The Monarchy under Charles

[Royal_Eagle]

I think there is absolutely no chance the Beatrice and Eugenie will be asked to give up their titles, which seems to be the common consensus.

The question is who will replace duties of the Princess Royal (age 60) when she retires. Will that duty fall naturally to Beatrice, and will it come with her own regal apartment in Kensington Palace?

I highly doubt the Princess Royal is going to 'retire' anytime soon, if she has the same stamina and health as her parents. In general, the Royal Family don't really 'retire', although they may gradually ramp down their engagements as they get older, but in the case of the Queen's children, that's not going to happen for many more years. The Duke of Edinburgh is just starting to ramp down slightly (so far) as he approach his 90th birthday this June, and I wouldn't be surprised if he continue to make appearances and work on his charities for quite few more years. The Queen, along with the Duke, certainly has very strong stamina.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There have been some interesting points raised here

I think that people get on their high horses because it is not made clear who benifits from their money, and who doesn't.

It has been made perfectly clear to anyone who bothers to actually listen - the Queen and Philip get payments from the Civil List.

Whenever a royal carries out an official duty on behalf of the government the taxpayers pick up the tab.

Otherwise they family are supported by the Queen from her private income.

Unfortunately the press and the public don't like to hear the truth and like to accuse them of living off the public purse.

At first I thought this was an issue of princely status or no princely status, but I now realise that it is not so clear cut. They are, at the end of the day, a large group of relatives, who socialise, on a very public scale, which is all very well, but Charles will have to show a cynical public, just who he's giving pocket money.

It isn't the 'pocket money' but the fact that the monarch actually supports the extended family from the private income of the Duchy of Lancaster but the public think that all of her income comes from the taxpayers that is the problem. Except for Charles and his family the rest of the royals, who don't have real jobs, are supported by her - Andrew and family, Edward and family, Anne and family (although of course Peter and Zara have their own independent careers which support them), the Dukes of Gluocester and Kent and Princess Alexandra.

Titles are not an issue, if it's clear what money who lives off. Limiting the balcony is a start (I have already suggested a special stand for guests who don't stand on the balcony) and a Family/House seperation of those with princely titles would also be a great idea.

The problem with saying that those with princely titles are family and the rest are house is that male line grandchildren get the princely title but female line grandchildren don't so you would have a situation where the cousin of the monarch is classed as royal family but the grandchild isn't e.g. Duke of Gloucester is but Peter Philips isn't.

I would also recommend a minimum amount of Royal duties, and charity work for Royals over the age of eighteen. Of course this could be ajusted to suit circumstances (study, personal issues, health issues) but a lot of disgruntlement stems from the fact that it is supposedly acceptable to do absolutley nothing.

I would exempt all people until they have completed their education but go so far as to also insist that they all have press protection until them, like William had at St Andrews where he could go out to pubs and nightclubs all he liked without the negative press that Beatrice and Eugenie get for doing the same thing at the same ages. No reporting allowed of young royals while in full-time education unless on an official occasion e.g. at the Trooping of the Colour might give them a chance to grow up without being attacked for no real reason.

The other problem with assigning a set number of royal duties is what happens if one royal is in a great deal of demand but another isn't and the second one, although wanting to do stuff, simply isn't asked one year - do they get dropped and told to start supporting themselves?

Even today most people don't realise just who the third hardest working royal is - Andrew - with over 500 engagements and most of those overseas but of course he is a total waste of space and a sponge on the taxpayers and does nothing.

This is all easier said than done when not everyone bothers to do their research like we do, but it is possible.

Sorry to ramble, but you've all given me a sort of epiphany

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

About the financial issue, I was aware of The Queen's personal income, the Duchy of Lancaster, and all that jazz, but I guess I didn't go into enough detail to make it clear how much I was aware of, and its true that the information is available for anyone who will do their research.

