1. You're right! The Queen (as I wrote in post 473) leaves London on Thursday (used to be Friday) afternoon for Windsor, returning sometime on Monday (some sources say Tuesday).
I believe that Charles will reside at BP because that is where the Monarch lives. He is not one to shake up things too much and as the government were definitely not in favour of the Queen and Prince Philip remaining in CH it is not designated as the heir's residence.
That's the way I see it, and why the PR folks said what they did. Makes sense.
I remember that - he said he didn't think they'd ever broken any porcelain and he was quite proud of that.
It was a lovely documentary and showed the kids were in no way scarred by having to live in a Palace. Looking forward to it.
IMO, as I've watched the press in Britain, I think there are PTB that would prefer Charles gets scrambled in translation, so they pretty much 'spin' the public to that end. In this I think the two Princes are unwitting pawns, playing into the hands of those who are uneasy with a strong monarch. Sad, but also fascinating drama. JMO of course.
I am aware of that; that is why I added the 'kind of'. They are included on the website of the royal family, so they have some standing as 'senior royal' (mainly because princess Alexandra would normally not be carrying out royal duties either, but the Queen wanted her to do so, so Michael is kind of an after thought as the only remaining sibling).
I am not. I stated multiple times that the 'uncles and aunts' will remain active to a certain extent - they most likely will 'reduce' their workload with time. I even included William's uncles and aunts in my final list!
Indeed, but I expect that to change as I explained (but apparently not clearly enough). Given the change of opinion and as a logical next step now the order of succession is independent of gender for those born after 2011, it would be illogical that future husband of princesses are not expected to join the firm while future wifes of princes (who could be lower in the line of succession) are. So, what I expect to happen is that the grandchildren are no longer expected to carry out royal duties, other than those by the heir (all with their spouses).
Great addition! Although it does not address the 'basic idea' behind who is involved and who is not, which is what I was trying to get to, i.e., to figure out what it might mean if to 'reduce the size' of the royal family while also incorporating 'modern' ideas such as having princesses by blood carry out royal duties after marriage; or in other words come up with a 'future proof system' (knowing that of course times change, so this also might change); but I'd like to think that there is some idea behind what the BRF does. However, it seems you land at the same people from a more pragmatic point of view.
Indeed, that was common practice before (i.e., it was limited to the male-line; the HRH treatment still is!), but I specifically stated that I don't think that should continue. Not sure why you think (that I think) otherwise... Instead I expect them to no longer ask the grandchildren but only the children (both sons and daughters - and their spouses (so not only wives but also husbands)) to be active members of the firm. Traditionally only sons, daughters-in-law, daughters, and male-line grandchildren (and limited to oldest sons with their spouses) were expected to carry out royal duties - Margaret's children for example were never expected to carry out royal duties; nor were princess Mary's (aunt of Queen Elizabeth)...
Agree that their position has always been awkward; they very much wanted to be more relevant than they have been.
That was also what I was referring to in my post in the Cambridge pregnancy topic; it would be the most logical thing to do; in that way the Royal Highnesses are expected to be active members of the firm and the Lords and Ladies within the family aren't. From that perspective it is interesting to see how some hope that the Queen will award Harry's children the HRH from birth even if his father isn't King yet. I agree that the opposite direction (his children wouldn't be HRH) is more likely.
In the generation before that both Margaret (logical as sister of the monarch) and Alexandra (less logical as cousin of the monarch) were asked to fulfil royal duties.
This is probably the only point on which we disagree. I like the idea of a couple being in it together - whether a prince of the blood with his wife or a princess of the blood with her husband. The alternative is that also the prince(ss) of the blood (non-heirs) has a day-to-day job and is also occasionally called upon for royal duties (as we see in many other monarchies).
Makes sense. Although I do think that it would be nice if they were more active in the other parts of the Commonwealth where the Queen is Head of State. So, for those reasons they might need the siblings to stay a little more active than otherwise needed. However, for those siblings it would be helpful if there are clear expectations: are they supposed to dedicate their lives to the firm or find their own way in life with some minor royal duties.
Do you think it is intentional, to throw off those who are counting? The current 'work of the royals' is really not all that 'necessary', and it's costly.
Thank you, Iluvbertie. It will be something to watch, then. The last of a kind.
