The Monarchy under Charles

[AdmirerUS]

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.

And why compare? She was her own woman and earned her keep. Her war work alone sets her apart. I suppose some would rather see her in block housing to end her days.

 

[Iluvbertie]

And why compare? She was her own woman and earned her keep. Her war work alone sets her apart. I suppose some would rather see her in block housing to end her days.

I was replying to a question that came out of the discussion about how many engagement we could expect The Queen to be doing in 10 years time.

I suggested 150 and Royal-Blue said that they couldn't see The Queen doing 150 at 98 and then asked if the figures were available for The Queen Mother so I went and counted the figures for TQM at 98 but felt it necessary to point out that comparing the figures for TQM at 98 with HMTQ at 98 would be unfair as their roles were different and that Philip was the one with whom TQM should be compared as their roles are/were the same - the consort.

If people are going to make comparisons - and many do (I remember being asked for the 'league table' on the engagements thread as many people like to compare who is doing more than others) then at least compare like with like.

The Queen Mum was the consort and Philip is the consort and thus those two are comparable. Philip's war work was also exceptional - he risked his life in battle while The Queen Mum went about her work on the Home Front.

 

[Roslyn]

150 engagements a year at the age of 98?

My mother died last year at the age of 98. She was in extremely good health for a person that age and did not have dementia but by 98 most people just aren't capable of doing very much. If in her last year Mum had had the sort of care and resources that are available to HM, I imagine it would have been possible to get her up and dressed and into a car and taken off to a nice morning tea or lunch somewhere for an hour or two every couple of days, but why be so cruel to her? Just being taken to an appointment with a specialist tired my mother out terribly and since she was quite deaf it was difficult to have a conversation with her.

If HM is in a similar condition at that age I can't imagine her being able to do much more than hand-shaking and smiling and making pleasant conversation with a selected group of people, and I imagine this is the sort of thing that QEtWM did. I certainly can't imagine HM delivering speeches at 98, and if she was still managing to read her way through those red boxes I don't think it would be reasonable to expect her to be wheeled out to some engagement or other every two or three days as well.

No, by the age of 98 I don't think HM will be able to be counted on to do 150 engagements per year, and I don't think she should even be encouraged to do so. If she's still with us then, just let her sit in the sun and watch TV in peace.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen Mother was still attending luncheons and receptions as well as receiving a variety of people.

The Queen will still be expected to read her boxes, meet weekly with the PM (there are c 50 of my 150 engagements by the way), attend 12 council meetings a year - up to 62, attend Garter, Trooping, Thistle and Ascot (another 5 - allowing her to only go to Ascot 2 times rather than 5 now) and Epsom plus receiving in audience - meet, shake hands with and small talk for about 10 minutes at a time - 50 ambassadors/high commissioners and we are at 120 or so quite easily.

This is NOT having her go outside BP for the most part but have the people come to her and if she can't do that then she will have to abdicate as only she can do this stuff and it is really the important part of her job.

Attending Garden Parties in BP or Receptions and Luncheons is also possible - and could easily add another 20 - 30 with again not actually leaving home.

 

[Roslyn]

I'd hate to see her unable to perform her job competently. I hope she doesn't linger on past the point she can do her boxes and discharge her other duties. I hope she dies quietly in her sleep one night after a happy day spent with family and friends, maybe after one of her horses has won a Group 1 race.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Totally agree Roslyn.

 

[SElizabeth]

N. 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).

Your insight into the cost of a royal and an elected member as president or a member of congress sure has hit the nail on the head for me. If people here in the US would just take a damn good look at all the perks and freebies that these people get it would shock the hell out of them and the elected officials they put in office. It just isn't the president who gets the perks, it's his entire family on both side, wife's and his, our elected congress all think they are kings in their own little minds and they rob the people of America blind and we (some of us) let them......they get way more money then the king of Belgium gets to live on, and the perks, how I wish I had their medical insurance so I could go to the doctor's when needed, yet they want to take more medical (medicare) off the people that are seniors, our govenors in our states, that is another whole story in itself, in fact in Illinois, most of the goveres have been or still are in prison for corruption and dirty money............I just had to comment because if I could I would vote them all out of office and start with some *REAL AMERICANS* that want to fix this country, but no, come election the same old crap will be elected in again and again and again.......and one vote doesn't mean much anymore. Sad state of affairs in this country........and the rich men in this country have come out and said :stop complaining poor people, you have it good here.............wish he was in the shoes of the homeless families that are out of their homes all because of the crooked banks and companies. And the list could go on forever and still no body listens in my government!

