The Monarchy under Charles

[Iluvbertie]

The thing with the Queen abdicating - besides her own regular statements to the contrary in one way or another and as recently as 2012 - is that the required legislation has to pass in the 16 other realms, not only the UK as happened in 1936.

That makes it harder to get it done, particularly given the republican movements in some of those realms who could easily take that opportunity to delay the legislation to make a decision on becoming a republic.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

How the younger breed of Royals is moving centre stage-
How the younger breed of Royals is moving centre stage - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

I like the statement about Catherine and William:

They are playing a constructive role, too, in bringing a more contemporary note to royal duties.
​

 

[fearghas]

The majority of people who want William to jump think this way because William is younger....that's all the qualifications he has. In 2 decades if he still isn't King people will want George instead of him because they will then have a young good looking monarch and not an old man. I've even heard some calling for Harry to be king.

It's the modern cult of youth over experience.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The majority of people who want William to jump think this way because William is younger....that's all the qualifications he has. In 2 decades if he still isn't King people will want George instead of him because they will then have a young good looking monarch and not an old man. I've even heard some calling for Harry to be king.

This is a repeat of the late 70s - early 80s when people were calling for the Queen to step down for Charles and even suggesting that Andrew would make a better King than Charles because he was more 'personable'.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It's the modern cult of youth over experience.

I am not sure how 'modern' it is. There were similar suggestions in the late 1890s that George V should succeed Victoria rather than his aging father.

 

[VictoriaB]

I am not sure how 'modern' it is. There were similar suggestions in the late 1890s that George V should succeed Victoria rather than his aging father.

Nothing to do with age, but also when Edward VIII abdicated there was a view that he should be succeeded by the more personable Duke of Kent than the Duke of York. So suggestions that the monarchy become a version of the X-Factor, with contestants voted out by the public, is nothing new either.

 

[LauraS3514]

Nothing to do with age, but also when Edward VIII abdicated there was a view that he should be succeeded by the more personable Duke of Kent than the Duke of York. So suggestions that the monarchy become a version of the X-Factor, with contestants voted out by the public, is nothing new either.

Not only was the Duke of Kent seen as "more personable" he had a more glamorous and royal-born wife AND a male heir (the current Duke.) Of course, he had his secret life too and that could have been catastrophic for the monarchy had it became known.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Duke of Kent was not even the next brother. The Duke of Gloucester was next so to get to the Duke of Kent - they would have to skip Bertie, Elizabeth and Margaret and Henry, the Duke of Gloucester.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[LauraS3514]

The Duke of Kent was not even the next brother. The Duke of Gloucester was next so to get to the Duke of Kent - they would have to skip Bertie, Elizabeth and Margaret and Henry, the Duke of Gloucester.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Reportedly that is exactly what was discussed: The Duke of York stammered, was uncomfortable in public and had only daughters. The Duke of Gloucester was not charismatic at all, uncomfortable in public, was known to be a heavy drinker with an explosive temper who had just married a very quiet woman who was already nearly 36 and might not be able to have children. (Remember, in 1936 that was a very advanced age for a first time mother; in fact the Duchess was nearly 42 before her first child was born.) It was thought that the Kent family (attractive, charming and undeniably royal) might be a better bet for the reasons I listed above. It was finally decided that enough disruption was happening without tinkering with the succession as well. Thankfully saner minds prevailed.

 

[Roslyn]

The concept of an elected monarchy, or at least for the monarch to be chosen from among the members of the extended royal family was an incident of Anglo-Saxon times, and I think that there is a lot to be said for it.

 

[MARG]

Nothing to do with age, but also when Edward VIII abdicated there was a view that he should be succeeded by the more personable Duke of Kent than the Duke of York. So suggestions that the monarchy become a version of the X-Factor, with contestants voted out by the public, is nothing new either.

The Duke of Kent was not even the next brother. The Duke of Gloucester was next so to get to the Duke of Kent - they would have to skip Bertie, Elizabeth and Margaret and Henry, the Duke of Gloucester.

Yes there was certainly some conniving and manipulation afoot . . . However, the sucession is graven if not in stone but on paper. The movers and shakers moved and shook but to no real purpose because the abdication overtook them, as did the law. Changing the law of sucession would have required time. which they didn't have, for a law change which may very well have led to a change of government.

I suspect the main motivators were the same ones that panicked when they realised that King George was terminally ill. There was talk that Elizabeth was too young, only a women (yeah, I know Queen Elizabeth I and Victoria, but bigots tend to have short memories as we shall see). What? We have a plan . . . . why not get the good old Duke of Windsor to become Regent for a bit . . . erm, wasn't he just a little too enthused about Herr Hitler?

Any such machinations would be near impossible these days as we live in a time of instant everything, not least communication. Used to be loose lips sunk ships, these days it's tweets!

And, let's not forget the man and woman in the street. Electing a new Monarch smacks too much of politics and would we expect the contenders to campaign? Well that is generally how elections are run but wait a minute, isn't that why we're a Constitutional Monarchy, so we don't have to elect a President? Would Labour back one contender and the Lib Dems another and so on? If it's not broke don't fix it!

 

[royal-blue]

I'm starting to think that now would be a good time for the Queen's cousins to retire from royal life. They could be thanked for their long service and dedication tot he firm, but that there are now younger royals who are ready to take on the work.

 

[ladongas]

I'm starting to think that now would be a good time for the Queen's cousins to retire from royal life. They could be thanked for their long service and dedication tot he firm, but that there are now younger royals who are ready to take on the work.

Perhaps they don't wish to retire. Don't they get some sort of recompense- in cash or in kind- from HM for performing duties? For the most part, the work doesn't look too hard or unpleasant.

PS- loved the above discussion of the politicking and machinations at the time of the abdication.

 

[royal-blue]

Perhaps they don't wish to retire. Don't they get some sort of recompense- in cash or in kind- from HM for performing duties? For the most part, the work doesn't look too hard or unpleasant.

They can continue to be given an income from the Queen and a free place to live. I would like to see William, Kate and harry doing at least 500 engagements a year each which would make the minor royals unnecessary.

 

[Skippyboo]

They cam continue to be given an income from the Queen and a free place to live. I would like to see William, Kate and harry doing at least 500 engagements a year each which would make the minor royals unnecessary.

Do you mean now or when Charles is King? Where is the money for 1500 extra engagements going to come from?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[royal-blue]

Do you mean now or when Charles is King? Where is the money for 1500 extra engagements going to come from?

Now is as good a time as any. It will allow the public to focus on the Queen's own family.

The Kents and Gloucesters retiring would allow this money to be diverted to the young royals.

 

[Dman]

Not sure about them retiring unless there are some sort of illness. I think the best solution is for some of the minor royals to pass down some of their roles and charitable organizations to the younger royals who have an interest in the roles. I can see Catherine taking on Princess Alexandra's patronage of The Starlight Children's Foundation. Catherine and her family have supported the charity for years.

 

[Skippyboo]

The total of amount of the engagements that the Kents and Gloucesters do a year doesn't equal 500. More money would be needed for the extra 1000.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[VictoriaB]

They can continue to be given an income from the Queen and a free place to live. I would like to see William, Kate and harry doing at least 500 engagements a year each which would make the minor royals unnecessary.

How do you expect Prince Harry to perform 500 engagements and serve in the military at the same time? I think the number of engagements he does is fine taking into account his other commitments.

Out of interest, for whose benefit do you want to see the change - the older royals who have not shown any desire to cut back, the younger royals who have shown a desire to serve their country through service in the Army and Air Ambulance service, or the public who just want to gawp at William and Kate?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The total of amount of the engagements that the Kents and Gloucesters do a year doesn't equal 500. More money would be needed for the extra 1000.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Last year when the Duke of Kent missed a few weeks due to his stroke and Alexandra missed most of the year my total for the four was 594.

This year so far I have the four of them at 437 with over a third of the year to go so 'doesn't equal 500' isn't accurate at all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why should the older royals retire if they don't want to do so?

Harry has recently said he wants to stay full-time in the army until he is 55 - so another 25 years for him with around 100 a year. That was what Andrew was doing when he was serving full-time in the navy and Harry has a right to expect that same level of understanding.

William and Kate could step up a bit - but he has just signed on for a 2 years stint in the Air Ambulance so has a full-time job which will limit him to around 100 or so for the next couple of years. This year, even with an overseas tour under his belt he is still doing less than the two older Duke's.

Kate is probably going to have another baby, if not two more, in the next couple of years so for her reaching around 300 a year is probably a decade or so away.

It seems as all people want are to see the younger royals and throw out the hard working older royals.

The older royals do NOT get paid anything for doing their duties other than have their expenses covered e.g. the salary for their private secretaries who arranges their work schedule is covered by the Sovereign Grant but for the rest they are reliant on any money's left to them by earlier monarchs.

We seem to want to get rid of those who have had a commitment to royal work for decades and force the younger ones, who seem reluctant to take it on, into a role they don't want.

The Kent's are different as they are closer to 80, and both have had illness last year (but then so did Philip and no one is suggesting he retires and he is older than all of them) - the Duke will be 80 next year and Alexandra in 2016 but again it is the cult of youth and throw away the experience and dedication of these royals who have served their country.

My view - if they wish to continue then they should do so.

 

[MARG]

I'm starting to think that now would be a good time for the Queen's cousins to retire from royal life. They could be thanked for their long service and dedication tot he firm, but that there are now younger royals who are ready to take on the work.

Perhaps they don't wish to retire. Don't they get some sort of recompense- in cash or in kind- from HM for performing duties? For the most part, the work doesn't look too hard or unpleasant.

Do you mean now or when Charles is King? Where is the money for 1500 extra engagements going to come from?

Now is as good a time as any. It will allow the public to focus on the Queen's own family.

The Kents and Gloucesters retiring would allow this money to be diverted to the young royals.

I find myself a little bemused by the call for the Kents and Gloucesters to be unceremoniously dumped to make room for William, Catherine and Harry. Worse, there is the implication that the only reason they are working Royals is for cold hard cash which would turn it into "just another job". Not charity and not for HM. Just another job.

Both the Queen and her children's generations were bought up on an absolute adherence to that oh so old-fashioned notion of noblesse oblige. And for that they work, they represent HM and HM's Government in more ways than we imagine. The multitude of engagements they carry out are their way of life not a 9-5 grind that they can't wait to shove onto the new kids.

They are all personally just as invested in their charitable endeavours as William, Catherine and Harry are, The difference being that while they do not get much media coverage they do give value for money as shown by the the spread of royals during the centenary of the outbreak of WWI.

As to the idea of mandatory retirement? Well HM and the DoE show little sign of cutting back so why would the others. HM would let them retire if they wish but it seems that in the main they do not wish and the ageist wittering for the New, Young, Personable, Pregnant, Elligible royals to elbow them out is pretty ugly just as the notion that there are now younger royals who are ready to take on the work is a nonsense.

HM relys on her relatives and so too will Charles. That is not to say that the shiney new young royals are going to work as hard as their father, aunt or uncles let alone the DoE and HM. This may be because at this time they have yet to find their niche or because they see their present and future lives in a whole new way.

Either way, none of them show the least burgeoning interest in noblesse oblige. In fact William is starting what is essentially a full-time job with EAAA and Harry has spoken of staying in the Army indefinitely, as indeed did the last "spare", Prince Andrew.

 

[royal-blue]

My argument for the Queen's cousins to be retired isn't based on age, I just don't see them as necessary now that there is a third generation taking on more royal duties.

Some people are quick to point out that Beatrice and Eugenie are not necessary to the firm, party based on age and distance from the throne, so the same argument should stand for the Kents and Gloucesters too.

 

[Skippyboo]

The royals don't get paid for engagements but to do the engagement cost money. The people that work for the royals are paid, the cost of travel, plus things such as clothing and hairdressing all cost money.

So if the Cambridges went from 120 engagements a year each to doing 450 each, more money would be needed to cover the expenses of these engagements.

In the current reign, there might not be funds. In the next reign, the Cambridges will be the only 2 working royals being supported by the Duchy of Cornwall not the 5 that its paying for now until George grows up.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

The older and minor royals could pass on some of their roles and charities to the younger royals who are interested in the organizations. Putting the older royals out to pasture probably isn't a good idea.

 

[royal-blue]

The royals don't get paid for engagements but to do the engagement cost money. The people that work for the royals are paid, the cost of travel, plus things such as clothing and hairdressing all cost money.

So if the Cambridges went from 120 engagements a year each to doing 450 each, more money would be needed to cover the expenses of these engagements.

In the current reign, there might not be funds. In the next reign, the Cambridges will be the only 2 working royals being supported by the Duchy of Cornwall not the 5 that its paying for now until George grows up.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

But if WK&H were to take on the engagements being done by the Queen's cousins now, as well as current number, this would cost no more than now, and it would allow the young three to be better prepared to take on a further increase in work when the Queen and Philip are no longer working.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

The older and minor royals could pass on some of their roles and charities to the younger royals who are interested in the organizations. Putting the older royals out to pasture probably isn't a good idea.

It could be that the youngers don't want to do anything in which they're not interested.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think they even spend much time with the charities of which they are patrons if it's not going to be a photo op. Just my opinion.

And, to put another clarification on this, I think William is lazier than Kate; and probably more selfish too.

 

[Mbruno]

My argument for the Queen's cousins to be retired isn't based on age, I just don't see them as necessary now that there is a third generation taking on more royal duties.

Some people are quick to point out that Beatrice and Eugenie are not necessary to the firm, party based on age and distance from the throne, so the same argument should stand for the Kents and Gloucesters too.

Personally, I like the Dutch system where membership of the royal house is restricted to relatives of the current monarch up to the second degree of consanguinity (and their respective siblings, when applicable), while the line of succession is slightly broader and goes up to the third degree.

That means in practice that the royal house includes siblings, children and grandchildren of the current monarch, while the line of succession includes all of the above plus great-grandchildren, nephews/nieces, and surviving uncles/aunts (in case there are any), but not any cousin.

If applied to the current BRF, that would mean automatic exclusion of the Kents and the Gloucesters both from the royal house and the line of succession, but would still translate into a fairly large royal house, including the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, plus Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine and Harry; Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie; Edward, Sophie, James and Louise; Anne and Timothy Laurence, Peter and Autumn, Zara and Mike Tindall. Prince George, Peter's and Zara's children, and Princess Margaret's children would not be part of the royal house, but would still be in the line of succession, exactly in the same positions where they are today.

Once Charles ascended the throne, George would enter the royal house, but Anne's, Andrew's, and Edward's children would be excluded, though still remaining in the line of succession. Margaret's, Peter's and Zara's children would be out both of the royal house and the line of succession.

 

[royal-blue]

Under the next monarch, if the King and Queen, Prince and Princess of Wales, Anne, Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Harry aim for 500 engagements each, they will total around 4,500 a year which is more than adequate. The Kents, Gloucesters, and of course the York girls are not necessary in the future.

 

[Al_bina]

Nowadays the Kents and the Gloucesters seldom undertake engagements on behalf of the Royal family.
Prince Charles may need Prince Edward and Sophie, The Countess of Wessex, to represent the Royal family in Europe as the couple knows the fair number of the current royals.