As for the Family/House issue. I meant that the divsion could be between those with princely status, and as for titles, I don't agree with the gender discrimination at all, but there does have to be a limiting of HRHs, and every Grandchild of a Sovereign will one day be the cousin of another, provided they live long enough. A good idea would be to limit HRHs to the children of The Sovereign, and the first two lines of Grandchildren, regardless of whether they are Male line or Female line (and hopefully Male primogeniture will be abolished, so this won't simply be the first two Male lines) and of course anyone who was once a child of The Sovereign, or a Grandchild of the first two lines, can keep their HRH. I suppose a Family/House division wouldn't be necessary.

On the subject of duties and charity work, I guess it's unreasonable to set a minimum, when demand is a factor. Protecting Royals who are students is also a good idea. Beatrice and Eugenie are students (which is the reason they don't do many Royal duties), and they party, and go on holidays during their free time. This is a normal lifestyle for a young person, and I say this as a twenty one year old myself
The media, however, has access to the clubs and beachs, but not the lecture theatres and study halls, so all anyone gets is pictures of the York Princesses in fishnet tights and bikinis. This leads to all the about how disgraceful they are. Protection could have prevented this. It was definately a great help to William's image.

Its great to be settling in here

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Huh? When William is King, she will be Queen Catherine. The same as when Charles is King, Camilla will be Queen Camilla, regardless of what ridiculousness is floating around in regards to her title. The wife of the King is the Queen. That's how it works. That's how it's always worked. It would take an act of Parliament for Camilla's title to be downgraded when Charles ascends the throne, and I'd like to think that in the wake of his mother's death, he'd have more important things to worry about than what Camilla will be called. Frankly it would be disgusting and disturbing if it were to happen. The only people who want it to happen are people who cannot accept that they're married, but those people can just cry me a river, build me a bridge, and then get over it.

Prince Philip has never been Prince Elizabeth because in the BRF, husbands do not take their titles and styles from their wives. While Crown Princess Victoria's husband is Prince Daniel, Duke of Vastergotland, I do not believe when she is Queen Regnant, he'll be King Consort. Although it would be interesting if it were to happen.

I know why Prince Philip isn't Prince Elizabeth. I just feel that, in the interest of Royals not having different rules applied to them, based on their genitals, Camilla should become Princess Camilla, when Charles is King, and Kate should become Princess Katherine, when William is King (it's not likely to happen on Friday) I have absolutlely no problems with Camilla or Katherine. I think this should be a flat out constitutional change. It's not a snub. You're not outraged, by the fact that Philip isn't styled as a King, so why be outraged by the possibilty of Camilla and Kate not being styled as Queens? Why the double standard?

As for Camilla's Style being a "disgusting and disturbing" issue to consider, the mechanisms necessary for Camilla to be styled as Princess Consort were put in place when she and Charles wed, if the the issue could be bought up in the Clarence House wedding announcement:

The Prince of Wales - Announcement of the marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles

This is the twenty-first century. Its time for fairness.

I believe that Queen Regnants (note the need to specify) should be clearly identifiable in the same way Kings are. How dare you assume this to be a catty thing against Camilla and Katherine.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I know why Prince Philip isn't Prince Elizabeth. I just feel that, in the interest of Royals not having different rules applied to them, based on their genitals, Camilla should become Princess Camilla, when Charles is King, and Kate should become Princess Katherine, when William is King (it's not likely to happen on Friday) I have absolutlely no problems with Camilla or Katherine. I think this should be a flat out constitutional change. It's not a snub. You're not outraged, by the fact that Philip isn't styled as a King, so why be outraged by the possibilty of Camilla and Kate not being styled as Queens? Why the double standard?

As for Camilla's title being a "disgusting and disturbing" issue to consider, the mechanisms necessary for Camilla to become Princess Consort were put in place when she and Charles wed, if the the issue could be bought up in the Clarence House wedding announcement:

The Prince of Wales - Announcement of the marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles

This is the twenty-first century. Its time for fairness.

