The Monarchy under Charles

[Dman]

It looks as if the speculation about a streamlined monarchy under Charles is correct, unless his palace contacts are lying through their teeth to Richard Palmer. He has reiterated to Cepe and to others that he's been told that the Jubilee balcony and Royal barge scenarios were no accidents.

We've known that for a while now. Plan is already in place.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I think this thread should be retitled 'The changes the monarchy will go through under Charles and William.'

I do not see the monarchy changing much under Charles because most members of the current BRF will continue to work for the BRF during Charles' reign.

It will be greatly reduced by William.
I think William does not want to do the bread and butter work of monarchy. He only wants sports or celebrity related events or international tours or high profile events. IMO, he is not interested in visiting the counties and cities of the U.K. to open or visit a festival or a business.

In one year, Charles and Camilla visited 42 counties and 75 cities, towns and villages in the U.K.

The Royal Family is also moving away from being patron or member of every club, organization, association, hospital, school, etc.


Several stories have been published recently about the number of charities/organization that will lose their patronage when the Queen and/or Philip passes.

Most of the 'real charites' have already been passed on the next generation.

The Duke of Edinburgh's Award is being transition to Edward and Sophie.

The Royal Jubilee Trusts
The Queen is Patron
These two separate charitable Jubilee Trusts are managed by The Prince's Trust.

Save The Children UK
The Queen is Patron and Princess Anne is President.
Princess Anne will probably be made Patron.

The British Show Jumping Association (BSJA)
The Queen is Patron and Princess is Vice Patron.
Princess Anne will probably be made Patron

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home
The Queen is Patron and Prince Michael is President.
Camilla will probably become Patron as she has been working with the charity for several years.

Barnardo's
The Queen is Patron and Camilla is President.
Camilla will probably be made Patron

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)
The Queen is Patron and Sophie is President.
Sophie will probably take over as Patron.

Most of Prince Philip's patronages are just clubs and organizations and not charites.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/CharitiesandPatronages/Search%20Charities%20and%20Patronages.aspx

 

[Queen Claude]

When I think about the Monarchy under Charles I am intrigued about how Charles will deal with the resources and set up for the Monarch which is different than what he has been dealing with for decades as the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall. So when Charles becomes King he will take over the Duchy of Lancaster and will have to fund the working royals, other than those funded by the Duchy of Cornwall, from that purse, the Sovereign Grant and his personal wealth.

According to royalcentral.co.uk, in 2014 the Duchy of Lancaster's income was £16m. According to royalcentral.co.uk, the Duchy of Cornwall's income was just shy of £20m for the year ending in 3/31/2015.

Currently the Queen's resources (Duchy of Lancaster, the Sovereign Grant and her personal wealth) fund her, Prince Philip, their children other than Charles, and her cousins who are working royals. I am not completely sure but I think that is 11 people

Charles' resources (Duchy of Cornwall and his personal wealth) fund him, the Duchess of Cornwall, his children and grandchildren for a total of 5 adults and 2 children.

When Charles becomes King his resources will be the Duchy of Lancaster, the Sovereign Grant and his personal wealth and from that he will have to fully support himself, Camilla and Harry and his family. I doubt if he will have to provide personal support to his father (if living) and his siblings because presumably they have inherited resources and will get a substantial bump from the Queen's bequests but he will have to fund their offices. He would also have to fund the offices of his mother's surviving cousins who are working royals. I assume that will be ten people give or take.

It will be interesting to see how Charles deals with transition from Duke of Cornwall/Prince of Wales and the resources and obligations that came with that role versus the resources and obligations that come with being King.

 

[TLLK]

Thanks for all the info on how royal visits are set up.

I stand corrected on the theorem that the royals abuse the priviledge.

This is a cool Forum!

Yes it is DaFluffs.
I've learned so much about how the various monarchies around the globe function by visiting TRF. IMO it is one of the best features of the forum because of the great variety of posters who happen to live in nations with constitutional or absolute monarchies. They can share the facts regarding the similarities and differences between the royal houses.

 

[Curryong]

What I worry about more when Charles ascends the throne is whether republicanism will make strides early in the new reign. Yes, I know the monarchy in the UK is rock solid and riding high in opinion polls at the moment (and in the last few years.) However, the Queen has reached iconic stature in the last five years or so, elderly, on the throne so long that few can remember a time before she was there, and rarely criticised.

