The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   The Monarchy under Charles (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-monarchy-under-charles-16252.html)

Iluvbertie 01-16-2013 01:31 AM

Currently there are 15 members of the RF who do duties:

2 aged over 80
2 more aged over 70
5 in their 60s
1 in his 50s
2 in their 40s
2 in their 30s
1 in his 20s

Add 20 years

The top 4 will be gone and there will be 5 possibly in their 80s (although possibly even some of them will be gone so say 2 of them still with us)
1 in his 70s
2 in their 60s
2 in their 50s
2 in their 40s (assuming Harry finds someone to marry him)
and up to xxx about to enter their 20s.

Those are the ones who won't get the chance to spend their 20s doing their own thing but who will have to step up to the plate in their early 20s.

15 down to 9 won't happen over night but will happen gradually and by the time there is only 9 the next generation will be ready to start to take on a working role as well.

This is the cutting down that Charles and the Way-Ahead group are talking about - not stopping the current working royals from doing what they are doing but more allowing all the future children of younger siblings of the monarch to do their own thing. There is no intention of going from 15 to 4 the instant the present Queen dies but rather to go from 15 to about 10 over time and only adding 4 or so in each new generation - two children and their spouses.

Harry hopes to have a career in the army -meaning another 20+ years if he is good enough - although he might be like Andrew and told that he won't be getting any further promotions so it is better to leave on his own terms rather than sit around while younger and better people are promoted past him.

Sure some charities might have to have a non-royal patron but there is nothing stopping children of younger siblings e.g. Eugenie and Beatrice from having patronages and both currently do have them but they also are going to have real jobs rather than spend their lives in doing nothing but making small talk and shaking hands.

Kataryn 01-16-2013 07:32 AM

Let's face it: the BRF is an incredibly wealthy family and this does not sit well with a lot of the British, especially those working as journalists.

Even on doing Royal duties, it is likely that the younger members of the family are bemoaned by the public - they either wear to expensive clothing, are driven to the event, receive subservience from the "people", get freebees or gifts... the list is endless. So for the younger members of the RF it is far better not to become "working Royals", as they are only seen as overpayed servants who owe "the people", but to manage to live their life out of the spotlight.

It is not soo bad for those who are already working Royals, but as could be seen just today with an article in the Daily Mail about B&E's upcoming trip to Germany that the media does not want them representing the UK. So why should they bother? It's IMHO a good thing to represent the UK with a member of its RF in a foreign country but less so in the UK itself.

So the decision to "slim down" the RF is not a measure against some members but a way to give them a quieter, very comfortable life outside the spotlight (and thus public critizism). The people of the Uk should get used to the idea that it's just the monarch, his or her spouse and the heir plus spouse who are "the Royal family" and who Royal duties.

I guess we won't see that much public pageantry like Tropping etc. because the "people" wiill bemoan that but we might see an increase of events where the monarch honours other people much more publically.

lucien 01-16-2013 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nascarlucy (Post 1505405)
I see the monarchy becoming more scaled down in the future. By the time Prince Harry has grandchildren, their lives will be very different. They will be royal but they will lead a more normal life than their grandfather. I don't think they will have a lot of restrictions put of them and will have more normal lifestyle. I can see them working at a job full time, and doing things that their grand father and great-grandfather King Charles would never have dreamed of but would have liked to do perhaps if given the chance.

I agree..They will have jobs...as the the Dutch Royals,except the Heir,already have and each and everyone considers normal since decades......earning their own and no freeloaders in the family...like at present still in the UK...

Iluvbertie 01-16-2013 04:29 PM

There aren't any 'freeloaders' in the BRF. There are only two who received money from the old Civil List - the money they were given to fund their official staff and to pay for things like State Visits. It wasn't money they could spend on anything they like.

They were also given money for the maintenance of the state owned palaces but had no say over how that money was to be spent e.g. The Queen couldn't priotise the maintenance but had to do what maintenance she was told to do.