I believe that Queen Regnants (note the need to specify) should be clearly identifiable in the same way Kings are. How dare you assume this to be a catty thing against Camilla and Katherine.

And in the week before the wedding the question was asked in Parliament if she would in fact be Princess of Wales and Queen Consort after the wedding and at the appropriate time. The relevant minister said 'Yes'.

So even if the intention was made known it was also made known that the only way she won't be Queen is for Parliament to strip her of the title and thus make the marriage a morganatic marriage - something they told Edward VIII wasn't possible in Britain.

Now before I hear that Edward was told that he couldn' marry a divorced woman that actually isn't correct. He was told that Wallis wasn't suitable and that being twice divorced with two ex-husbands still living was one reason but the government of the day knew full well that there was no law against a divorced Queen/King. They told the public a reason that they would swallow rather than cause a total constitutional crisis by admitting that the real reason they wanted the King to go was that he was totally unsatisfactory as a King. Had he been a good king and had a different divorced woman presented herself then the situation may very well have been different. Divorce was a social no-no at that time sure but there was no legal reason why a divorced woman couldn't be the wife of the King.

 

[pacomartin]

I know why Prince Philip isn't Prince Elizabeth. I just feel that, in the interest of Royals not having different rules applied to them, based on their genitals, Camilla should become Princess Camilla, when Charles is King, and Kate should become Princess Katherine, when William is King (it's not likely to happen on Friday) I have absolutlely no problems with Camilla or Katherine.

The entire system of titles for nobility and royalty is based on gender.I am afraid that you won't be able to update it that completely.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

And in the week before the wedding the question was asked in Parliament if she would in fact be Princess of Wales and Queen Consort after the wedding and at the appropriate time. The PM said 'Yes'.

She's not styled as The Princess of Wales, so I doubt that, and I don't think Clarence House would go into that much detail if the Duchess of Cornwall/Princess Consort option wouldn't necessarily be possible.

 

[dazzling]

And in the week before the wedding the question was asked in Parliament if she would in fact be Princess of Wales and Queen Consort after the wedding and at the appropriate time. The PM said 'Yes'.

I thought the Queen was the one who decided the titles unless the PM already knows what the Queen has decided & his answer was based on that.

About her becoming Queen, I don't think she should, I think King & Queen titles should be reserved to those who are born into it and not made upon it if that makes sense, like the fact Queen Victoria didn't make Albert King.

 

[Osipi]

She's not styled as The Princess of Wales, so I doubt that, and I don't think Clarence House would go into that much detail if the Duchess of Cornwall/Princess Consort option wouldn't necessarily be possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong? Didn't Clarence House do a formal announcement that Camilla "would be styled as The Duchess of Cornwall"? Style and title are two different things. She is still The Princess of Wales by marriage along with being Princess Charles and every other title he holds. Style of address means that she took the Duchess of Cornwall as her address. The Princess Consort is a style that will need a lot of messing around to do by parliament. Once Charles is King, his wife is Queen Consort. He may declare by letters patent and parliament approval that his wife be styled as "Gramma Milla". That'd be her formal mode of address but she'd still be legally Queen Consort.


With William and Kate, I'm leaning more and more towards her just being Princess William. I really don't see them wanting any titles nor airs and graces until they take on full royal duties.

My vote though was for Duke of Cambridge though.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

True. Style and Title are different things. Camilla is still legally The Princess of Wales, and will legally be The Queen Consort, when Charles becomes King. If Camilla is Princess Consort, it will definately be through an LP, rather than Parliament. Could Parliament change The Constitution to make the Wife of every future King, The Princess Consort, though? It's a change I would like to see.

As for what Dukedom will be received. I voted Sussex

 

[texankitcat]

I know why Prince Philip isn't Prince Elizabeth...

In the most monarchies, a King outranks a Queen. Therefore, a husband of a Queen Regent cannot be titled as a King.

Although I understand and agree with you that the sexist rules of titles for females and males marrying into the RF is rather outdated, where the Queen Regent is concerned, I understand the reasons behind it.

I don't agree that Camilla or "C"atherine (with a "C" not a "K") should be titled as Princess Consorts when their husbands ascend the throne rather than using the title of Queen Consorts which is the traditional title.

 

[Iluvbertie]

...Could Parliament change The Constitution to make the Wife of every future King, The Princess Consort?

She will need to be formally stripped of the title of Queen before the LPs can be issued. Parliament will need to be involved and possibly the Parliaments of the other realms.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She's not styled as The Princess of Wales, so I doubt that, and I don't think Clarence House would go into that much detail if the Duchess of Cornwall/Princess Consort option wouldn't necessarily be possible.

The question that was asked was 'is Camilla going to be Princess of Wales even though she isn't going to use that title' or words to that effect and the answer given was 'Yes'/

Official: Camilla to be Princess of Wales - Times Online

This statement was the week before the marriage - that yes she is legally The Princess of Wales but she is using a different one of Charles' titles.

The issue with Princess Consort is that she would have to be stripped of her legal title to take on a lower one.

Camilla WILL be Princess of Wales | Mail Online

Prince Charles's marriage plans faced new controversy as the Government announced Camilla Parker Bowles would become Princess of Wales.

The Constitutional Affairs Department made clear the Government position. "As was said at the time of the Royal Wedding announcement, Camilla Parker Bowles will become HRH the Duchess of Cornwall," it said. "She will be Princess of Wales, but not use that title."

Clarence House insisted it had been no secret that Camilla "theoretically" would take the title. It said: "We have always made it clear that 'technically' she would be Princess of Wales, but would be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. It is her choice and the choice of Charles to use this title."



This was from two weeks before the wedding:

Camilla will be Queen unless MPs change law - Times Online

A spokeswoman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, said that an Act of Parliament would be required.

Downing Street was brought into the controversy yesterday when Tony Blair’s official spokesman said: “The position at the moment is limited to what the title would be on her marriage. In terms of any future events, let’s wait until future events arise.”

On the question of whether Mrs Parker Bowles would automatically become Queen in the absence of legislation, the spokesman added: “I’m not disputing what you have said.”

The Thurrock MP asked whether the proposed marriage of HRH the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker Bowles was “morganatic”, by which Mrs Parker Bowles would not inherit on the Prince’s death.

Mr Leslie replied: “No.”

There have been numerous reports over the years that it will take legislation to deprive her of the title of Queen and that she is legally now The Princess of Wales. Britain doesn't have morgantic marriages and thus a wife takes all her husband's titles and styles.

All of the above quotes in bold were said in parliament or by relevant authoties in March and April of 2005 in the weeks leading up to the wedding on April 9th of that year.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I thought the Queen was the one who decided the titles unless the PM already knows what the Queen has decided & his answer was based on that.

About her becoming Queen, I don't think she should, I think King & Queen titles should be reserved to those who are born into it and not made upon it if that makes sense, like the fact Queen Victoria didn't make Albert King.

The Queen decides on the issuing of new titles but...we aren't talking about a new title but rather whether a wife takes all the titles and styles of her husband or not. That is a legal question.

For instance, although she doesn't use it anymore the Queen is Duchess of Edinburgh as the wife of the Duke of Edinburgh and only legislation could deprive her of that title.

The only occasion when a wife didn't get to take part of the style of her husband in Britain was the specific LPs that denied Wallis Simpson the style HRH but nothing could deprive her of the title Duke of Windsor.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

She will need to be formally stripped of the title of Queen before the LPs can be issued. Parliament will need to be involved and possibly the Parliaments of the other realms.

It might be completely different, but the Wessex children received lower styles than they are legally entitled to, without Parliament getting involved, and Camilla did not need to be stripped of her Princess of Wales title, in order to be styled as The Duchess of Cornwall. I thought that The Sovereign's pleasure was all that was required for someone to recieve a different style, lower or higher. I might be wrong, though.

 

[Osipi]

Actually I believe it was by Edward and Sophie's request. Legally their children are Princess and Prince of the UK titled.. they are STYLED as the daughter and son of an Earl. Camilla IS The Princess of Wales and has not been stripped of it. She carries all the feminine titles that her husband has. She is STYLED as the Duchess of Cornwall by choice which is one of her husband's oldest titles as Duke of Cornwall from birth.

The difference with the title of Princess Consort is that when Charles becomes King, that's it.. he's King. No other title applies to him that Camilla can take a style from.

Correction... Charles became the Duke of Cornwall the minute Elizabeth II ascended the throne. Not at birth

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

The idea of a King outranking a Queen, in this day and age makes my blood boil, particularly given what a good job the current Queen has done over the last sixty years. It might seem hypocrtitcal, then, that as an equalisation, I prefer the idea of a Princess Consort system, rather than a King Consort system (which I think is used in Spain) but the truth is that I feel this way because it's a great idea for The Sovereign to always be easily identifiable

It really hit home for me when I found out quite recently that Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands was a Queen Regnant, as opposed to a Queen Consort. i basically saw a few pictures of Beatrix while browsing this site (the topic was hairstyles, so her family was never mentioned, and The Dutch Royal family barely gets any coverage in Australia) and jumped to the conclusion that she was a Consort. This was despite the fact that I have lived in two countries under the same Queen Regnant. I had got it into my head that if a Woman is a Queen, she is almost certainly a King's Wife. How is this fair when when King Carl Gustav of Sweden, is definately The Sovereign? The experience certainly highlighted the inequality for me.

Thanks for correcting me on Catherine's name, by the way

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I understand why Parliament would have to get involved with Camilla being made The Princess Consort. Charles won't be The Prince Consort as well as The King. It's off topic, but I'm curious. How was parliament not involved with the styling of the Wessex children, when legally they are Princess Louise of Wessex, and Prince James of Wessex, with nothing after that? Was it possible because Edward has an Earldom, and not a Dukedom, as his highest peerage? Not expecting to start an off topic debate, just wondering.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As the children of an earl they are also Lord and Lady as well as HRH Prince/Princess. As such they are using a lower styling like Camilla is using a different title to the main title of her husband.

By the way the children of Dukes are styled the same way as those of Earls.

The children of HRH The Duke of Gloucester and HRH The Duke of Kent are styled the same way as Edward and Sophie's. They have just done it one generation earlier - with the grandchildren of a monarch rather than the great-grandchildren.

 

[branchg]

James and Louise are also the children of an Earl, however, their precedence and royal rank is theirs by right of birth under the 1917 Letters Patent.

I believe The Queen agreed to the request that her granchildren in the male Wessex line not being styled HRH as a prelude to what will happen in the future. After her death, Charles is likely to issue new Letters Patent limiting the style and rank of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK to the children of The Sovereign and the children of the heir to the throne.

 

[MRSJ]

. He may declare by letters patent and parliament approval that his wife be styled as "Gramma Milla"

Hahahaha- gramma milla .....That's funny ROFL

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Explain again why she wouldn't be Queen Consort, like the Queen Mum? Could she be - but won't, because Charles won't elevate her to that rank? Or is there some other reasons?

Yes, I'm slow at getting this. Right now, I'm under the impression that this has been decided so as to not aggravate people with a divorced Queen - as Camilla is already a divorced princess (and Charles a divorced prince) even though she doesn't use the title, beginning to use the title upon her husband's ascension to the throne would ease people into the usage, that's what I'm thinking. But she's doing such a great job as his consort now, I don't see why she shouldn't just be Queen Camilla.

(Should I duck?)

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I thought the Queen was the one who decided the titles unless the PM already knows what the Queen has decided & his answer was based on that.

About her becoming Queen, I don't think she should, I think King & Queen titles should be reserved to those who are born into it and not made upon it if that makes sense, like the fact Queen Victoria didn't make Albert King.

So you really don't think the Queen Mum should have been titled Queen? I can't imagine Tsar Nicholas not having Tsarina Alexandra. King Louis and Queen Marie Antoinette.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

And in the week before the wedding the question was asked in Parliament if she would in fact be Princess of Wales and Queen Consort after the wedding and at the appropriate time. The relevant minister said 'Yes'.

So even if the intention was made known it was also made known that the only way she won't be Queen is for Parliament to strip her of the title and thus make the marriage a morganatic marriage - something they told Edward VIII wasn't possible in Britain.

Now before I hear that Edward was told that he couldn' marry a divorced woman that actually isn't correct. He was told that Wallis wasn't suitable and that being twice divorced with two ex-husbands still living was one reason but the government of the day knew full well that there was no law against a divorced Queen/King. They told the public a reason that they would swallow rather than cause a total constitutional crisis by admitting that the real reason they wanted the King to go was that he was totally unsatisfactory as a King. Had he been a good king and had a different divorced woman presented herself then the situation may very well have been different. Divorce was a social no-no at that time sure but there was no legal reason why a divorced woman couldn't be the wife of the King.

Good analysis, thank you very much. It's now history, but to hear it spoken about with familiarity is always interesting.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

As the children of an earl they are also Lord and Lady as well as HRH Prince/Princess. As such they are using a lower styling like Camilla is using a different title to the main title of her husband.

Thanks. You learn something new everyday

 

[charlottestreasures]

If they plan to downsize the "Royal Family", who will perform all
the royal duties that are covered today including the Commonwealth?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Simply - if Beatrice and Eugenie aren't going to do the work currently done by the Gloucesters and Kents and even their own uncle and aunt then those duties won't be done by royals.

Very few duties actually get done in Commonwealth countries or the specific realms of the Commonwealth of which the Queen is monarch by actual royals anyway. e.g. Australia has had a short visit from William this year and will have the Queen here later this year for CHOGM and possibly William and Kate but if none of them came we would get along quite fine as we are without them doing any 'duties' here because they don't have any to do here. We have our state governors and the GG to do the official stuff and all the rest is creating roles for people that really could be done by anyone.

 

[jemagre]

Could the government step in and reduce the royals or for that matter can they interfere with B & E's future? This could be the wrong thread, so if it is I apologize.

I have always thought that Harry would be great as a traveling ambassador for the Commonwealth. That could certainly take up a lot of his time and no one would have to wonder about his role in the family.

As for Charles' ideas we are all biased in some way based on who are favorites are. Edward's house situation is tricky as the Queen herself used to pay the rent of several people. She has stopped now but I guess since Edward his her son she might think of things differently. I wonder why the Queen would give such gifts when she knows people can't pay for it. Oh now I went off topic. Sorry I will leave it at that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Could the government step in and reduce the royals or for that matter can they interfere with B & E's future? This could be the wrong thread, so if it is I apologize.

Yes the Parliament could decide to pass legislation limiting who is royal and who isn't.

In Britain Parliament is in control not the RF.

I have always thought that Harry would be great as a traveling ambassador for the Commonwealth. That could certainly take up a lot of his time and no one would have to wonder about his role in the family.

But would the Commonwealth want someone in that role. Currently their isn't an Ambassodor for the Commonwealth and as the different countries have many different ideas on things it would be very hard for one person to attempt to represent monarchies, republics, Christian and non-Christian countries, third world and first world countries, countries that allow equal rights for everyone and some that don't etc.

 

[jemagre]

Thanks for the info. As for the commonwealth role, the Queen still does a lot for it and Charles is not automatically head of it when he becomes king so they could have a royal connection without a senior person. Edward is the Queen's representative to the games so it is not that far-fetched.