How Many Working Royals are Needed?

[Somebody]

Especially, the UK not sufficiently preparing the spare is strange given that they were one of the European monarchies who had to rely on the spare (I grouped them in 'no children' vs 'dysfunction' - the latter can play out in different ways) in the 20th century:

Belgium: 1993: throne went to spare (brother) because the monarch had no children
UK: 1936: throne went to spare (brother) because of a dysfunctional monarch
Luxembourg: 1919: throne went to spare (sister) because of a dystunctional monarch

 

[Mbruno]

Especially, the UK not sufficiently preparing the spare is strange given that they were one of the European monarchies who had to rely on the spare (I grouped them in 'no children' vs 'dysfunction' - the latter can play out in different ways) in the 20th century:

Belgium: 1993: throne went to spare (brother) because the monarch had no children
UK: 1936: throne went to spare (brother) because of a dysfunctional monarch
Luxembourg: 1919: throne went to spare (sister) because of a dystunctional monarch

George VI himself didn't have that much preparation as a spare, did he? But I guess you could argue that even his brother, who was the heir, lacked in preparation.

I suppose the British Royal Family, at least until recently, used to believe in "practical on-the-job training", rather than doing that kind of thing in a more traditional, formal way. That may have changed slightly starting with Charles III's generation, although I think they still attach more importance relatively speaking to apprenticeship than formal education per se.

EDIT: In any case, military training is still something that the British Royal Family seems to value a lot. But that has to be seen in the context of the British model of military education, which is different from many other advanced countries nowadays, including the US and Canada. Most British officers, like Prince William or Arthur Chatto, now actually have university degrees before they begin officer's training, but the officer's commissioning courses themselves are still post-secondary vocational courses in the UK, rather than degrees. And the subsequent trade specialization that the officers get in their chosen branch, despite being thorough, counts as technical training/ apprenticeships unless you are serving in a trade that necessarily requires a degree, like in the engineering corps. It is only when officers are up for promotion to higher staff/command positions that they may take for example a master's degree in strategic or defense studies awarded by a partner university and, in fact, few officers reach that level, as most will leave after a few years as captains or equivalent, and move to the private sector.

 

[Stefan]

Especially, the UK not sufficiently preparing the spare is strange given that they were one of the European monarchies who had to rely on the spare (I grouped them in 'no children' vs 'dysfunction' - the latter can play out in different ways) in the 20th century:

Belgium: 1993: throne went to spare (brother) because the monarch had no children
UK: 1936: throne went to spare (brother) because of a dysfunctional monarch
Luxembourg: 1919: throne went to spare (sister) because of a dystunctional monarch

And in the UK also in 1910 as George V. was not the intended heir and did so only because of the early death of his brother. But then there where still 17 years bettwenn him becoming the second heir and his succession.

 

[Somebody]

And in the UK also in 1910 as George V. was not the intended heir and did so only because of the early death of his brother. But then there where still 17 years bettwenn him becoming the second heir and his succession.

Thanks for the addition. Should have included him as well: a third more common category in the past: heirs that died before producing legitimate children.

 

[Susan D]

I see the older public only interested in the monarch, the monarch's heir and the heir's heir and hating the monarch's first cousins being in state life and barely interested in the monarch's junior children; I see the younger public not interested in royalty at all.
So, it may be that only the monarch couple and the heir couple need to be in state life and that the others need to be working in untitled, non-royal jobs.

 

[Leopoldine]

I'm sure a more knowledgeable poster will correct me if I am wrong, but paid salary for working royals is just part of the benefits of being a working royal. From what I have read in books and seen in photos, working royals in the UK can furnish their G & F homes with art, carpets and furniture from the Royal Collection Trust. There is also free mail service from the Crown Post Office service. Add to all of that the access to the fleet of automobiles at the ready in the Palace Mews.