The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1381  
Old 04-23-2021, 12:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Attending a family funeral is an "engagement"?! They're a weird mob!

I believe this is where the Court Circular functions as an official diary too. It's marking the date, time and the attendees at the funeral but would not be considered an actual engagement. I don't believe that it would be considered as one by the people ie Tim O'Donovan who are famous for keeping an annual tally of BRF engagements.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1382  
Old 04-23-2021, 01:02 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,423
I think this article belongs here...

I love seeing Charles and William so unified...

I’m sorry for the Queen that she’s suffering seeing Andrew suffer, but there is no way back for Andrew in public life. I do think he should be allowed to be made useful, and I’m sure there are ways to do that, but as a working a Royal? No - the public would be outraged.

Quote:
She said Charles, 72, and the Duke of Cambridge, 38, are leading this discussion and are 'more united in their vision for the future of the monarchy than they ever have been'.


'The sources I speak to say that the notion of "sovereign" is what has reunited them in the wake of Andrew and "Megxit" - that they are stronger now than ever and more focused,' she told host Kate Thornton.


'Credit to the Prince of Wales, who instigated that meeting as an initial icebreaker, because no-one realises and appreciates more than Prince Charles that a divided Royal Family is not the unified monarchy that people want to see.'

She added that Prince Andrew's future role remains an unresolved issue, as is the continued lack of trust between Prince William and Prince Harry, 36, despite their conversation following Prince Philip's funeral on April 17.

Nicholl said Charles and William both see 'potential for disaster' should they bring the Duke of York, 61, back into the royal fold.

...

Royal photographer, another guest on the episode, Arthur Edwards also observed that Her Majesty and her second son are 'quite close'.

'I've seen him [Prince Andrew] go to church with the Queen up at Sandringham,' he told the programme.

'They're quite close, and the Queen knows he's suffering. I think she will make every effort to get him back and I think it can happen.'
....



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9504209/Prince-Charles-Prince-William-united-vision-future-monarchy.html
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1383  
Old 04-23-2021, 01:22 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
I don't see Charles abdicating either, but I think William might do it, just like Beatrix and Albert did back in 2013.
And Juan Carlos, and Benedictus XVI, and Akihito... The impossible is possible. I feel Charles is a rational man. When he feels the monarchy is better in younger, firmer, hands then he will hand over the reins. For some reasons I see him less dogmatic than his mother.
Reply With Quote
  #1384  
Old 04-23-2021, 01:31 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog Real View Post
It makes no sense. A regime, be it monarchy or republic, is much more than inaugurating hospitals or schools.
Monarchies must continue, it is a valid regime.


I do live in a monarchy and yes, laying first stones, cut ribbons, plant memorial trees and baptize ships by nicely dressed princesses with a few hofdames in their slipstream is more or less their core business indeed.

Maybe one would say: micro credits, illiteracy, inclusive society, but that are more personal pet topics from royals than their core business: hobbling in a horsedrawn carriage on their way to Parliament to fulfill a constitutional duty. And of course, set their obliged signature under documents they even have not read at all or receive new ministers they seem to have "appointed" but never ever have spoken to before.
Reply With Quote
  #1385  
Old 04-23-2021, 01:52 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I doubt Charles doesn't want to be King. He has always been a man of ideas and I believe he wants to leave his mark in the institution, including reforming it. He cannot do it unless he is King one day.
I am not sure that Charles is able to do more as a king than as the prince of Wales. IIRC Charles himself said that he is very aware of the limitations that will come with his role as king; limitations that he does NOT have as the prince of Wales. So, probably he currently he has the best of both worlds. He is not yet king but can very much start to shape the future of the monarchy as his mother is entrusting him with more and more; while he still has more room to speak out and take on his own interests than he will have as king.

As others said before: his legacy is more likely to be how he reinvented the role of Prince of Wales.
Reply With Quote
  #1386  
Old 04-23-2021, 02:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I am not sure that Charles is able to do more as a king than as the prince of Wales. IIRC Charles himself said that he is very aware of the limitations that will come with his role as king; limitations that he does NOT have as the prince of Wales. So, probably he currently he has the best of both worlds. He is not yet king but can very much start to shape the future of the monarchy as his mother is entrusting him with more and more; while he still has more room to speak out and take on his own interests than he will have as king.

