The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
That's pretty much what I said except for few things. All of the queens female cousins, which is Alexandra, are full time royals. There are not as many royal males in Bea's generation as there were in Elizabeth's. And the original plan was for the younger grandchildren of the monarch not to do any duties. This was kept with Prince Michael but not with the DOG because his brother and not Princess Alexandra because Margaret married Antony and their children were nor royal So the problem of full time working royals is not a problem. James does not use his RH and Peter is not entitled to it. As for Charles' cousins the Linleys and Chattos, they are not blood royal but they are of royal blood. They have a near to perfect example in Alexander Ramsay of Mar. His mother was a princess but he did not due any royal duties even though she did even after the relinquishment of her style and title. As for Bea and Eugenie there has been no princess that has had to get a job considered the last one before them is 38 years their senior. I hope this helped you understand my statement.
 
Last edited:
In reality, what will happen is exactly what this thread is all about. It will be the monarch under Charles. Andrew may feel that as part of the current working force of the "Firm" that he has the right (which he does) to state his opinions and what he perceives should be the way to go as far as his daughters are concerned but at the end of the day, it will be Charles as monarch that puts his visions of his monarchy into action.

Charles is a man that has successfully built and maintained numerous endeavors that define his role as the Prince of Wales and he oversees for the most part the progress and the projects that are involved with each of them and has people he believes are the best to do the day to day functioning of each of them. Do we really think that he'll be any different as a monarch with his own family's "Firm"? I am well inclined to believe that if he seriously does not want the York princesses to have a defining role in the "Firm", it will be for reasons other than he just simply doesn't "like" them or by their status because of birth. If there has been anything proven to be true in the past decades, its that Charles is a very astute and aware businessman and knows what works and what doesn't work and that the perks of something can also be pitfalls.

One thing that stands out for me in this regard is that how easily it could have been a reversal of characters with Charles being more like Andrew as the heir to his mother and Andrew being the one to more or less "pull himself up by the bootstraps" and applied himself for the betterment of crown, the country and his monarch.
 
i can't understand why people sees andrew as delusional when he say he want his daughters to be treated like what they are " blood princesses " but no one talk when the queen changed the order of precedence to make blood princesses like anne , alexandra even beatrice and Eugenie in higher precedence from the Duchess of Cambridge and camilla .
i get that they need to slim the working royals but they can do that with handing the works that the gloucesters and kents do to the york girls .
treating them different than what the were going to do because they think the public isn't that fond of them because how they dress and their parents isn't fair i actually like that they are proud of being royals and doesn't whine about it like other who are higher than them in rank and think that being royals is the worst thing in the world .
if u sees it as a burden and don't wanna work as a full time royal then stop whining about it forfeit your own title and live the life you want and leave that role to someone else who are proud of being royal and actually want to do the work .
 
To be honest, and this is my opinion only, is that we've seen Andrew make a big fuss out of things but have no real clue how the "blood princesses" feel about it themselves.

For all we know, under the reign of Charles, we may actually see that only the heir and his family will carry the HRH as a form of address. Its not actually a title but a form of address. We just don't know what Charles' monarchy will be actually like until it happens. Until it does, we can only guesstimate and that's what we're doing in this thread.
 
i can't understand why people sees andrew as delusional when he say he want his daughters to be treated like what they are " blood princesses " but no one talk when the queen changed the order of precedence to make blood princesses like anne , alexandra even beatrice and Eugenie in higher precedence from the Duchess of Cambridge and camilla .

You do realize though that the order of precedence that you're referring to is applicable only to when its all females present and their husbands are not present right? There's more information in the Order of Precedence thread.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/order-of-precedence-6536.html
 
Last edited:
You do realize though that the order of precedence that you're referring to is applicable only to when its all females present and their husbands are not present right? There's more information in the Order of Precedence thread.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/order-of-precedence-6536.html

yes . i know that when their husbands with them it's the other way around but the queen did change it in private events in 2005 to make the blood princesses higher than the one's by marriage but my point is that people think that andrew is outdated , delusional and coming out of the blue when he talk about things like blood princesses when in fact the queen herself actually putting that matter in her mind .
 
