Trooping the Colour 2003-2022

[MARG]

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

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.

 

[King of the Jungle]

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.

 

[Countessmeout]

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)

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[King of the Jungle]

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.

 

[ladongas]

Shouldn’t HM have all her family there for her birthday celebration?

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[ladongas]

Yes. I do know these things.

 

[JR76]

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.

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.

 

[alvinking]

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

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[Dman]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The CC is quite clear - they weren't attending into the late 90s at all.

 

[Dman]

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.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Whilst this is off topic;

Gloucesters in 1998: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detai...-with-the-duke-of-kent-at-news-photo/52111022

Princess Margaret in 1997; https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detai...ate-opening-of-parliament-news-photo/52120143

Gloucester in 1997; https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detai...he-house-of-lords-for-the-news-photo/52114952

Kent’s and Princess Margaret in 1995; https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detai...t-at-the-state-opening-of-news-photo/52115448

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[sophie25]

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.

 

[Lilyflo]

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?

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, Prince Muchael and Prince Alexandra are considered members of the Royal Family according to the RF website. Those who are not considered members of the family are, as I said, the Kent and Gloucester children and grandchildren who , accordingly, should not be on the balcony.

Please also note that membership off the Royal Family is not linked to being a “ working royal”. The list posted on the RF website includes several people, ifor example the York princesses, Prince Michael and, more significantly, the children and grandchildren of Princess Anne and Princess Margaret , who are not working royals but are nonetheless considered part of the family.

That confusion could be eliminated if the British court introduced a formal distinction between the Royal House and the Royal Famiky as it is done in the Netherlands or in Sweden. That is not the case though in the UK .

 

[Frelinghighness]

Thanks for posting the video. Lovely to see the correct Duchess of Gloucester and her tiara among others

 

[sophie25]

I wonder if Lord and Lady Frederick will bring Maud this year.

 

[jacqui24]

At some point, they'll have to cut down on the people on the balcony, for simple logistics. It was one thing when the Gloucester and Kents attended, and then with their children, and now with grandchildren. Where does it end?

My guess is Charles will limit the balcony to QEII's decedents, Princess Margaret's descendants and the Kents and Gloucesters that are HRH. But no more children, and definitely not grandchildren, of his mother's cousins on the balcony.

And yes, eventually it'll be cut again. Can you imagine if decedent from a monarch was never cut? That'll balcony would collapse.

 

[sophie25]

At some point, they'll have to cut down on the people on the balcony, for simple logistics. It was one thing when the Gloucester and Kents attended, and then with their children, and now with grandchildren. Where does it end?

My guess is Charles will limit the balcony to QEII's decedents, Princess Margaret's descendants and the Kents and Gloucesters that are HRH. But no more children, and definitely not grandchildren, of his mother's cousins on the balcony.

And yes, eventually it'll be cut again. Can you imagine if decedent from a monarch was never cut? That'll balcony would collapse.

I'm sure Charles will change things but the Queen seems to like it as it is at the moment.

 

[TLLK]

That confusion could be eliminated if the British court introduced a formal distinction between the Royal House and the Royal Famiky as it is done in the Netherlands or in Sweden. That is not the case though in the UK .

Yes I agree that this would be a good place to start distinguishing between the two groups. However I don't see this happening until QEII"s reign ends.

 

[Osipi]

The Queen's long reign is perhaps why the people on the balcony keep growing in numbers. Over 67 years, her extended family has multiplied by leaps and bounds and that must make the Queen very happy to be able to see her very large family of relatives when they all come together for an occasion such as Trooping the Color.

I've no doubt either that this will change once Charles is King and perhaps even more so with William.

 

[Dman]

The Queen's long reign is perhaps why the people on the balcony keep growing in numbers. Over 67 years, her extended family has multiplied by leaps and bounds and that must make the Queen very happy to be able to see her very large family of relatives when they all come together for an occasion such as Trooping the Color.

I've no doubt either that this will change once Charles is King and perhaps even more so with William.

It’ll have to. There will be too many people on the balcony. Having Charles and his family, the York’s and the Wessexes are pretty much enough. Before you blink an eye - York grandchildren will come along. Harry and Meghan will likely have another child too. That’s the core family.

 

[alvinking]

It’ll have to. There will be too many people on the balcony. Having Charles and his family, the York’s and the Wessexes are pretty much enough. Before you blink an eye - York grandchildren will come along. Harry and Meghan will likely have another child too. That’s the core family.

What about Anne and her family?

 

[Dman]

What about Anne and her family?

Yeah, her too. Don’t know how I forgot about, Anne.