As others said before: his legacy is more likely to be how he reinvented the role of Prince of Wales.
I agree, and I’ve said this myself....but, his duties as King will still be significant, including/especially continuing it.

I expect Charles will primarily be remembered, as King, for how he comforts and unites his people after his mother passes.
Reply With Quote
  #1387  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:07 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,198
That's just life. "The King is dead. Long live the King." There's always a long gap between accession and coronation for that reason: accession is a sombre time. Life has sad times and happy times.
Reply With Quote
  #1388  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
That's just life. "The King is dead. Long live the King." There's always a long gap between accession and coronation for that reason: accession is a sombre time. Life has sad times and happy times.
Which.........always makes me wonder why people celebrate the day HM came to the throne. It's NOT a happy day.... IMO, celebrate coronation day, not accession day, which requires a death to take place.
Reply With Quote
  #1389  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:20 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
I believe this is where the Court Circular functions as an official diary too. It's marking the date, time and the attendees at the funeral but would not be considered an actual engagement. I don't believe that it would be considered as one by the people ie Tim O'Donovan who are famous for keeping an annual tally of BRF engagements.
Yes; this makes sense. It has a wider purpose.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1390  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Which.........always makes me wonder why people celebrate the day HM came to the throne. It's NOT a happy day.... IMO, celebrate coronation day, not accession day, which requires a death to take place.
We don't, really. We celebrate in June, either on the 2nd which is the Coronation and/or on her official birthday later on. Partly because there's half a chance

Ascension Day on Feb 6th is always kept quietly.

Jubilees celebrate the year she ascended (1952) but are always celebrated in June on the coronation date.
Reply With Quote
  #1391  
Old 04-23-2021, 04:44 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,286
Although I believe that Charles will keep mostly to a traditional mode of a reign and not "modernize" or "revamp" things overly much while he is king, I do think that we'll see Charles depending on and consulting William even more so as opposed to Elizabeth's very long reign, Charles' will almost seem like a transitional reign between Elizabeth II and William V.

Charles will not abdicate any more than his mother will. He'll find the value of William stepping into and taking on the role of Duke of Cornwall and possibly The Prince of Wales and using those roles to prepare William and his family for the day he does become King.
__________________
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
  #1392  
Old 04-23-2021, 05:00 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 92
I think William and Catherine need Charles to be King for a sizeable amount of time. It's going to be a radical change in their day-to-day lives when William becomes the Duke of Cornwall and is installed as the Prince of Wales.

Whenever I read how insiders believe that Charles will abdicate in favor of Willaim being King, I think it ignores that William isn't ready yet, and likely doesn't want to change his family life in that way for quite some time. Given the incredible longevity of that family, William has a good chance of not being King while his children grow up.
Reply With Quote
  #1393  
Old 04-23-2021, 05:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,440
I dont believe that Charles would want to give up being King unless he were to get very frail and poorly and then I think he might hand over. But yes, William is probably rather reluctant to take it on before he has to...
I think he's been glad to have had a few years without too many royal duties, with his job and his wife and kids and he will hope that George can grow up in peace..
Reply With Quote
  #1394  
Old 04-23-2021, 05:15 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 5,770
I do not believe that Charles intends to abdicate, unless he is very unpopular or there is a scandal like in Spain. Other than that, he won't abdicate.
I think William will be king when his father dies. William must be preparing now for all the changes that will occur in his life in the years to come, when Charles becomes king. He will take on more responsibilities and this will already cause more changes in his life and that of his family.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #1395  
Old 04-23-2021, 05:39 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,589
Well Kate's uncle Gary thinks HMQ should step down and allow the Cambridges to be young monarch as it would be best for the BRF. He has a new interview in the Mail. Quite the read.
Reply With Quote
  #1396  
Old 04-23-2021, 05:43 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
I do live in a monarchy and yes, laying first stones, cut ribbons, plant memorial trees and baptize ships by nicely dressed princesses with a few hofdames in their slipstream is more or less their core business indeed.

Maybe one would say: micro credits, illiteracy, inclusive society, but that are more personal pet topics from royals than their core business: hobbling in a horsedrawn carriage on their way to Parliament to fulfill a constitutional duty. And of course, set their obliged signature under documents they even have not read at all or receive new ministers they seem to have "appointed" but never ever have spoken to before.
These days monarchies are curious things, IMO. There is a need for a head of state as a symbol of national unity on the world stage, and to perform those actual powers the duties the head of state in a constitutional monarchy has, such as opening parliament, assenting to legislation, appointing ministers and receiving ambassadors and foreign heads of state. These tasks have to be performed, whether after hobbling in a horsedrawn carriage dressed up in fine gold and silk clothing or just driving there without fanfare wearing ordinary day dress. This is where the decision has to be made as to not whether but how these tasks are going to be performed.