The female royals all being together without husbands is highly unlikely and Charles can change the order of precedence when he is King.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
The female royals all being together without husbands is highly unlikely and Charles can change the order of precedence when he is King.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

that's not the point the point is that blood princess is a thing that they put in their mind its not like andrew is talking out of the blue about something and he is the only one who cares about it
 
I think you've explained the gist of the precedent issue, Duke, when you stated:

"but the queen did change it in private events in 2005 to make the blood princesses higher than the one's by marriage"

There is a huge difference between the BRF's private lives and the very public "Firm" that is almost like a corporation. The private and the public do not necessarily mesh.

A grandmother of a big family may be the matriarch and declare that dessert will come before dinner on holidays but that would have no bearing on the llama wool business grandma and grandpa built from scratch and most family members work at.
 
The Queen wasn't too concerned about blood princess before because Diana and Sarah were ahead of Anne, Margaret and Alexandra when they were in the family.

This is the monarchy under Charles thread, the precedence order will reset as people's relationship to the monarch changes.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
ok for the last time i'm not talking about the order of precedence itself but the premises that the queen used to change it :bang:
 
I can remember discussions with friends in Britain about how the York princesses would fit into the royal family going forward a decade ago, in fact I think it was more than twelve years ago as the Wessexes were new parents then. So there have been stories in the media about it for eons!

I feel that Andrew can be very pompous and status-conscious. I do think he's been doing some manoevring again recently on his family's behalf because he can see his parents' increasing frailty and the end of his mother's reign rapidly approaching. He and Charles aren't particularly close, and what he's suggested for his girls so far seemingly hasn't cut any mustard with his brother. So he has to strike while the iron is hot, to mix the metaphors!

I don't think Eugenie wants to be a full time Royal. I believe she enjoys her life, which is largely private, at the moment. A mix of career, family activities, romance with Jack, charities and the very occasional Royal engagement. She is like Harry in a way; loathes being 'different'. I read that when she was working in the States she would get annoyed when friends would teasingly refer to her in public as HRH and 'Princess'.

I've always felt though, and this is pure supposition on my part, that Beatrice is much less self-confident than her sister. She perhaps thought she would be married by now, hasn't made a huge success in the business world and seems to be a bit adrift at the moment. She enjoys charity work and physical challenges to do with this, and I feel that she would be quite content as a back-up to her uncle and cousins in the future.

Maybe Andrew is a bit worried about Beatrice since the romance with Dave collapsed, and wants to try again to get her a role rather like Sophie Wessex's. I don't think he'll succeed, but I think that's what he's trying for! Now, if only Beatrice could meet someone nice and settle down!
 
Last edited:
We don't know why she changed it for a highly unlikely scenario. Maybe Anne complained or Andrew threw a fit. It will change again when Charles is King.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
my point is he didn't come with a law or a royal tradition from the 15th century that nobody know about it or heard of it in centuries and is being unreasonable because he want them to go by it now .
 
I tend to get confused by the issue, so I just worked it out on paper.

Not all of the Queen's first cousins became full time working royals. That would tell me that there is not precedent that a prince or princess must be given digs at KP and a job as a full time royal.

None of Charles first cousins are full time working royals. Again, this tells me there is not a precedent.

Just because you are a princess or prince, there is no precedent saying you must be given work as a full time royal. Two generations back.

None of Charles' first cousins are HRHs ( i.e princes or princesses) since they are grandchildren of a monarch in female line. All cousins of the Queen who are HRHs ( George V's grandchildren in male line) have some kind of public role.
 
It's a document issued for a specific scenario that isn't likely that is only 11 years old. It isn't a long standing tradition. The opposite is true the wives of the Prince of Wales and younger sons take precedence over the daughters of a sovereign.

