The Monarchy under Charles

[Ish]

Juliette brought up the title of "Queen Mother". Even if Diana had lived and had a happy marriage with Charles and was alive at the time William became King, I do not expect that she would ever be called The Queen Mother but rather remain as HM, Queen Diana. The only reason that there was a Queen Mother is because both women were Queens and both had the same first name. Queen Mary was never "Queen Mother" when her son, George VI ascended the throne.

Queen Mary actually was a Queen Mother (as was Queen Alexandra before her), she just didn't use the title.

Properly, a Queen Mother is a Dowager Queen who is the mother of the reigning monarch; Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is the only queen to use the title in recent history, partially because she and her daughter shared a name so it helped distinguish them, and partially because when QEII's reign started there were three British Queens - QEII, QEQM, and Queen Mary.

Previously, it had been used by Henrietta Maria, widow of Charles I and mother to Charles II and James II.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.

I agree. Though I do feel that Camilla avoiding being called the Princess of Wales was just being practical (and considerate). Camilla very much has her own identity as the Duchess of Cornwall, whereas were she to have used the moniker Princess of Wales there would have been a continual haze through which she would have been seen (and judged). It made sense to avoid the other imo.

Which brings up the tabloid press who continually stir the pot of Diana. It is endless. I notice it in nearly every news story regarding Meghan, for example. It's pretty heavy handed, and very often a continual negative spin is given regarding Charles. Does no one tire of it? Unsavory imo. I wonder that people do not see how much they are being 'played' with all that, but that's what makes the tabloids successful. Sigh'

 

[Osipi]

Which brings up the tabloid press who continually stir the pot of Diana. It is endless. I notice it in nearly every news story regarding Meghan, for example. It's pretty heavy handed, and very often a continual negative spin is given regarding Charles. Does no one tire of it? Unsavory imo. I wonder that people do not see how much they are being 'played' with all that, but that's what makes the tabloids successful. Sigh'

Personally, I have to admit that I don't see it at all. That's because I refuse to read tabloids. I won't, for the most part, click on tabloid links posted here although I'll admit that the Daily Mail has excellent photographs.

Also, thanks Ish for providing even more detail into the Queen Mother title. This is the stuff I find fascinating. Who needs tabloids when one can actually learn something factual and relevant to the BRF?

 

[Lady Nimue]

Personally, I have to admit that I don't see it at all. That's because I refuse to read tabloids. I won't, for the most part, click on tabloid links posted here although I'll admit that the Daily Mail has excellent photographs.

Actually, I don't read tabloids either. Just a shorthand way of saying it. I am very often not on TRF but I do like to keep abreast of things so usually click on the Yahoo stories, or such, that come up in my newsfeed. The result is I see a broad range of stories emanating from a variety of outlets (though I'm guessing they are using one or two sources to work from, like the DM, just a hunch). It's there I see the endless re-hash of Diana stuff. It's pretty consistent (and constant).

 

[Osipi]

I see those too when I peruse through the stories on my AOL news feed. There isn't a day that goes by without 4-5 stories about the BRF usually with titles like "William can't do this with George until he's 12" and "Dark Secrets from Prince Philip's past" and "Diana had to eat this everyday". I don't click on them and read them but I think a lot of Americans do and base their knowledge of the British monarchy on them. Its kind of sad. No wonder Charles, at one time, referred to the British royal family being turned into "a bloody soap opera".

All of this kind of thing will definitely go berserk and over the top when it comes time for Charles' coronation.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I see those too when I peruse through the stories on my AOL news feed. There isn't a day that goes by without 4-5 stories about the BRF usually with titles like "William can't do this with George until he's 12" and "Dark Secrets from Prince Philip's past" and "Diana had to eat this everyday". I don't click on them and read them but I think a lot of Americans do and base their knowledge of the British monarchy on them. Its kind of sad. No wonder Charles, at one time, referred to the British royal family being turned into "a bloody soap opera".

All of this kind of thing will definitely go berserk and over the top when it comes time for Charles' coronation.

So that is good for you, Osipi. But I'm not sure why you chose to challenge me regarding my comment and now present as being above clicking on stories in your newsfeed. Is this necessary? Or relevant? What does it have to do with anything?

Fact is, stories often have Diana-stuff inserted. If you don't see it does not mean it's not there, but more pertinent, of course you wouldn't see it because you don't click on stories. I think we have that sorted. Can we move on?

 

[Osipi]

Actually, I was agreeing with you and just adding onto what you stated. If it came across as me challenging you, I sincerely apologize.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Actually, I was agreeing with you and just adding onto what you stated. If it came across as me challenging you, I sincerely apologize.

Okay. Sorry if I was being too sensitive. It felt like I was laboring to be understood on what seemed to me a pretty straight forward observation. Plus it was literally my first post after being gone from TRF for while. Thank you for the kind acknowledgement. We can move on, I think.

 

[Osipi]

Glad to see you back as I've missed your posts.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Glad to see you back as I've missed your posts.

Thank you, Osipi. Always nice to be back on though I have to make sure I have a chunk of free time when I come back on. The scale of posting that confronts one when one has been absent is daunting. I'm long past trying to read everything to catch up anymore, but I do like to get the drift.

 

[Mbruno]

We will know where they go to school. And I don't entirely agree that E and S are seeking "normal." The kids are privileged and I don't think the family minds that.

Are you saying Edward and Sophie want their children to have all the perks without any of the obligations of being a member of the Royal House ?

That is wrong IMHO. James and Louise should be HRHs as determined by King George V's Letters Patent.

 

[Osipi]

Anne's children would be an example that the Wessex children would be following albeit that the Wessex children are styled as children as an Earl (and eventually children of a Duke) while Anne's children have no title at all. All four children are grandchildren of a monarch.

As I see it, the will and pleasure of Queen Elizabeth II, as monarch, can and does override the letters patent of George V.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Are you saying Edward and Sophie want their children to have all the perks without any of the obligations of being a member of the Royal House ?

That is wrong IMHO. James and Louise should be HRHs as determined by King George V's Letters Patent.

The Queen however changed that by issuing the statement that they wouldn't have those titles and The Queen's Will is all that is needed to change titles. They do not need LPs.

Why would she do that?

Presumably because she is foreshadowing the time when only the children of the heir apparent will be HRH and not the children of the younger children but she didn't want to strip her cousins of their titles and this way that didn't happen.

I will be very surprised if she now issues LPs giving HRH to Harry's children so they won't be born with the HRH and then when Charles becomes King he will simply confirm that they aren't HRHs.

As things currently stand Charlotte's children won't be HRH and if the new baby is a girl that would be two of three of William's children without that right making it easier to thus issue the LPs.

The York girls aren't wanted or needed on the working royal roster so why would Edward's children who are even further from the throne?

The intention of a smaller royal family is coming about slowing (although William having three children will make it larger in his time).

 

[Mbruno]

George V followed the (pre-Revolution) French standard under which the Royal House consisted of:


1. The King and the Queen Consort.
2. The monarch's legitimate children.
3. The monarch's legitimate grandchildren in male line.
4. The legitimate children of the eldest son of the heir to the throne.
5. The Queen Dowager when applicable.

In addition, wives of royal princes were also members of the Royal House by marriage whereas husbands of royal princesses were not.

With the introduction of equal primogeniture, the list above could be modernized to include all legitimate grandchildren of the monarch (in both paternal and maternal line) and all royal consorts and widows/widowers, either male or female, which is close to the Belgian system now (with the exception that, in Belgium, all grandchildren of the heir are also members of the Royal House).

I don't see a need for a minimalist Royal House, as in Spain or Norway today for example, as long as public funding is limited to the monarch, the monarch's consort, and the heir (and his/her consort), while other members of the Royal House get reimbursed only for official duties they perform. There could be public funding also for the dowager or former monarch upon abdication, which is fair.

 

[Pranter]

The Queen however changed that by issuing the statement that they wouldn't have those titles and The Queen's Will is all that is needed to change titles. They do not need LPs.

Why would she do that?

Presumably because she is foreshadowing the time when only the children of the heir apparent will be HRH and not the children of the younger children but she didn't want to strip her cousins of their titles and this way that didn't happen.

I will be very surprised if she now issues LPs giving HRH to Harry's children so they won't be born with the HRH and then when Charles becomes King he will simply confirm that they aren't HRHs.

As things currently stand Charlotte's children won't be HRH and if the new baby is a girl that would be two of three of William's children without that right making it easier to thus issue the LPs.

The York girls aren't wanted or needed on the working royal roster so why would Edward's children who are even further from the throne?

The intention of a smaller royal family is coming about slowing (although William having three children will make it larger in his time).

Really...see I expect Harry's kids to be HRH either issued so by the Queen or when Charles is monarch.

Interesting.


LaRae

 

[Somebody]

Why would the queen issue LPs to give her greatgrandchildren a title she actively withheld from her grandchildren?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Why would the queen issue LPs to give her greatgrandchildren a title she actively withheld from her grandchildren?

I disagree that she “actively withheld”, I strongly believe that the decision was Edward and Sophie’s and The Queen agreed.

Unless you mean something else.

 

[Osipi]

I agree. Anne's children do not have a title at all because their father declined a title. Sophie and Edward requested that their children be styled as children of an Earl (until Edward is created The Duke of Edinburgh when the title becomes available).

 

[Rosena6]

Anne's children would be an example that the Wessex children would be following albeit that the Wessex children are styled as children as an Earl (and eventually children of a Duke) while Anne's children have no title at all. All four children are grandchildren of a monarch.

As I see it, the will and pleasure of Queen Elizabeth II, as monarch, can and does override the letters patent of George V.

Princess Margaret's kids have titles but live fairly private lives.

 

[Rosena6]

I agree. Anne's children do not have a title at all because their father declined a title. Sophie and Edward requested that their children be styled as children of an Earl (until Edward is created The Duke of Edinburgh when the title becomes available).

What would have been different had they been HRH Prince and Princess?
They wouldn't be working royals either way I think?

 

[Molly2101]

What would have been different had they been HRH Prince and Princess?
They wouldn't be working royals either way I think?

Well one thing they won’t have to endure now as they aren’t Princess Louise and Prince James is the issue that people have with Beatrice and Eugenie at present. Thy have HRH styles and people are questioning the need for them. They were never going to be working royals but are now stuck inbetween a rock and a hard place.

Louise and James are free to get jobs without the public essentially thinking, “what’s the point of them?” They haven’t got any of the burdens of being seen to be useful like their York cousins. The Princesses have patronage’s and attend certain events, most likely at the invitation of their grandmother. I can’t see Charles requesting his youngest niece and nephew attend a reception at BP when he is King.

Edward and Sophie saw the future for their children and knew that they would have no royal engagements. They wanted their children to lead private lives (or as private as they can be when their relatives are the Monarch.)

 

[Osipi]

What would have been different had they been HRH Prince and Princess?
They wouldn't be working royals either way I think?

You're right. Princess Margaret's children are another example of being in the royal family and having relatively private lives.

I think one of the disadvantages we see right now with Beatrice and Eugenie being HRH and princesses is that, for the most part, people don't realize that these two women are private citizens that happen to be granddaughters of the monarch and not working for the BRF's "Firm".

Perhaps with being styled as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, there won't be so much expectations put on her to be "royal" and it makes it easier for her to have a private life.

 

[Pranter]

Why would the queen issue LPs to give her greatgrandchildren a title she actively withheld from her grandchildren?

Because their parents rejected titles for them. The Queen didn't 'withhold them' so they couldn't have them.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

George V followed the (pre-Revolution) French standard under which the Royal House consisted of:


1. The King and the Queen Consort.
2. The monarch's legitimate children.
3. The monarch's legitimate grandchildren in male line.
4. The legitimate children of the eldest son of the heir to the throne.
5. The Queen Dowager when applicable.

In addition, wives of royal princes were also members of the Royal House by marriage whereas husbands of royal princesses were not.

With the introduction of equal primogeniture, the list above could be modernized to include all legitimate grandchildren of the monarch (in both paternal and maternal line) and all royal consorts and widows/widowers, either male or female, which is close to the Belgian system now (with the exception that, in Belgium, all grandchildren of the heir are also members of the Royal House).

I doubt that they will go to a broader number of royals. They are trying to reduce the number so they will be reducing who is royal to the children of the monarch and the children of the heir apparent.

The public don't want Beatrice and Eugenie as royals so there is no way they will want to see that number expanded again (last time I was in Britain I asked numerous people their thoughts on the York girls and no one had a good word to say about them).

I don't see a need for a minimalist Royal House, as in Spain or Norway today for example, as long as public funding is limited to the monarch, the monarch's consort, and the heir (and his/her consort), while other members of the Royal House get reimbursed only for official duties they perform. There could be public funding also for the dowager or former monarch upon abdication, which is fair.

You are advocating expanding the amount of money spent by the taxpayers on the royals. Other than the Queen and Philip the rest are funded from the private incomes of the Duchies for their official duties not from the Sovereign Grant.

There won't be an abdication in the UK - unless William decides to do so, which I can see him doing - but neither the Queen nor Charles will ever abdicate. They believe they are there for life. If they do decide to abdicate they should get nothing as they have given up their duty and no moneys at all should be paid for that.

The spouse of the previous monarch is covered in the Sovereign Grant now so no increase there.

The streamlining of the royal family is clear for anyone to see if they look at the way the York girls are sidelined and so the family is going to have fewer workers doing fewer engagements - in line with the reported, but never confirmed, ideas that Charles wants a smaller royal family. The fact that that has been repeated over and over again makes it virtually impossible now for anyone to go back.

We have already seen The Queen change the LPs with Edward's children by the use of Her Will which would suggest a future where they LPs themselves will be changed to reduce rather than expand the number of HRHs as you are suggesting.

If all the grandchildren of a monarch were HRHs then by Christmas this year there would be 36 HRHs compared to the 21 we will have. That number would also only increase as Harry has children. The intention though is to reduce that number not add to it.

I would even go so far as to say that HRH should be limited to the first 6 in the line of succession - regardless of relation to the monarch and so people would lose it as others were born - as they do the need to ask permission to marry.

 

[cepe]

Edward and Sophie saw their children had the opportunity for private lives and gave it to them, which was a very wise decision, I think. Louise and James will still have all the unofficial privileges associated with being the grandchildren of a monarch - first rate educations, social and family connections, the opportunity to pursue their careers of choice, a nice, although probably not exorbitant sum of money set aside for them in trusts - without the constant attention and expectations that fall on working royals.

These are the privileges that come with any child of someone with money eg
-Branson children
-family of the late Duke of Westminster (although educated at the local comprehensive school)
-children of celebrities

the difference is that their parents will still be receiving public money (albeit not as a salary) and therefore will stay in the public eye. Don't see the DM losing sight of these two.

Since the revived interest in royalty (via social media, blogs and forums) media chase the younger children now. Although the children of (say) Duke of Kent missed it, there is now focus on the grandchildren, especially the girls.

 

[Pranter]

Bertie I don't think you can compare the York girls to the Wales boys. Their popularity has always been very different.


LaRae

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The public don't want Beatrice and Eugenie as royals so there is no way they will want to see that number expanded again (last time I was in Britain I asked numerous people their thoughts on the York girls and no one had a good word to say about them).

If all the grandchildren of a monarch were HRHs then by Christmas this year there would be 35 HRHs compared to the 23 we will have. That number would also only increase as Harry has children. The intention though is to reduce that number not add to it.

I would even go so far as to say that HRH should be limited to the first 6 in the line of succession - regardless of relation to the monarch and so people would lose it as others were born - as they do the need to ask permission to marry.

1) I think more people are indifferent to Beatrice and Eugenie than actively are negative. Many of those that are negative towards the girls either dislike their mother and/or father or believe they get money for doing nothing.

2) How so? The Queen has only eight grandchildren.

3) So are you advocating stripping the HRH from those that fall below the 6the position in the successsion even if they'd had it all their life previously?

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

2) How so? The Queen has only eight grandchildren.

If I am assuming and counting right, I think she is including all of the living grandchildren and spouses of a monarch,:

HRH Meghan
HRH Prince Peter
HRH Autumn
HRH Princess Zara
HRH Princess Louise
HRH Prince James
HRH Prince David
HRH The Countess of Snowdon
HRH Princess Sarah
HRH The Dowager Countess of Harewood
HRH Prince/ss xyz of Cambridge

I guess I am missing one

 

[Countessmeout]

Do their kids attend boarding school?
I read that only Beatrice attended a day school, unlike her cousins. Is that true?
I thought her sister was a day scholar, too?

To get back to education and not the title discussion, to answer you.....

All of the cousins went to day school at one point, but most went to boarding.

Both Beatrice and Eugenie attended St George's, but different locations. Due to her dyslexia, Beatrice went to the Ascot location. She remained there as a day student until she finished her a levels. Eugenie went to Windsor location, but later spent five years as a boarder at Marlborough. Because of her learning disability, it was decided better for Beatrice to remain with her teachers at a school that had top programs for kids with dyslexia.

Louise and James attended, James still, St George's Windsor like Eugenie. But the school is only until 13. There is no word of where Louise now goes.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Existing HRHs

1. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
2. HRH The Prince of Wales
3. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
4. HRH The Duke of Cambridge
5. HRH The Duchess of Cambridge
6. HRH Prince George of Cambridge
7. HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
8. HRH Prince Henry of Wales
9. HRH The Duke of York
10. HRH Princess Beatrice of York
11. HRH Princess Eugenie of York
12. HRH The Earl of Wessex
13. HRH The Countess of Wessex
14. HRH The Princess Royal
15. HRH The Duke of Gloucester
16. HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
17. HRH The Duke of Kent
18. HRH The Duchess of Kent
19. HRH Prince Michael of Kent
20. HRH Princess Michael of Kent
21. HRH Princess Alexandra

If ALL children, grandchildren of a monarch AND their non-divorced spouses were HRH the list by Christmas would be:

1. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
2. HRH The Prince of Wales
3. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
4. HRH The Duke of Cambridge
5. HRH The Duchess of Cambridge
6. HRH Prince George of Cambridge
7. HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
8. HRH Baby Cambridge
9. HRH Prince Henry of Wales
10. HRH Princess Henry of Wales
11. HRH The Duke of York
12. HRH Princess Beatrice of York
13. HRH Princess Eugenie of York
14. HRH Prince Jack Brookshank
15. HRH The Earl of Wessex
16. HRH The Countess of Wessex
17. HRH Prince James of Wessex
18. HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
19. HRH The Princess Royal
20. HRH Prince Timothy Laurence
21. HRH Prince Peter
22. HRH Princess Peter
23. HRH Princess Zara
24. HRH Prince Michael Tindall
25. HRH The Earl of Snowdon
26. HRH The Countess of Snowdon
27. HRH Princess Sarah
28. HRH Prince Daniel Chatto
29. HRH The Duke of Gloucester
30. HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
31. HRH The Duke of Kent
32. HRH The Duchess of Kent
33. HRH Prince Michael of Kent
34. HRH Princess Michael of Kent
35. HRH Princess Alexandra
36. HRH The Dowager Countess of Harewood

Red is for those who would be added who aren't already HRH but are in the extended family while the blue will be HRH but aren't yet.