The British head of state is a monarch who has lots of fancy carriages and lots of money and property and other accumulated wealth of jewels and other treasure... most of which actually belongs to the people. The monarchs can only retain their elevated social position if the people allow it, and the people are going to get really cheesed off if they don't get to enjoy all their goodies by seeing the jewels and regalia on show. The opening of parliament has been described as "an elaborate ceremony showcasing British history, culture and contemporary politics to large crowds and television viewers" and is one of those events where the public's property is put on show for them to enjoy, so is unlikely to stop, along with all the other elaborate events with carriages and pagentry and bagpipes and fancy uniforms. The people enjoy seeing this stuff; it's great entertainment and it's good for tourism.

I do not include the ribbon-cutting and handing out of prizes at local fairs, and much if not all of the charitable work the various family members perform (apart from the heir, who is in a separate category, because he has to keep himself busy and useful and is separately funded) as part of the core business of the monarchy. I see it as really only busy work to keep the royal family members occupied and give the people a connection to the royals.

Charles and William are going to have to decide how much of that busy work is going to be retained: how many charities are going to have royal patrons, how many bridges, fairs, etc., are going to be opened by a member of the royal family and how many trees planted by them. When they have decided what work has to be done, they can work out how many working royals are going to be required in order to perform that work. Or maybe they will firstly decide the number of working royals they want and then assign the tasks. Either way, a decision is going to have to be made.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1397  
Old 04-23-2021, 05:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
We don't, really. We celebrate in June, either on the 2nd which is the Coronation and/or on her official birthday later on. Partly because there's half a chance

Ascension Day on Feb 6th is always kept quietly.

Jubilees celebrate the year she ascended (1952) but are always celebrated in June on the coronation date.
I wasn’t very clear...sorry! I think I probably confused “attention” (lots of articles) with “celebration”.

Thanks for clarifying!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarRose View Post
I think William and Catherine need Charles to be King for a sizeable amount of time. It's going to be a radical change in their day-to-day lives when William becomes the Duke of Cornwall and is installed as the Prince of Wales.

Whenever I read how insiders believe that Charles will abdicate in favor of Willaim being King, I think it ignores that William isn't ready yet, and likely doesn't want to change his family life in that way for quite some time. Given the incredible longevity of that family, William has a good chance of not being King while his children grow up.
Those “insiders” just are expressing wishful thinking, or the thinking of the British public ..Unfortunately for them, however they feel about Charles - and Camilla- Charles is going to be King when his mother passes. They don’t care about what will actually happen or even about what William would want

Osipi:

I agree


Quote:
Although I believe that Charles will keep mostly to a traditional mode of a reign and not "modernize" or "revamp" things overly much while he is king, I do think that we'll see Charles depending on and consulting William even more so as opposed to Elizabeth's very long reign, Charles' will almost seem like a transitional reign between Elizabeth II and William V.

Charles will not abdicate any more than his mother will. He'll find the value of William stepping into and taking on the role of Duke of Cornwall and possibly The Prince of Wales and using those roles to prepare William and his family for the day he does become King.
Reply With Quote
  #1398  
Old 04-24-2021, 04:41 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
These days monarchies are curious things, IMO. There is a need for a head of state as a symbol of national unity on the world stage, and to perform those actual powers the duties the head of state in a constitutional monarchy has, such as opening parliament, assenting to legislation, appointing ministers and receiving ambassadors and foreign heads of state. These tasks have to be performed, whether after hobbling in a horsedrawn carriage dressed up in fine gold and silk clothing or just driving there without fanfare wearing ordinary day dress. This is where the decision has to be made as to not whether but how these tasks are going to be performed.

The British head of state is a monarch who has lots of fancy carriages and lots of money and property and other accumulated wealth of jewels and other treasure... most of which actually belongs to the people. The monarchs can only retain their elevated social position if the people allow it, and the people are going to get really cheesed off if they don't get to enjoy all their goodies by seeing the jewels and regalia on show. The opening of parliament has been described as "an elaborate ceremony showcasing British history, culture and contemporary politics to large crowds and television viewers" and is one of those events where the public's property is put on show for them to enjoy, so is unlikely to stop, along with all the other elaborate events with carriages and pagentry and bagpipes and fancy uniforms. The people enjoy seeing this stuff; it's great entertainment and it's good for tourism.