It may give Bea and Eugenie precedence over Camilla and Kate if they are all alone, but there is no scenario where they will take precedence over William and Harry.

Charles can do want he wants when he is King. He will set the precedence, he controls the titles and he will control the money. If he wanted he could strip the York girls HRHs.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
None of Charles' first cousins are HRHs ( i.e princes or princesses) since they are grandchildren of a monarch in female line. All cousins of the Queen who are HRHs ( George V's grandchildren in male line) have some kind of public role.

Not quite. Prince Michael of Kent has no public role, does not receive any funding and has to pay market rent in order to stay at KP. He funds himself.

He is the grandson of a monarch - same as Beatrice and Eugenie. I see no difference per se.

One thing I will add about Beatrice. SHe does have dyslexia. THe same journo that wrote the original article about Andrew, also wrote about this the week before. IT may be one of the reasons she struggles at work. SChools and universities have suport mechanisms. THe work place generally does not. This may be part of the reason for work issues.
 
Charles can do what he wants when he is King. He will set the precedence, he controls the titles and he will control the money. If he wanted he could strip the York girls HRHs.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Skippyboo, I did not realize that King Charles can remove the Her Royal Highness of either niece. Can Charles remove the Princess title of Beatrice and Eugenie?
 
Charles as King can issue Letters Patent making whom ever he wants a HRH Prince(ss). George V set the current rules in 1917. The Queen made all of the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales HRHs when Kate was pregnant with George. Without it, Charlotte would not be a HRH Princess until Charles became King.

If he wanted to King Charles III could issue a Letters Patent limiting a HRH Prince(ss) to the children of the monarch and the children of the heir apparent. That would remove the HRHs from Bea, Eugenie and the possibility of James and Louise to use theirs. It would also remove the HRH from Harry's kids.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Charles as King can issue Letters Patent making whom ever he wants a HRH Prince(ss). George V set the current rules in 1917. The Queen made all of the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales HRHs when Kate was pregnant with George. Without it, Charlotte would not be a HRH Princess until Charles became King.

If he wanted to King Charles III could issue a Letters Patent limiting a HRH Prince(ss) to the children of the monarch and the children of the heir apparent. That would remove the HRHs from Bea, Eugenie and the possibility of James and Louise to use theirs. It would also remove the HRH from Harry's kids.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
no he can't do that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_Deprivation_Act_1917
George V removed the title prince and Princess of the United Kingdom by an Act of Parliament because the the hanovers and the Saxe-Coburg and Gothas who were also prince and Princess of the United Kingdom served in the army against the uk
and when he limted who get to be HRH and prince and Princess of the United Kingdom he didn't remove the titles from those who already held them so even if Charles want to limit it they won't get thier title taken away
 
I tend to get confused by the issue, so I just worked it out on paper.

Not all of the Queen's first cousins became full time working royals. That would tell me that there is not precedent that a prince or princess must be given digs at KP and a job as a full time royal.

None of Charles first cousins are full time working royals. Again, this tells me there is not a precedent.

Just because you are a princess or prince, there is no precedent saying you must be given work as a full time royal. Two generations back.


There's only one generation of precedence actually.

George V had 5 children to survive to adulthood; Edward VIII, George VI, Mary, Henry, and George. Edward had no children, and the children of Mary were never royals.

George VI, of course, had two daughters, Elizabeth II and Margaret, who did royal duties for most of their lives.

Henry had two sons, and it seems like it was kind of expected that his elder son (William) would in time become a working royal, but he died rather young. Instead, the younger son (Richard) gave up his career as an architect to work for the family, so to speak, when William died.

Similarly, George had two sons and a daughter (Edward, Michael, and Alexandra). It was expected that Edward would work for the family, while Alexandra and Michael were expected to make their own way - Michael went in the military, while Alexandra studied to be (I believe) a nurse. Alexandra's private career got kiboshed (much like her cousin's) with the early death of George VI, and with a relatively small royal family she began doing full time royal duties.

