The Monarchy under Charles

[RoyalHighness 2002]

By the way, the Daily Mail article in this whole subject has over 4,00 comments. O bet at least 1,000 are rubbish but that is definitely a lot for an article about Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

[Rudolph]

Two things. I do believe Andrew wants his children to have a bigger role within the family and I do believe the powers (The Queen, Charles and William) aren't receptive to this.

A lot of the details are rumour but I do believe the core of the story to be true.

 

[tommy100]

I don't think for a minute 'everyone' has a problem with Beatrice or Eugenie, they do actually seem nice girls, yes some will dislike them for their clothes, parents etc, i think most just simply don't agree with more royals doing things that require public funding. Unfortunately they are unique in that they are the only ones of their generation whom this (much bigger) issue effects - Zara and Peter don't have royal titles and have other 'jobs', Louise and James are too young but even so their parents seem to have made the decision (in regards to their titles at least) to play down the HRH aspects. A lot changed between the York girls and the Wessex kids being born but clearly the Wessex way is more in line with a smaller monarchy and some say a more modern monarchy, sadly the Yorks seem to be the only ones who can't see it.

 

[duke of poliganc]

the situation of the yorks remind me of prince alexander of Belgium

in a May 2008 interview with Point de Vue, Alexander's wife noted,

"...the children of the second marriage of King Leopold -- Prince Alexandre, the Princesses Maria Esmeralda and Marie-Christine -- have been raised in a certain manner: Prince and Princesses of Belgium, accorded the style of Royal Highness, yet excluded from the succession to the throne.
Alexandre received a very solid intellectual education...He waited to assume some official responsibilities. They never came "

 

[sndral]

It seems to me that the nature of Royal duties has changed in the last generation or two. I've recently read a number of biographies about various members of the Royal family in the last couple of generations and one thing that struck me was the multi-month royal tours they used to take. These days a 2 week tour is a long one unlike days of old when members of the family were away from the UK for several months. So with the core members only doing abbreviated foreign tours they are available to do more work in the UK.
The fact that when he married Edward was expecting to work privately as was Sophie suggests that even then the plan was to not further enlarge the core Royals. Since Edward & Sophie have been added to the Royals who work for the firm they along with Andrew are in position to replace the aging Kents/Gloucesters until such time as George and Charlotte and Harry's children are of age.

 

[Mirabel]

A lot changed between the York girls and the Wessex kids being born but clearly the Wessex way is more in line with a smaller monarchy and some say a more modern monarchy, sadly the Yorks seem to be the only ones who can't see it.

I don't think Andrew will ever see it.
He seems to have the strongest sense of entitlement of any of the Queen's children (perhaps because he has always been accorded the role of the favorite child).

He simply can't comprehend that he won't always get his way.

I think all this is happening now because Andrew wants to have a fait accumpli before the Queen is gone and Charles succeeds. He knows Charles will not be as receptive to Andrew's desires as his mother has been.

 

[duke of poliganc]

Prince Charles 'blocks Prince Andrew's request for Beatrice and Eugenie's royal roles' | Daily Mail Online
i think it's unfair for the yorks imagine your self being called doctor all your life by all the peopel who surround you and getting the education to be a doctor but after u finished your study they say to you we got enough doctors so we aren't gonna need u and then critc you because u are not working as an engineer !!
if charles would like to slim the working royal family he should start with the next generation the wessex's and the princess royal children wasn't expected to be working royals but the yorks were expected to be .
why don't you let them do the job that they were groomed for and are ready to do it when u are begging the second in line to the throne and his spouse to be a full time working royal the princess royal do royal engagements every year more than what the cambridge's done in the last 5 years combined i read somewhere someone wrote that we are only seeing our third and fourth in line to the throne on a oversea visit to another country .
i think that the yorks if they are giving the chance would be would be on the same pass as princess anne and alexandra .

 

[Osipi]

As it stands now, Beatrice and Eugenie never were intended to become working royals at all. Its never been part of the plan. William and Harry both were in the military for years and after Will's wedding, they were never expected to be full time working royals and Will works with air ambulance. Harry just left the military about a year ago. All three have really been upping their engagements lately and it is expected that William and Kate will soon step into their roles as full time royals which will be their focus for the rest of their lives.

You do realize that when stating that we're seeing the third and fourth in line to the throne doing overseas visits, although its true, George and Charlotte actually had their parents with them on the tour of Canada.

Seriously though, I think if there was any chance of the York girls were ever going to work for the "Firm", it would have become a reality before now.

 

[duke of poliganc]

You do realize that when stating that we're seeing the third and fourth in line to the throne doing overseas visits, although its true, George and Charlotte actually had their parents with them on the tour of Canada.

the one i was quoting is saying that we get to see George and Charlotte on overseas visit more than seeing them in the country they are third and fourth in line to it's throne .

an telling the yorks when they were 25 and 23 that they aren't gonna be a working royals isn't that good heads up

 

[Skippyboo]

The 3rd and 4th to throne are also toddlers. The general Canadian public wasn't the airport arrival or the invite only kids party so they only place they could see the kids in person was at the seaplane departure. So 1 opportunity in Canada, 1 UK opportunity on BP balcony.

It's not like the UK has no media or internet service and could not see the pictures and videos that they rest of the world did. Don't worry the kids will get older and do way more stuff in the U.K. than they will ever to do overseas.

I highly doubt that Beatrice and Eugenie were just recently told that they wouldn't be full time royals.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[miss whirley]

an telling the yorks when they were 25 and 23 that they aren't gonna be a working royals isn't that good heads up

Why do you think they were only told in 2013? Beatrice graduated in 2011, and at the time there were articles talking about how Beatrice was begrudgingly job hunting because she knew her future wasn't in the family firm.

The plan to streamline the monarchy has been talked about since the '90s. A 10 second Google search, and I found an article written in 1996 talking about it. Here it is-

Queen Mulls Reforms for Monarchy | News | The Moscow Times

LONDON -- Queen Elizabeth is contemplating making the royal family pay its own way and ditching ancient laws that make it harder for women to inherit the throne and forbid the British monarch marrying a Roman Catholic.


In a bid to modernize the tarnished image of the monarchy, the queen and her senior advisers have been looking at a range of options aimed at ensuring its survival into the 21st century.


Buckingham Palace on Monday confirmed newspaper reports that the queen had set up a strategic policy committee in the wake of what she described as her "annus horribilis" (horrible year). That was 1992, when the marriages of two of her sons collapsed and the high-spending, tax-free lifestyle of the royal family came under attack.


"One of the reasons the monarchy has lasted for over 1,000 years is that it is able to adapt and change as necessary, whilst retaining the enduring public support it enjoys," a palace spokeswoman said.


The committee is headed by the queen, her husband Prince Philip and the heir to the throne, Prince Charles. It meets twice a year for what royal-watchers call a "brainstorming session."


Buckingham Palace declined to give details. Newspapers said the reforms under consideration would include axing the state's 8.7 million pound ($13.5 million) annual payments to the royal family to make it financially self-supporting.


The royal family would also be streamlined, cutting out cousins and other distant relatives widely seen by the public as expensive "hangers-on" living off taxpayers money.


The committee is reported to be examining 11th-century rules which give priority to male children over girls in the right to succeed to the throne, and a 295-year-old ban on the British monarch marrying a Catholic.


The ban on marrying Catholics was enshrined in 1701 in a bid to prevent Papal interference in English life but it does not apply to any other religion and is now seen as offensive.


"The surprising thing is that it has not happened before. The heir to the throne can marry a Buddhist, a Jew, or a Moslem, but not a Catholic," said Catholic writer William Oddie.


I'd say 8-year-old Beatrice and 6-year-old Eugenie were given plenty of notice.

 

[Mirabel]

I'd say 8-year-old Beatrice and 6-year-old Eugenie were given plenty of notice.

I'm not so sure; I remember when a grown Beatrice accompanied Andrew on a visit to another country and he said he saw no reason why Beatrice should NOT be given royal duties. (He said something about how that would lessen his own burden).

So, plans may have been for a diminished monarchy, but I don't believe the Yorks ever considered that it would apply to them.

 

[Skippyboo]

It took some time but a lot of the things in that article did happen- equal primogeniture and removal of the Catholic marriage ban. We will probably see the Gloucesters and Kents retire from public duties in the next couple of years.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Skippyboo]

I'm not so sure; I remember when a grown Beatrice accompanied Andrew on a visit to another country and he said he saw no reason why Beatrice should NOT be given royal duties. (He said something about how that would lessen his own burden).

So, plans may have been for a diminished monarchy, but I don't believe the Yorks ever considered that it would apply to them.

Andrew can think what ever he wants about what his daughters should be able to do. However, he isn't in control of the money. That would be his mother and then his brother.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Rudolph]

I think the sticking point is over an 'official role' within the family. Andrew is very status conscious and he appears to want an equal footing with the Cambridges and Harry

The Monarchy under Charles will see his family front and centre but that doesn't mean other royals won't be called on to help out when needed.

 

[Queen Claude]

Speaking of money, I guess the formula that funds the current set up will have to be adapted for the streamlined monarchy under Charles and eventually William.

 

[Winnie]

I think the sticking point is over an 'official role' within the family. Andrew is very status conscious and he appears to want an equal footing with the Cambridges and Harry

The Monarchy under Charles will see his family front and centre but that doesn't mean other royals won't be called on to help out when needed.

Deep down I believe you are correct. Andrew has always been happy with his status of being a Prince and its perks, which is fine. But I believe he now sees that he will probably be made less important in the eyes of the public and RF for important duties. There are too many coming up in family who the public would rather see. He also sees how his life has turned out. From being the most handsome of the young BR to the only one without a now happy married life and happy families. His two brothers and sister have mellowed with their home lives being practically the way they want them. Andrew actually has nothing of the kind. Which at day's end is a tad lonely. Some of his recent photos [when not posed] shows Andrew frowning, almost bitter. I sincerely hope not. As a father, Andrew feels his daughters are just as important as his siblings children. But, even the queen must not be so sure of their public roles or else she would have done so years ago. The Yorks saw the writing on the wall back at least 10 years. They just didn't want to admit. JMO

 

[Winnie]

Speaking of money, I guess the formula that funds the current set up will have to be adapted for the streamlined monarchy under Charles and eventually William.

Of course it will. I don't see that as a problem. Every one of the young Royals have quite a lot of money in their own right through inheritances and good investing. Read Forbes reports on the royals of all countries some day. Extremely interesting. Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Anne and Edward would never have to "work" another day in their lives and still maintain a lifestyle above most all in this world. I don't believe money is the driving force of the eventual downsizing. It is practicality and common sense. Anne saw this years ago when she wanted her children out of the merry-go-round and encouraged them to go after a life style removed from it all. I believe Edward will encourage his children to do the same. Sure, they will always be born of a queen, but their own children will enjoy a happier life. IMO

 

[cepe]

Speaking of money, I guess the formula that funds the current set up will have to be adapted for the streamlined monarchy under Charles and eventually William.

The funding has nothing to do with the number of working royals.

HMQ gets 15% of the net profit from Crown Estates (although this funding level is due for review next yr). This pays not only for royal staff but also maintenance of royal palaces. She also has income from Duchy of Lancaster.

she decides who does royal duties and pays to support their offices (excl PoW and family).

If there were less royals then repairs and maintenance of royal palaces could be speeded up.

Where savings would be made is on security.

 

[Skippyboo]

No Royal is getting paid for doing an engagement. William didn't make £500 for himself by showing up at Stirling Castle. However doing that engagement costs money- travel costs, staffing, security etc..

As Cepe mentioned there is a huge backlog of royal palace maintenance. When the Queen passes, that would be the ideal time to tackle the issues of BP. Charles and Camilla can stay at Clarence House until the BP repairs are done.

If the Gloucester and Kents retire from public duties or cut down their schedules to occasion duty, Charles is then only financing the activities of Anne, Andrew, Edward, Sophie plus himself and Camilla. William could possibly carry Harry on the Duchy of Cornwall money while he is single and the kids are little for the initial early part of the reign and in time Harry gets separated from William's household and goes under Charles's financial support.

The money from less royals and less engagements gets directed towards the repair backlog on the palaces.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

In all the discussion over the years of the royal family downsizing, the only person that has kind of come up fighting to be heard and keeps on plugging his POV about it is Andrew. Not once, in any of the articles and statements, has it ever been mentioned why. Its "Charles kids will overshadow the blood princesses" or "they are on equal footing with the rest of the family" or whatever statement you look at, there is no explanation given that would denote the York girls being good for the Firm.

The British Royal Family or as fondly known as the "Firm" has alway run like clockwork because they've always worked together as a team. I believe a lot of what Andrew demands and pushes for stems from the "I" as in "I want".

I, also, have never read anything from Beatrice and Eugenie themselves hinting to be included in the "Firm". There has been a lot printed about these girls over the years but never in the context that they're severely disappointed that they do not have a planned role in the family business.

In a nutshell, to me, this is a case of one person in the family coming up with "I want" whereas the rest of the family works together as a team. This reflects on Andrew's character far more than it does on the "Firm".

 

[maria-olivia]

Princess Anne did not want a tittle for her Chlldren and they have happy and interesting lifes without working for the team.

 

[loonytick]

We will probably see the Gloucesters and Kents retire from public duties in the next couple of years.

We're already seeing at least the initial stages in their retirement and in the Queen and Prince Phillip's slowing down. One of the Duke of Kent's biggest public roles, patron of Wimbledon, is being handed over to the Duchess of Cambridge; Phillip handed over his post with the RAF cadets to her, too. That's got to be as much about them ratcheting down their responsibilities as it is about giving her more honors.

Whatever conversations have happened over the last couple of decades, whatever plans were made in that time, this stage of handing over the retiring members' responsibilities is the moment for last minute maneuvering by everyone involved to try and determine what actually happens in this generational shift. If there's any truth to the perception of the Yorks as being hungry for a formal role, Andrew has to have seen this moment of large-scale handover as a last chance to at least get his daughters enough "royal work" to protect them against any future complaints that they don't really merit palace apartments. At the same time, I can't help but wonder if William and Harry might justify their slugishness in taking on patronages as a way of leaving plenty of room on their dance cards, so to speak, for the roles that will surely be passed on to them soon. And if they are clearly available to take on plenty of work that others are retiring, then there's less of an argument to adjust the plan to carve out a role for Bea and Eug.

 

[Osipi]

Next up: Daily Mail headline. Andrew Seeing Blood Red

"In a fit of rage over his daughters being overlooked by the British Royal Family, Sebastian Shakespeare can now tell you Andrew has threatened to remove himself and his family from the UK permanently in a fit of pique of his daughters not being treated as due their station as blood princesses".

Sounds like something Andrew would do eh?


THIS IS A JOKE AND NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS IT IS ALL MY OWN IMAGINATION.

 

[Mirabel]

Next up: Daily Mail headline. Andrew Seeing Blood Red

"In a fit of rage over his daughters being overlooked by the British Royal Family, Sebastian Shakespeare can now tell you Andrew has threatened to remove himself and his family from the UK permanently in a fit of pique of his daughters not being treated as due their station as blood princesses".

Sounds like something Andrew would do eh?


THIS IS A JOKE AND NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS IT IS ALL MY OWN IMAGINATION.

Charles would buy them plane tickets!

 

[Mbruno]

Next up: Daily Mail headline. Andrew Seeing Blood Red

"In a fit of rage over his daughters being overlooked by the British Royal Family, Sebastian Shakespeare can now tell you Andrew has threatened to remove himself and his family from the UK permanently in a fit of pique of his daughters not being treated as due their station as blood princesses".

Sounds like something Andrew would do eh?


THIS IS A JOKE AND NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS IT IS ALL MY OWN IMAGINATION.

In the good old Victorian age, they would be both nicely married by now to some continental European royal, or at least a very wealthy British peer or heir to a peerage. Back then, being a princess had nothing to do with being a civil servant with a public role. It was simply a condition one was born into and an extension of a class system where a person's standing in society was closely associated with his/her ancestry.

 

[Osipi]

In the good old Victorian age, they would be both nicely married by now to some continental European royal, or at least a very wealthy British peer or heir to a peerage. Back then, being a princess had nothing to do with being a civil servant with a public role. It was simply a condition one was born into and an extension of a class system where a person's standing in society was closely associated with his/her ancestry.

Exactly. Doing public engagements is a relatively modern tradition for the British royal family. When we think about it, it was not until Charles that the role of Prince of Wales actually was seen as a working role in and of itself. The previous POW did royal duties (although sometimes very reluctantly) but it was actually Charles that defined the position that most likely will be the yardstick for future POWs to measure up to.

I think perhaps Andrew was born into the wrong era. He would have been happier living in an era where the status of Prince and all its entitlements were his due just because of who he is in society's pecking order.

 

[Elly C]

Forgive me if this may have been said earlier in the thread, but are we right to assume that whatever Andrew may want for his daughters is necessarily what they want for themselves? It's clear that they appear to relish occasions such as Ascot, but to be a full-time member of the firm may not be their desire. Depending on who they marry, their lives may have a very different direction.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

I see Eugenie as the Prince Michael of Kent or even pre 1970's the Duke of Gloucester because it seems she knows what she is doing, but Beatrice seems lke the one who will go along with what anything her father says. To be hones they are in a really weird situation. They are not like the Linleys, Chattos, or the Phillips because all those families have examples of how to live their lives in the Ramsays and Fifes. The Wessexes seem to have blazed their own trail. But as blood princesses ideally they should be doing royal duties. But their aren't because of the new royal family. Maybe if the queen had had a fifth child, a girl, they could relate or talk to her about this but they there isn't one. Anne doesn't seem to talk to them and in my opinion if she did she would be like stop wasting your life and don't be like your mother.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I tend to get confused by the issue, so I just worked it out on paper.

Not all of the Queen's first cousins became full time working royals. That would tell me that there is not precedent that a prince or princess must be given digs at KP and a job as a full time royal.

None of Charles first cousins are full time working royals. Again, this tells me there is not a precedent.

Just because you are a princess or prince, there is no precedent saying you must be given work as a full time royal. Two generations back.