That isn't so with Charles. He will be a man nearing or in his 70's when he does reach the throne so won't have the advantage of any youthful glamour. For many years he has come under press criticism for his various causes, perceived 'interference' with political decisions etc and, of course, remembrances of that other matter. I'm not stating whether all these are right or wrong, simply that these perceptions in the public mind have drastically affected Charles's popularity with the public.

He, and his wife, regularly come behind his mother and the three young senior royals in opinion polls. Yes, much of it is a natural attraction towards the young and attractive, but some of this opinion is driven by Charles's image- a hard worker yes but also a rather eccentric 'meddler,' who treated his first wife badly. Again, I'm not saying these are correct impressions of Charles, just that they are out there.

While I'm not saying, AT ALL, that Charles should, as a result, resign from the succession and take himself off into the sunset, the fact that he is not a particularly popular public figure has made several keen republicans look forward to his accession.

The Queen is inviolate. We know that, yet there is a sense, I think, that republicans are waiting for the end of her reign and then the gloves will be off. Not just in Australia, where PM Turnbull has stated that there will be no referendum on republicanism while the Queen lives, but elsewhere in the Commonwealth and in the UK as well.

 

[royal rob]

My thoughts as well Curryong you have said what I have been worried about for a while. Not good for us Australians that don't want a republic if it all comes down to the fact that we don't like Charles !!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[tommy100]

I do sometimes wonder if people are short sighted in going for a 'stream lined' RF. Charles is widely said to have snubbed China by not going to the Beijing games, at the time it was said he wasn't going because Anne was and she was part of the IOC. How would that play in the future if Charles had sidelined Anne in the RF - "King Charles snubs China by sending the sister he cast aside". Really? Sometimes its much better to have a wide range of Royals with interests and links to organisations to call upon.

Equally whilst many people might not follow the work of Charles' siblings I think if he sidelined them or snubbed them the media would make a big deal out of it. Like how they say Charles couldn't cope with Diana being more popular than him or William & Kate being more popular than him.

I can see the Kents and Gloucesters doing less work or in effect, 'retiring'. As they become further related from the monarch its not to be unexpected. I think there would be a role for Charles' siblings doing work for local charities and organisations and their patronages. This surely can't cost that much money and would give them a role in the RF but one that isn't too high profile. That would leave high profile events, State Banquets, Opening of Parliament maybe Trooping the Colour to Charles and his immediate family as well as State Visits and overseas tours. In effect IMO Charles and his family should represent Britain internationally and at important events, his siblings representing charities and organisations and the good work they do.

 

[Queen Claude]

I definitely think that when Charles becomes King that there will be countries that will leave the Commonwealth or change their status from having the Monarch as its head of state to a republic, but I don't think that will be a reflection on Charles' unpopularity, it is just how things will be, just like what is currently in place is different than what was in place at the turn of the 20th century or even the mid-point of the 20th century after the Second World War.

 

[Curryong]

I doubt whether any countries will leave the Commonwealth. There is a sense however, that many are holding off talking of republicanism while a much respected elderly monarch and head of the Commonwealth still lives. After that, who knows! In a way it is not a reflection on Charles as this might well happen at the end of a very long reign anyway. In another way it is, as if Charles was extremely popular all over the Commonwealth no changes would probably be mooted. As a Australian monarchist I'm often confronted with "Well, the Queen, yes. Charles and Camilla? No thanks!" Fair? No, but it is a common reaction.

However, I didn't want my post to be about that really, just musing about what the British people's reaction to their new King will be and whether republican forces are just licking their lips and waiting in the wings for the new reign.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When the Queen ascended the throne she was Queen of over 50 nations. She has 16 left and may very well have even fewer to pass onto Charles. I wouldn't be surprised is either Jamaica and/or Barbados make that decision this year - so leaving her with possibly only 14 from over 50.

If some others decide to become republics then it won't be because of him but because this has been a steady process since 1947 when India and Pakistan became republics rather than have George VI as the Head of State.

I don't see any countries leaving the Commonwealth. It is a growing organisation with nations joining now who were never part of the British Empire at all.

Whether Charles will be Head of the Commonwealth is a different question and I can see them ditching the idea of the British monarch being the symbolic Head of the Commonwealth. It should be noted that The Queen doesn't actually attend the business sessions of CHOHM for instance, often having left the meeting before they start their official discussions.

As for the Kent's - they are already slowing down due to illness over recent years. The Duke is already 80 and Alexandra will be 80 later this year.

