The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3121  
Old 05-05-2017, 11:25 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
I think he' WILL cut down the RF to a smaller group and if that means having less public appearances he would prefer that to having to support loads of cousins for life because they are "on the duty roster".
in today's world, its possible for them to do a lot on the internet, TV etc, and while I think it is important that some royals do actually get out there and meet people, make actual live speeches and shake hands and go around and see things, we don't need to have hordes of people doing it..
Charles is a traditionalist and he will not ignore his cousins or leave them out of ceremonials that are family based so they will be seen in public at times but they will be free to go and lead their own lives and have their own careers if they want them and he wot be saddled with their upkeep.
In the 80s there was a lot of attention to the RF, In the press and I'm sure he remembers all too well that this meant that people's faults were more obvious to the public and the press's attitude was "if they are donig royal duties then their lives are up for grabs.. and every fault or mistake they make, is good for a story.."
Charles will want to avoid that...
__________________

  #3122  
Old 05-06-2017, 12:07 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Which cousins are we talking about though, the Kents (the Duke and Princess Alexandra) who are in their 80's and have had recent health scares, or the Gloucesters who do a lot of unsung work for the BRF and are Charles and Cam contemporaries in terms of age?

It's lovely to think of untethering the cousins in the future and no doubt none of them would mind, except that their accommodation, Alexandra's flat at St James's, the Kents' Wren House and the Goucesters' large apartment at KP are all given as part payment for work done representing HM at various engagements all over the place.

I doubt that Charles will be up for a whole lot of subsidising large rents for his mother's retired cousins in the event of some MPs turning their attention again (as they have in the past) on grace and favour dwellings inhabited by Royal relatives.

It will be a conundrum IMO in some ways as Charles would hardly want to ask very very elderly people to move out of their homes because they will be regarded as surplus to requirements.
__________________

  #3123  
Old 05-06-2017, 12:18 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
He's not going to throw them out or stop supporting them but I'm sure he does not want any other royals on his hands. Of course the older royals are at the point of giving up steady work in the near future and their children (Kents and Gloucesters) have never been involved in the royal duties.
He will let the older ones stay in thier homes until they go and then I suspect he'll be cutting back, and he wont want say the York girls on the payroll..
  #3124  
Old 05-06-2017, 12:32 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
I think the key word here is going to be "transition" as far as the "Firm" goes. He'd not boost the older ones out of their homes and declare them unnecessary but most likely, as they eventually fade out of the picture, he's not going to want to replace them either. That's regarding the "Firm".

As far as the extended British royal family, perhaps eventually we'll be seeing Beatrice and Eugenie with their spouses and children on the balcony for occasions such as Trooping the Color, weddings and events where they're seen as being part of the extended family.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens when the time does come.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3125  
Old 05-06-2017, 12:47 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
But in just 20 years time the working royal family will have thinned. The Gloucesters may still be around but in their late 80s or 90s as will be Charles, Camilla and Anne. Edward, Sophie and Andrew will be in their 70s. George may be in military service and Charlotte just finishing school so neither will be a working royal yet. William, Kate and Harry (and Harry's future wife) will be the middle aged working royals. So at least four or more fewer workers not replaced, and maybe more.
  #3126  
Old 05-06-2017, 12:54 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think the key word here is going to be "transition" as far as the "Firm" goes. He'd not boost the older ones out of their homes and declare them unnecessary but most likely, as they eventually fade out of the picture, he's not going to want to replace them either. That's regarding the "Firm".

We'll just have to wait and see what happens when the time does come.
of course he's nto going to throw them out or stop helping them financially, but he will not replace them with other younger royals. Times have changed and the RF needs to be seen as slimmer and less expesnsive..
we'll see Bea and Eugenie at times but they wont be doing royal duties..
  #3127  
Old 05-06-2017, 03:18 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
of course he's nto going to throw them out or stop helping them financially, but he will not replace them with other younger royals. Times have changed and the RF needs to be seen as slimmer and less expesnsive..

we'll see Bea and Eugenie at times but they wont be doing royal duties..

I don't really get your point as that's what we have now. Charles' Cousin's don't do a lot in the way of royal engagements and certainly don't get a lot for it. It's different when you take some like the DOG out of the picture than to the DOE, dividing up the engagements that will go with 700+ patronages requires a lot of thought and people.