The new system gives them one payment, rather than multiple payments, is still to cover those same expenses - the running costs of the office of Head of State such as salaries for the secretaries and the costs of the State Visits. Now because many of these staff also work for them privately it works out better for The Queen to get the funds rather than have the government pay casual employees to do the work and have to hire an appropriate venue.

The Queen has been repaying to the government any moneys paid to her children and cousins under former legislation that paid them for their work - so The Queen is supporting the entire working RF from the Duchy of Lancaster income, except the Wales' who are supported from the Duchy of Cornwall.

So basically Britain has a self-supporting family representing them but they love the headlines that is costs the taxpayers xxxx - it does at the time but at the end of the year The Queen repays that money so no cost to the taxpayers, except for security of course but those cops would be being paid for their duties anyway and they would be on duty protecting the elected Head of State and family anyway.

vkrish 01-17-2013 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1505960)
The Queen has been repaying to the government any moneys paid to her children and cousins under former legislation that paid them for their work - so The Queen is supporting the entire working RF from the Duchy of Lancaster income, except the Wales' who are supported from the Duchy of Cornwall.

So basically Britain has a self-supporting family representing them but they love the headlines that is costs the taxpayers xxxx - it does at the time but at the end of the year The Queen repays that money so no cost to the taxpayers, except for security of course but those cops would be being paid for their duties anyway and they would be on duty protecting the elected Head of State and family anyway.

I was wondering since many years..Why are they doing this two-way? First paying the royals from Civil List, and then Queen repaying that money. I feel it pretty ridiculous.People will just see that royals are supported by taxpayer. They never appreciate that Queen is paying it back.
SO why dont they altogether remove all the royals(except Queen and DoE) from Civil List? And let the Queen support them? I feel its pure common sense. Maybe there is some point I missed..

Lumutqueen 01-17-2013 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkrish (Post 1506107)
SO why dont they altogether remove all the royals(except Queen and DoE) from Civil List? And let the Queen support them? I feel its pure common sense. Maybe there is some point I missed..

There are no royals on the Civil List except The Queen and the DOE.

The Queen does support all of her children other than the Wales' from the Duchy of Lancaster funds. Security costs come from the government but like Iluvbertie said they'd be paid for the same thing somewhere else in the country anyway.

The Queen repays any money the government happened to use on other royals, at the end of the year instead on a week by week basis. IluvBerties post says just that.

NGalitzine 01-17-2013 02:58 PM

Also the monarchy is no longer supported directly by the tax payers. At the beginning of each reign the new monarch signs over the revenue from the Crown Estate to the government in return for a civil list. Now a new agreement is in place. The Civil List is done away with and the monarch will receive 15% of The Crown Estate to fund the monarchy (except for security). The monarchy is probably the best run part of the government in terms of its ability to watch costs and make cuts where possible. This has been the case ever since Sir Michael Peat and Lord Airlie undertook a review of the whole Royal Household and how things were managed. They put things on a much more business orientated footing.

Iluvbertie 01-17-2013 06:03 PM

To explain why the younger royals are paid money from the government and then The Queen repays it needs some explanation which is quite simple.

Up until 1992 younger members of the royal family were added to the Civil List at 21 or marriage or some other appropriate time - by legislation - so to remove those payments from them meant repealing different acts of parliament which would take time and money while it was easier to achieve the same thing for the money to be still paid to the royals from the government and then have The Queen repay the money.

Until 1992 the following people were on the Civil List - The Queen, The Queen Mother, Philip, Margaret, Andrew, Anne, Richard, Edward (Duke of Kent) and Alexandra but after the disastrous 1992 The Queen agreed that only The Queen, The Queen Mother and Philip would keep the money they were paid from the government for being royal while The Queen would refund the other money.

As each of those other people who were paid and the Queen is reimbursing the government die the reimbursement bill will go down - so now she doesn't have to repay any moneys that were paid to Margaret but still repays the rest.

Prince Edward was never on the Civil List because he hadn't married in 1992 and so had never had the relevant legislation passed on his behalf so The Queen pays his expenses out of love alone.

AdmirerUS 01-17-2013 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1506294)
Prince Edward was never on the Civil List because he hadn't married in 1992 and so had never had the relevant legislation passed on his behalf so The Queen pays his expenses out of love alone.