The Gloucester's however are the same age basically as Charles. To say that they are 'too old' to continue, or should 'retire' could easily backfire as people would they say 'if the Duke of Gloucester is too old to carry out royal duties' then so is Charles (who is only 4 years younger - with the Duchesses in between the two ages).

Unless Charles is going to completely cut off everyone other than his own immediate family - sons and their wives - then he will have to tread carefully or it could backfire on him. I suspect that main reason why this idea has been floated (and not by Charles specifically mind you but by a minor staffer and then has taken on a status of being a 'fact') is that he doesn't want to have to fund the official duties of the entire family as his mother is doing now. If Charles doesn't pay for the offices and the work of the minor royals - from Andrew down - then these actions can't be done as they aren't cheap. They need staff to organise things, security has to go out days and even weeks in advance to go over the ground and check out everything - places to be visited as well as people to be meet. The costs aren't limited to the getting there and away - that is the minor part of things.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I definitely think that when Charles becomes King that there will be countries that will leave the Commonwealth or change its status from having the Monarch as its head of state to a republic, but I don't think that will be a reflection on Charles' unpopularity, it is just how things will be, just like what is currently in place is different than what was in place at the turn of the 20th century or even the mid-point of the 20th century after the Second World War.

Well, I want to believe that there will be a honeymoon of sorts when he becomes King. Then, depending on how he handles things, Commonwealth countries may move to change their status.
But, for all we know, Charles may have some great ideas about how to enhance the benefits/value of being a Commonwealth nation. And in the end, whether he is the most charismatic of Kings or not, net value will keep the Commonwealth vital. JMO.

 

[Skippyboo]

Zimbabwe and Gambia are the only 2 countries that have left the Commonwealth on their own accord. Pakistan left but returned. It's not really a common occurrence.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Roslyn]

I think we will just have to wait and see. Although The Queen has that icon status and a lot of sentimental support, there is that "The king is dead; long live the king" factor that shouldn't be discounted. Edward VII was, and had the reputation of being, a long-time playboy before his mother's death, but as soon as he became king he rose to the occasion and became a popular king. Perhaps after an appropriate period of mourning, and especially after a coronation, with its mystical elements and anointment, Charles will be transformed into "The King" in the eyes of the majority of the British people, and his popularity will increase because of what he is, not just who he is. And Charles has been coming across as a content and affable man in recent years. He could become very popular. Or not. Society has changed in many ways since Edward VII became king.

And we also have to wait and see what happens under Charles before we can predict what William will do. Charles will be The King and he will have his opportunity to make his changes before his son gets his turn. William has to wait, and the monarchy he inherits may be a very different one from the one we see now.

I think that if the Royals stop doing the ribbon-cutting stuff and attending county fairs, etc., they could lose popularity. These are people who occupy the position they hold solely because they just happened to be born to certain parents. It's totally random. But they are tolerated at least partly because they dress well and smile a lot and shake hands and arrive in smart cars. They provide a particular sort of entertainment. If they stop doing that, and withdraw from the activities that give the public a personal connection with royalty by having regular contact with them in their backyards, and they act more like businessmen, running charitable corporations from behind desks and giving the occasional speech at fancy fund-raising events, only being seen at the big events, more people might start to lose interest and wonder why these jobs are being done by people who inherited them rather than people who earned them.

 

[HRHHermione]

I have a feeling that the man who created the Prince's Trust and who has prepared for this job his entire life will surprise people with how good at it he is. I imagine that with all this time to prepare, the transition will be much smoother than it was for say, the Queen, who inherited so tragically young.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Curryong]

I am sure Charles will perform his duties well. However the Britain that he will head as King will be extraordinarily different to the one the Queen inherited in 1952. The world (and Empire/Commonwealth) has changed beyond belief, as have the attitudes towards royalty. Republicanism wasn't even spoken of in 1952.

Let me put my position clearly. I believe (and hope) that the monarchy is deeply entenched in British life and will survive. However, I do believe that republicans in Britain are taking heart from the fact that a very long reign is now entering its twilight years and that an iconic Queen will be succeeded as sovereign by a man who is not, for various reasons, a terribly popular Royal. Charles would be regarded by them as a public figure who has some baggage that can be attacked and made use of for the cause, thereby making people question the institution of monarchy.

 

[Queen Claude]

Zimbabwe and Gambia are the only 2 countries that have left the Commonwealth on their own accord. Pakistan left but returned. It's not really a common occurrence.

