The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1861  
Old 06-06-2019, 10:27 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
It was the Diamond Jubilee. Prince Philip wasn't there, he was in hospital.
On the balcony there were, the Queen, The Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and the Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry of Wales. Back then, the UK Media were saying that it was the future of the monarchy there, the core of Che Firm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The logic would be to invite only those are official members of the Royal Family. According to the link posted here a while ago, that includes all descendants of King George VI (including Prince Margaret's descendants), plus the Queen's cousins who are grandchildren in male line of King George V. There is no point really to include the children and grandchildren of the Duke of Kent, the Duke of Gloucester, Princess Alexandra or Prince Michael as they are not considered members of the Royal Family.
Okay, perhaps they could weed out a few. However, the Kents, Gloucesters and Princess Alexandra may not make some people's idea of members of the BRF. But, if they are doing a lot of hard yakka on behalf of said family, they should be entitled to one of the few perks they get. After all, they worked for it and they earned it.

The Diamond Jubilee may have been organised by Charles, but had HM not felt very strongly about it, she would have vetoed it. It worked, sort of, to mark the royal succession but it was not popular with the public at large and I believe they will try to avoid p****** off the public.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1862  
Old 06-06-2019, 10:32 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Vacating the balcony of all but a few would be unfortunate, to my mind.
It adds much more interest to have more people. What harm does it do? The balcony can take the weight and it's exciting to see extended family. Even if they are not working royals they represent the human side of the Monarchy - the family, the support network, the historical ties and the future generations.
The balcony full of waving aunts and cousins represents the importance of our families and our continuing civilisation.
In a purely practical sense it offers more for the media to write about and it would be easier perhaps to protect many royals in one secure place.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1863  
Old 06-06-2019, 10:42 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
I think the selection will remain the same with the next two monarchs:

Currently:
-Monarch and spouse
-children/spouse/grandchildren of the monarch
-nieces/nephews of monarch
-cousins and their family

Charles:
-Charles and Camilla
-Children/spouses/grandkids: Cambridges and Sussexes
-siblings/nieces/nephews: Yorks, Wessexes, Anne/Tim (her kids if they want)
-cousins: Viscount Snowden and Lady Sarah and their families

William
-William and Kate
-children/families: George, Charlotte, Louis and eventually their families
-sibling: Harry and Meghan with Archie and any other kids
-cousins: Yorks, Wessexes (I don't think Zara and Peter would appear by then as private)
Reply With Quote
  #1864  
Old 06-06-2019, 10:54 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
Vacating the balcony of all but a few would be unfortunate, to my mind.
It adds much more interest to have more people. What harm does it do? The balcony can take the weight and it's exciting to see extended family. Even if they are not working royals they represent the human side of the Monarchy - the family, the support network, the historical ties and the future generations.
The balcony full of waving aunts and cousins represents the importance of our families and our continuing civilisation.
In a purely practical sense it offers more for the media to write about and it would be easier perhaps to protect many royals in one secure place.
The damage it is doing is to the image of the family.

For people like us who follow the BRF we love to see them all and understand that most aren't funded from either the Duchies or the Sovereign Grant but to the great majority of the public that is what they think - that everyone up there is paid for by taxpayers.

The optics of the family are also important.

Don't forget the entire contingent of HRHs used to attend the State Opening of Parliament with full tiaras etc but that was seen as 'over the top' and so it changed to just the Queen and Philip and then Charles and Camilla were added. That is now seen as 'right' and anything more would be seen as 'too much'.

State Visits used to involve three grand banquets - the one at BP, a lunch or dinner at the Guildhall hosted by the Lord Mayor and a full banquet hosted by the visiting Head of State. Now it is down to two and only one of those involves the tiaras etc.

It is all about the optics and that increasing number of people on the balcony causes many people to ask 'why are we paying for so many' even though they aren't paying for them.

Having only those who do get support from the Duchies and the Sovereign Grant would have way fewer on the balcony but would be better for the public to see who they are supporting in any way rather than the mistaken belief that they support everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #1865  
Old 06-06-2019, 10:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
I don't think any older royals, now working, will be banished from the balcony in the future. It is an excellent vantage point and they deserve to see the parades.

Iluvbertie, I appreciate what you say but I think most people can see that standing on a balcony is not costing much while it offers transparency in another sense. It is clear to see who is and who isn't a working royal.
It gives people the opportunity to recognise faces and learn names.
Education needs improving to inform people exactly who is supported by the taxpayer, how and when and how the Duchies and the grants work. Ignorance can't be an excuse for not understanding details of how the Monarchy remains not directly funded by the tax payer and how important that is to democracy.

Seeing luxury on fewer royals would be less popular than seeing more working royals (not living an over opulant lifestyle) visiting grass roots organisations, charities and traditional places that British people hold dear.
In my opinion the engagements carried out by Anne, Duke of Gloucester, and the like, are valued by many ordinary folk.
Reply With Quote
  #1866  
Old 06-06-2019, 11:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,948
Shouldn’t HM have all her family there for her birthday celebration?
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1867  
Old 06-06-2019, 11:35 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
I don't think any older royals, now working, will be banished from the balcony in the future. It is an excellent vantage point and they deserve to see the parades.

Iluvbertie, I appreciate what you say but I think most people can see that standing on a balcony is not costing much while it offers transparency in another sense. It is clear to see who is and who isn't a working royal.
It gives people the opportunity to recognise faces and learn names.
Education needs improving to inform people exactly who is supported by the taxpayer, how and when and how the Duchies and the grants work. Ignorance can't be an excuse for not understanding details of how the Monarchy remains not directly funded by the tax payer and how important that is to democracy.

Seeing luxury on fewer royals would be less popular than seeing more working royals (not living an over opulant lifestyle) visiting grass roots organisations, charities and traditional places that British people hold dear.
In my opinion the engagements carried out by Anne, Duke of Gloucester, and the like, are valued by many ordinary folk.
You make good points but the reality is that the media isn't interested in educating people about who everyone is or about how they are paid - they make too much money out of the opposite.

The education system in the UK is the same - not interested in teaching anything about who is funded by the Duchies or the Sovereign Grant.

What people have been taught is that everyone living in one of the palaces lives there rent free - other than the Michael's of Kent.

Remember the massive outcry when the public were told they had to pay for the repairs to Windsor Castle because it wasn't insured - and so BP is now open two months a year. There is a lot of people who question what the Queen has done with the millions that she has been given for the maintenance of the palaces that BP now is going to cost so much to be refurbished.

That is what they have to guard against - having a small group asking questions like that becoming a larger group.

That is why the optics are important - what the people see has to be something with which they can understand rather than something that seems excessive. With a BRF that is now well over 50 people in the line of succession with partners eligible to be up there it can be over the top as they could easily have 80 people out there. (Yes I know the line of succession is over 5000 but only the first 50 or so are ones who appear on the balcony - that is down to Princess Alexandra and her children).

It is easy to think that an institution with around 70% support is safe but in these changing times that would be foolish.
Reply With Quote
  #1868  
Old 06-06-2019, 11:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Shouldn’t HM have all her family there for her birthday celebration?
She could have them all at the palace but does she need to have them all out of the balcony?

It isn't even her birthday remember - that was in April

They don't all need to be on the balcony to see the flypast. They could easily see that from the garden ... and probably be a lot more comfortable out there anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #1869  
Old 06-06-2019, 11:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,948
Yes. I do know these things.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1870  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:06 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Don't forget the entire contingent of HRHs used to attend the State Opening of Parliament with full tiaras etc but that was seen as 'over the top' and so it changed to just the Queen and Philip and then Charles and Camilla were added. That is now seen as 'right' and anything more would be seen as 'too much'.
While I agree that optics are very important for all royal families didn't that have more to do with the reformation of the House of Lords than what was seen as "over the top"? Before that the royals, Princess Anne the exception, all attended as members of the peerage until that status weren't enough for a membership of the House of Lords and they had no reason to attend.

Quote:
State Visits used to involve three grand banquets - the one at BP, a lunch or dinner at the Guildhall hosted by the Lord Mayor and a full banquet hosted by the visiting Head of State. Now it is down to two and only one of those involves the tiaras etc.
State visits in general have changed a lot in the last decade or so all over Europe so domestic optics for the UK is not the major reason for the scaling down. It's the same in all monarchies. It seems to me that the years of austerity during the post 2007 recession put a final blow to the lavish state visits we were familiar with.
Reply With Quote
  #1871  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:33 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
I think the selection will remain the same with the next two monarchs:

Currently:
-Monarch and spouse
-children/spouse/grandchildren of the monarch
-nieces/nephews of monarch
-cousins and their family

Charles:
-Charles and Camilla
-Children/spouses/grandkids: Cambridges and Sussexes
-siblings/nieces/nephews: Yorks, Wessexes, Anne/Tim (her kids if they want)
-cousins: Viscount Snowden and Lady Sarah and their families

William
-William and Kate
-children/families: George, Charlotte, Louis and eventually their families
-sibling: Harry and Meghan with Archie and any other kids
-cousins: Yorks, Wessexes (I don't think Zara and Peter would appear by then as private)
Earl Snowdon, formerly Viscount Linley
Reply With Quote
  #1872  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:59 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
While I agree that optics are very important for all royal families didn't that have more to do with the reformation of the House of Lords than what was seen as "over the top"? Before that the royals, Princess Anne the exception, all attended as members of the peerage until that status weren't enough for a membership of the House of Lords and they had no reason to attend.
The Reform of the House of Lords took place in 1999.

The cut down in Royal Attendance happened in the late 1980s.
Reply With Quote
  #1873  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:11 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Reform of the House of Lords took place in 1999.

The cut down in Royal Attendance happened in the late 1980s.
Princess Margaret, The Kent’s and Gloucester’s continued to attend the State Opening into the late 90’s. That reform stopped it until recently.

The principal royals on the balcony for the Trooping is far better, IMHO. It wouldn’t kill the royals to wave to the crowds from the balcony either. The only one we see wave is The Queen.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #1874  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:25 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
The CC is quite clear - they weren't attending into the late 90s at all.
Reply With Quote
  #1875  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:30 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The CC is quite clear - they weren't attending into the late 90s at all.
Look at the pictures on Getty Images and you’ll see.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #1876  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:22 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,388
Whilst this is off topic;

Gloucesters in 1998: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail...photo/52111022

Princess Margaret in 1997; https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail...photo/52120143

Gloucester in 1997; https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail...photo/52114952

Kent’s and Princess Margaret in 1995; https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail...photo/52115448
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1877  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:33 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Look at the pictures on Getty Images and you’ll see.
The CC is the official record. I will go with that thanks.

Images aren't reliable as dates - especially pre-internet aren't always correct. Many times images from pre-internet days are put up with the wrong date.

The CC tells us who attended.

CC=Court Circular - the official record of the life and events of the British royal Family.
Reply With Quote
  #1878  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:59 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The CC is the official record. I will go with that thanks.

Images aren't reliable as dates - especially pre-internet aren't always correct. Many times images from pre-internet days are put up with the wrong date.

The CC tells us who attended.

CC=Court Circular - the official record of the life and events of the British royal Family.
No the dates on those images are correct. I can remember watching the State Opening in the 1990's (I always watch it on TV) and seeing Princess Margaret and the Kents and Gloucesters there.
Reply With Quote
  #1879  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:59 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The CC is the official record. I will go with that thanks.

Images aren't reliable as dates - especially pre-internet aren't always correct. Many times images from pre-internet days are put up with the wrong date.

The CC tells us who attended.

CC=Court Circular - the official record of the life and events of the British royal Family.
Here's a film of it in 1998 with the Gloucesters & Duke of Kent in attendance. You can tell it's after 1997 because Labour are on the government benches in the Commons.


Is it possible that the Gloucesters & DoK were attending as peers rather than as members of the BRF, which is why they weren't on the CC?
Reply With Quote
  #1880  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:43 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Here's a film of it in 1998 with the Gloucesters & Duke of Kent in attendance. You can tell it's after 1997 because Labour are on the government benches in the Commons.


Is it possible that the Gloucesters & DoK were attending as peers rather than as members of the BRF, which is why they weren't on the CC?
The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester were members of the House of Lords up to 1999.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ceremonies, official birthday, trooping the colour


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen victoria royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×