 

[SElizabeth]

Sorry doe my RANT about the cost of the so called royals here in America. I think the European royals are way more self conscious in doing a job for the people then my government and they cost less also. As for Charles, I don't think he will kick the members of the Firm to the curb, he needs them because he can't to everything and be everywhere at the same time..........not enough of him to go around even if his children get more involved.

 

[Osipi]

Not to hijack the thread from Charles by any means but had to throw this in.

People were complaining about William and Kate's $10,000 Maldive vacation for four days which they paid for themselves. Today on the news its been stated that Michele Obama's Chinese suite is costing the American taxpayers $8,400 a night. Hmmm.. No contest. American politicians are far more expensive than any royal family in my eyes. Anyways, back to Charles and the monarchy.

HM has always been known to be quite frugal when it comes to spending and never has seemed to me to be one focused on the lavish type of lifestyle. She is most happiest in the country I think. Charles is like his mother in this respect I think. He prefers the solitude of the Scottish countryside over the glitz and glimmer of the playgrounds of the rich and famous. I do think, however, when it comes to financial matters and how they should be managed, he has more business acumen than his mother does and I do think he'll make this a focus when he becomes the monarch. He will run a tight ship and some of the perks that some of the working royals have become accustomed to may be curtailed. Andrew is the first one to come to mind in this respect. I can see Charles perhaps pulling the purse strings tighter and telling Andrew if he must present himself so lavishly, its out of his own pocket. I don't see him actually putting the freeze out on anyone that has served the Crown but he'll be astute enough to know where the unnecessary spending is.

Other than that, I don't think much in the monarchy will change. He's been understudying his mother for far too long and knows how it worked for her and well.... if it ain't broke, you don't fix it.

 

[padams2359]

Perks and security for the royal family pale in comparison to the cost of the current first family, and all living past first families. I think Charles will let the existing wording of LPs let the HRHs go by the way side. Anne's children are not HRHs, Edward and Andrew's grandchildren will not be HRHs. QE2 has been on the thrown for 60+ years, but keep in mind, from 1900 to 1953, 5 different monarchs sat on the thrown. The RF expands and contracts. KG5 had 6 children, KG6 had 2, with one passing on no HRHs. QE2 has 4 with one passing on no HRHs. The 2 with 1 generation down having HRH are 2 each. It is a self cleaning system. It is the years of no changes that has people talking. I think Charles may go to a pay per appearance system, but I don't think he will mess with the titles.

 

[Spheno]

Charles may go to a pay per appearance system, but I don't think he will mess with the titles.

I don't understand what " pay per appearance" means. Royals don't receive any payment for their job. The queen only cover their working expenses.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Queen Mother was still attending luncheons and receptions as well as receiving a variety of people.

The Queen will still be expected to read her boxes, meet weekly with the PM (there are c 50 of my 150 engagements by the way), attend 12 council meetings a year - up to 62, attend Garter, Trooping, Thistle and Ascot (another 5 - allowing her to only go to Ascot 2 times rather than 5 now) and Epsom plus receiving in audience - meet, shake hands with and small talk for about 10 minutes at a time - 50 ambassadors/high commissioners and we are at 120 or so quite easily.

This is NOT having her go outside BP for the most part but have the people come to her and if she can't do that then she will have to abdicate as only she can do this stuff and it is really the important part of her job.

Attending Garden Parties in BP or Receptions and Luncheons is also possible - and could easily add another 20 - 30 with again not actually leaving home.

If the Queen can't do her duties, she isn't going to abdicate but Charles would act as regent. She is an anointed monarch and to her that means dying as the monarch.

As time goes on, the Kents and Gloucester will stop royal duties either by illness, death or retirement. It will then be. The monarch Charles , his direct family and his brothers and sister as the working royals. The same thing for William, his children and his brother.

 

[Lumutqueen]

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

So that knocks the list down to 11 overseas territories compared to the 2 Denmark has. Would you like me to clarify anything else I've written?

If the Queen can't do her duties, she isn't going to abdicate but Charles would act as regent. She is an anointed monarch and to her that means dying as the monarch. .

Yes, but if The Queen can't do any of the duties she's supposed to I can quite easily see her abdicating in favour of her son who can serve his country. The Queen might see herself dying as monarch but I believe she understands what "Serving her country" means and if she's incapable of doing that, then why stay Monarch?

 

[royal-blue]

A genuine question to those who support a large family of royals carrying out royal duties: When the Queen and DofE have gone, would you then like to see Beatrice and Eugenie wheeled out, perhaps even Prince and Princess Michael to become full time royals to share the workload?

 

[Victorian-Dandy]

A genuine question to those who support a large family of royals carrying out royal duties: When the Queen and DofE have gone, would you then like to see Beatrice and Eugenie wheeled out, perhaps even Prince and Princess Michael to become full time royals to share the workload?

Personally I would like to see that happen but only because I'm rather fond of Prince and Princess Michael.

 

[Lumutqueen]

A genuine question to those who support a large family of royals carrying out royal duties: When the Queen and DofE have gone, would you then like to see Beatrice and Eugenie wheeled out, perhaps even Prince and Princess Michael to become full time royals to share the workload?

If Beatrice and Eugenie choose to join "The Firm" either full or part time (personally I don't think you can be a part time royal and do something else) and are comfortable with what they're going to take on, then I have no issues with that. The more representation the royal family gets the better as far as I'm concerned.

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent aren't going to become full time royals, they're not even part time royals now. They get no mention in the Court Circular nor in the Search Future Engagements section of the BRF website.

 

[wyevale]

The more representation the royal family gets the better as far as I'm concerned.

I absolutely agree - they represent [and help to further] a longer term vision in our country, unfettered by '5 year election plans'.

 

[royal-blue]

If Beatrice and Eugenie choose to join "The Firm" either full or part time (personally I don't think you can be a part time royal and do something else) and are comfortable with what they're going to take on, then I have no issues with that. The more representation the royal family gets the better as far as I'm concerned.

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent aren't going to become full time royals, they're not even part time royals now. They get no mention in the Court Circular nor in the Search Future Engagements section of the BRF website.

Royals who are married to Catholics are set to rejoin the line of succession so they will be eligible to become working royals, although i don't know how they would feel about this change.

 

[VictoriaB]

Royals who are married to Catholics are set to rejoin the line of succession so they will be eligible to become working royals, although i don't know how they would feel about this change.

But Prince Michael wasn't a working Royal before his marriage so the religious issues have nothing at all to do with his status.

 

[Osipi]

A genuine question to those who support a large family of royals carrying out royal duties: When the Queen and DofE have gone, would you then like to see Beatrice and Eugenie wheeled out, perhaps even Prince and Princess Michael to become full time royals to share the workload?

In the future, I do see Beatrice and Eugenie doing their royal duties but as they are now. Their own personal charities and patronages that they've chosen because they want to and not because they're working for the "Firm". Just because they won't be "full time working royals" doesn't necessarily mean that these girls cannot or will not do charity work. We have to remember too that these two women have yet to marry and start their family if that's what they want to do. These two also have the freedom to pursue whatever career they want to also. Out of all the royals, I think Beatrice and Eugenie have the best of both worlds.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Royals who are married to Catholics are set to rejoin the line of succession so they will be eligible to become working royals, although i don't know how they would feel about this change.

I wasn't aware that being married to a roman catholic prevented you from being a working royal, oops because it doesn't! Check out Prince Michael's diary.....http://www.princemichael.org.uk/diary/archive/.

 

[royal-blue]

I wasn't aware that being married to a roman catholic prevented you from being a working royal, oops because it doesn't! Check out Prince Michael's diary.....His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent: Diary Archive.

No but he wasn't eligible for civil list payments after marriage so wouldn't have received payment for carrying out royal engagements so had to make his own living.

But Prince Michael wasn't a working Royal before his marriage so the religious issues have nothing at all to do with his status.

Aah but Anne, Edward and Andrew weren't working royals until marriage either, so we don't know that Michael wouldn't have also become a working royal if he had married a non-Catholic.

 

[Ish]

Prince Michael isn't a working royal by his own choice, not because he's not "eligible" due to his exclusion from the line of succession.

As the younger son of a younger son of the monarch, Michael was never expected to take up royal duties and instead pursued his own career (in the military). Similarly, the Duke of Gloucester and Princess Alexandra wouldn't have normally been expected to take up royal duties, and both did pursue other career options (architecture and nursing, respectively), before life happened.

The Duke of Gloucester was the younger son of a younger son and only became expected to be a full time royal when first his elder brother, then his father died in the early 70s.

Alexandra was enlisted into royal duties following the death of King George VI, as there were so few royals who could undertake duties at the time. It's for this reason that I wouldn't be surprised if, at least during William's reign, Beatrice ended up taking up royal duties. By then, all of the royals who currently do full time engagements now will either be dead or retiring, while there likely won't have been a large increase in the number of royals to compensate.

 

[Cris M]

I think Princess Beatrice is much more willing than Princess Eugenie to become a working royal. I think at least one of them will be necessary for the Firm in due time.

One day, someone will needed to "replace" Princess Alexandra, and I think Princess Beatrice is the most indicated to do that.

 

[Molly2101]

Aah but Anne, Edward and Andrew weren't working royals until marriage either, so we don't know that Michael wouldn't have also become a working royal if he had married a non-Catholic.

Did Anne, Andrew and Edward not perform Royal duties before marriage? Edward only married in 1999 so he was doing royal duties long before that. He had his own business, yes, but that wasn't until the 90's.

In answer to another posters question earlier - I do not want to see Beatrice and Eugenie become working Royals. I think they deserve to have their own life and create their own paths in life, the way Louise and James are going to do, and the way Peter and Zara have.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Just for everyone's information what are the ages of the current working royals?

The Queen - 87 - (88 next month)
The Duke of Edinburgh - 92
The Prince of Wales - 65
The Duchess of Cornwall - 66
The Duke of Cambridge - 30
The Duchess of Cambridge - 31
Prince Henry - 28
The Duke of York - 54
The Earl of Wessex - 50
The Countess of Wessex - 49
The Princess Royal - 63
The Duke of Gloucester - 69
The Duchess of Gloucester - 68
The Duke of Kent - 78
Princess Alexandra - 77

The reason why I have done this is that I think there are people who assume that the Gloucester's are of similar ages to the Queen and the Kent's when in fact they are far closer to Charles and Camilla's ages than to their own generation so they will be around for as long as Charles and Camilla in all likelihood.

There are currently

90s - 1
80s - 1
70s - 2
60s - 5
50s - 2
40s - 1
30s - 2
20s - 1


It is therefore clear that the number of royals carrying out duties will clearly drop over time if there are no additions to those currently listed when doing solo engagements.

Michael, Beatrice and Eugenie are listed in the CC when they accompany someone or represent one of the above e.g. early this month Beatrice represented her father at a funeral and also accompanied him to the service for David Frost but she doesn't get a mention when she carries out charity work.

 

[Osipi]

One day, someone will needed to "replace" Princess Alexandra, and I think Princess Beatrice is the most indicated to do that.

Perhaps we've been focusing too much on who is doing the workload and not the workload itself. It may very well be possible that it will be the workload itself that will be changing rather than the list of who is a full time working royal.

Just a thought.

 

[RoyalDaisy]

Did Anne, Andrew and Edward not perform Royal duties before marriage? Edward only married in 1999 so he was doing royal duties long before that. He had his own business, yes, but that wasn't until the 90's.

In answer to another posters question earlier - I do not want to see Beatrice and Eugenie become working Royals. I think they deserve to have their own life and create their own paths in life, the way Louise and James are going to do, and the way Peter and Zara have.

It wont be exactly the same for young James - in time he will become Duke of Edinburgh and will carry the history that goes with it; and I think he will to be a Trustee at least of the DoE scheme in whatever guise it is at the time.

The same applies to many of the patronages that the "working royals" currently undertake. There is nothing to stop the children of the Kents and Gloucesters, for example, continuing the work of their parents. It just would not be a royal patronage.

 

[Molly2101]

It wont be exactly the same for young James - in time he will become Duke of Edinburgh and will carry the history that goes with it; and I think he will to be a Trustee at least of the DoE scheme in whatever guise it is at the time.

That's true actually - I had forgotten about that title eventually going to James. He will of course have a small public life when he is representing this organisation. I suppose he will feel obliged to actually do his DoE award because of his future title.

Anywho, back on topic.

 

[Lumutqueen]

No but he wasn't eligible for civil list payments after marriage so wouldn't have received payment for carrying out royal engagements so had to make his own living.

Prince Michael carries out engagements on behalf of The Queen, therefore he is a working royal. Payment or no payment, married to a catholic or not, he is a working royal.

Aah but Anne, Edward and Andrew weren't working royals until marriage either, so we don't know that Michael wouldn't have also become a working royal if he had married a non-Catholic.

Your point is mute, there is no eligibility for royal engagements based upon the faith of the person you marry as evident by Prince Michael carrying out engagements.