I do not include the ribbon-cutting and handing out of prizes at local fairs, and much if not all of the charitable work the various family members perform (apart from the heir, who is in a separate category, because he has to keep himself busy and useful and is separately funded) as part of the core business of the monarchy. I see it as really only busy work to keep the royal family members occupied and give the people a connection to the royals.

Charles and William are going to have to decide how much of that busy work is going to be retained: how many charities are going to have royal patrons, how many bridges, fairs, etc., are going to be opened by a member of the royal family and how many trees planted by them. When they have decided what work has to be done, they can work out how many working royals are going to be required in order to perform that work. Or maybe they will firstly decide the number of working royals they want and then assign the tasks. Either way, a decision is going to have to be made.
We live in a world without limits. We can see and hear and follow everything all over the world 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For longer than a year many of us have worked from home and still could do our job perfectly, like all of our colleagues. We have discovered that we do not need to travel to a client in Bologna or to a conference in Leipzig. We have discovered that we can perfectly purchase a new home without even having been in a bank: everything goes digital. And this is to stay.

Then it is not surprising that in a modern monarchy 3.0 there will be a review of the concept that one needs a whole group of children, cousins or in-laws to be honorary patrons of the Abbotsford Flying Club, the Friends of the Sea Otter, the Swinley Golf Club or the Ski Club of Britain.

How can France launch their new nuclear-powered gigantic aircraft carrier to replace the Charles de Gaulle without a royal? *shock* . How can the Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics in Italy (an opportunity currently used to do gigantic infrastructure works) be opened without a royal? *shock*.

Everyone sees that life goes on. Whether or not Princess Beatrice is patron of the Housewives' Needlework Guild, yes or no. I can imagine that in the wider prospect of a modern monarchy all facets will be part of consideration. The outcome can be: we change nothing. The current monarchy works for us. Who knows.
Reply With Quote
  #1399  
Old 05-06-2021, 07:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
I haven't seen any polls stating that the British public want a slimmed down Monarchy, [...]
Here is one taken by YouGov in January 2020.
Do you think a "slimmed down" Royal Family, with fewer members of the family actively carrying out royal duties, is a good or bad thing?

A good thing 46%
A bad thing 11%
Neither 28%
Don't know 16%
Interestingly, younger Britons are more likely to be neutral on the issue while older Britons are more likely to view a slimmed-down monarchy as a good thing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Abdication gives the monarch the chance to enjoy his or her latter years in relative peace and comfort doing what they really want to do like other retired people can after a long working life, and gives the heir and his/her spouse a chance to get out there and do the ceremonial duties and royal visits while they are young enough to be able to enjoy them wholeheartedly. The public gets to see a more active and more attractive royal couple and the country has a more vibrant and youthful face on the world stage.
Personally, I am pleased with the fact that hereditary monarchy - with or without abdication - sometimes grants an opportunity for less attractive and/or less youthful faces to enjoy an active and vibrant part on the world stage.
Reply With Quote
  #1400  
Old 05-06-2021, 08:05 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,134
I believe that polls results that ask about a slimmed down royal family would vary depending on the format of the question.

For instance I think that if members of the British public were asked about members of the royal family carrying out duties for the Queen and being compensated for it with allowances from the monarch and from the Sovereign Grant would be answered very differently from one that doesn’t mention the money.


Many members of the public are very vague about what exactly the Sovereign Grant encompasses. However, I can remember polls from years ago in which survey respondents were not keen to keep on paying for royals they regarded as surplus to requirements, specifically as they felt their expenditures came from taxpayers money (which ultimately it does.)
__________________

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 1589 Today 10:53 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 america baby names background story biography britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla parker bowles canada china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing cpr daisy dna doge of venice dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii elizabeth ii emperor family life family tree fashion and style george vi hello! hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove hypothetical monarchs jewellery jewelry kensington palace king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepalese royal family plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima resusci anne royal ancestry royal court royal jewels russian court dress solomon j solomon speech stuart suthida taiwan thailand uae customs united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:44 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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