The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes like you I think it would be a bad move to move on Anne and Sophie and Edward they are doing a great job, are very popular and it would look bad throwing your siblings out as you get the crown on your head.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Yes like you I think it would be a bad move to move on Anne and Sophie and Edward they are doing a great job, are very popular and it would look bad throwing your siblings out as you get the crown on your head.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community


In addition, ditching "ribbon-cutting events" is a bad move IMHO. One of the roles royals are expected to perform these days is to support local businesses and local communities. It is important then that they travel frequently around the country (or countries where they reign in the case of a plurinational monarchy like the British monarchy) and that they take up patronages of organizations not directly linked to charity per se. In fact, charity in itself is not a royal function and the royal family should not be reduced to a family of philanthropists.

I would also like the BRF to become more actively engaged in international organizations such as UN agencies in the way Belgian, Danish, Dutch and Swedish royals have been in recent years. I understand the British royals may face political constraints though, from the British government I mean, that may limit their ability to take up positions like the ones Mathilde, Maxima, May or Victoria have taken recently.
 
Last edited:
Internationally though, the BRF has always been focused on the Commonwealth rather than the UN, and on Commonwealth-based causes, like the Young Leaders, the Commonwealth Education Trust, Outward Bound and Duke of Edinburgh Award programmes, as well as military links within the Commonwealth. Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark and other European countries don't have that, and I don't think these can be ditched. The Commonwealth has always been extremely important to the Queen and presumably to Charles as well.
 
Last edited:
No doubt there will be changes under Charles. After 63+ years of the Queen, Charles will need to put his own stamp on things.
 
No doubt there will be changes under Charles. After 63+ years of the Queen, Charles will need to put his own stamp on things.

Who knows how long Charles will reign though ? Even assuming that he may reign for 20 years or so, which is not out of the realm of possibility, he would stil be in that scenario in a position where he would eventually reign at an age when he would be naturally forced to step back and let William gradually take over.
 
Who knows how long Charles will reign though ? Even assuming that he may reign for 20 years or so, which is not out of the realm of possibility, he would stil be in that scenario in a position where he would eventually reign at an age when he would be naturally forced to step back and let William gradually take over.

When you think about this though, what better training is there to be had for a future king-to-be? As for Charles, to paraphrase his own words. "He's been at it long enough". He's more than ready to be King. :D
 
The Queen won't abdicate and she may reign for years to come, so its a case of wait and see.

Given the BRF's attention to detail though, Charles and company will hit the ground running when the times comes.

William is actively involved with the Duchy of Cornwall and receiving regular briefings from the Cabinet Office on government business. I expect the transition to be seamless
 
Last edited:
I think it's very possible that Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward & Sophie, Kent's and Gloucester's will continue on with their charity work, but with the main focus on Charles's family.

It's true though, being Royal patron of hundreds of charities sounds impressive, but there's not much one can do for them. The younger royals are turning things around and have become more active and hands on with their small group of patronage's. You can't do that with hundreds of organizations. I think it's very possible that the Cambridge's and Harry and his future wife won't take up much of what The Queen and Prince Philip will leave behind.
 
Internationally though, the BRF has always been focused on the Commonwealth rather than the UN and on Commonwealth-based causes, like the Young Leaders, the Commonwealth Education Trust, Outward Bound and Duke of Edinburgh Award programmes, as well as military links within the Commonwealth. Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark and other European countries don't have that, and I don't think these can be ditched. The Commonwealth has always been extremely important to the Queen and presumably to Charles as well.

Adding to that would the government of the UK be open to that type of UN work being done by the BRF?
 
I think it's very possible that Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward & Sophie, Kent's and Gloucester's will continue on with their charity work, but with the main focus on Charles's family.

It's true though, being Royal patron of hundreds of charities sounds impressive, but there's not much one can do for them. The younger royals are turning things around and have become more active and hands on with their small group of patronage's. You can't do that with hundreds of organizations. I think it's very possible that the Cambridge's and Harry and his future wife won't take up much of what The Queen and Prince Philip will leave behind.

I actually don't think the Kents and Gloucesters will continue doing much work, although not because of any "slimming" down.

As it stands now, only 2 of the 5 Kents work, and both of them have had some fairly serious health problems in recent years. I don't think the Duke of Kent or Princess Alexandra will continue on for too much longer as it stands. As for the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke is in his 70s, the Duchess will be 70 this year. I think once their health starts to decline we'll see them slowly retire as well.
 
The Express is always coming up with crazy theories about Charles’ future reign. This one is from 2008.

EXCLUSIVE: Charles 'to rule at 65’ as Queen 'steps aside' | UK | News | Daily Express

Charles is now 67 and The Queen is still reigning so The Express must come-up with with a new fictional spin. The Queen didn't abdicate when they said she would so they have to come-up with a reason why, lest they look like liars. So now they're pushing the agenda that The Queen is afraid for Charles to takeover because of his drastic desires to change the monarchy. I call baloney.
 
Last edited:
If you have 1000 patronages, how many times will you see the Royal patron? One every 5 years? The Queen is patron of Wimbledon. She been there a couple of times in sixty years. How many of these patronage are just a token patronage and the Queen was asked just because she is the Queen not that she really has a interest in the patronage. We have seen Philip give up somethings such as chancellorships and some patronages. But not much from the Queen.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I think that the Express report is fair but I still don't agree with this obsession that Charles will automatically "cull" working royals.

The numbers will diminish over time and from a PR perspective, it would be a bad move for a new king.

The issue is financing the work. Is it right that HMQ should be using her own money to fund the junior royals offices/travel rather than public money? Charles (apparently) thinks it should be funded through Sovereign Grant. That would be an interesting debate.

There is nothing stopping any member of the royal family carrying out charitable work if that's what they want to do. Princess Beatrice does it.
 
Adding to that would the government of the UK be open to that type of UN work being done by the BRF?

They can but ask I suppose, but considering that Royal tours will continue in the foreseeable future to often far-flung parts of the Commonwealth, leaving whichever of the six family members is left in Britain with extra duties, I can't see them having much time to tackle UN projects as well.

If the realms do go and the Commonwealth then starts to fade in some major way, that might turn William/Kate or the young adult George in that direction. However Charles and the other members of the BRF have imbibed so much of the Queen's enthusiasm for the Commonwealth and commitment to it that I really can't see the UN replacing it in Charles's lifetime, quite frankly.
 
Last edited:
When you think about this though, what better training is there to be had for a future king-to-be? As for Charles, to paraphrase his own words. "He's been at it long enough". He's more than ready to be King. :D

If you think about it, Hillary Clinton is 68 (approximately one year older than Charles) and is running for POTUS, If she is elected, she will be 73 by the end of her first term and, if she is reelected, she will be 77 by the time she leaves the presidency. Nobody knows when Charles will ascend the throne, but, when he does, he may be in the same age bracket as a hypothetical "president Hillary". If that is acceptable for the POTUS, who actually has to run a country, it should be also for the British monarch, who is mostly a ceremonial figure.

One important difference though is that neither Hillary, nor probably any other future US president will ever have to serve as Head of State until his/her 80s or 90s, as Charles might have to do after he becomes king !
 
Last edited:
I hope this is all speculation. The royal family will slim down naturally anyways with the Kents and Gloucesters retiring from public eye as age and health over takes them. I don't think Charles will push his siblings out either. Edward is being groomed to take over the Duke of Edinburgh awards and I don't think Charles will eliminate the awards his father has spent so many years with and now Edward as well.


The role of the BRF is to represent the country but also support the charities. The queen alone has a 1000 patronages. You add up all those supported by her cousins, her kids and her children in law, and there is no way that Charles, his sons and daughter in laws could make a dent on them all, even when the kids are old enough. Yes, you wouldn't have to cover them all, but there are quite a few that have had royal patrons for generations an it would be a true loss to lose one now. It would cost Charles little to allow his nieces or someone to have a few and pay them for event that they do. The problem is if he slims it down right away, and they force people like Bea and Eug straight out of the RF, if the time comes they need them to pick up some slack they may not be willing or able. They may have been private citizens for so long they will not see any need. Better to give them a patronage or two for now, when the older royals are still involved, and with time see if they are needed more.
 
Last edited:
I think that the Express report is fair but I still don't agree with this obsession that Charles will automatically "cull" working royals.

The numbers will diminish over time and from a PR perspective, it would be a bad move for a new king.

The issue is financing the work. Is it right that HMQ should be using her own money to fund the junior royals offices/travel rather than public money? Charles (apparently) thinks it should be funded through Sovereign Grant. That would be an interesting debate.

There is nothing stopping any member of the royal family carrying out charitable work if that's what they want to do. Princess Beatrice does it.

My concern is that a core adult Royal Family consisting only of an aging Charles & Camilla, Wiliam & Kate, and Harry plus his (hypothetical) future wife seems too small to me for the amount of work the British royals do. The family would have to cut their workload quite substantially to accomodate such a drastic downsizing. Even Commonwealth tours, which are now strategic as republicanism gains strength in places like Australia, New Zealand and the Caribbean, might have to be cut down significantly.

When all is said and done, it looks to me like an unnecessary move considering that Charles' siblings and nieces will be available for the foreseeable future to do official royal work. Maybe Charles is leaking those ideas just to put pressure on the government to fund the junior royals, which would be politically disastrous IMHO.
 
Last edited:
I know the minor working royals are getting older, but I don't see Charles just cutting their work once he's King. I think he will allow them to continue on supporting their charities as long as they can. The main focus on the stage will be Charles's family though. Perhaps the whole family come together for major family events, but Charles & Camilla, the Cambridge's and Prince Harry and future wife should be the only principle players on the royal stage.
 