Whilst you are sure Charles wants a slim down monarchy (which he will get anyway when his Cousin's pass), he has the monarchies appearance out there to think about, and there's nothing like seeing a royal in the flesh as opposed to on YouTube. The monarchy is never going to be less expensive because the same people are still there.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #3128  
Old 05-06-2017, 03:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
not everyone wants to see royals
  #3129  
Old 05-06-2017, 04:58 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,869
Are you saying that when apartments fall empty in KP they should be occupied by the the richest rather than the royal?
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #3130  
Old 05-06-2017, 11:29 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
I don't think that places like Kensington Palace will ever be made available for the richest and the greatest. If anything, it will become solely under the HRP (Historical Royal Palaces) and preserved as a national treasure with some of the state rooms still being available for rent for events. One aspect of KP is that it is a logical choice for London residences for members of the BRF as the security and ease of access to London is already in place. I would even bet my last glass of banana strawberry smoothie that Buckingham Palace will become a public national treasure before Kensington Palace does.

There will always be an interest in seeing the royal family in the flesh and interacting with them. Even though social media and videos on YouTube are becoming more and more the way to reach more people, seeing the royal family out and about actually doing things is never going to fade away. I think the Queen said it best when she said "I have to be seen to be believed."

There will always be royal events where the old traditions are still followed such as the State Opening of Parliament and Trooping the Color. Nobody, but nobody, does traditions and pomp and circumstance better than the British.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3131  
Old 05-06-2017, 11:58 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,153
The state rooms of KP are already under the control of HRP. People aren't going to want to tour the old apartments of the Gloucesters or Kents. I toured BP, Windsor, Tower of London and KP. KP was the least interesting of the four. If it didn't have the ties to Diana and Victoria, I don't think a lot of people would go there. I found the garden the best part. After seeing it once, I don't feel the need to go back.
  #3132  
Old 05-06-2017, 12:24 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
And there, folks, speaks experience of actually *being* there which I've never had the pleasure.

It does kind of confirm in my mind that Buck House would be more of a tourist draw than KP and KP would be more apt to be kept as residences. But this is kind of straying from the topic of the Monarchy under Charles. It does tie in somewhat as I believe I've read places that when Charles becomes King, he may opt to keep Clarence House as his residence. That would make sense if BP is still under major renovations. It would also be a quiet "transition" to move the royal residence of the monarch elsewhere from BP but BP would still be continued to be used for purposes it is now such as state dinners.

The House of Windsor plans things out in advance so completely that changes happen without a whole lot of fanfare over time (*if* you discount the media going berserk and speculating about things). Perhaps their plans that we see in action now are only the tip of the iceberg in even further long range plans.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that all the major work that was done for Apt. 1A at KP wasn't solely for the Cambridge's move in but to assure that KP will be fit for royal residency for decades to come.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3133  
Old 05-31-2017, 08:24 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 515
With the announcement of the retirement of the DoE, would now be a good time for ghe Queen's cousins to do likewise? This would properly shift the focus to Charles and his immediate family, and free up even more engagements and patronages for the younger royals.
  #3134  
Old 05-31-2017, 08:54 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,034
Please, just let these people who have served Queen and Country all their lives, reach decisions in the fullness of their own time. No one wants to feel nudged to the curb. They want to cross the street on their own terms.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
  #3135  
Old 05-31-2017, 09:05 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 551
Quote:
The state rooms of KP are already under the control of HRP. People aren't going to want to tour the old apartments of the Gloucesters or Kents. I toured BP, Windsor, Tower of London and KP. KP was the least interesting of the four. If it didn't have the ties to Diana and Victoria, I don't think a lot of people would go there. I found the garden the best part. After seeing it once, I don't feel the need to go back.
I visited KP, Windsor, Tower of London and Balmoral (2012). I found them ALL fascinating in their different ways; I really liked KP and the Victoria displays. Those staircases are so easy to walk up; i could imagine a princess in a long gown would have no trouble.

But back to the Monarchy under Charles; i too would not be at all surprised is he keeps his 'home' at Clarence House and the 'business' at BP. That would make sense for future Monarchs too. After all, it's only a hop, skip and jump away. A decorous hop, of course.
  #3136  
Old 05-31-2017, 09:10 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,869
Sometimes I think people actually think HM runs the BRF like a business. The idea of kicking the olds to the kerb is wrong on just so many levels, the first being that HM is still QEII so the monarchy under Charles is irrelevant.

Further, this idea that Charles could, should or would "retire" the older relatives, let alone evict them from KP is bizarre. I see nothing in his behaviour during his life that would indicate he thinks that people, human beings, family no less, have a ''Use By" date. Quite the contrary as he sees how sharp both his parents still are.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #3137  
Old 05-31-2017, 11:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
With the announcement of the retirement of the DoE, would now be a good time for ghe Queen's cousins to do likewise? This would properly shift the focus to Charles and his immediate family, and free up even more engagements and patronages for the younger royals.
Why should the Gloucester's give up when they are as young as they are? They are only a couple of years older than Charles and Camilla.

The Kent's are older of course - both in their 80s but the Gloucester's were born in 1944 and 1946 with Camilla only a year younger in 1947 and Charles in 1948,
  #3138  
Old 06-01-2017, 01:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Why should the Gloucester's give up when they are as young as they are? They are only a couple of years older than Charles and Camilla.



The Kent's are older of course - both in their 80s but the Gloucester's were born in 1944 and 1946 with Camilla only a year younger in 1947 and Charles in 1948,


Yes I agree. If they are too old then that would make Charles too old as well hand it over to William !! The BRF have long life genes I think they will carry on a bit longer
  #3139  
Old 06-01-2017, 07:11 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,778
One word that could describe the British monarchy best is continuity. It continues on strong and the words change and replace aren't something that is done by the bucketfuls and I don't think that will apply when the time comes and Charles takes the throne.

The changes that are made happen gradually. There has been a steady winding down of the Queen's and Philip's roles in certain things since the Diamond Jubilee year and a ramping up of the younger royals involvement in things at the same time. Right now the monarchy is very much into a transitional phase with Charles and Camilla gradually doing more and more for Charles' parents.

The cousins like the Gloucesters and the Kents have long served the crown in their own capacity and Charles' isn't about to houseclean and deem them unnecessary but rather, with the passage of time, they'll also slow down and not be able to do as much as the younger royals will be able to do.

I don't think we're going to see a whole lot of changes to the monarchy that will be termed as "instant" when Charles succeeds his mother. There will be changes, yes, over the years but they'll be gradual and when we look at them years from now, we'll probably see how some of them have already been started to be implemented now. Perhaps even now there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that are actually preparing ahead of time for the smooth transition between Charles and William.

The monarchy isn't like a political party where there's a change of Prime Minister and you have a labor or a conservative influence with each PM but the monarchy itself is an institution that reflects all of the British people and not the individual sitting on the throne as a rule. Charles will, for sure, add his own touches and flavor to his reign but the underlying continuity of the monarchy will not change.

At least that's how I see it. How different a lot of republican governments would be if the core of their governments were for all of the people instead of their different political parties.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3140  
Old 06-17-2017, 10:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
BTW I think the 'slimming down' oft spoken of is only in terms of titles and salaries, correct?
I haven't heard that Charles intends on cutting down the titles. He only has two children and William already has two children. The Queen issued LPs that to ensure all of William's children will be HRHs thus extending the number that qualify under the 1917 LPs.

The only adjustment Charles could make would be to limit HRH to only the children of the heir apparent and thus deny Harry's children HRHs which I don't see him doing and Harry is the only other person who can have HRH children in the next generation.

No royals get a salary so the 'slimming down' won't affect that at all. Charles will get the Duchy of Lancaster estate for his private income and to use to support any members of the family that he chooses - presumable Harry and Harry's family. William will get the Duchy of Cornwall estate to support himself, Kate, George and Charlotte. He will also have to negotiate a Sovereign Grant with the parliament and may end up with basically the same as his mother - 15% of the income of the Crown Estate.

What he means by 'slimming down' is to have fewer royals undertaking royal duties and appearing to be part of the royal family. That means, I suspect, that no one who currently undertakes royal duties will be stopped but only George and possibly Charlotte, along with Harry's wife, in the future will be added to the working royals - no place for Beatrice or Eugenie or Harry's children.

That means that as for instance The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra retire there won't be anyone to replace them.


Quote:
That would not preclude King Charles from continuing on with his mother's twice-a-year family reunions, I would think. Why give up on that, just because of a change in reigns? It seems to me, Charles would want to gather his extended family around him, if only just twice a year. It's a way of thank you, too.
I suspect it will be a smaller balcony - his children and grandchildren and maybe his siblings and their spouses but not necessarily his siblings children.

I am not sure he will see a need for the extended family get-togethers at all. He doesn't seem all that close to his brothers or their children. He is actually closer to his mother's cousins - in age and thinking.

I think he may still have some sort of Christmas get-together as I doubt he will have his siblings or cousins at Sandringham so a smaller gathering at the big house as well (although I suspect Camilla's children will be there but not do the walk of course).

Quote:
BTW will King Charles have an official June Birthday, too, because of the weather being so nasty in November? Wondering.
As they didn't move the date to December for George VI or back to April for the Queen and it will move back to June for William and George it makes sense to leave it where it has been now for over a century.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


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
Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 552 04-07-2021 03:53 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 523 05-22-2018 02:06 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 310 04-09-2018 01:37 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




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 03:08 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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