I think it's kind of important to remember that in 1950 Queen Mary and 6 of her children and daughters-in-law were working royals, but by 1960 that had been reduced to just 1 child and 3 daughters-in-law, and the Queen was a woman with young children. Her cousins, those that ended up working full time, were essentially conscripted into it by the deaths of those before them.

Now, as for the descendants of George VI; Elizabeth of course became Queen, and Margaret was a full time royal for much of her life. Elizabeth's children have followed suit, but Margaret's fall into the same category as Mary's children - they're not royals, have never been, and therefore don't do royal duties.

In this generation, looking at the Queen's grandchildren, Anne's clearly follow the precedent of Mary and Margaret's - not royals, never have been. Charles' clearly fall into the precedent of being the future of the family. But Andrew's and Edward's are in an in between - they could end up with private careers, but they might get called up (like the Gloucesters and Kents did).

I actually tend to think that Edward has taken moves to make it unlikely that his kids will ever be seen as royals, and therefore will avoid that role altogether. And I honestly don't think Eugenie wants the role, I think she's happy to have a private career. Beatrice is different, and I think she's been put into an awkward position by life. In time there could very easily be a full time role for her - unless the plan is to drastically reduce the number of engagements once the Queen and her cousins pass, Beatrice could easily step into a void that will open up in a few years. But because William, Harry, and Kate aren't full time royals, and because the Gloucesters and Kents continue to work (to varying degrees), Beatrice is in a spot where she can't do more... but if the plan is for her to one day step into that role, then she'd also be silly to seriously pursue a career that she'll one day have to give up - I somehow doubt the Queen wants her granddaughter to have to make the same sacrifice that two of her cousins had to make.
 
Probably the best Eugenie and Beatrice can hope for is a Prince Michael of Kent level of royal activity- supplemental royal at BP reception, garden parties, state dinners, occasionally representing the monarch at an engagement.

Without the premature death of George VI and his brother the Duke of Kent, the Queen's cousins may not have been pulled into royal duties. Any children after Charles and Anne would have likely been born earlier. The children would be adults in the 70s able to fill the void when the children of George V pass away.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
no he can't do that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_Deprivation_Act_1917
George V removed the title prince and Princess of the United Kingdom by an Act of Parliament because the the hanovers and the Saxe-Coburg and Gothas who were also prince and Princess of the United Kingdom served in the army against the uk
and when he limted who get to be HRH and prince and Princess of the United Kingdom he didn't remove the titles from those who already held them so even if Charles want to limit it they won't get thier title taken away

Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught might disagree with you there. He was born HRH Prince Alastair of Connaught, but in 1917 he lost his royal titles and became simply Earl of Macduff - George V's LPs didn't apply to him, as he was the great-grandson of a monarch. As he was only 3 at the time, and his father was in the British military, I think it's fair to say that he wasn't serving in the army against Britain.

The LPs did not apply to Princesses Maud and Alexandra, as they were specifically created HH Princesses by the will of the monarch; they were the daughters of Louise, Princess Royal, herself the daughter of Edward VII. Neither of them continued to use the style after their marriages, but Maud continued to be HH Princess Maud until 1923.

Either Charles or William will very likely issue new LPs that will change the way titles are given in Britain; the change of gender in the succession is going to push it in time. And in time either of them could restrict the titles in such a way that the Yorks, Kents, Gloucesters, and Wessexes will all be without royal titles - although, if they do that, then any future children of Harry's will also be title-less. Personally, I kind of doubt that Charles is going to issue LPs to strip the Kents and Gloucesters of their titles after many years of service and deny his future grandchildren of titles just to strip his brother's kids of titles that they can't even pass down.
 
Ideally it if you limit the HRH to the children of the monarch and the children of the heir apparent, that eliminates the male bias in titles and the problem of excess non direct line Prince and Princess hanging around. No grandkids are HRHs unless their parent is the heir apparent.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
We've talked a lot about titles and personalities in the BRF in the reign of King Charles, but I was just thinking today of the practicalities of replacing many, many things, even if it's done gradually, as it will be after a reign of sixty to seventy years or more by one person.

Security costs to protect guests, VIPs and others at the State funeral but also at Charles's Coronation to follow, are likely to be sky high. However, I hope there are plans in place the gargantuan task of replacing the Queen's cipher/insignia everywhere, from policemen's helmets to the uniforms of beefeaters at the Tower of London. British Passports will have to be issued in the King's name not Queen Elizabeth's. Coins, stamps, notes, post boxes will all have to be replaced, sooner or later, the national anthem will sound strange for a while. This will be a monumental event for the British people in more ways than one.
 
Ideally it if you limit the HRH to the children of the monarch and the children of the heir apparent, that eliminates the male bias in titles and the problem of excess non direct line Prince and Princess hanging around. No grandkids are HRHs unless their parent is the heir apparent.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

That is, with differences, what happened in Spain, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. Limiting to the core royal family. Norway is in the extreme as Princess Ingrid Alexandra's brother Sverre is no HRH and no Prince of Norway. The times, they are changing. King Charles and King William will set the things their way. And when strange things happen, Brexit in mind (Scotland independent, Irish unification, modernization of the parliamentary system, implosion of the Commonwealth, Canada and Australia becoming republics, etc.) a lot will change in their Reigns.
 
No one is still around from 1901 where we had the transition from Victoria to Edward VII. Probably the closest modern comparison is Pope John Paul II. The coins, stamps, mailboxes will be a gradual transition. There is more than likely an approval Charles profile head ready to go at the royal mint. It will be a sad but interesting time.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
That actually reminds me of an article I read in a recent Canadian newspaper - when they were doing the portraits for the 2012 Canadian bank notes the issue of what to do if the Queen dies before the next set of bank notes goes out / begins to be planned. Evidently a lot of time and money goes into developing them. I believe it was actually discussed that instead of putting Charles on the 20 note when he's king, they may go with a Canadian of note (with the requirement that it be a deceased one). It kind of falls into the push for women who aren't the monarch to be on Canadian bank notes that we're seeing right now.
 
None of Charles' first cousins are HRHs ( i.e princes or princesses) since they are grandchildren of a monarch in female line.
Acutually he has some HRH cousins from his fathers side.
 
The funding has nothing to do with the number of working royals.

HMQ gets 15% of the net profit from Crown Estates (although this funding level is due for review next yr). This pays not only for royal staff but also maintenance of royal palaces. She also has income from Duchy of Lancaster.

she decides who does royal duties and pays to support their offices (excl PoW and family).

If there were less royals then repairs and maintenance of royal palaces could be speeded up.

Where savings would be made is on security.
It's fine that the funding is not tied to the number of working royals but when the streamlining discussion happens, even the use of the term streamlining, it implies that the motive is to contain and/or cut back on costs. I think that it's going to get very interesting when some enterprising reporter writes the story that about royal family has/is streamlining but also notes that the funding formula has stayed the same.

I'm not 100% sure but my understanding is that the funding relating to the palaces comes from more than one stream, there the Crown Estates allotment but there is also a standalone grant earmarked for the royal residences, the royal residences generate their own income through tours and finally the monarch can make special requests for funding. I will concede that if the Queen and Prince Charles plan to foot the bill to bring the palaces up to scratch from the Sovereign Grant and the Duchy of Lancaster income (I've seen figures ranging from £50 million to £150 million) then I can see where some hard choices have to be made. I guess we will see if that will be the case.

I think that the security costs for minor working royals are incremental and tied to royal work. In the case of one or both York princesses, she/they will get security for royal engagements but not for shopping trips, an evening at Annabel's or vacationing on the Abramovich yacht.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom