Iluvbertie
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,460
- City
- Bathurst
- Country
- Australia
Going back through history:
Under Victoria the children didn't do much at all - and she was happy with that and objected often if the PoW did do things as it was seen as upstaging the monarch.
Under Edward VII - again he and his wife did the work with a little being done by the PoW and his wife but not much (George V's biographer refers to him spending his time gluing in stamps and shooting things as DoY and PoW)
George V changed things in the 1920s - why? After the fall of many European monarchies in 1918 he believed that his family had to be more visible to be relevant and so he started getting his sons and daughter and daughters-in-law working in charity etc. What would he have done with adult grandchildren we don't know as the eldest was still a child when he died and the eldest HRH was not even 10.
Again with George VI we don't know what use he would have made of adult grandchildren.
When The Queen became Queen she was short on workers - she had her Uncle Henry (not popular and had been close to a disaster as GG of Australia so had to be low key), her Aunts Alice and Marina who worked for her. She had to convince her mother to continue working. Her grandmother died just over a year into her reign. She also had a younger sister and cousin. Of course she also had her husband. So she started her reign with 7 workers but...they had to do very long tours of the Commonwealth and Empire and they were all doing heaps and heaps of things.
The Kent boys both went into the army and served for 20+ years each. The Gloucester boys took a different route with William going into the Civil Service and Richard into architecture. The belief was that the boys would have careers while the girls would work for the Firm. The exception was that the elder boy who would inherit the titles would take on a lot of duties in time with Richard having to ditch architecture when his older brother and father died so close together. About the same time the Duke of Kent also left the army but only after his 20 year career.
Anne didn't start working full-time until into the 1980s - after her equestrian career had ended - she did get involved in some charity work e.g. Save the Children during the 1970s but largely it was into the 1980s when she was a working royal and she was in her 30s. She regularly did around 600 a year but over the last few years is down to around 500 so already appears to be slowing down.
Charles was also nearly 30 when he was expected to take up full-time royal duties after university and the military. Charles has only regularly approaching 600 for the last 5 years and usually has been around 400-450.
Andrew had 20+ years in the navy before taking on a full-time role in his late 30s - remembering that he entered the navy straight from school and so still in his teens.
Edward also worked until into his late 30s before being asked to take on a full-load of royal duties in 2002.
The history therefore is there for the royals to actually have their 20s and even early 30s for themselves with it getting later and later before they have to devote themselves to royal duties.
William and Kate will be the same - late 30s to mid-40s I suspect as they won't be really needed for another decade or so to replace those older generation who are closing in on retiring.
Harry I suspect won't be full-time for another 20+ years and his wife never. I see a changing of the guard happening - living a real working life until 40+ and then working as a royal until 80ish so 20 years in the real world and 40 years of duty and small talk. I also see the spouse of any but the heir sticking to their own careers (assuming that they have had one which any self-respecting young woman or man would have these days).
Under Victoria the children didn't do much at all - and she was happy with that and objected often if the PoW did do things as it was seen as upstaging the monarch.
Under Edward VII - again he and his wife did the work with a little being done by the PoW and his wife but not much (George V's biographer refers to him spending his time gluing in stamps and shooting things as DoY and PoW)
George V changed things in the 1920s - why? After the fall of many European monarchies in 1918 he believed that his family had to be more visible to be relevant and so he started getting his sons and daughter and daughters-in-law working in charity etc. What would he have done with adult grandchildren we don't know as the eldest was still a child when he died and the eldest HRH was not even 10.
Again with George VI we don't know what use he would have made of adult grandchildren.
When The Queen became Queen she was short on workers - she had her Uncle Henry (not popular and had been close to a disaster as GG of Australia so had to be low key), her Aunts Alice and Marina who worked for her. She had to convince her mother to continue working. Her grandmother died just over a year into her reign. She also had a younger sister and cousin. Of course she also had her husband. So she started her reign with 7 workers but...they had to do very long tours of the Commonwealth and Empire and they were all doing heaps and heaps of things.
The Kent boys both went into the army and served for 20+ years each. The Gloucester boys took a different route with William going into the Civil Service and Richard into architecture. The belief was that the boys would have careers while the girls would work for the Firm. The exception was that the elder boy who would inherit the titles would take on a lot of duties in time with Richard having to ditch architecture when his older brother and father died so close together. About the same time the Duke of Kent also left the army but only after his 20 year career.
Anne didn't start working full-time until into the 1980s - after her equestrian career had ended - she did get involved in some charity work e.g. Save the Children during the 1970s but largely it was into the 1980s when she was a working royal and she was in her 30s. She regularly did around 600 a year but over the last few years is down to around 500 so already appears to be slowing down.
Charles was also nearly 30 when he was expected to take up full-time royal duties after university and the military. Charles has only regularly approaching 600 for the last 5 years and usually has been around 400-450.
Andrew had 20+ years in the navy before taking on a full-time role in his late 30s - remembering that he entered the navy straight from school and so still in his teens.
Edward also worked until into his late 30s before being asked to take on a full-load of royal duties in 2002.
The history therefore is there for the royals to actually have their 20s and even early 30s for themselves with it getting later and later before they have to devote themselves to royal duties.
William and Kate will be the same - late 30s to mid-40s I suspect as they won't be really needed for another decade or so to replace those older generation who are closing in on retiring.
Harry I suspect won't be full-time for another 20+ years and his wife never. I see a changing of the guard happening - living a real working life until 40+ and then working as a royal until 80ish so 20 years in the real world and 40 years of duty and small talk. I also see the spouse of any but the heir sticking to their own careers (assuming that they have had one which any self-respecting young woman or man would have these days).
Last edited:
Second that. Beautifully summed up history. Gives a good perspective. 