Ah yes, for love alone. Nicely said Ilovebertie! :flowers:

Cynderella 01-24-2013 10:44 PM

Am I the only one who wonder how things will work out between Charles and Andrew?

Andrew seems determined, in spite of everything, to have Beatrice and Eugenie as working members of the family. Andrew paid for his daughter's trip to Germany. Charles has made his feelings quite known on the subject. I don't think he has any personal problem with his nieces, but the shadow of their mother is troubling to him. I think that he doesn't trust that she won't intrude on royal engagements and has taken a very hard line with respect to their working status within the family.

I think Charles wants them to go have a private life like his other grown niece Zara. She is only public for what she does and accomplishes which I think he is proud of her accomplishments. She worked hard and earned that, so what else is to be said?

Beatrice and Eugenie are seen as party girls usually with their mother in tow. This may not be fair, but it is what people see in the paper. I think he resents Sarah beyond words for not moving on and letting everyone get on with their lives. She wanted out of the family, but won't LEAVE. Andrew isn't troubled by Sarah. He wants to have his girls out front where Charles wants everyone outside his immediate branch of the family to back out of the spotlight.

Granted, his sister and brothers are part of the long term plan, but I don't think we have heard the last of this.

cepe 01-24-2013 11:14 PM

We mentioned on a variety of threads, most notably in recent days the Beatrice and Eugenie trip, about Prince Charles wanting a slim line monarchy. And I've asked where is the evidence.

I found the following today on the Royal Reporter Twitter account of Richard Palmer of the Express.

Richard Palmer‏@RoyalReporter
@jennyg2k The idea of Charles wanting a slimmer monarchy seems based on a 1990s briefing by one spin doctor trying to big him up at the time

2:18 AM - 22 Jan 13 · Details

Richard Palmer‏@RoyalReporter@jennyg2k It may be true Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy but I know of nobody inside the Royal Household who is briefing that.


The evidence is rather thin IMO

Grandma828 01-24-2013 11:22 PM

Everybody should stop assuming they know what Charles wants. We have never heard from him on the subject. I was wondering if this trip to German was done so he could see how prepared the girls were. Giving them the chance to demonstrate their ability. We shall see what happens.

vkrish 01-25-2013 01:44 AM

Grandma828,If at all there are plans of slimming down the monarchy, then I dont see any purpose in 'testing the preparedness' of the girls. In fact I was a bit surprised when I heard about this German trip.
Once they are 'inducted' into duties, there cannot be any looking back. They will continue well in Charles' and even William's reign. They cannot be sacked in middle and asked to fend for themselves..
So what basically will be difference between their reigns and the present Queen's reign (in terms of working royals)? Nothing..Then where is all that much spoken 'reformation' and 'modernisation'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynderella (Post 1508959)
Am I the only one who wonder how things will work out between Charles and Andrew?

Andrew seems determined, in spite of everything, to have Beatrice and Eugenie as working members of the family. Andrew paid for his daughter's trip to Germany. Charles has made his feelings quite known on the subject. I don't think he has any personal problem with his nieces, but the shadow of their mother is troubling to him. I think that he doesn't trust that she won't intrude on royal engagements and has taken a very hard line with respect to their working status within the family.

Beatrice and Eugenie are seen as party girls usually with their mother in tow. This may not be fair, but it is what people see in the paper. I think he resents Sarah beyond words for not moving on and letting everyone get on with their lives. She wanted out of the family, but won't LEAVE. Andrew isn't troubled by Sarah. He wants to have his girls out front where Charles wants everyone outside his immediate branch of the family to back out of the spotlight.

Cynderella, We have to view these two things separately...

1. Charles' relation with Andrew, his perception of Sarah, his views on their kids' career, jobs, partying etc.
2. Charles views and plans for/against Beatrice/Eugenie taking up royal duties.

The first point is entirely emotional and personal.It is completely his own. And we are never gonna really know cos he s never gonna speak about it publicly with Oprah or Martin Bashir..It is not gonna affect anything in anyway. However his relation with Andrew is, or whatever he thinks of Sarah, he will definitely love B&E, though he doesnt invite paps all over and shower them with hugs and kisses in front of them.

The second thing is totally professional. Any heir apparent has to bring some change at some point of time.
It is not about "wanting his family only", it is just making the monarchy "more central"..Monarchy is always central, but with times, it has to become more and more central..Even if Sarah was as discrete and dutiful as the legendary Alice/Marina, and B&E had been so studious/hardworking, never having seen a nightclub in their lives, Charles will have to keep them out, if he wants to go with the reforms.
It is his duty to make monarchy better with times, for a better future..Nothing about his personal whims and fancies and his likes and dislikes..
But whatever he plans for B&E, he will ensure that personally they are always well-off and comfortable financially..

PS: I am not speculating/justifying the perceived plans of 'modernising' but just saying that we should view the 'two things' separately..and not mix both of them..

Lumutqueen 01-30-2013 04:40 AM

Watching the BBC News this morning; there's talk of abdication of course. But the majority of people say if both Elizabeth and Charles abdicate, they'd be fine with that but Elizabeth cannot abdicate for Charles "not yet".

Osipi 01-30-2013 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1511175)
Watching the BBC News this morning; there's talk of abdication of course. But the majority of people say if both Elizabeth and Charles abdicate, they'd be fine with that but Elizabeth cannot abdicate for Charles "not yet".

I really don't see HM ever abdicating the throne for any reason. If anything, should her health decline or she is needed to be by a declining DoE, the most that would happen is that Charles would be appointed Regent to act in her stead until she passes.

padams2359 01-30-2013 05:44 PM

I have no doubt Charles will become Regent. She will not abdicate. I don't think she believes in QV's approach of being The Widow of Windsor. If she did, she would slow down. The Monarch must be seen. When she cannot appear, Charles will become Regent. She will allow that. Unfortunately, Charles will not have much time to go to her for advice.

MARG 01-30-2013 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkrish (Post 1509020)
Grandma828,If at all there are plans of slimming down the monarchy.

And there is the rub. We have only ever heard gossip about slimming the monarchy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkrish (Post 1509020)
It is not about "wanting his family only" . . . . . Charles will have to keep them out, if he wants to go with the reforms.

What reforms would those be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkrish (Post 1509020)
It is his duty to make monarchy better with times, for a better future..

If it is his duty as King which will (hopefully) not be for some time, it must be imperative for Her Majesty to be doing it now as she has throughout her reign.

Basically, I don't understand your point. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie in Germany had to have the approval of Her Majesty the Queen to be there in an official capacity. Prince Charles probably has an opinion and I am sure his mother is not likely to create any problems for him at a later date. However, the decision is hers and hers alone. Charles is not running a shadow Monarchy that is the "real" monarchy with his mother as a doddering, somewhat benign, grandmotherly figurehead!

We keep hearing gossip. Gossip about Charles and his siblings and their children, how he is trying to sideline them, maybe doesn't like them much, maybe even loathes them heaps. But, that is just gossip. We have absolutely no verifiable source to confirm any of this.

What we do have is an ageing group of "workers" who will inevitably slow down sooner rather than later. How that is managed by Her Majesty now and His Majesty later, will remain to be seen.

Queen Camilla 01-31-2013 01:24 AM

1)The Queen & Charles abdicating in favor of William.. Really..

As the saying goes: Be careful what you wish for...

If the Queen & Charles abdicate, do you really think they & their spouses would continue to perform royal duties. How about the Queen's other children would they support a nephew the same way they supported the Queen? The Queen had her mother & her cousins then her children. William has....

2)Just a rumor that Charles doesn't want Beatrice & Eugenie to perform royal duties.

Edward is taking over Phillip's charities.

Who takes the charities of the Queen, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester. (maybe Beatrice & Eugenie?)

padams2359 01-31-2013 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla (Post 1511602)
1)The Queen & Charles abdicating in favor of William.. Really..

As the saying goes: Be careful what you wish for...

