The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #961  
Old 10-10-2020, 01:24 PM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,616
I am trying to find the origin of the slim down monarchy idea - tracing it through the media to see if anyone with any real authority has mentioned it and such.

We did find something interesting - a radio programme in Jan 1989 when the Earl of Wessex resigned his Marine Commission. The royal expert noted that it was best that Prince Edward leave the royal family now as he was surplus to the royal family's future and this would be better sooner rather then later. So any wife and children would be out the British royal family. It is also noted that the armed forces is the only respectable occupation for non - heirs to the throne.
As what normally happens it is rather odd reading the notes of the interview. There is disturbing comments like the future King Charles and Queen Diana should consider only have two children to prevent this type of role irrelevance occurring in the future. And that monarchy is strong in the hands of the Prince and Princess of Wales and Duke and Duchess of York.
And in case I thought people only became horrible on the advent of social media - one of the letters they read in the broadcast was from a woman who demand that Edward pay back every cent the tax payer has ever spend on him - including the Queen's child birth costs.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #962  
Old 10-11-2020, 05:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I am trying to find the origin of the slim down monarchy idea - tracing it through the media to see if anyone with any real authority has mentioned it and such.

We did find something interesting - a radio programme in Jan 1989 when the Earl of Wessex resigned his Marine Commission. The royal expert noted that it was best that Prince Edward leave the royal family now as he was surplus to the royal family's future and this would be better sooner rather then later. So any wife and children would be out the British royal family. It is also noted that the armed forces is the only respectable occupation for non - heirs to the throne.
As what normally happens it is rather odd reading the notes of the interview. There is disturbing comments like the future King Charles and Queen Diana should consider only have two children to prevent this type of role irrelevance occurring in the future. And that monarchy is strong in the hands of the Prince and Princess of Wales and Duke and Duchess of York.
And in case I thought people only became horrible on the advent of social media - one of the letters they read in the broadcast was from a woman who demand that Edward pay back every cent the tax payer has ever spend on him - including the Queen's child birth costs.
I think that the idea of slimming down has been in the air fro a long time. Most other monarchies have done or are doing the same, so why not Britain? The public dont take that much interest in the RF other than the few top players...
And yes people have been critical of the RF and oftne quite nasty in comments going back a long way. Just now with the internet its a lot easier to make nasty comments.. and publicisie them and start a flame war...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #963  
Old 10-11-2020, 07:16 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,445
Like other poster have mentioned earlier, I think it's unlikely that the monarch and members of the royal family having more than 3 children (i.e. Queen Victoria had 9 children, Edward VII and George V both had 6 children). Compare to the 19th or even early 20th Century, the monarchy has slimmed down quite significantly, thanks to both reduced number of children being born and George V's Letter Patent. Yes, some may argue that since the Elizabeth II became the Queen, the number of royal family members have grown (with grandchildren and great-grandchildren). However, if the new hypothetical LP is introduced (only anyone born after 2013), the numbers (of HRH Prince/Princess) will be reduce again. Of course, if this new LP comes in effect on any members (regardless on what year they are born), there will be significant/sudden reduction in the number of Prince/Princesses, given that individuals who are HRH Prince/Princess under 1917's LP would lose theirs.

Speaking of people who are critical of the Royal Family, I remember The Sex Pistol released the song God Save the Queen in 1977, the same year as Queen Elizabeth II's silver jubilee. Apparently (well, I wasn't born at that time), most of the general public viewed the song was an assault on the Queen and the Monarchy. I do think with the rise of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression", any artists any releasing project with this similar theme would not have the same level of outrage compare to what The Sex Pistol did. Yes, there might be some people who are angry about it, but the general principle is "If you don't like the work/project, don't buy or engage with it".

Social media certainly speeds up the negative opinions of the royal family. The argument "Royal Family is an outdated institution that is out of touch of 21st Century" would continue to grow, unless there is a rise of traditionalism/conservatism or any ideologies that are pushing back certain political and social changes.
Reply With Quote
  #964  
Old 10-11-2020, 07:22 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Posts: 68
"I think that the idea of slimming down has been in the air for a long time."

That may be but the Press states as fact that Charles has said this and he hasn't. Probably because, unlike the people who "quote" him, he can actually look to the future and add up.

Even in a best case scenario, in 10 years time the current 13 working members of the family will be reduced to 11, Alexandra and the Duke of Kent in their mid-90s; Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Anne, Charles and Camilla in their 80s, Edward and Sophie in their 60s, and William and Kate in their very late 40s.

George (and possible partner) will probably be at least another 10 years away from full-time royal duties and we don't even know if Charlotte and Louis will be become full-time royals.

We've seen in Japan an extreme example of the lack of heirs. In Norway, with Harald and Mette-Marit both having health problems, Sonja and, in particular, Haakon, are carrying all the responsibility.

If monarchies survive they will have to evolve, of course, but I don't think it's going to be as simple as just saying "cut the numbers down".
Reply With Quote
  #965  
Old 10-11-2020, 08:25 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by janet14 View Post
"I think that the idea of slimming down has been in the air for a long time."

That may be but the Press states as fact that Charles has said this and he hasn't. Probably because, unlike the people who "quote" him, he can actually look to the future and add up.

Even in a best case scenario, in 10 years time the current 13 working members of the family will be reduced to 11, Alexandra and the Duke of Kent in their mid-90s; Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Anne, Charles and Camilla in their 80s, Edward and Sophie in their 60s, and William and Kate in their very late 40s.

George (and possible partner) will probably be at least another 10 years away from full-time royal duties and we don't even know if Charlotte and Louis will be become full-time royals.

We've seen in Japan an extreme example of the lack of heirs. In Norway, with Harald and Mette-Marit both having health problems, Sonja and, in particular, Haakon, are carrying all the responsibility.

If monarchies survive they will have to evolve, of course, but I don't think it's going to be as simple as just saying "cut the numbers down".
of course there is going to be a cutting the numbers down. Monarchy is not logically defensible... and increasingly I htink that younger royals wont want to be landed with royal duties but will prefer to be independent... Look at Harry.. Look at the awkward situation of Andrew.
Reply With Quote
  #966  
Old 10-11-2020, 08:41 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
of course there is going to be a cutting the numbers down. .
Yes as I said, by natural attrition, not by Charles becoming King and saying to Anne, Edward, Sophie. the Gloucesters and the Kents, thanks but your years of service mean nothing and I don't want you any more.
Reply With Quote
  #967  
Old 10-11-2020, 09:18 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by janet14 View Post
Yes as I said, by natural attrition, not by Charles becoming King and saying to Anne, Edward, Sophie. the Gloucesters and the Kents, thanks but your years of service mean nothing and I don't want you any more.
of course he's not going to brutally kick out the cousins and siblings. I cant imagine why anyone would think he would do that.. But the cousins are getting quite old now and will be giving up, they are slowing down. Anne is 70 Andrew is out and Edward and Sophie are the only ones who are likely to go on for several years. but he wont take on new helpers IMO, even though he may be a bit short handed wihtout Harry....
Reply With Quote
  #968  
Old 10-11-2020, 11:39 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
of course he's not going to brutally kick out the cousins and siblings. I cant imagine why anyone would think he would do that.. But the cousins are getting quite old now and will be giving up, they are slowing down. Anne is 70 Andrew is out and Edward and Sophie are the only ones who are likely to go on for several years. but he wont take on new helpers IMO, even though he may be a bit short handed wihtout Harry....
Undoubtedly it will be a process of natural attrition. I suspect that the "slimming down" notion was discussed at the Way Ahead group at some stage however, depending on how the Sussex situation evolves, within the next 10 years William is likely to be grateful for the support of Beatrice and Eugenie who it must be noted are living apparently blameless, scandal-free lives and should be called upon to represent the Crown as the older generation dwindle. We have had small Royal Families in the past, and given contemporary birth rates I can't envisage a large Royal Family again in the near future beyond the children of the Duke of Cambridge.
Reply With Quote
  #969  
Old 10-11-2020, 12:51 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
Undoubtedly it will be a process of natural attrition. I suspect that the "slimming down" notion was discussed at the Way Ahead group at some stage however, depending on how the Sussex situation evolves, within the next 10 years William is likely to be grateful for the support of Beatrice and Eugenie who it must be noted are living apparently blameless, scandal-free lives and should be called upon to represent the Crown as the older generation dwindle. We have had small Royal Families in the past, and given contemporary birth rates I can't envisage a large Royal Family again in the near future beyond the children of the Duke of Cambridge.
I dont think so. Anyone that charles or William has as support will end up being helped out financially by them for years, mabye for life. I dont see Charles wanting to take on that sort of obligation.
Reply With Quote
  #970  
Old 10-11-2020, 01:12 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I dont think so. Anyone that charles or William has as support will end up being helped out financially by them for years, mabye for life. I dont see Charles wanting to take on that sort of obligation.
Actually, a lot of the "support" the monarch makes to their "support system" is covered by the Sovereign Grant. We have *no* idea how much the monarch supports the family members financially from their own private purse.
__________________
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
  #971  
Old 10-11-2020, 02:43 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,187
It's anecdotal, but I tend to hear the opposite. The articles I read, especially the ones that claim that the source is a palace source tend to report that The Queen is using her private sources and tend to downplay use of public funds like the Sovereign Grant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I dont think so. Anyone that charles or William has as support will end up being helped out financially by them for years, mabye for life. I dont see Charles wanting to take on that sort of obligation.
The current Queen has given consideration to, if not flat out deferred to Charles in certain matters because they will significantly impact his reign. I would like to think that Charles will do likewise. If William thinks that one or both of his York cousins will be needed to support him during his reign and he wants to get them onboard I can't see Charles putting up too much of a fight. And if he did, William can do an end-run around Charles and go to The Queen, and if it happens during Charles' reign, William, who will have access to the Duchy of Cornwall income, can fund them himself.

I doubt if either or both of York princesses would take on the kind of workload that their father, uncles and aunt did/do, especially considering that William himself only does a fraction of what his father, uncles and aunt do. So I don't think that their addition will break the bank especially considering that the BRF has recently lost three working members. Furthermore considering that things have been scaled back due to the pandemic, William has enough time to plan and lay the groundwork for his tenure as Duke of Cornwall / Prince of Wales and eventually monarch and then have the needed discussions with The Queen and his father.

The York princesses are already set for life. The lease on the Royal Lodge will pass on to Beatrice and Eugenie and will last until they are in their 80s. That does not include whatever inheritance they will receive from their grandmother, father or other relatives or wealth they and their husbands will personally accumulate. In addition to the Royal Lodge, they both already have residences in London on royal property. If they become working royals of any consequence, they will probably get their London residences upgraded.
Reply With Quote
  #972  
Old 10-11-2020, 03:18 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
It's anecdotal, but I tend to hear the opposite. The articles I read, especially the ones that claim that the source is a palace source tend to report that The Queen is using her private sources and tend to downplay use of public funds like the Sovereign Grant.
Its kind of hard to downplay the Sovereign Grant expenditures as they're published yearly and itemized and shows where the money goes.

Here's an example. https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2018-19
__________________
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
  #973  
Old 10-11-2020, 03:24 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
a nd its known that Charles has supported WIll and Harry to the tune of about 5M a year, so he was shelling out a lot in addtion to the Sov Grant....
Reply With Quote
  #974  
Old 10-11-2020, 03:36 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
a nd its known that Charles has supported WIll and Harry to the tune of about 5M a year, so he was shelling out a lot in addtion to the Sov Grant....
Has there ever really been a credible and verifiable source of how much Charles doles out of his private funds or is this palace sources and rumors and speculations? I'd really like to know as I've not seen anything published attesting to this.
__________________
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
  #975  
Old 10-11-2020, 03:37 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Has there ever really been a credible and verifiable source of how much Charles doles out of his private funds or is this palace sources and rumors and speculations? I'd really like to know as I've not seen anything published attesting to this.
As far as I know its in his accounts of the Duchy of Cornwall...
Reply With Quote
  #976  
Old 10-11-2020, 03:53 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
As far as I know its in his accounts of the Duchy of Cornwall...
Any expenditures from Charles' Duchy of Cornwall funds that are published and itemized are considered "business" expenditures and totally separate from his own private expenditures supporting his family. It serves to determine what is tax deductible and what is not. Paying for Catherine's working wardrobe would be a business expenditure. Buying Camilla another pearl choker with an emerald set in it would not be. Charles pays income tax on his Duchy of Cornwall funds like every other British citizen does with their income.
__________________
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
  #977  
Old 10-11-2020, 04:05 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
the point is that Charles is using money from the DOC to add to the money from the Soveriegn Grant. The SG is presumably not enough to keep Will and Harry in princely style and to do their job. So anyone who starts to work as a royal will problaby also get an allowance from Charles or from him as DOC.
Reply With Quote
  #978  
Old 10-11-2020, 04:30 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its kind of hard to downplay the Sovereign Grant expenditures as they're published yearly and itemized and shows where the money goes.

Here's an example. https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2018-19
The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall also publish financial reports. No one is disputing that the monarch gets funding from the Sovereign Grant and those funds are used to fund the activities of not only the monarch but other members of the royal family, the point I was making is that the articles and reports that I have read tend to point out and/or want to direct attention, where applicable, to the fact that The Queen uses her own funds to support her family members.
Reply With Quote
  #979  
Old 10-11-2020, 04:58 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,780
To be honest, I've seen many, many more reports that put the emphasis on the "tax payer" monies than the Queen's private expenditures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
the point is that Charles is using money from the DOC to add to the money from the Soveriegn Grant. The SG is presumably not enough to keep Will and Harry in princely style and to do their job. So anyone who starts to work as a royal will problaby also get an allowance from Charles or from him as DOC.
So where is the itemized listing of Charles' *private* expenditures on his family? How do we know just how much Charles *privately* spends on anybody at all? We *don't*. Private expenditures are not open for public perusal. When it is stated that Charles no longer funds Harry and Meghan, its referring to the "business" expenditures the couple incurs working for the "Firm" and the family.

Would be interesting to find out though just how much Charles spends a year on toilet seats though.
__________________
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
  #980  
Old 10-12-2020, 03:01 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
To be honest, I've seen many, many more reports that put the emphasis on the "tax payer" monies than the Queen's private expenditures.



So where is the itemized listing of Charles' *private* expenditures on his family? How do we know just how much Charles *privately* spends on anybody at all? We *don't*. Private expenditures are not open for public perusal. When it is stated that Charles no longer funds Harry and Meghan, its referring to the "business" expenditures the couple incurs working for the "Firm" and the family.

Would be interesting to find out though just how much Charles spends a year on toilet seats though.
Osipi my point was that Charles has been funding members of his family who are working royals... so if he were to designate Beatrice say as a working royal, he would problaby be giving her an allowance which might end up being for life. Charles does not want to take on more royals who will involve him in expenses...
__________________

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 07:09 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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