges. I have actually attempted to do an age and life stage comparison on engagements of the royals, was never able to do it. Either way it is not as if the Wessexs and Duke of York are doing nothing. Can Charles ask them and the Gloucesters, Kents, ect to stop doing engagements?
I’m not sure how Andrew, Anne, or the Wessex are moving into Gloucester or Kent’s territory other than the press is not reporting much on them? Although that’s more on the press than anyone else. They are very active members of the BRF.

How are the Wessex charities and staff organized differently? The Queen supports her other children’s and her cousins’ work because they don’t receive an income like Charles does.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure how Andrew, Anne, or the Wessex are moving into Gloucester or Kent’s territory other than the press is not reporting much on them? Although that’s more on the press than anyone else. They are very active members of the BRF.

How are the Wessex charities and staff organized differently? The Queen supports her other children’s and her cousins’ work because they don’t receive an income like Charles does.

Bold is mine. I think this is a lot of it, very little press. If I didn't read here about all the things Charles's siblings are doing, I'd think they didn't do much either. But they are incredibly active.

I don't think Charles will put his siblings out to pasture. I cannot see, for instance, Charles dismantling his father's Duke of Edinburgh's Award, which Edward is heavily involved in these days.
 
Last edited:
Are Harry and Meghan effectively now minor royals? If so, is this a deliberate downgrading of their status on their part? In comparison, were Andrew & Sarah considered as important/senior as Charles & Diana? And if so, when did they stop being seen as such?
 
Are Harry and Meghan effectively now minor royals? If so, is this a deliberate downgrading of their status on their part? In comparison, were Andrew & Sarah considered as important/senior as Charles & Diana? And if so, when did they stop being seen as such?

This depends on who you ask, and in the past, there have been some feisty debate on the forum relating to that question. However, I can say that Harry and Meghan (should they remain married) will be the 3rd most featured couple for the royal family after Charles and Camilla and William and Kate. I would say another 20-30 years before they will be moved down by George, Charlotte and Louis, so yes, they are important.

Re: Andrew and Fergie, if my memory serves me, it wasn't until their private antics became public knowledge and then the divorce. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Honestly I don't see how they can be considered anything but senior royals.


LaRae
 
Agree that it depends on who you ask. Personally I think that the Sussexes should be considered as senior royals simply because of the amount of media coverage and reports they have. Minor royals to me would be the York family, Princess Anne, the Wessexes, the Kents, Gloucesters and Princess Alexandra. Some people base their opinions off more technical reasonings, so it does indeed really depend on who you ask since there doesn't seem to be a set in stone definition of what constitutes a "minor royal".
 
Personally I see three level of royals:

Queen and direct heirs - HM (Philip when he is around), Charles, Camilla, William and Kate

Senior Royals - Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie and now Harry and Meghan

Minor Royals - Kents, Gloucester's, Princess Alexandra

But that is just me. I certainly think the Palace is trying to make a clear distinction in Harry and Meghan and how they are treated compared to William and Kate but IMO thats to be expected, treating direct heirs as different to the other royals.
 
Personally I see three level of royals:

Queen and direct heirs - HM (Philip when he is around), Charles, Camilla, William and Kate

Senior Royals - Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie and now Harry and Meghan

Minor Royals - Kents, Gloucester's, Princess Alexandra

But that is just me. I certainly think the Palace is trying to make a clear distinction in Harry and Meghan and how they are treated compared to William and Kate but IMO thats to be expected, treating direct heirs as different to the other royals.

It's not just you--I tend to agree.

There is a difference between William and Harry's postions in the Royal Family. But relatively soon, Harry will be in the exact position Anne, Andrew and Edward are now-younger child of the monarch.

The folks you have listed "minor royals" were never the children of the monarch or the heir, just grandchildren of the monarch.
 
Personally I see three level of royals:

Queen and direct heirs - HM (Philip when he is around), Charles, Camilla, William and Kate

Senior Royals - Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie and now Harry and Meghan

Minor Royals - Kents, Gloucester's, Princess Alexandra

But that is just me. I certainly think the Palace is trying to make a clear distinction in Harry and Meghan and how they are treated compared to William and Kate but IMO thats to be expected, treating direct heirs as different to the other royals.


I agree with your second and third levels. But do you put HM The Queen on the same level as William and Kate, seriously?.

Below see my 5 levels (also just my opinion):
level 1 - Queen and Prince Philip
level 2 - Charles, Camilla
level 3 - William and Kate
Level 4 - Senior Royals - Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie, Harry and Meghan
level 5 - Minor Royals - Kents, Gloucesters, Princess Alexandra
 
Last edited:
For me, defining the difference between "senior royal" and "minor royal" falls into different categories for me.

1. The hierarchy of the monarchy. The "major" royals being those in the direct line of succession. The main branch of the House of Windsor. It would include The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, William and Kate and George, Charlotte and Louis. This is shown in the order of precedence when the family gathers for official events.

2. The Firm. The organization of the monarchy that performs duties and service to the people. "Senior" working royals are those that work full time for the "Firm" with the "minor" royals being those that do not work full time.

3. The Extended Royal Family which includes relatives that play no part whatsoever in the workings of the monarchy such as Peter, Zara and their children and Beatrice and Eugenie.

I do believe, however, that when it comes to the "Firm", each and every royal that represents the Queen or works for the betterment of the people are equal spokes in the wheel in the Queen's eyes. Its why she calls it "Team Windsor". All for one and one for all.

So with this in mind, I would classify The Duchess of Sussex and the years ahead of her working full time for the "Firm" as a senior working royal. She, along with Harry and their children will have their status change as time goes by in the hierarchy and the order of precedence as they move further and further away from the main branch of the House of Windsor.
 
For me, defining the difference between "senior royal" and "minor royal" falls into different categories for me.

1. The hierarchy of the monarchy. The "major" royals being those in the direct line of succession. The main branch of the House of Windsor. It would include The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, William and Kate and George, Charlotte and Louis. This is shown in the order of precedence when the family gathers for official events.

2. The Firm. The organization of the monarchy that performs duties and service to the people. "Senior" working royals are those that work full time for the "Firm" with the "minor" royals being those that do not work full time.

3. The Extended Royal Family which includes relatives that play no part whatsoever in the workings of the monarchy such as Peter, Zara and their children and Beatrice and Eugenie.

I do believe, however, that when it comes to the "Firm", each and every royal that represents the Queen or works for the betterment of the people are equal spokes in the wheel in the Queen's eyes. Its why she calls it "Team Windsor". All for one and one for all.

So with this in mind, I would classify The Duchess of Sussex and the years ahead of her working full time for the "Firm" as a senior working royal. She, along with Harry and their children will have their status change as time goes by in the hierarchy and the order of precedence as they move further and further away from the main branch of the House of Windsor.

So where is Charles and Camilla? they are mission from the main branch.

Order of precedence when the family gathers for official events - the sovereign younger sons are ahead of grandsons.
Order of precedence and line of succession are different.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to blame the omission of Charles and Camilla on my dog. He's got a new toy that squeaks and that distracts me. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Thanks for pointing out my omission. How could I forget the heir apparent to the throne??? Yeps... the dog did it. :lol:

This also applies to the differences between the line of succession and the order of precedence. Got that wrong too didn't I?

BTW: the toy is a flying pink pig. Kind of fitting don't you think? :D
 
The order of precedence and seniority are two different things.

Official order of precedence puts the queen's children ahead of her grandchildren. The sovereign/consort, heir/consort, children of the monarch, then grandchildren and so on.

The fact that William comes ahead of his Uncles in the CC shows the emphasis isn't placed upon the official order of precedence.

When it comes speaking about senior vs junior royals, children are left out of the equation. George, Charlotte and Louis will not play a roll until they are adults. And they don't impact the place of other adults as such. This was seen when William and Harry were kids, and this will be seen now.

Andrew and Fergie were the second senior couple after Charles and Diana. This didn't change with his nephews. It only changed when William was an adult and taking on royal duties. And now Harry as well.

Right now we have

The Queen (category of her own, Philip too when not retired)

1. Heir to the throne and in this case heir to the heir and wives
2. children of the queen and Prince Harry/Meghan
3. Gloucesters, Kents, Alexandra


And junior royals being those like the Yorks and Prince Michael/



When Charles is King

Charles and Camilla
1. William and Kate
2. Harry/Meghan
3. his siblings and any members of the Gloucesters/Kents who aren't retired


Andrew and Edward/Sophie, and Anne will continue to work when their brother is king, but they will be down a step. Harry and Meghan will remain at the second tier until George and his siblings are adults to take on roles.
 
I don't think Harry/Meghan/Will/Kate's roles are that much different now that they belong in different levels or categories. Once Will becomes Prince of Wales, sure.

Right now, I would say:

1. The Queen and DoE
2. Charles and Camilla
3. Will/Kate, Harry/Meghan
4. The Queens children

Everyone else, I'd say, would qualify as a minor royal.
 
I don't think Harry/Meghan/Will/Kate's roles are that much different now that they belong in different levels or categories. Once Will becomes Prince of Wales, sure.

Right now, I would say:

1. The Queen and DoE
2. Charles and Camilla
3. Will/Kate, Harry/Meghan
4. The Queens children

Everyone else, I'd say, would qualify as a minor royal.

That William and Harry are treated differently isnt open to opinion.

There's no better demonstration of this than the Sussexes going of to BP.

Harry and Meghan are worker bees.
 
That William and Harry are treated differently isnt open to opinion.

There's no better demonstration of this than the Sussexes going of to BP.

Harry and Meghan are worker bees.

Huh? My point is, their roles are not much different right now and they aren't.
 
Huh? My point is, their roles are not much different right now and they aren't.

What do you mean by 'roles' ?

William meets with senior government officials. William conveys meetings of the Duchy of Cornwall. William conducts investitures. William is a member of the privy council. I could go on.
 
Huh? My point is, their roles are not much different right now and they aren't.

Actually their roles are different--for example, William performs investitures, has meetings for the Duchy of Cornwall and does things like shadowing MI6.
 
I didn't come back from a break to argue over something I see as trivial. :lol:

Sure, there are certain things Will does as an heir that Harry doesn't do but they are not so major that the two belong on different levels. You don't have to agree but my opinion stands.
 
Harry has performed Investitures and is a Counsellor of State (Privy Council.)
 
Harry has performed Investitures and is a Counsellor of State (Privy Council.)

When does Harry perform investitures? I can't find anything in my, admittedly fairly quick, searches. William seems to perform them regularly these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom