The Monarchy under Charles

[Iluvbertie]

I doubt if the British people would be too keen on supporting a British Royal Family, especially a monarch, who wants to make a difference globally rather than nationally and rightly so. If they want to make a splash globally then they need to pay for the overseas side of things and not expect the British taxpayers to foot the bill for their travels on personal crusades outside the UK.

 

[Osipi]

I doubt if the British people would be too keen on supporting a British Royal Family, especially a monarch, who wants to make a difference globally rather than nationally and rightly so. If they want to make a splash globally then they need to pay for the overseas side of things and not expect the British taxpayers to foot the bill for their travels on personal crusades outside the UK.

I think my point was more in line with what William is doing with United for Wildlife which was a huge part of the Cambridges' success of their trip to NYC recently. To quote their site, their mission and a statement by William kind of says it all:

______________________________________________________________
United for Wildlife was created by The Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry. Led by the Duke of Cambridge our campaign unites the world’s leading wildlife charities under a common purpose; to create a global movement for change.

Whilst animals continue to be killed by criminals, whilst whole species are poached to extinction, we will join together to ask one simple question: Whose side are you on?

With the help of our incredible ambassadors from around the world, including David Beckham, Andy Murray and Lewis Hamilton, we’re building a movement that will make a real change for wildlife.

“I believe passionately that we have a duty to prevent critically endangered species from being wiped out. If we get together, everywhere, we can preserve these animals so that they share our world with future generations. That’s what United for Wildlife is all about, and why I’m proud to be involved.” -Prince William
______________________________________________________________

Its not that the monarchy would be primarily focused on a global image but realizing that we are more and more a global society, it would be wise to take that into consideration. To look at the website of United for Wildlife is a good indication of what I'm speaking of. It does put the UK and its Royal Family into the spotlight of doing something globally.

Home | United For Wildlife

 

[Iluvbertie]

But why should the British taxpayer pay for William to support something like this? That is my point.


If he wants to do that - fine - but he shouldn't expect the money for him to travel overseas or to have his security team travel overseas be paid for by the British taxpayers. He should have to pay for that himself or the charity pay for it and not have it count as an official duty or role for a British royal.

 

[royal-blue]

I think Charles will steer the monarchy away from royal engagements which involve cutting ribbons and shaking hands to fewer appearances which will each have a stronger impact. This will require much fewer royals than we currently have. Only Charles's own family, and maybe Anne will be necessary to undertake royal engagements.

 

[hernameispekka]

But why should the British taxpayer pay for William to support something like this? That is my point.


If he wants to do that - fine - but he shouldn't expect the money for him to travel overseas or to have his security team travel overseas be paid for by the British taxpayers. He should have to pay for that himself or the charity pay for it and not have it count as an official duty or role for a British royal.

Why? Because the royals are mostly a PR tool. Both for turism but also for causes. Like Oh, Prince William is supporting this, at this gala you will meet Prince Charles etc. They have a draw. And the government seem to use that abroad with for ex Andrew. If done right it can be a powerful tool and the world is way more global now than before. If they don't branch out they will soon seem dated. I think one step in that would be to better relations with other monarchies.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What will Andrew and Edward do for the rest of their lives? They don't have jobs and gave any real jobs to work for the Firm over a decade and a half ago? I don't think Charles will cut off his brothers and keep his sister.


He also has to deal with demand from the British public - and they like having a royal open things. He does a lot of those himself. The monarchy has to be visible or become irrelevant. The strongest impact will be to actually interact with the British public and that is what the royals do now.

Why? Because the royals are mostly a PR tool. Both for turism but also for causes. Like Oh, Prince William is supporting this, at this gala you will meet Prince Charles etc. They have a draw. And the government seem to use that abroad with for ex Andrew. If done right it can be a powerful tool and the world is way more global now than before. If they don't branch out they will soon seem dated. I think one step in that would be to better relations with other monarchies.

Why?

They need to relate to the people within their own country - who are the ones who are paying for their official work and their security.

Whether they have anything to do with other countries is irrelevant to the primary role - that of being the royal family of Britain and to promote British interests - not their own personal agendas or the interests of foreign powers.

Why do they need to connect to other royals at all? They aren't representing those countries but are representing Britain and Britain alone. Why should they have anything to do with these other monarchies, unless the British government wishes them to do so? They do associate with them on a personal basis at the older generations but the younger ones don't have much in common with their continental counterparts any more after nearly a century of deliberately being removed from the continent under the leadership of George V.

 

[hernameispekka]

Why?

They need to relate to the people within their own country - who are the ones who are paying for their official work and their security.

Whether they have anything to do with other countries is irrelevant to the primary role - that of being the royal family of Britain and to promote British interests - not their own personal agendas or the interests of foreign powers.

Why do they need to connect to other royals at all? They aren't representing those countries but are representing Britain and Britain alone. Why should they have anything to do with these other monarchies, unless the British government wishes them to do so? They do associate with them on a personal basis at the older generations but the younger ones don't have much in common with their continental counterparts any more after nearly a century of deliberately being removed from the continent under the leadership of George V.

The promote British interest part is the one I'm focusing on. They already do that. But much of that is material as in for companies. And they should do that as well. But promoting well being and charities abroad and to connect groups doing similar work in different countries I see as a part of promoting that interest. That's why I said they could get a better relationship with other monarchies so they can cooperate and create global networks through similar charities to strengthen the work.

 

[Osipi]

But why should the British taxpayer pay for William to support something like this? That is my point.


If he wants to do that - fine - but he shouldn't expect the money for him to travel overseas or to have his security team travel overseas be paid for by the British taxpayers. He should have to pay for that himself or the charity pay for it and not have it count as an official duty or role for a British royal.

Just to clarify some things while we're on the global aspect. Will and Kate's trip to NYC was not an official trip representing the monarch nor was it paid for by the British government and/or taxpayers.

"The couple lives in a palace and is afforded some of the world’s best luxuries, but they’re not above flying commercial. The trip is being funded by Will, Kate and Harry’s charity and St. Andrews University."
William and Kate to take New York City by royal storm | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV

However, William's trip to China at the beginning of the year was an official visit representing his monarch and the British people and its government. While his work with United with Wildlife was not a main focus, it certainly was picked up globally and commented on while he was there. I recall seeing a photo of the buildings that presented the images of both William and Yao Ming while he was there. Yao Ming, a Chinese national superstar in both the American NBA and representing China in Olympic games is also involved in several wildlife conservation areas. its interesting to note also that Yao Ming is listed as one of the associates in the United for Wildlife campaign.

These are the strides that I'm seeing that can make a big difference. Its better to hold hands and work together rather than trying to change the world by oneself.

ETA: Kind of a correction about William's picture shining out from a tall Chinese building. It was done through WildAid, I believe, which is one of Yao Ming's endeavors.

http://www.wildaid.org/news/duke-cambridge-stars-wildaid-psas-throughout-china

 

[hernameispekka]

Just to clarify some things while we're on the global aspect. Will and Kate's trip to NYC was not an official trip representing the monarch nor was it paid for by the British government and/or taxpayers.

"The couple lives in a palace and is afforded some of the world’s best luxuries, but they’re not above flying commercial. The trip is being funded by Will, Kate and Harry’s charity and St. Andrews University."
William and Kate to take New York City by royal storm | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV

However, William's trip to China at the beginning of the year was an official visit representing his monarch and the British people and its government. While his work with United with Wildlife was not a main focus, it certainly was picked up globally and commented on while he was there. I recall seeing a photo of the buildings that presented the images of both William and Yao Ming while he was there. Yao Ming, a Chinese national superstar in both the American NBA and representing China in Olympic games is also involved in several wildlife conservation areas. its interesting to note also that Yao Ming is listed as one of the associates in the United for Wildlife campaign.

These are the strides that I'm seeing that can make a big difference. Its better to hold hands and work together rather than trying to change the world by oneself.

Exactly. You explained it better. In such a global world as it is today we need each others help and support more than ever. And i think the royals can be a good tool to foster those relations. Both in big government oficial ways, as in China. But also in a thing such as United for Wildlife. Their foundation (William, Harry & Kate) intruduces charities they work with to eachother to create cooporations and new efforts in their fields. The same as when Kate (sorry for making them as an example, I know the most about them) was in Malaysia and a hospice there started a cooperation with EACH hospices in the UK. Things like this will make a difference, problems in the UK are dependant on problems in other countries and vice versa. Especially a thing like the enviroment. The UK can be 100% clean and still die out if not the rest of the world is doing it. So I think a global approach (that does not mean to take away their local approach) will be better both for many causes but also to keep a good connection with the commonwealth.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Their foundation (William, Harry & Kate) intruduces charities they work with to eachother to create cooporations and new efforts in their fields. The same as when Kate was in Malaysia and a hospice there started a cooperation with EACH hospices in the UK. Things like this will make a difference, problems in the UK are dependant on problems in other countries and vice versa. Especially a thing like the enviroment. The UK can be 100% clean and still die out if not the rest of the world is doing it. So I think a global approach (that does not mean to take away their local approach) will be better both for many causes but also to keep a good connection with the commonwealth.

Is that not what Prince Charles has been doing since 1976 with the Prince's Trust and the Prince's Charities?

The Prince's Trust is a world wide organization that help people in multiple countries in different continents. Charles and Camilla regularly travel outside the U.K. for their charities.

A few examples:
Prince Charles' Prince's Trust helps homeless people in the United States.

Camilla has been Patron of Emmaus UK since 2006. Emmaus is a French international charity.

Camilla campaign against sexually abused women has been world wide.

On June 1, 2007 Prince Charles, Camilla and Queen Sonja of Norway opened the Shetland museum.

On September 23,2013, Camilla and Queen Sonja of Norway jointly opened a new Maggie's cancer support center in Aberdeen, Scotland.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If they are going to do things that aren't directly related to Britain and British interests then they have to pay for that and that includes their security. The current arrangement is that the British taxpayer has to pay for their security wherever they are in the world and what people here are advocating is that they do more internationally but they are actually the family of the Head of State of Britain.


How many Americans would approve if Michelle Obama started promoting international charities and expected the American taxpayer to pay the expenses of that promotion?


The monarchies are the representatives of their nations and that has to take priority over any international interests which is why they need to keep themselves separate just as they don't link up with the Heads of State of other nations to do these sorts of things - conflict of interest can arise too often.

 

[Osipi]

If they are going to do things that aren't directly related to Britain and British interests then they have to pay for that and that includes their security. The current arrangement is that the British taxpayer has to pay for their security wherever they are in the world and what people here are advocating is that they do more internationally but they are actually the family of the Head of State of Britain.


How many Americans would approve if Michelle Obama started promoting international charities and expected the American taxpayer to pay the expenses of that promotion?


The monarchies are the representatives of their nations and that has to take priority over any international interests which is why they need to keep themselves separate just as they don't link up with the Heads of State of other nations to do these sorts of things - conflict of interest can arise too often.

I think I may have been misunderstood stating that I think that under Charles' reign, I think we're going to see more global efforts as we're seeing now (and thank you Queen Camilla for pointing out others that members of the royal family are involved with) but I do not see it ever escalating to the point where business at home is ever neglected and given first priority over all else.

Countries are allies at war and military operations as we've seen in recent decades still. If we can join together and keep our countries safe, to me it makes sense that global efforts to preserve our lives, our children's heritage and our environment is important.

 

[hernameispekka]

Is that not what Prince Charles has been doing since 1976 with the Prince's Trust and the Prince's Charities?

The Prince's Trust is a world wide organization that help people in multiple countries in different continents. Charles and Camilla regularly travel outside the U.K. for their charities.

A few examples:
Prince Charles' Prince's Trust helps homeless people in the United States.

Camilla has been Patron of Emmaus UK since 2006. Emmaus is a French international charity.

Camilla campaign against sexually abused women has been world wide.

On June 1, 2007 Prince Charles, Camilla and Queen Sonja of Norway opened the Shetland museum.

On September 23,2013, Camilla and Queen Sonja of Norway jointly opened a new Maggie's cancer support center in Aberdeen, Scotland.

That's why I apologized for using them as an example. Since I don't know stuff about Charles I didn't have the information to use him as an example That was not to say that the youngers were the first or only to do it

 

[royal-blue]

I am more convinced than ever that this is the right time for the minor members of the royal family to step down from public life. By the end of the week we will have the ninth member of the new core royal family, so there no longer seems to be a necessity for the others (Kents, Gloucesters, Yorks and Wessexes) to continue to work on behalf of the monarchy. The three young royals need to step up their workload, which could be financed by the discontinuation of supprting the others. Anne should definitely continue though, as she is well liked and her work ethic is widely appreciated and admired.

 

[PetticoatLane]

I very much doubt the Queen and/or her successor is ever going to stop supporting the Kents, Gloucesters, Wessexes or the DoY.

They're not going to suddenly stop giving the Duke of Kent money, for example, even if he does end his official engagements. He's going to have to be paid a 'pension' for the rest of his days, otherwise how will he support himself? I don't think he has much of a private income.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the Yorks are minor members of the family - despite Andrew being a Counsellor of State and Beatrice the next one to take up that role (unless The Queen lives to see George reach 21 - or until she herself is 108) are minor royals then Anne is most definitely a minor royal.


What would you have Edward - aged 51, Sophie, aged 50 and Andrew aged 55 do for the rest of their lives? Be social butterflies and bring the sort of press that Beatrice does with her constant holidays. At least doing royal duties gives them something to do.


Why should those who have worked for decades give up, overnight, their charities and interests and be thrown out?


William has a new job - which given the thousands of pounds that would have been spent on his training he will really need to work at for a decade or so to repay that cost.


It has been made clear that The Queen and Charles want William and Kate to be able to do what neither of them could do - spend the time raising their young family without the burden of a full-time public role and they can do that because there are the older generation. The Kent's are slowing down but the Gloucester's are the same age range as Charles and Camilla and so are continuing a solid schedule. Richard is only 4 years older than Charles, Birgitte 3 and Camilla 1.


While the older generation want to work why throw them away? That is an agist idea as countries are calling more and more for the retirement ages to be raised to 70 or 75 and for older people to work well into their 70s the royals need to be setting that example of working well into their later decades. If the general population are expected to work to 75 or so then the royals much also work that long or longer.


Until William and Kate take on full-time duties permanently it will be harder for Harry to do so - so he will drift around Africa doing 'charity work' there and other things in the UK but not full-time duties while William works as an air-ambulance pilot. Maybe Harry will follow him into such a job as he likes flying so much.


Beatrice and Eugenie have basically left the UK - Beatrice to holiday it seems and Eugenie to work so they aren't ever going to be full-time royals.


We can't expect George or his sibling to be working full-time for the family for another 40 or so years - following the example of their parents' generation.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I agree. The Gloucesters and the Kents are aging but will continue doing engagements as long as they can and then will be supported by the monarch until they die. I think it'll be the same with the Wessexes and the Duke of York, but their children won't be called on to do royal engagements or be supported financially unless they're greatly needed. As it is, there's a 30+ years' age gap between the youngest people doing royal duties and the next generation in the direct line. If, God forbid, anything happens to William, Kate, or Harry, there could be need of some appearances by the York princesses until 20+ years down the line, when Prince George and his siblings will be young adults. Unless of course, Charles and Camilla, William and Katherine, and Harry do it all once Charles becomes King. I don't think that's reasonable or desirable.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Prince Charles wants financial independence from the state when he becomes King  | Daily Mail Online

The Prince of Wales wants as King to be financially independent of the state, I hear.

Court talk is that the heir to the throne would prefer to end the custom whereby monarchs sign over Crown Estate earnings to the Government in exchange for a Sovereign Grant representing 15 per cent of the income.

With net Crown Estate revenues £285million this year, plus £16million from the Duchy of Lancaster, Charles thinks this could independently cover most royal costs, even security, especially if he succeeds in slimming down the monarchy.

‘William wants to slim it even more,’ says my source.

First - That's never going to happen.

Second - If the Queen lives for another 10 years? The Kents will be around 90, the Gloucesters around 80 and are not going to do many engagements when Charles succeed to the throne. Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie are going to do engagements, so long as they wants.

Third - I don't think that William even has thought about this. When he becomes King, Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie is likely to be in their eighties and nineties.

And I don't believe in anything of what Ephraim Hardcastle and Sebastian Shakespeare says.

 

[Dman]

It's better with a slimmed down royal family.

 

[Iluvbertie]

How it is better?

 

[muriel]

It is very unwise for Charles not to seek help from his siblings, especially given his somewhat unreliable sons.

Unreliable in what sense?

It is very unwise for Charles not to seek help from his siblings, especially given his somewhat unreliable sons. Edward/Sophie and Anne would be valuable assets to Charles' reign, although Andrew and his daughters could be either neutral or a liability.

I do not believe there has been any indication that Charles does not intend to continue to support and work with his siblings when he is King, quite like HM currently does. Are you privy to anything that suggests so?

And I had thought Edward was being groomed to take over managing the private estates of Sandringham and Balmoral taking over from his father.

I would be surprised that would ever have been the case. I think it might be either William or Harry who take that role on.

 

[Skippyboo]

Edward is highly involved with the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme. He would continue the program in the future.

Balmoral and Sandringham have been passed down through the monarchal line. That trend will likely to continue do to the tax benefits. So it highly unlikely the management would go to an indirect line Royal such as Edward or Harry.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[royal-blue]

After seeing the success over the last couple of years of the new monarchs in Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands in slimming down their royal families, I am convinced for the first time that when Charles is King, he should follow suit, and limit the working family to him own immediate family. I struggle to see Prince Andrew or the Wessexes as any more senior or important to the Kents and Gloucesters, and many would argue against the need for the cousins.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I think based on recent moves by the BRF the family is not planning on downsizing.
They are training the next generation.

Beatrice is now accompanying her father.
Eugenie is back in the U.K. and attended an event with the Queen.
Sophie is taking her children along to a few engagements.

In ten years times or sooner, during State Banquets, we will see Beatrice and Eugenie.

Princess Beatrice will take over Princess Alexandra's seat and may take over some of her charities.
Princess Eugenie will take over The Duchess of Gloucester's seat and may take over some of her charities.
Louise and James may replace their parents or may start attending State Banquets with their parents.

 

[Molly2101]

I think based on recent moves by the BRF the family is not planning on downsizing.
They are training the next generation.

Beatrice is now accompanying her father.
Eugenie is back in the U.K. and attended an event with the Queen.
Sophie is taking her children along to a few engagements.

In ten years times or sooner, during State Banquets, we will see Beatrice and Eugenie.

Princess Beatrice will take over Princess Alexandra's seat and may take over some of her charities.
Princess Eugenie will take over The Duchess of Gloucester's seat and may take over some of her charities.
Louise and James may replace their parents or may start attending State Banquets with their parents.

I can't see Louise and James doing any engagements, except perhaps for James and the Duke of Edinburgh's Award simply by default as it will be his title. At the time of their parents wedding it was announced they would not be styled as HRH to relieve them of the burdens of royals styles and royal life. I think that was a subtle hint that Edward's children will never be active royals. For the York sisters it's a different matter as they use their HRH style but many believe they should have "normal" jobs and not be active royals. Only time will tell what becomes of Beatrice and Eugenie.

We never see Peter and Zara attending engagements at Buckingham Palace with their mother; this will be very much like Louise and James. They will attend family events and Trooping the Colour etc. but I think that will be it for their "royal" life. I am sure we will see photos of them attending night clubs etc. in their teenage and adult years, just as we do with Zara and co. It's sadly part of the media pack at present and it's not going to change for the Wessex children. They will always have some level of "fame" simply because of who their grandmother is.

 

[Ish]

James and Louise are never going to be full or part time royals because they'll never be officially royals. We'll see them in a position similar to the Phillips or the Lascelles, but that's it.

Beatrice and Eugenie is another story altogether.

 

[royal-blue]

There should never be a need for Beatrice and Eugenie to be working royals, and the same for Louise and James.

It would probably be beneficial for the York girls to drop their titles at some point so they can live private lives.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I think "need" is the wrong word. With the amount of engagements done by royals at the minute and the amount of royals that we are due to "lose", the remaining royals are either going to have to pick up a lot of the slack or the UK and the commonwealth are going to see less and less of them.

 

[AdmirerUS]

James and Louise are never going to be full or part time royals because they'll never be officially royals. We'll see them in a position similar to the Phillips or the Lascelles, but that's it.

Beatrice and Eugenie is another story altogether.

Never say never, but the odds are very long. Very, very. And it's just my opinion, but I don't see Charles as being strongly on team York Girls. He is not often seen interacting with their Father, much less them. There's just no eveidence - and all is speculation...

 

[Ish]

Never say never, but the odds are very long. Very, very. And it's just my opinion, but I don't see Charles as being strongly on team York Girls. He is not often seen interacting with their Father, much less them. There's just no eveidence - and all is speculation...

That is true - never say never. It isn't likely to happen, but it is possible.

Regarding the Yorks... I could see it going either way. If they want it there's a real possibility for a role for them. The working part of the family is aging, the Queen, DoE, the Kents and Gloucesters, Charles, Camilla, and Anne all being at or past the age of retirement. They're not going to continue on forever, and William, Harry, and Kate are only 3 people. If you add in the fact that Andrew, Edward, and Sophie are likely to start slowing down (if not outright retiring) before George and Charlotte begin undertaking full time duties it will leave an opening for either, or both, York sisters to undertake official duties.

I personally think that during Charles' reign we're going to see his mother's cousins retire and his brothers and sister-in-law step back as they reach or pass the retirement age (I don't think Anne will anytime soon, but Anne's a different breed from Andrew and Edward), with the resulting void being filled by the younger generation, including possibly the Yorks.