The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #841  
Old 08-09-2020, 08:12 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Are you really claiming that the queen and duke of Edinburgh are just as active as they were 20-30 years ago?

I expect Anne to continue royal engagements as long as she can - and surely when her brother is on the throne. However, slowing down by the time she reaches 90 (if she is still alive and able to carry out royal duties) does seem far more likely than keeping up with her current speed.
Phil has retired and I think that before he gave up he was really pretty fragile and not up to any work... and the queen still does a lot for her age but she is in her 90s now and she cant keep up work indefinteily. Charles is taking over more of her work
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #842  
Old 08-09-2020, 08:39 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
Right now, William and Kate are the only working royals in their generation and IMO the BRF has to figure out if that is sufficient, particularly during the reigns of Charles and William. [...]
At the moment only three working royals are significantly older than Prince Charles, namely his mother, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra. The rest are approximately his own age or significantly younger. Unless King Charles himself takes action, the number of working royals will probably not be significantly slimmed during his reign.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
I don't think there is a desire for some sort of watered down, bicycling Monarchy a la Dutch.
I don't think the Dutch consider their monarchy to be watered down, and for me it seems no lighter on pomp and circumstance than the British monarchy.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The princess royal is turning 70 this month, while she might still do some royal activities if her brother is on the throne at that point, I do think her workload will have been reduced considerably.
The Princess Royal is younger than the Prince of Wales. Do you expect her brother to reduce his own workload while he is on the throne?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
After Prince Charles, member countries that form the Commonwealth of Nations will most probably elect a new Head since this position is not hereditary and doesn’t have to be a British Monarchy. If that happens, then Prince William will just have to deal with the 16 Commonwealth Realms. In that case, I think William, Kate, Anne, Edward, and Sophie as full time working Royals will be sufficient. George, Charlotte, and Louse will grow up to become fulltime working Royals.
Does the monarch holding the position of the Commonwealth head actually have effects on the workload of the younger siblings?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #843  
Old 08-09-2020, 08:59 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I don't think for a minute that Charles would ask Anne to step down. He wouldn't dare, for one thing - she'd tell him where to shove his suggestion! She's also seen as being very hard-working, and Save The Children and other charities would struggle to replace her and so they'd be furious.
He would not need to force her to step down from the positions she holds with her charities. All he would need to do to "step down" his sister is instruct the court to treat her charitable engagements the way it currently treats the charitable engagements of the Michaels of Kent, the Yorks, and the Sussexes: as private engagements unmentioned the Court Circular and unpromoted by the social media of Buckingham Palace.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
However, slowing down by the time she reaches 90 (if she is still alive and able to carry out royal duties) does seem far more likely than keeping up with her current speed.
With her (biological) parents alive and physically able to carry out royal duties at 94 and 96 (and the latter being alive at 99), it is reasonable to predict she and her siblings will physically age at a similar rate.
Reply With Quote
  #844  
Old 08-09-2020, 09:01 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Deleted (double post)
Reply With Quote
  #845  
Old 08-09-2020, 09:02 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Why would they be asked to step down? If they want to go, or if their health is really poor (it already Is, I think for both Pss Alex and teh D of Kent), I am sure there would be no problem about letting them retrire...But I cant see why Charles would say "I want them to go". If they're up to doing the odd engagement, I cant see why he would say No, I don't want them doing that. If it is to do with money, he's goig to be paying them soemthing till they die anyway so its not like it will cost him more.

Maybe "asked" was not the right choice of word. I still think they will be perhaps "encouraged" to retire or gradually give up patronages and other appointments. Probably that will be also their personal choice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Does the monarch holding the position of the Commonwealth head actually have effects on the workload of the younger siblings?

I think it still does. Harry was just the second son of the heir (not even a younger son of the sovereign), but he had two major Commonwealth tours after getting married and a substantive appointment as Commonwealth youth ambassador. Even junior royals regularly make official or private visits to other Commonwealth countries that go mostly unnoticed in the press and several royals keep Commonwealth patronages, see e.g. this list of royal tours of Canada in the 2000-2019 period.
Reply With Quote
  #846  
Old 08-09-2020, 09:13 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 117
[QUOTE=Tatiana Maria;2333448]At the moment only three working royals are significantly older than Prince Charles, namely his mother, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra. The rest are approximately his own age or significantly younger. Unless King Charles himself takes action, the number of working royals will probably not be significantly slimmed during his reign.


I don't think the Dutch consider their monarchy to be watered down, and for me it seems no lighter on pomp and circumstance than the British monarchy.


I think it is significantly less ceremonial. The Dutch RF has been relatively small for generations with two only-child Heads of State in the previous century.
Reply With Quote
  #847  
Old 08-09-2020, 09:26 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
At the moment only three working royals are significantly older than Prince Charles, namely his mother, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra. The rest are approximately his own age or significantly younger. Unless King Charles himself takes action, the number of working royals will probably not be significantly slimmed during his reign.
My comment was not about overall numbers but generational representation. William and Kate are the only working royals of their generation. If that is deemed sufficient for the Charles and William's upcoming reigns, then no action is required. But if it is considered insufficient, then the insufficiency needs to be addressed.
Reply With Quote
  #848  
Old 08-09-2020, 09:45 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
He would not need to force her to step down from the positions she holds with her charities. All he would need to do to "step down" his sister is instruct the court to treat her charitable engagements the way it currently treats the charitable engagements of the Michaels of Kent, the Yorks, and the Sussexes: as private engagements unmentioned the Court Circular and unpromoted by the social media of Buckingham Palace.




With her (biological) parents alive and physically able to carry out royal duties at 94 and 96 (and the latter being alive at 99), it is reasonable to predict she and her siblings will physically age at a similar rate.
Not necessarily.. its probable that she's a fit woman who will go on being fit, but one can#t be sure...and P and the queen have had to slow down a lot as they got into their 90s...
Reply With Quote
  #849  
Old 08-09-2020, 09:48 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
My comment was not about overall numbers but generational representation. William and Kate are the only working royals of their generation. If that is deemed sufficient for the Charles and William's upcoming reigns, then no action is required. But if it is considered insufficient, then the insufficiency needs to be addressed.
Its hard to see what can be done. Charles does not want other younger relatives like teh York girls to work.. and I dont believe the public want them nor I think do Bae and Eugenie want to take on royal work now. Maybe some years ago they might have been more enthusiastic but I think now, they are settled down in marriage, they will be having babies and I doubt if they want to take it on.
Reply With Quote
  #850  
Old 08-09-2020, 10:08 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Phil has retired and I think that before he gave up he was really pretty fragile and not up to any work... and the queen still does a lot for her age but she is in her 90s now and she cant keep up work indefinteily. Charles is taking over more of her work
Exactly, so it is an unreasonable expectation that Anne will continue in her current pace 'just like her parents didn't slow down'...

Literal quote:
Quote:
she will follow her mother and father's example on slowing down with age i.e. not doing so.
Reply With Quote
  #851  
Old 08-09-2020, 10:10 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The Princess Royal is younger than the Prince of Wales. Do you expect her brother to reduce his own workload while he is on the throne?
In 20 years time, sure! I would not expect a 91 year old to have the same energy as a 71 year old... So, no I would not expect them to undertake the same number of engagements. So, yes, I would see a need for supply of younger family members instead of pretending that both Anne and Charles will be able to carry on with the same amount when they are in their 90s. With that expectations they can only fail. However, if we acknowledge that they might indeed continue doing royal duties but too a smaller extent (depending on their health and other circumstances) given how active their parents have been in their 90s, that would both do justice to their work ethic and allows the younger generation to step up (the pace being partly dictated by how much work they - and Edward & Sophie- exactly are able to carry out).

If we would have the same expectations of monarchs/royals in their 90s than in their 60s/70s I would expect a lot more critical commentary how the queen dares to be less active than she was 20-30 years ago. Instead, I see a lot of understanding and admiration that even though she is getting older and older she still is carrying out her constitutional duties and some engagements while slowly but steadily transferring more and more activities she previously did herself to the Prince of Wales.
Reply With Quote
  #852  
Old 08-09-2020, 10:19 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
I think it is significantly less ceremonial. The Dutch RF has been relatively small for generations with two only-child Heads of State in the previous century.
What ceremonies are you thinking about? For example, I would say that 'Prinsjesdag' is very ceremonial - comparable to the British; and far more ceremonial than the other monarchies' yearly opening of parliament.

While two monarchs ago (so more than 40 years ago) your comment might have been an accurate description as that was indeed the philosophy of queen Juliana, both her daughter and grandson do know how to use royal ceremony to their advantage.

In addition, how is the degree of 'ceremonialness' related to number of active family members?
Reply With Quote
  #853  
Old 08-09-2020, 10:53 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
What ceremonies are you thinking about? For example, I would say that 'Prinsjesdag' is very ceremonial - comparable to the British; and far more ceremonial than the other monarchies' yearly opening of parliament.

But not quite as ceremonial as the British state opening with the imperial state crown and so on.

Overall, I agree that the British monarchy keeps certain ceremonies that have been abandoned elsewhere, such as coronations or the "collar days" with full robes for the orders of knighthood. The British monarch also has a closer association with the state Church and the Armed Forces than some of her counterparts in the continent. Finally, the wording of legal documents like letters patent, commissions and royal warrants, and the ceremonial involving those documents (e.g. how they are sealed, published or signed) are still more old-fashioned in the UK than in other countries.

Neverthless, as I keep repeating, the ceremonial has already been actually toned down in part compared to what it was under George V or even George VI. Prince Charles seems to be rather conservative and, being not so popular himself and succeeding after his mother's very long reign, I don't think he will be comfortable to introduce many radical changes. I expect changes to ceremonial to ramp up in William's reign mostly. And here we are talking about a time horizon maybe thirty years into the future (2050) when, who knows, the world may be sharply different from what it is today.
Reply With Quote
  #854  
Old 08-09-2020, 11:37 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
What ceremonies are you thinking about? For example, I would say that 'Prinsjesdag' is very ceremonial - comparable to the British; and far more ceremonial than the other monarchies' yearly opening of parliament.

While two monarchs ago (so more than 40 years ago) your comment might have been an accurate description as that was indeed the philosophy of queen Juliana, both her daughter and grandson do know how to use royal ceremony to their advantage.

In addition, how is the degree of 'ceremonialness' related to number of active family members?
I wasn't equating the ceremonial with the number of active family members. I was referring to the scope of the monarchy and the panoply of State Occasions as opposed to a scaled back monarchy where this would by necessity be reduced significantly. Although fewer members would entail fewer military ceremonies, flag flying on Royal birthdays, foreign tours, Trooping the Colour (what would happen to Royal Colonels with a reduced role for some?). So I guess yes, a smaller Firm would impact on the ceremonial aspect of the institution. According to Bagehot the monarchy represents the “dignified” branch of the state. Its job is to symbolise the state through pomp and ceremony.
Reply With Quote
  #855  
Old 08-09-2020, 12:53 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
But not quite as ceremonial as the British state opening with the imperial state crown and so on.

Overall, I agree that the British monarchy keeps certain ceremonies that have been abandoned elsewhere, such as coronations or the "collar days" with full robes for the orders of knighthood. The British monarch also has a closer association with the state Church and the Armed Forces than some of her counterparts in the continent. Finally, the wording of legal documents like letters patent, commissions and royal warrants, and the ceremonial involving those documents (e.g. how they are sealed, published or signed) are still more old-fashioned in the UK than in other countries.

Neverthless, as I keep repeating, the ceremonial has already been actually toned down in part compared to what it was under George V or even George VI. Prince Charles seems to be rather conservative and, being not so popular himself and succeeding after his mother's very long reign, I don't think he will be comfortable to introduce many radical changes. I expect changes to ceremonial to ramp up in William's reign mostly. And here we are talking about a time horizon maybe thirty years into the future (2050) when, who knows, the world may be sharply different from what it is today.
Yes, that makes sense. Knighting ceremonies for example don't exist in the Netherlands (as nobody is knighted) - and instead of the crowning of a monarch, a new monarch is inaugurated - however, with much more pomp and circumstance than in several other monarchies that had an inauguration ceremony in the last decades. It will be interesting to see how much 'watered down' Charles' ceremony will be compared to his mother.

Nonetheless, while Britain probably holds the top spot (at least for Europe) I don't think the Dutch monarchy is the least ceremonial - which wasn't stated but implied by stating that the UK shouldn't become as low-ceremonial as the Dutch bicycling monarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #856  
Old 08-09-2020, 01:00 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
I wasn't equating the ceremonial with the number of active family members. I was referring to the scope of the monarchy and the panoply of State Occasions as opposed to a scaled back monarchy where this would by necessity be reduced significantly. Although fewer members would entail fewer military ceremonies, flag flying on Royal birthdays, foreign tours, Trooping the Colour (what would happen to Royal Colonels with a reduced role for some?). So I guess yes, a smaller Firm would impact on the ceremonial aspect of the institution. According to Bagehot the monarchy represents the “dignified” branch of the state. Its job is to symbolise the state through pomp and ceremony.
Other than fewer flag days, what ceremonies would you expect to no longer take place? I could indeed see how it might impact honorary military positions but other than that?

Many continental royal families seem to have more state visits and probably an equal number of official visits; the adult heirs are typically rather active. I guess the main difference is that the British royal family is currently the only one that has 3 generations of active royals instead of 2 (or 1) - I guess that might be the situation again at the end of Charles' reign but I wouldn't be surprised if William would be the first to abdicate resulting in a greater likelihood of having 2 'active' generations instead of 3 in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #857  
Old 08-09-2020, 01:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Are you really claiming that the queen and duke of Edinburgh are just as active as they were 20-30 years ago?

I expect Anne to continue royal engagements as long as she can - and surely when her brother is on the throne. However, slowing down by the time she reaches 90 (if she is still alive and able to carry out royal duties) does seem far more likely than keeping up with her current speed.
Rather obviously not and I'm not expecting Anne to keep up exactly the same number of duties she did 10 years ago in another 10 years time. The point is she has said herself she likes to keep busy and follow in the footsteps of her parents who (at the time of the comments) were still working. Will she retire when she gets to age 96 like her father? Very possibly, but thats 16 years away so let's worry about that in time. For now she is following in the footsteps and example of her parents who at age 70 were still doing hundreds of duties a year.

Again, I don't think Charles will force his family to either carry on working on retire, but those who want to will carry on even if the "official focus" shifts onto C&C and W&K.
Reply With Quote
  #858  
Old 08-09-2020, 01:53 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Rather obviously not
Yes, which is why I was surprised that you previously stated that Anne wouldn't slow down as the queen and duke of Edinburgh did not slow down. So, I'm glad that is clarified now; they did slow down but mainly in the last decade

Quote:
and I'm not expecting Anne to keep up exactly the same number of duties she did 10 years ago in another 10 years time. The point is she has said herself she likes to keep busy and follow in the footsteps of her parents who (at the time of the comments) were still working. Will she retire when she gets to age 96 like her father? Very possibly, but thats 16 years away so let's worry about that in time. For now she is following in the footsteps and example of her parents who at age 70 were still doing hundreds of duties a year.
This topic is about the future of the British monarchy and this specific part of the discussion was about whether in 20+ years time the Cambridge children were needed. So, the argument that in the next few years Anne will continue to take on a huge load of royal work isn't really relevant for that decision - of course children that are still in primary or secondary school will not take up any workload.

Quote:
Again, I don't think Charles will force his family to either carry on working on retire, but those who want to will carry on even if the "official focus" shifts onto C&C and W&K.
That's another discussion; but I agree fully that I don't see a reason to 'retire' the older generations that have worked for the firm for all those years - and even less so his younger siblings.

N.B. I will refrain from further discussion to avoid going around in circles. It seems we mostly agree but by taking comments out of context misunderstandings occurred.
Reply With Quote
  #859  
Old 08-09-2020, 02:55 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
When Charles talked about slimming down the Monarchy, I think he meant his sibling's children. He will get a ton of bad PR if he "forced" the Kent's or the Gloucester's to retire- to mention nothing of his own siblings. He just won't add as many people to the full time royal work list as under previous reigns. I fully expect everyone, that is currently working as a full time Royal, to continue doing so until they retire/die.
Reply With Quote
  #860  
Old 08-09-2020, 04:19 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
There's nothing that Charles has said or done that indicates to me that he'll expect or ask the older members to do anything other than those things they wish to do. If that's carrying on with their engagements or retiring, he'll support them because there's no compelling reason not to. They'll gradually reduce their official diaries and they don't distract from the core BRF work by being media fodder. It's possible that in the next reign, they'll cease to be included in the court circular and continue their engagements privately if that's agreeable to everyone.

I think he'll be keen to include Princess Anne as a key support because she's so reliable, experienced and not likely to use such an elevated position to puff up her own importance or seek to profit from it. He'll want people around him he can trust 100% to support him as King and her track record shows that she's more than capable and her whole working life has been about service and duty to the crown. The Wessexes will also feature but perhaps less so than Anne. Their engagements appear to be fewer than hers anyway and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that would change. Andrew is out of public life now and likely to stay there. I think it's highly unlikely that Charles will ask any of his siblings' children to 'join the firm'. The Queen didn't do that either so he wouldn't be breaking a tradition.

I suspect there might be some tension over Camilla's position. She has never sought the limelight for herself and she'll be aware of the popularity polls so I'm sure she'd be very happy to be 'Princess Consort' rather than Queen Camilla. I doubt that's what Charles has in mind though. He adores her and will want her to be his Queen in name as well as fact. I've said before that I hope they'll be brave and just do it. King Charles and Queen Camilla might have a rough time initially but if they hold their nerve through the transition (as they did with their wedding, which so many commentators said wouldn't happen) she'll be accepted.

Obviously William, Catherine and family will feature hugely because not only will they be the King and Queen in waiting, they are young, photogenic and popular. It's a great pity that Harry and Meghan aren't also part of Charles' supporting team but that's for another thread.
__________________

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 asian birth britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history 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 medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen victoria st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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