The Monarchy under Charles

[Skippyboo]

Windsor Castle is open to the public year around so if the monarchy is moved from BP to there. It will lose the income from its tours while events are held in its state rooms.

 

[cepe]

Brilliant response and well thought out. (Iluvbertie)

The only issue that Chrles has with the wider royals is not them personally (I think he is v family orientated) and certainly not the work that they do but with how it's financed.

My understanding is that because of the historical funding via Civil list being inadequate (could any of us survived without a pay rise for nearly 20 years?), HMQ has funded everyone's work from her D of Lancaster budget( except Charles and his family). I've read that Charles believes that the funding the Monarchy receives should pay for this. And I agree.

He doesnt need to get rid of any of the royals or throw them out. He needs to sort out the Monarchy's financial management; get a maintenance programme in place and put aside capital funding (capital expenditure is for new building works, ie new culverts, etc). I think that he is probably helping the Queen sort this out at the moment. He is good at choosing the right people and I think this will give a sound basis for the future.

The history of financing the royal family in the modern day has been riddled with short term thinking. Charles is capable of sorting it out.

 

[royal-blue]

I would like the future monarch to be more like the Irish President - purely a figurehead without all the unnecessary hangers on the Queen currently has.

 

[cepe]

I would like the future monarch to be more like the Irish President - purely a figurehead without all the unnecessary hangers on the Queen currently has.

There are others better qualified than me to answer this. All I will say ids that they are not hangers-on. Hangers on do nothing and make no contribution to people's lives and the State. None of the current full-time royals are in that category.

It sounds like you want a presidency and not a monarchy.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Cepe and Iluvbertie: I agree almost completely and what an excellent discussion of funding.
I just finished watching Prince Andrew's "Come work here at BP" video. I assuming/hoping (yes I know) that the family has decided that there are some major tasks to take on and that single royals can take them on to add some meaning/challenge to the work they do (beyond the official openings and press moments) while moving the firm forward in a positive way.
I think it would be excellent to take ask someone like PA to figure out a way to preserve BP while keeping it a safe place to work and letting it earn it's own way into the future.
Because that's the trick, isn't it? To preserve while transforming in a meaningful way. For both the family and the historic places.

Brilliant response and well thought out. (Iluvbertie)

The only issue that Chrles has with the wider royals is not them personally (I think he is v family orientated) and certainly not the work that they do but with how it's financed.

My understanding is that because of the historical funding via Civil list being inadequate (could any of us survived without a pay rise for nearly 20 years?), HMQ has funded everyone's work from her D of Lancaster budget( except Charles and his family). I've read that Charles believes that the funding the Monarchy receives should pay for this. And I agree.

He doesnt need to get rid of any of the royals or throw them out. He needs to sort out the Monarchy's financial management; get a maintenance programme in place and put aside capital funding (capital expenditure is for new building works, ie new culverts, etc). I think that he is probably helping the Queen sort this out at the moment. He is good at choosing the right people and I think this will give a sound basis for the future.

The history of financing the royal family in the modern day has been riddled with short term thinking. Charles is capable of sorting it out.

 

[royal-blue]

There are others better qualified than me to answer this. All I will say ids that they are not hangers-on. Hangers on do nothing and make no contribution to people's lives and the State. None of the current full-time royals are in that category.

It sounds like you want a presidency and not a monarchy.

I don't see how wanting the monarchy to reform is like wanting a presidency.

My argument about minor royals being hangers on isn't so much that they are unnecessary now, but that they weren't necessary in the first place, just as Beatrice and Eugenie aren't needed now. I am sure the monarchy would have continued just fine even if the Queen's royal cousins had led private lives.

I think the purpose of the monarchy should solely be as head of state. The majority of the engagements carried out by members of the wider BRF are, arguably, waving and ribbon cutting, which may draw attention to charities and the like but I don't see why the BRF needs to have this involvement.

We on this forum know in great depth who the BRF are, but if Kents and Gloucesters were to simply retire or cease carrying out engagements, I am pretty sure over 95% of the public wouldn't even notice.

 

[Victorian-Dandy]

I don't see how wanting the monarchy to reform is like wanting a presidency.

My argument about minor royals being hangers on isn't so much that they are unnecessary now, but that they weren't necessary in the first place, just as Beatrice and Eugenie aren't needed now. I am sure the monarchy would have continued just fine even if the Queen's royal cousins had led private lives.

I think the purpose of the monarchy should solely be as head of state. The majority of the engagements carried out by members of the wider BRF are, arguably, waving and ribbon cutting, which may draw attention to charities and the like but I don't see why the BRF needs to have this involvement.

We on this forum know in great depth who the BRF are, but if Kents and Gloucesters were to simply retire or cease carrying out engagements, I am pretty sure over 95% of the public wouldn't even notice.

Most of the public might not notice but the charities that rely on royal patronage to help fill the coffers would.

Their patronage makes a huge difference, it brings in not only much needed money but publicity and that is something that is invaluable especially for the smaller charities which many of the minor royals support.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't see how wanting the monarchy to reform is like wanting a presidency.

My argument about minor royals being hangers on isn't so much that they are unnecessary now, but that they weren't necessary in the first place, just as Beatrice and Eugenie aren't needed now. I am sure the monarchy would have continued just fine even if the Queen's royal cousins had led private lives.

I think the purpose of the monarchy should solely be as head of state. The majority of the engagements carried out by members of the wider BRF are, arguably, waving and ribbon cutting, which may draw attention to charities and the like but I don't see why the BRF needs to have this involvement.

We on this forum know in great depth who the BRF are, but if Kents and Gloucesters were to simply retire or cease carrying out engagements, I am pretty sure over 95% of the public wouldn't even notice.

If the monarchy is to be solely Head of State then there is no need for anyone other than the monarch and so Philip could have stayed in the navy, as could Charles and William stayed in the airforce until called upon to be King or until they reached retirement from that force.

You can't have it both ways - a Head of State is ONE person so if solely a Head of State then no one else is involved - ever - and that is a presidency not a monarchy. A monarchy includes a family.

Even before WWII that wasn't happening with George V wanting his younger children and their wives to carry out royal duties including sending the second son and his wife to Australia to open the new (now old) parliament house of that country leaving behind their young baby. He had his other sons and their wives also doing things. George V changed the monarchy into one that was closely involved in British charities and were out and about - to show the flag of The Firm - that they were involved and useful to the nation.

That idea continued with George VI, especially after the abdication and during WWII - show the people we can be of use in their day to day lives.

That has continued.

The role of the minor royals is to do the work with the smaller less fashionable charities and to visit the smaller communities - even those overseas. Just because a person lives in a smaller community - one that The Queen or Charles would never visit doesn't mean they are less deserving of a royal visit. Having friends who teach in a couple of small village schools and seen the work and effort they have put in when Alexandra or the Duchess of Gloucester visited their village school for a prize-giving ceremony I can assure you that those two villages will long remember their 'royal visit'. I still value the picture my friend had taken of her and Princess Alexandra and the children in front of the steps of the school - she and the families of those children all treasure that picture and the memories of that morning.

Don't underestimate how important those visits are to the people concerned - 100,000s if not 1000000s of people in the UK and elsewhere who have 'met' or 'spoken to' or even 'seen' a royal will have seen one of the Kent's or Gloucester's even if they have never seen The Queen.

Notice that it is the Wessex's who are the most frequent visits to the Caribbean nations now and the Duke of Kent tends to be the one sent to places like Malta and the Falklands. Why should these places be denied a royal visit?

 

[Queen Camilla]

royal-blue,
The Queen's cousins represented the Queen when former colonies became independent. It wasn't just cutting ribbons.

 

[Nice Nofret]

If you ad up all the cost of having changing Presidents, their elections, their security, homes, pensions, travelcost etc etc added up, I'm very sure, they cost more in the end then the royal family (if you add up all they cost and all what they earn for their country).

I would be glad, if we had a royal family in Germany, it would come not at a greater cost and be more meaningfull to it's people. Who knows the names of the last 5 or 10 German Bundespräsidenten? NO ONE - and NO ONE cares about them! A royal family gives the country a face to its inhabitants and to the tourists who come to get a glimps of them.

Same is true for the Swiss Bundespräsidenten ...

 

[royal-blue]

I agree with your point. The current BRF does have a very large cast compared to other European royal families. I believe Charles will be quick to wield the axe.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I believe Charles will be quick to wield the axe.

Exactly what is Prince Charles going to do? Strip his two brothers, sister and cousins of all their patronages, all their planned engagements and take them on himself? He. Needs. Them.
Unless he wants the public to cry out because their exposure to royals has been cut, patronages deprived of a royal patronage when they've had one for years because Charles, William, Catherine and Henry cannot take on it all, he's going to keep his brothers, sisters, cousins and nieces to be used when necessary and until they pass away or find other jobs.

I genuinely do not understand the logic behind people thinking that Charles wants to "axe" his family from working for their country. Yes we saw the "new image" at the diamond jubilee, but that future isn't going to come to light for another 20 years or so.

 

[Osipi]

Its been starting to sound like any or all changes will be made when Charles ascends the throne and he's lying in wait ready to pounce once he's got that crown on his head. Its not going to work that way.

I seriously believe that for the most part, the way Charles' reign will be carried out has already been very well planned by the family's Way Ahead committee This is a firm that doesn't run on whims but very carefully planned out strategies that have been in place for a very long time. Yes we did see the "new look" at the Jubilee but I think this was done for the purpose of illuminating the continuity of the monarchy and perhaps signal that it is realistic to think that there will be another monarch on the throne in due course.

I really don't think we'll see Charles making any real abrupt changes when he becomes monarch.

 

[TLLK]

^^^Excellent post Osipi. IMHO the changes have already begun most notably with Eugenie and Beatrice. Each is going to have a career outside of the BRF and will undertake a few royal engagements. I expect this to continue when their uncle ascends to the throne.

 

[RoyalDaisy]

Exactly what is Prince Charles going to do? Strip his two brothers, sister and cousins of all their patronages, all their planned engagements and take them on himself? He. Needs. Them.
Unless he wants the public to cry out because their exposure to royals has been cut, patronages deprived of a royal patronage when they've had one for years because Charles, William, Catherine and Henry cannot take on it all, he's going to keep his brothers, sisters, cousins and nieces to be used when necessary and until they pass away or find other jobs.

I genuinely do not understand the logic behind people thinking that Charles wants to "axe" his family from working for their country. Yes we saw the "new image" at the diamond jubilee, but that future isn't going to come to light for another 20 years or so.

AMEN - I agree 100%.

I dont think the the balcony appearance meant a great deal except the continuity of the monarchy.

Charles problem doesnt seem to be the # of royals, but the fact that the The Monarch has been paying for most of them from her personal income. He doesnt agree with that, and I think he's right. Previous posters have commented on the need to address financial issues so I wont repeat (again I agree).

AS for comparisons with other countries - I'll give one example - Denmark has 4-6 royals who represent via patronages etc c. 5.6m people
UK has 11-15 (not all f/t) who represent via patronages etc c. 66m people. Greater population equates to more work IMO.

I haven't included the population of the other realms.

 

[royal-blue]

Exactly what is Prince Charles going to do? Strip his two brothers, sister and cousins of all their patronages, all their planned engagements and take them on himself? He. Needs. Them.
Unless he wants the public to cry out because their exposure to royals has been cut, patronages deprived of a royal patronage when they've had one for years because Charles, William, Catherine and Henry cannot take on it all, he's going to keep his brothers, sisters, cousins and nieces to be used when necessary and until they pass away or find other jobs.

I genuinely do not understand the logic behind people thinking that Charles wants to "axe" his family from working for their country. Yes we saw the "new image" at the diamond jubilee, but that future isn't going to come to light for another 20 years or so.

I doubt he will fire anyone but I think there is a possibility he will give the minor royals the opportunity to retire and be allowed to live a normal life for once.

 

[Dman]

IMO, the main royals that should be seen on a regular bases and the main focus of the attention is Charles & Camilla, William & Catherine, Harry and his future wife.

I'm sure the minor royals will continue to have their patronages, presidencies and continue to attend family events but I think the working "Firm" should be slimmed down in the future.

 

[royal-blue]

IMO, the main royals that should be seen on a regular bases and the main focus of the attention is Charles & Camilla, William & Catherine, Harry and his future wife.

I'm sure the minor royals will continue to have their patronages, presidencies and continue to attend family events but I think the working "Firm" should be slimmed down in the future.

I agree with this - I also think this is what the public want.

 

[tommy100]

Some people can't seem to seperate two different issues:

1- what will happen to the current royal family when Charles becomes monarch

2 - things Charles might do to slim down the RF in the future

For 1 I would say nothing will happen to the current RF, over time they will become less and less prominent but I can't see Charles as King getting rod of them or kicking them out of Royal residences etc.

For 2 I think Charles will do some things within his power to try to ensure the focus of the RF in the future will be the King/Queen and their immediate heirs.

Personally I agree with both,I'd hate to see the current RF especially the Kents and Gloucesters and Charles' siblings 'got rid of' but I do think in the future having cousins of a sovereign living in Royal palaces with police protection etc will be hard to stomach for many people and so the RF should move with the times.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that the intention is that everyone who is currently a working member of the family - the children and spouses of The Queen and her cousins and their spouses, except Michael and Marie-Christine, will continue until they choose to retire or they pass on.

However I don't think Beatrice or Eugenie, or in time Harry's children, will ever take on royal duties as their main occupation.

That will slim down the royal family considerably over time.

e.g. 10 years from now it is highly likely that 4 of those who currently carry out royal duties will have passed on or be retired - The Queen (if she is alive she will, of course, be still doing the boxes etc but probably only doing around 150 engagements a year - down from her present total of around 350 - so the daily grind of things like visiting a dance group will be off her list), Philip, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra.

In that time there will only be Harry's wife to add to the current available list of working royals - unless Andrew also remarries. Beatrice and Eugenie won't be working for The Firm and will only be seen at the big events.

That means that the current 15 will have been reduced to 12 in the next 10 years.

Add another 10 years and in all likelihood the Gloucester's will have retired. I am having Charles live into his 90s as an average of his closest ancestors, his parents, and his grandparents - taking into account that unlike his grandfathers he has never smoked or been a heavy drinker. I also don't see Camilla with us then, or if she is I suspect she also will be doing fewer that 150 engagements. The other one who will have reduced heavily by then, I suspect will be Anne. That takes that 12 number down to 8 - 9 as there would have been no new additions - George will only be rising 21.

Assuming William and Kate really are conservationists then they will only have 2 children so in 30 years George will probably be adding his partner and his sibling his/her partner to the mix but by then Anne, Charles, Camilla, The Gloucester's, Kent's, The Queen and Philip and Andrew, Edward and Sophie will all be gone or retired or so reduced they won't really be contributing large numbers leaving 8 at most - the monarch and spouse, the monarch's sibling and spouse, the monarch's children and their spouses while the monarch's sibling's children will be doing real jobs in the real world.

30 years from now I think the total working family will be around 8.

 

[Iluvbertie]

AMEN - I agree 100%.

I dont think the the balcony appearance meant a great deal except the continuity of the monarchy.

Charles problem doesnt seem to be the # of royals, but the fact that the The Monarch has been paying for most of them from her personal income. He doesnt agree with that, and I think he's right. Previous posters have commented on the need to address financial issues so I wont repeat (again I agree).

AS for comparisons with other countries - I'll give one example - Denmark has 4-6 royals who represent via patronages etc c. 5.6m people
UK has 11-15 (not all f/t) who represent via patronages etc c. 66m people. Greater population equates to more work IMO.

I haven't included the population of the other realms.

This makes it an unfair comparison as the BRF do have the other realms as well as the rest of the Commonwealth to consider which brings their total well over 1 billion and covering the full extent of the globe and some of its most remote regions. They therefore need a number of royals to visit these countries as we saw in 2012 when every member of the family, except The Queen and Philip visited somewhere overseas officially that year - and it took all of them to cover the Commonwealth that year.

 

[royal-blue]

This makes it an unfair comparison as the BRF do have the other realms as well as the rest of the Commonwealth to consider which brings their total well over 1 billion and covering the full extent of the globe and some of its most remote regions. They therefore need a number of royals to visit these countries as we saw in 2012 when every member of the family, except The Queen and Philip visited somewhere overseas officially that year - and it took all of them to cover the Commonwealth that year.

Denmark has overseas territories though.

That will slim down the royal family considerably over time.

e.g. 10 years from now it is highly likely that 4 of those who currently carry out royal duties will have passed on or be retired - The Queen (if she is alive she will, of course, be still doing the boxes etc but probably only doing around 150 engagements a year - down from her present total of around 350 - so the daily grind of things like visiting a dance group will be off her list), Philip, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra.

With all due respect to HMQ, I can't see her doing 150 engagements a year at 98 years old

 

[Lumutqueen]

Denmark has overseas territories though

Denmark has two overseas territories, the United Kingdom has 14. The Faroe Islands is just under 2 hours away from Denmark, Greenland is just under 5. Not exactly London to the British Virgin Islands.

With all due respect to HMQ, I can't see her doing 150 engagements a year at 98 years old

I can, quite easily. Baring illness or injury 150 engagements over 365 days, wouldn't be an issue.

I think the working "Firm" should be slimmed down in the future.

That will slim down the royal family considerably over time.

30 years from now I think the total working family will be around 8.

The key in both these posts is "future" and "over time". By members passing away, by royals choosing a different course etc "the firm" will slim down. I'm not mad, I do understand that. However, certain posters talk as if the minute Charles is King, heads or going to rollll.

 

[Molly2101]

I think that the intention is that everyone who is currently a working member of the family - the children and spouses of The Queen and her cousins and their spouses, except Michael and Marie-Christine, will continue until they choose to retire or they pass on.

However I don't think Beatrice or Eugenie, or in time Harry's children, will ever take on royal duties as their main occupation.

That will slim down the royal family considerably over time.

e.g. 10 years from now it is highly likely that 4 of those who currently carry out royal duties will have passed on or be retired - The Queen (if she is alive she will, of course, be still doing the boxes etc but probably only doing around 150 engagements a year - down from her present total of around 350 - so the daily grind of things like visiting a dance group will be off her list), Philip, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra.

In that time there will only be Harry's wife to add to the current available list of working royals - unless Andrew also remarries. Beatrice and Eugenie won't be working for The Firm and will only be seen at the big events.

That means that the current 15 will have been reduced to 12 in the next 10 years.

Add another 10 years and in all likelihood the Gloucester's will have retired. I am having Charles live into his 90s as an average of his closest ancestors, his parents, and his grandparents - taking into account that unlike his grandfathers he has never smoked or been a heavy drinker. I also don't see Camilla with us then, or if she is I suspect she also will be doing fewer that 150 engagements. The other one who will have reduced heavily by then, I suspect will be Anne. That takes that 12 number down to 8 - 9 as there would have been no new additions - George will only be rising 21.

Assuming William and Kate really are conservationists then they will only have 2 children so in 30 years George will probably be adding his partner and his sibling his/her partner to the mix but by then Anne, Charles, Camilla, The Gloucester's, Kent's, The Queen and Philip and Andrew, Edward and Sophie will all be gone or retired or so reduced they won't really be contributing large numbers leaving 8 at most - the monarch and spouse, the monarch's sibling and spouse, the monarch's children and their spouses while the monarch's sibling's children will be doing real jobs in the real world.

30 years from now I think the total working family will be around 8.

Everything you have said is totally realistic and is likely going to be the way it happens. The monarchy will naturally slim down as HRH members of the family pass on.

I also believe Charles will issue new LP when he ascends dictating that the style of HRH will only be for the children of the eldest child of the Monarch, thus Harry's children will not be entitled to it. That itself will naturally slim the Monarchy down. I also believe that is why Edward and Sophie chose not to use HRH for their children. I think deep down they knew their children would never be needed for duties, and I also believe that they were coerced into their decision. We were led to believe it was their choice, and if may well have been, but I also believe they were sort of told to do it.

 

[royal-blue]

Denmark has two overseas territories, the United Kingdom has 14. The Faroe Islands is just under 2 hours away from Denmark, Greenland is just under 5. Not exactly London to the British Virgin Islands.

There may be 14 overseas territories but 3 of them have no permanent population and Pitcairn has never had a royal visit.

 

[royal-blue]

Imagine for a moment that Andrew and Edward had led entirely private lives or stayed in the military and done a handful of engagements a year - would the monarchy have been disadvantaged in any way?

My favourite other royal family is the Norwegian RF, with only the King, Queen, Crown Prince and Princess, and also the King's daughter and his sister who have largely private lives but still contribute occasionally.

 

[RoyalDaisy]

I was trying to compare like with like (esp re population). The majority of engagements take place on "home soil". The work overseas is in addition for both but I dont have the numbers and therefore cant compare. I think that was a fair comparison.

No need to be snippy.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Denmark has overseas territories though.



With all due respect to HMQ, I can't see her doing 150 engagements a year at 98 years old

150 is quite easy - she frequently does 8 or so audiences in a day now - with ambassadors and High Commissioners who are taking up their positions or relinquishing them.

150 = 20 such days now

Philip managed over 200 last year and he was out of action for nearly 4 months and his were out and about type engagements whereas 150 for The Queen where she meets with her PM 50 times a year and holds 12 council meetings along with meeting 50 Ambassadors/High Commissioners or other policitians, Maundy Service (could be at Windsor), Trooping and Ascot = 120 there already. Only another 30 'received xxxx' or less than 1 a week and she is easily at 150 with only being 'out and about' 7 times in the year. Not even a State Visit or Reception in my list.

 

[royal-blue]

150 is quite easy - she frequently does 8 or so audiences in a day now - with ambassadors and High Commissioners who are taking up their positions or relinquishing them.

150 = 20 such days now

Philip managed over 200 last year and he was out of action for nearly 4 months and his were out and about type engagements whereas 150 for The Queen where she meets with her PM 50 times a year and holds 12 council meetings along with meeting 50 Ambassadors/High Commissioners or other policitians, Maundy Service (could be at Windsor), Trooping and Ascot = 120 there already. Only another 30 'received xxxx' or less than 1 a week and she is easily at 150 with only being 'out and about' 7 times in the year. Not even a State Visit or Reception in my list.

Are there any CC figures available for the Queen Mum in her final few years?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes - but The Queen Mum was the Consort and not the monarch and so didn't need to do the above listed activities - many of which can't be handled over to Charles unless there is a formal Regency.

The Queen Mum did 62 engagements from her 98th to her 99th Birthdays and she, of course, was only ever the Consort to the monarch so can't be compared to her daughter but can only be compared to Philip.


41 of The Queen's current total of 82 engagements have been done inside BP or Sandringham where she has 'received' somebody or held and audience or a council meeting and these engagements will continue. Those 41 don't include 'receptions' or 'luncheons' inside BP such as the Luncheon with the new King and Queen of The Belgians.

The out and about engagements are the ones that she will continue to cut back.