I see no problem with the Queen's cousins being pensioned off but it would be unwise to stop Charles' siblings continuing royal duties as they do so much.

Beatice and Eugenie will never be needed, but it is important to consider that the Queen and Phillip have 1300 royal patronages between them, many of which may be lost.
 
I don't think anyone who is currently working for the Firm will be asked to stop, especially as they are supported by The Queen due to that idea and she asked them to do so rather than have careers. The Kent's are both approaching or already in their 80s (Edward is 80 and Alexandra is 79). The Gloucester's are different - although Richard is first cousin to The Queen in age he is much closer to Charles being only 4 years older than him - more like a big brother (we know Charles look up to William as a 'big brother' so presumably he sees Richard in much the same way). It would be poor PR to suddenly throw away such loyal supporters. The same with his siblings - they will continue.

It is Beatrice and Eugenie who won't be needed. In time the family will reduce naturally. As far as tours to Commonwealth countries - they visit the republics in the Commonwealth as much as the monarchies. They respect the rights of the monarchies to say 'thanks but no thanks' as they have had to get used to doing it since 1947 when the majority of the countries of the Commonwealth have done just that. The Queen was Queen of over 50 nations at her accession and now it is down to 16. She kept visiting the republics as do her children and now her grandchildren.
 
The Queen's grandchildren are visiting the republics but when you really look at the visits there are many to the Caribbean, which is kinda irritating. Princess Royal went to the Caribbean for the Queens Jubilee and then approximately 12 months later Prince Harry went to the same nation for a royal visit (I can't remember which nation, just that it was in the Carrbbean.)

I do think certain royals abuse the priviledge to make royal visits. IMO
 
The Queen's grandchildren are visiting the republics but when you really look at the visits there are many to the Caribbean, which is kinda irritating. Princess Royal went to the Caribbean for the Queens Jubilee and then approximately 12 months later Prince Harry went to the same nation for a royal visit (I can't remember which nation, just that it was in the Carrbbean.)

I do think certain royals abuse the priviledge to make royal visits. IMO

I think its kind of hard for the royals, themselves, to abuse the privilege of royal visits because actually its not up to them. For an official royal visit to any country, they first and foremost have to be invited and then I believe it has to be approved by both the Queen and the government.

I'm sure that those that know more in depth on how this works will fill us in.
 
Royal visits are made in response to an official invitation from the host nation. If more invitations come from the Caribbean than other parts of the Commonwealth, that is not the fault of the Royal Family, and accepting the invitation is hardly an abuse of a "priviledge".
 
The Queen's grandchildren are visiting the republics but when you really look at the visits there are many to the Caribbean, which is kinda irritating. Princess Royal went to the Caribbean for the Queens Jubilee and then approximately 12 months later Prince Harry went to the same nation for a royal visit (I can't remember which nation, just that it was in the Carrbbean.)

I do think certain royals abuse the priviledge to make royal visits. IMO

there are 17 Caribbean islands that are within the Commonwealth. So which ones were they and did they repeat?
 
I think its kind of hard for the royals, themselves, to abuse the privilege of royal visits because actually its not up to them. For an official royal visit to any country, they first and foremost have to be invited and then I believe it has to be approved by both the Queen and the government.

I'm sure that those that know more in depth on how this works will fill us in.

Exactly.

The country to be visited sends in invitation to the UK asking for a royal to visit - either for a 'visit' or for a specific purpose.

Often with areas, such as the Caribbean, the nations near each other join together and send a combined invitation.

The British government then has to accept the invitation.

Once the invitation is accepted the Queen and the PM decides who to send.

It isn't a matter of the royal 'abusing their position' to visit as you say as they are simply accepting an invitation.

I am sure that often they would prefer to be at home with their own families rather than travelling around the world.
 
Every realm got a visit for the diamond jubilee. So it didn't matter if a Royal was there the year before. A Royal was going to visit because of the jubilee.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
The Queen's grandchildren are visiting the republics but when you really look at the visits there are many to the Caribbean, which is kinda irritating. Princess Royal went to the Caribbean for the Queens Jubilee and then approximately 12 months later Prince Harry went to the same nation for a royal visit (I can't remember which nation, just that it was in the Carrbbean.)

I do think certain royals abuse the priviledge to make royal visits. IMO


Canada typically gets 3 or 4 tours a year. The last time an entire year passed without at least 1 tour was 1972.

Some realms want many tours, or annual tours. Others do not. It's not the royals who decide it.
 
Although, the royals can make a suggestion on what country they would like to visit. They have they're own interest too.
 
Last edited:
It looks as if the speculation about a streamlined monarchy under Charles is correct, unless his palace contacts are lying through their teeth to Richard Palmer. He has reiterated to Cepe and to others that he's been told that the Jubilee balcony and Royal barge scenarios were no accidents.
 
Thanks for all the info on how royal visits are set up.

I stand corrected on the theorem that the royals abuse the priviledge.

This is a cool Forum!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom