The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #861  
Old 08-09-2020, 04:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Answer me a question then. If the Commonwealth nations don't want anything to do with the British monarchy, why did they vote to have Charles as the head of this organization called the Commonwealth of Nations when the Queen passes back in 2018?

"“We recognise the role of the Queen in championing the Commonwealth and its peoples. The next head of the Commonwealth shall be his Royal Highness Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales,” they said."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...onwealth-queen
Because @Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in April 2019, the Queen hosted the 53 Heads of the Nations that form the Commonwealth @BP, and used the occasion to campaign for Prince Charles.

And I quote the Queen here “… It remains a great pleasure and honour to serve you as Head of the Commonwealth and to observe, with pride and satisfaction, that this is a flourishing network. It is my sincere wish that the Commonwealth will continue to offer stability and continuity for future generations, and will decide that one day The Prince of Wales should carry on the important work started by my father in 1949. By continuing to treasure and reinvigorate our associations and activities, I believe we will secure a safer, more prosperous and sustainable world for those who follow us: a world where the Commonwealth's generosity of spirit can bring its gentle touch of healing and hope to all. …”https://www.royal.uk/speech-given-he...-opening-chogm

And I imagine a lot of talk and cajoling went on behind the scene before she made the above statement.

And this is an unfair advantage. The CHOGM should be allowed to decided their next Head without giving some members unfair advantage.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #862  
Old 08-09-2020, 05:33 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
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.
The tradition (if we can speak of it) was for the royal dukes to be active; as Elizabeth only had a sister it was consistent with the previous generation (princess Mary/the princess Royal's children weren't included either) that her children weren't. The only exception she made was for princess Alexandra, as she needed more female representation. Her younger brother has consistently not been taken into account for royal work.

So, with that in mind, (if times hadn't changed): James would be the most likely candidate of his cousins to support his uncle Charles and cousin William as his father's heir. And if female representation was needed, they could turn to princess Beatrice as the most senior princess in her generation.

Regaring the Wessexes, I could see them take on a larger load now the children are getting older. One of their main focuses will remain the Duke of Edinburgh Awards but over the last few months we seem to have seen Sophie at least as much as Anne on video calls.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #863  
Old 08-09-2020, 05:52 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
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.
Charles does not have to do anything. There is no such title as Princess Consort for the spouse of the Sovereign in the UK- so they cannot just choose for her to be called that. Parliament would have to agree to actually grant her the title otherwise she would be HM The Queen and nothing else.
Reply With Quote
  #864  
Old 08-09-2020, 05:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,212
What makes me laugh a bit is that most of this "slimmed down RF" comes from comments made not even by Charles in the late 90s/early 2000s when his PR people spun anything to make him look good, they actively pushed stories no matter how true or not that got him good PR. I'm sure it came about after moans of a full trooping colour balcony and royal finances when saying he wanted a slimmed down RF looked good.

That said I think in the long run Charles likely does want to limit those "working royals" so we don't end up in a situation where slightly distant relatives are representing the sovereign , in honesty that has pretty much been done for him already - Zara and Peter have no title and their own private working lives, James and Louise were not given (or don't use at least) HRH as they could with the suggestion they will have more private lives.

What I do wonder is if we will still see the likes of Anne undertaking official visits overseas. These are often delegated out by the royal visits committee with the royal household and Foreign Commonwealth office. These are the sort of things I can see Charles limiting to him and Cams, Wills and Kate but then thinking of it Anne and Ed/Sophie undertook these even when HM was undertaking state visits and Charles was doing his official visits so maybe they will still need Anne especially now Harry isn't around to do them as he once did.
Reply With Quote
  #865  
Old 08-09-2020, 07:44 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,403
There are really a lot more variables to look at when thinking about a British monarchy in the future besides the size and scope of what members of the family will be working or not. That's just one small part of the whole mechanism.

How they do things in the future (regardless of the number or working royals) is one of those variables. How much will the world change and how will the monarchy have to adapt and conform and reevaluate how they do things? We've seen quite vividly just how much our world has changed from August 2019 to August 2020. No one would have ever figured in "how to deal with a global pandemic" this time last year. We saw how the monarchy adapted and found ways to keep flying the flag and be in support of the British people even from a lock down.