In my previous comment I stated leave the Commonwealth or change its status to republic (but remain in the Commonwealth). I guess I should get clarification/confirmation on what it means to be a republic and yet a member of the Commonwealth. To me it seems like for those countries that are republics being part of the Commonwealth is comparable to other amalgamations of independent countries with some form of common bond like the G-7, NAFTA, the EU, etc., and therefore the monarch, except for perhaps the odd ceremonial event, is not really relevant to that group.

Well, I want to believe that there will be a honeymoon of sorts when he becomes King. Then, depending on how he handles things, Commonwealth countries may move to change their status.
But, for all we know, Charles may have some great ideas about how to enhance the benefits/value of being a Commonwealth nation. And in the end, whether he is the most charismatic of Kings or not, net value will keep the Commonwealth vital. JMO.

I don't think that the issue is how good a King Charles will be, it's about these countries feeling that their head of state should be Australian, Canadian or whatever applies and not British residing in Britain. I think that the mind-set is already there in large quantities but changes have not been made out of inertia and sentimentality.

I don't think that England will become a republic and therefore the current royal family will continue to exist but the Monarch's realm will shrink.

 

[Countessmeout]

Canada would be the last to leave honestly. There isn't much if any real drive for us to become a republic. Other than Quebec's attempts to leave. Most Canadians do think we have a Canadian as our head of state, our Prime Minister who we elect. At least in western Canada there is no real feeling that the queen is anything but a figure head on our money, and the GG you would be lucky if everyone could even name the current.

I think there is also the sense we benefit a lot from our relationship with them. If you compare our two main allies, the US and the UK, we certainly benefit more from the UK then our one sided NAFTA which benefits one country and not the other two.

 

[royal-blue]

I think that given the choice, most people would prefer a smaller RF with fewer ribbon cutters, to a larger family, even if the overall cost was the same.

 

[EllieCat]

I think that given the choice, most people would prefer a smaller RF..., to a larger family, even if the overall cost was the same.

That's because most people think they're paying for ALL the Royal Family, when that is not actually true. And the cost, I believe, for the Royal Family is what, about a pound a year per person? Good value for money, IMO.

 

[padams2359]

It's peanuts compared to what the US spends on current and past presidents. The perks don't stop when they are out of office. Lady Bird Johnson had Secret Service protection for over 60 years due to her advanced age.

 

[COUNTESS]

If you, really, believe a pound a year, I think that is a good sell. And do not compare these people with President's of the U.S. who work and earn the money, they usually do not keep and the perks. The Royals cut ribbons, attend farm and flower shows and attend to their specific charities, the queen has very limited powers. Should they disappear tomorrow, they need not be replaced. They received their monies from large benefits that regular Britons did not have. For many years the Royal Family paid no income taxes. How sweet that was. And they are born into positions and get these perks at any rate. Their great wealth did not come from working or inventing something. And the Sovereign to Sovereign transfer of property and priceless jewels the ultimate rip off. So, the Camilla's engagement ring, belongs to the queen, because if it were directly left to Prince Charles there would have been a high tax on it, as with many other pieces, such as the Bucheron Tiara. Trust me, they do not pay their fair share.

 

[Curryong]

Well, if all that you have pointed out, Countess, doesn't worry the British people, (and it obviously doesn't, as there's no republican movement to speak of within Britain), I don't see why it should trouble a citizen of the US.

 

[Roslyn]

Well, if all that you have pointed out, Countess, doesn't worry the British people, (and it obviously doesn't, as there's no republican movement to speak of within Britain), I don't see why it should trouble a citizen of the US.

The population of the UK is currently about 65 million. About 80% of them are over 18. Polls a few years ago, when the country was still swept up in pro-monarchy Jubilee/Prince George fever, indicated about 1/5 of the population had no use for the Royals and thought the country would be better off as a republic. On my very rough calculations, that means there are about 10 million adults in the UK who want a republic. Percentage-wise that's not enough to bring in change, but 10 million is a lot of people, and republican views are strongest among the young.

Higher percentages were dissatisfied with specific incidents of monarchy, e.g. about 40% considered that the 36 million pound Sovereign Grant was not good value for money. Only 43% did, and 17% didn't know.

The opinions of US citizens, and citizens of other countries, on these matters are of interest to me. I think that it's easy, and perhaps natural, for people to have a blind spot about the flaws in their own country's system of doing things, and the objective opinions of a foreigner can be helpful, or at least should not be dismissed scornfully. I think that system of sovereign-to-sovereign inheritance is very iffy, as was HM's reluctance to pay tax. It's one thing for something is being done in order to preserve the asset for the people, but very different when an individual member of the already privately wealthy RF - which got wealthy in the first place by means that were often very foul - gets a personal benefit under the pretext of preserving things for the people. The line between personal and institutional can be very fuzzy. The people don't get to wear those jewels or live in those palaces or mansions or shoot those pheasants. If they're lucky they get to have a look at parts of them at certain times of the year, but they have to pay an entrance fee to do that!

I actually support the continuation of the monarchy with all its pomp and splendour, for Britain, because I think it's an important part of British history and culture, and the system works there. The Royals are like a living history exhibit, and it's great entertainment. But I also think the members of the RF need to be keenly aware that they are only still there because that is the people's will. Enough of the people need to keep getting a benefit that they consider makes it worthwhile for them to allow the members of one enormously privileged family to remain living in luxury and decked out in all those jewels and feathers and gold trinkets and getting their pictures on coins and stamps.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

Trust me, they do not pay their fair share.

No, I won't trust you because you are making sweeping generalisations based on a narrow and dismissive interpretation of the work done by the Queen and her family.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

If you, really, believe a pound a year, I think that is a good sell. And do not compare these people with President's of the U.S. who work and earn the money, they usually do not keep and the perks. The Royals cut ribbons, attend farm and flower shows and attend to their specific charities, the queen has very limited powers. Should they disappear tomorrow, they need not be replaced. They received their monies from large benefits that regular Britons did not have. For many years the Royal Family paid no income taxes. How sweet that was. And they are born into positions and get these perks at any rate. Their great wealth did not come from working or inventing something. And the Sovereign to Sovereign transfer of property and priceless jewels the ultimate rip off. So, the Camilla's engagement ring, belongs to the queen, because if it were directly left to Prince Charles there would have been a high tax on it, as with many other pieces, such as the Bucheron Tiara. Trust me, they do not pay their fair share.

The Queen has worked everyday for almost 64 years (as I and others have told you several times). I think you need to get a real understanding of how a constitutional monarchy works because from your comments you haven't a clue.

And you're right, we can't compare the british monarchy with the Presidents of the US. And that, I'm very happy about because the US political system is completely broken. A head of state should be apolitical and not have power/be head of government.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Totally agree Royal Norway - whether the Head of State is a monarch or a president I too think they should be apolitical and totally able to unite the country and not a divisive figure. When Australia becomes a republic I hope that the president will be such a unifying figure and actually only have the powers that he/she has now.

 

[Skippyboo]

Regarding the sovereign to sovereign transfer, if you remove it. You are just making each sovereign poorer and poorer over time. Then they are more dependent on the state for money.

Or they will just do like other wealthy people with tax advisers and put the private wealth into trusts so it can be passed down without heavy taxes. Put the jewelry as part of the Royal collection. Basically only thing left is Balmoral and Sandringham, the race horses and the corgis.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Curryong]

I was referring really to a more formal republicanism within Britain in my post such as adults who actually do something about their republican feelings and join organisations like Republic. This doesn't just encompass people who may have felt irritable on a day they were contacted by pollsters, or those who like to vent online with tabloids like the Daily Mail. Republic boasts about 35 thousand members.

Yes, views from people who live elsewhere are certainly of value. However, it's good, when attacking the British Royal family and its many privileges from afar, to keep in mind that the vast majority of the British public aren't idiots but still prefer a constitutional monarchy. Of course the royals have to be careful about their privileged lives and I believe they are.

The link below leads to an article which shows the somewhat contrary views of the 20 to 25% of the British population (I believe) who state they would like a republic. Scots, whose views on the British Royal family are mixed with desire for independence, would be among that number.

The article is elderly (from 2012) but still quite interesting I think.

British Future

 

[CyrilVladisla]

In H.R.H. The Man Who Will Be King, Tim Heald and Mayo Mohs wrote:
If King Charles were able to appoint a new Prime Minister, he could also dismiss one.
The future King Charles could also, though, dissolve or refuse to dissolve Parliament.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He 'could' do so but ... that would cause a constitutional crisis with an election fought basically on the powers of the monarch - and the monarch would lose so he is not going to do that.