The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 04-10-2019, 11:51 PM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,383
William and Harry's roles are totally unalike, as others have noted. While they both appear in the news, and have public engagements, the substance of what they do is significantly different, and warrants William and Catherine being set into a different category than Harry and Meghan. It's just the way it is.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-11-2019, 12:30 AM
Abbigail's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ista View Post
William and Harry's roles are totally unalike, as others have noted. While they both appear in the news, and have public engagements, the substance of what they do is significantly different, and warrants William and Catherine being set into a different category than Harry and Meghan. It's just the way it is.
One could argue that Will has started to do additional duties that places him a level above but the substance of what they do is not at all significantly different. And there is even less difference between Meghan and Catherine.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-11-2019, 12:59 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
When does Harry perform investitures? I can't find anything in my, admittedly fairly quick, searches. William seems to perform them regularly these days.
Harry do the odd Investitures on The Queen’s behalf when he’s on royal tours and palace engagements. He just don’t do the more formal ceremonial Investitures we see conducted by The Queen, Charles, William and Anne.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-11-2019, 01:02 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
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?
There are those who claim they’re seniors, relaying on the fact that Harry is Charles son.
But a royal seniority is connected to their overall importance to the crown in terms of succession, which in the long haul is what important for the continuation of the monarchy. Harry is simply no longer as important as he was when he was William’s spare. In fact he was relegated to minor the second George was born and William own line was secured.
In fact every action taken by the royals in regards to Harry: from the technically private wedding vs. semi state wedding, but especially since the wedding (BP offices, not having his own household persay) proves that in terms of his importance he is effectively regarded as a minor royal- same as the queen other children.

I know some fans here don’t like viewing him as such, but he is minor, and that means any wife he has or will have is also a minor royal too.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-11-2019, 01:13 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,957
Harry has performed investitures when on tour. The last was in Morocco when a Mr McHugo was invested with an MBE for services to education.

Evolvingdoors, you keep repeating that Harry is a minor Royal. Apart from your own certainty on that question can you produce any written documentation from a viable source (BP?) to support that assertion (that the Queen and the POW regards Harry as unimportant.) Just so that we can all view it.

And after all, we (including presumably yourself) wouldn't want to waste any more of the 47,000+ posts there are already here on the Harry/Meghan/Sussex threads, on such a minor person in the BRF, or his wife, would we?
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-11-2019, 03:24 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 599
IMHO one sees very clearly that the Cambridges are treated very differently to the Sussexes; just look at their different type of Accommodations; the differences in Houshold / Offices; and what they do on a daily basis - it is shaping before our eyes atm - and remember their respective weddings.


The Britts have a long tradition in treating the heir very different from the rest of the children - and in the Royal Family at least - it will stay like that.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 04-11-2019, 03:41 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,957
I don't think anyone is disputing that William is the heir, just that Harry is officially regarded as a minor Royal.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 04-11-2019, 03:54 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 899
I've said this before but an indication of who the senior royals are was clearly given by Charles' decision over who stood on the palace balcony for the diamond jubilee in 2012. It was just the Queen, Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine & Harry (Philip was in hospital). That's who Charles envisages as the senior royals now and in future (& now includes Meghan as Harry's wife). Obviously the children will be added as they grow up but they'll have no working role for many years.

I think Charles intends that at every major royal/state event, it will be Charles then William then Harry (with or without wives) who are front & centre - all the other working royals will be important but secondary to the core group & the non-working royals will be on the outskirts. Family events (eg weddings, birthdays, funerals) may differ of course according to whose it is & who the closest relatives are.

Now whether Charles' intentions match Harry's is unknown. It might be that Harry prefers the relative freedom of being the 2nd son & wishes to exploit that in order to do things that William can't do. Also, the brothers clearly have different roles already & that will be even more apparent when William is Prince of Wales but I'd be very surprised if at the main royal/state occasions, Charles only includes William at his side.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 04-11-2019, 05:50 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,324
The fact that William and Catherine will one day be King and Queen makes them significantly different from those who will not...
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 04-11-2019, 06:04 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 899
I don't think anyone is disputing that are they?
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 04-11-2019, 06:22 AM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 3,533
I think Harry & Meghan will play an important role at least until the children of William and Kate are adults. I think they will be able to make some official trips and attend royal marriages from other royal families, for example, as do the Earl of Wessex. William and Kate will obviously have the most important tasks. And yes, it is already noticeable that the Dukes of Cambridge have already begun to be treated differently from the Dukes of Sussex.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 04-11-2019, 10:28 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,549
When it comes down to the royal family, I don't think the Queen values what one royal does as more "important" than what another one does. They're all important in her eyes and its the teamwork that is important to the monarchy at this time.

The focus of the work William does is significantly different from Harry's at this point. William is the future king and when the time does come for him to ascend the throne, he's going to be as well prepared for the role as his father is now. When William is king, he's also going to need the support system like the Queen does today with her family members. I can pretty much see Harry being William's right hand man as George begins to learn how to work the ropes as much as William is doing now. Its a process.

I think they have things pretty well set up for Charles' reign. William, as heir and possibly Prince of Wales will have his role cut out for him following in his father's footsteps. Harry (and Meghan) have been entrusted with the roles of focusing on the Commonwealth as I'm sure the Queen wishes to ensure that the "family" of nations continues into the future. We have known for a long while that the eventual role for Edward is going to lie with the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme and he'll carry his father's title while doing it. Andrew most likely will continue his own Pitch@Palace scheme and Anne continue with Save the Children and her involvement in the Olympic Games.

The core of the family under Charles will be his own heir and spouse and their children as they're the future of the monarchy itself. In time, Charles' siblings will either pass on or retire and what happens with the up and coming younger generation has plenty of time to be worked out and adapted to the needs of the monarchy. It'll be another 25 or so years until that happens and no one can predict what our world and its needs will be like then. One thing for sure is that the monarchy will address every issue and every consideration and plan ahead as it does now. Harry and Meghan are never going to lose their importance to the monarchy itself as their roles are pretty much being carved out for their lifetime. Where their children fit into the scheme of things is yet to be determined.

When you think about it, anything can happen between now and when George ascends the throne. I won't be here to see it but its an incentive to live as long as I can and become a burden to my children.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 04-11-2019, 10:57 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Harry has performed Investitures and is a Counsellor of State (Privy Council.)

Harry is a Counsellor of State by law, but I don't think he is a Privy Councillor. William is both a Counsellor of State and a Privy Councillor.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 04-11-2019, 02:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
[...] can you produce any written documentation from a viable source (BP?) to support that assertion [...]
To the best of my knowledge, the Palace has never published a document stating which family members are considered "royals", much less a document stating which members are minor, senior, important, unimportant, etc. There is a list of members of the Royal Family, but even Mia and Lena Tindall are included in it. I don't think any poster in the thread has claimed to have a written assertion from the Palace regarding the status or importance of royals.

The distinction, if there is any, between senior or minor royal is therefore dependent on personal opinion. Various posters in this thread have based their opinions upon the line of succession, the order of precedence, relation to the monarch, treatment by the Palace, quantity of public duties, nature of public duties, and level of media coverage. Each of the different definitions naturally ends with a different assessment of "seniority".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
And after all, we (including presumably yourself) wouldn't want to waste any more of the 47,000+ posts there are already here on the Harry/Meghan/Sussex threads, on such a minor person in the BRF, or his wife, would we?
I do not know the original poster's opinions, but I would need to disagree with connecting importance to the number of posts on TRF - since the British royal family is the topic of more posts than any other royal family, they would be regarded as more important than any other royal family in the world if that were the case.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 04-11-2019, 03:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
To the best of my knowledge, the Palace has never published a document stating which family members are considered "royals", much less a document stating which members are minor, senior, important, unimportant, etc. There is a list of members of the Royal Family, but even Mia and Lena Tindall are included in it. I don't think any poster in the thread has cited a written assertion from the Palace regarding the status or importance of royals.

That is an important point. Unlike in the Netherlands or some other countries, there is no official definition of "membership of the Royal House" in the UK. There is only a loose definition of "the Royal Family", which seems to be based on proximity of blood to the Queen rather than on whether a person is an HRH or not.



"Membership of the Royal House" is actually a tricky point as it doesn't follow a uniform rule on an international basis. For example, in Spain, there are HRHs like the Infantas Elena, Cristina, Pilar or Margarita who nonetheless are not (currently) members of the Royal House. Conversely, in the Netherlands, before Queen Beatrix's abdication, there were non-HRHs like Prince Constantijn's children who were nonetheless members of the Royal House (as relatives of the reigning queen in the second degree of kinship and not excluded from the line of succession).



Sweden seems to be more consistent: currently all HRHs (including Princess Brigitta, who is not in the line of succession) are listed as members of the Royal House, whereas non-HRHs (including King Carl Gustaf's other sisters) are listed as members of the extended "Royal Family", but not of the "Royal House". Personally, I think that should be the right criteria.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 04-11-2019, 04:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

I do not know the original poster's opinions, but I would need to disagree with connecting importance to the number of posts on TRF - since the British royal family is the topic of more posts than any other royal family, they would be regarded as more important than any other royal family in the world if that were the case.
That is surprising in itself.
Even in this forum, where people are interested in royalty from all times and places, the British RF dominate.

Why is that?
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 04-11-2019, 04:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
That is an important point. Unlike the Netherlands or some other countries, there is no official definition of "membership of the Royal House" in the UK. There is only a loose definition of the Royal Family, which seems to be based on proximity of blood to the Queen rather than whether a person is an HRH or not.

"Membership of the Royal House" is actually a tricky point as it doesn't follow a uniform rule on an international basis. For example, in Spain, there are HRHs like the Infantas Elena, Cristina, Pilar or Margarita who nonetheless are not (currently) members of the Royal House. Conversely, in the Netherlands, before Queen Beatrix's abdication, there were non-HRH like Prince Constantijn's children who were nonetheless members of the Royal House (as relatives of the reigning queen in the second degree of kinship and not excluded from the line of succession).

Sweden seems to be more consistent: currently all HRHs (including Princess Brigitta, who is not in the line of succession) are listed as members of the Royal House, whereas non-HRHs (including King Carl Gustaf's other sisters) are listed as members of the extended "Royal Family", but not of the "Royal House". Personally, I think that should be the right criteria.
Yes, not to mention Pieter van Vollenhoven, who remains a member of the Royal House and a working member of the Firm, but is still not styled with any title whatsoever or even the name of Orange-Nassau.

I think Japan, which has the most consistent system out of the apolitical monarchies, is the perfect model for the others, insofar as membership of the royal family is defined by an Act of Parliament, members are consistently working royals and have royal status and titles, and non-members are consistently untitled and are private citizens who play no role in the monarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 04-11-2019, 04:33 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 494
Personally, I feel that now is the ideal time to politely give the Queen's cousins the option to retire on a generous pension package. With the addition of four extra full time working royals in the last few years, they are of much less significance already, but if they were to be given the option to choose to retire now, it would save them being put out to pasture by Charles in the future.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 04-11-2019, 04:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
That is surprising in itself.
Even in this forum, where people are interested in royalty from all times and places, the British RF dominate.

Why is that?



First of all, there are lots of members from English-speaking countries , where the British RF is by far the most well-known RF, and the English-speaking media, which has a broader international reach than media in other languages, tends to cover the British RF more than any other. If that were a Spanish-language site, I suppose there would probably be more posts about the Spanish RF for example.


Second, the British RF naturally has a higher profile than other European RFs. The Queen has been on the throne for 67 years and is still the Head of State of 16 different countries, including Australia and Canada. She is also an icon in big Commonwealth countries in the developing world like India, Nigeria, or South Africa.


Furthermore, after republics were established in countries like France, Russia, Germany or Austria-Hungary, the UK and Spain are pretty much the only remaining "large" European countries that still have a monarchy. Both the Netherlands and Belgium once held large colonial empires and have a proud economic history, but I wouldn't compare them in international profile to Britain, France, or Germany for example. Besides, the Benelux monarchies are quite young, dating back only to the 19th century. Denmark and Sweden on the other hand have old monarchies with a long history and tradition, but are small countries in terms of total population. Sweden in particular actually happens to be an important industrial economy with highly advanced science and engineering, but, again, I wouldn't list as one of the major European powers in terms of international influence.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 04-11-2019, 05:56 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 183
I think Charles will downsize the monarchy.

When Charles becomes King George VII, he should make his son William, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Lord of the Isles immediately.
__________________

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
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 768 02-15-2020 04:49 PM
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1503 01-07-2020 10:25 AM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 118 01-24-2018 10:35 PM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 39 11-29-2017 10:53 AM




Popular Tags
alqasimi aristocracy armenia belgian royal family chittagong cht clarence house countess of snowdon cover-up crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch dutch history dutch royal family french revolution future genealogy germany henry v hill historical drama house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha jumma kent kiko king philippe languages lithuanian castles mail marriage mbs meghan markle monarchist monarchy monogram naples norway norwegian royal family official visit palaces palestine potential areas prince charles prince harry prince of wales rania of jordan romanov family shakespeare south korea spanish royal startling new evidence state visit sweden swedish royal family tracts united kingdom usa


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:53 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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