The pandemic has opened the door to doing virtual engagements in place of the physical being there and photo op. It didn't lessen the impact of what they were doing. They just did it differently while stressing following health guidelines in place to stop the spread of Covid-19. We even witnessed (somewhat) the very first ever Covid-19 royal wedding.

If such a drastic change could happen seemingly overnight now, looking at the British monarchy 20 years from now makes me wonder what other kinds of variables and monkey wrenches will be thrown in the soup to bring about changes.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #866  
Old 08-09-2020, 07:51 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Charles does not have to do anything. There is no such title as Princess Consort for the spouse of the Sovereign in the UK- so they cannot just choose for her to be called that. Parliament would have to agree to actually grant her the title otherwise she would be HM The Queen and nothing else.
Correct. The stickler being that a woman takes her title from her husband hence Camilla is The Duchess of Cornwall because Charles is the Duke. To be a princess consort, first off, there is no "princess" title available to Camilla from Charles when he is king as he'll no longer be a "prince". Parliament would then have to approve of Camilla being a "princess in her own right" just as Philip, when the time came, was created a prince in his own right by his wife. Until then, he was Lt. Philip Mountbatten-Windsor, Duke of Edinburgh.

In other words, should Camilla becomes "Princess Consort", she would be the first married in female to the royal family to attain the title of princess in her own right right besides those females that were born a princess of the royal blood.

Some people feel that "Princess Consort" is a "lesser" title when in actuality it elevates Camilla's status to not being dependent on her husband's titles.

I think I got that right. Need more coffee.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #867  
Old 08-09-2020, 08:33 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Correct. The stickler being that a woman takes her title from her husband hence Camilla is The Duchess of Cornwall because Charles is the Duke. To be a princess consort, first off, there is no "princess" title available to Camilla from Charles when he is king as he'll no longer be a "prince". Parliament would then have to approve of Camilla being a "princess in her own right" just as Philip, when the time came, was created a prince in his own right by his wife. Until then, he was Lt. Philip Mountbatten-Windsor, Duke of Edinburgh.

In other words, should Camilla becomes "Princess Consort", she would be the first married in female to the royal family to attain the title of princess in her own right right besides those females that were born a princess of the royal blood.

Some people feel that "Princess Consort" is a "lesser" title when in actuality it elevates Camilla's status to not being dependent on her husband's titles.

I think I got that right. Need more coffee.
I fully agree on Camilla but I believe that The Duke of Edinburgh peerage came with the style of royal highness; and wikipedia seems to suggest the same - or more precisely, indicates that he regained the HRH-style one day earlier.

Quote:
10 June 1921 – 28 February 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
28 February 1947 – 19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten
19 November 1947 – 20 November 1947: Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten
20 November 1947 – 22 February 1957: His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
22 February 1957 – present: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

On 19 November 1947, the day preceding his wedding, King George VI bestowed by Letters Patent the style His Royal Highness on Philip, and on the morning of the wedding, 20 November 1947, further Letters Patent of that day created him Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich of Greenwich in the County of London. Consequently, being already a Knight of the Garter, between 19 and 20 November 1947 he bore the unusual style His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten and is so described in the Letters Patent of 20 November 1947.
Reply With Quote
  #868  
Old 08-09-2020, 08:53 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I fully agree on Camilla but I believe that The Duke of Edinburgh peerage came with the style of royal highness; and wikipedia seems to suggest the same - or more precisely, indicates that he regained the HRH-style one day earlier.
Seems like I forgot the HRH part. The point though was to illustrate that Philip was created a prince of the UK in his own right which is what would happen if the process went through and Camilla was created Princess Consort. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, it would be The Princess Consort?

This belongs in the title and style thread anyways.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #869  
Old 08-09-2020, 08:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Charles does not have to do anything. There is no such title as Princess Consort for the spouse of the Sovereign in the UK- so they cannot just choose for her to be called that. Parliament would have to agree to actually grant her the title otherwise she would be HM The Queen and nothing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Correct. [...]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I fully agree on Camilla [...]
I disagree, but as I agree with Osipi that it properly belongs to the thread on titles and styles I will post my reply there.

ETA: However, you will observe here that princely titles are granted by the Sovereign through Letters Patent or Royal Warrants, which do not require the agreement of Parliament.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...hness_docs.htm
Reply With Quote
  #870  
Old 08-10-2020, 05:31 AM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 6,083
We all know that the Prince of Wales will not have a long Reign !
Reply With Quote
  #871  
Old 08-10-2020, 08:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,467
It depends what you mean by long. Charles is 72 in November, but if you look at his parents his mother especially, they are still going strong in their 90s. He could well be on the throne for twenty five years, which is a reasonably lengthy amount of time.
Reply With Quote
  #872  
Old 08-10-2020, 09:11 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
It depends what you mean by long. Charles is 72 in November, but if you look at his parents his mother especially, they are still going strong in their 90s. He could well be on the throne for twenty five years, which is a reasonably lengthy amount of time.
In all likelihood it will be a short reign, possibly similar in length to that of Edward VII who contrary to expectations actually had a successful tenure as King.
Reply With Quote
  #873  
Old 08-10-2020, 09:30 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,467
None of us know how long the future reign will be. King Edward VII lived for just over ten years as monarch. If Charles comes to the throne next year say, that means he would be dead at 82/83 after a ten year reign, a shortish life span for someone whose father has nearly reached his century, maternal grandmother surpassed it, and whose mother is in her mid-90s. Charles is a very fit man for his age. There's no reason why he can't rival his parents and grandmother.
Reply With Quote
  #874  
Old 08-10-2020, 10:34 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,403
Let's face it. After most of us only knowing the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, any reign after hers will seem to be a short one.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #875  
Old 08-10-2020, 11:21 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,104
If the Queen lives to be over 100 (which seems totally likely) then Charles may be into his 80's before he's King.

Assuming Charles lives to be at least 100 (again seems very possible) then William would be into late 60's or early 70's before he's Monarch. In turn then George would be quite senior when he becomes Monarch.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #876  
Old 08-10-2020, 11:58 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Correct. The stickler being that a woman takes her title from her husband hence Camilla is The Duchess of Cornwall because Charles is the Duke. To be a princess consort, first off, there is no "princess" title available to Camilla from Charles when he is king as he'll no longer be a "prince". Parliament would then have to approve of Camilla being a "princess in her own right just as Philip, when the time came, was created a prince in his own right by his wife. Until then, he was Lt. Philip Mountbatten-Windsor, Duke of Edinburgh.

In other words, should Camilla becomes "Princess Consort", she would be the first married in female to the royal family to attain the title of princess in her own right right besides those females that were born a princess of the royal blood.

Some people feel that "Princess Consort" is a "lesser" title when in actuality it elevates Camilla's status to not being dependent on her husband's titles.

I think I got that right. Need more coffee.
Prince Philip is not a Windsor; he is House of Glucksburg until 1947 and House of Mountbatten from 1947. Remember when he complained about not being able to give his children his surname!
His title before he became a Prince was His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten (by letter patent 1947). In 1957, The Queen granted him the style and title of a Prince and he is now styled as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
Reply With Quote
  #877  
Old 08-10-2020, 12:01 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
Prince Philip is not a Windsor; he is House of Glucksburg until 1947 and House of Mountbatten from 1947.
His title before he became a Prince was His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten (by letter patent 1947). In 1957, The Queen granted him the style and title of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
He got the title of Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day (one day earlier he received the style of HRH). He only had to wait for the 'The Prince Philip'-part until 1957. However, this discussion is more appropriate for the 'British titles thread' where other posts on the same topic can be found.
Reply With Quote
  #878  
Old 08-10-2020, 12:10 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
He got the title of Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day (one day earlier he received the style of HRH). He only had to wait for the 'The Prince Philip'-part until 1957. However, this discussion is more appropriate for the 'British titles thread' where other posts on the same topic can be found.
I do agree; all I wanted to say is that Prince Philip is not a Windsor, he is a Mountbatten.
Reply With Quote
  #879  
Old 08-10-2020, 12:15 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,104
Er well really Windsor is just a made up name that replaced Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #880  
Old 08-10-2020, 12:20 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Er well really Windsor is just a made up name that replaced Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.


LaRae
So is Mountbatten...
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1570 10-11-2020 08:28 AM
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
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 771 04-18-2020 12:48 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names bangladesh baptism biography bridal gown brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong clarence house coronavirus cover-up dna dubai duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie general news thread george vi heraldry hill historical drama history hochberg introduction jumma kent languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark northern ireland norway history palestine pless popularity prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess of orange queen consort queen mathilde royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown settings startling new evidence stuart swedish queen thailand tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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