If the Queen & Charles abdicate, do you really think they & their spouses would continue to perform royal duties. How about the Queen's other children would they support a nephew the same way they supported the Queen? The Queen had her mother & her cousins then her children. William has....

My thinking of Charles possible doing it would be long from now. Say in his 80's, retire to Sandringham.

2)Just a rumor that Charles doesn't want Beatrice & Eugenie to perform royal duties.

Pay Per View. An apartment and paid for events, and have careers of there choosing.

Edward is taking over Phillip's charities.

Who takes the charities of the Queen, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester. (maybe Beatrice & Eugenie?)

They will go nuts trying keep up. Even if you say, 50% of all appearances for a year are charity related.

COUNTESS 01-31-2013 09:15 PM

Charles is the rightful heir. He should inherit. It will be the same, stodgy monarchy, with a mistress as queen. He will do his job well, whatever one considers the job to be. It is the UK's problem, not anyone else's, no one, really, has a voice.

Roslyn 01-31-2013 09:23 PM

Aww! Don't we get a say like we do with the Succession Act amendments? *pouts*

I think it would be a big, big, mistake for the UK monarchs to start a habit of abdicating. If "the people" get it into their heads that if they kick up enough of a fuss about a monarch they don't like then that monarch might step down, there'll be nothing stopping them and it will be like a permanent election campaign with all the candidates trying to prove they can smile better than the others. The current system will crumble and you'll end up with either an elected monarchy or a republic.

scooter 01-31-2013 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 1511452)

We keep hearing gossip. Gossip about Charles and his siblings and their children, how he is trying to sideline them, maybe doesn't like them much, maybe even loathes them heaps. But, that is just gossip. We have absolutely no verifiable source to confirm any of this.

Here's the other rub, for half a century with Charles, over and again 'where there is smoke there is fire' gossip wise has been most times the rule not the exception with him. Yes, I can list what I refer to if you really want to go through the form of it, but you know what I mean....and I would just as soon not have the argument...:flowers:

MARG 02-01-2013 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1511926)
Here's the other rub, for half a century with Charles, over and again 'where there is smoke there is fire' gossip wise has been most times the rule not the exception with him.

That is one hell of a slow burn because I don't think we have seen much in the way of flames!

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1511926)
Yes, I can list what I refer to if you really want to go through the form of it, but you know what I mean....and I would just as soon not have the argument...:flowers:

As to your reference? You are being so obscure as to become obtuse. I don't know what you are actually trying to say. In fact I haven't a clue?

As to not having "the" argument? Well, we would all need to know what you were talking about before anyone could take exception and dare to post an opposing let alone contentious view.

Iluvbertie 02-01-2013 02:08 AM

:previous:

I thought it was only me who didn't understand Scooter's post.

Roslyn 02-01-2013 02:11 AM

:previous:
No, I don't have a clue what it means either.

Neighbourlady 02-10-2013 06:10 PM

Slimmed Down Monarchy
 
I don't know how to start a new thread (I'm brand new here), but I must say that I truly think Charles is wrong to "slim down" the monarchy. Who else reads the Court Circulars? Does Charles realize how much work is done not only by the Princess Royal, but by the Kents and the Glouscters (please excuse spelling)? Once Charles becomes King, and William becomes Prince of Wales, all of these people are going to be so elderly they will not be able to continue in their active royal roles, if indeed they are still with us. Who is going to take on all of these patronages? Harry, all by himself? I hardly think so... It is only by training, RIGHT NOW, Beatrice and Eugenie, and in their turn, Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, that William and Harry will have well-seasoned assistants to help them. If 3,000 patronages go unfilled, we will have so many charities themselves saying what is the point of the monarchy? They used to support us, now they don't - off with their heads! The Queen herself was DEPENDENT on her cousins to help her (and they all stepped up admirably!) - William and Harry need their cousins to be there for them! Someone MUST talk some sense into Charles!!!!

cepe 02-10-2013 06:21 PM

Hi and welcome.

Charles has not made any public statement nor is there any briefing being done by the palace that this is what he wants. IT is speculation.

However, costs (especially security) do increase and the BRF are always under pressure to reduce their outgoings. To put the "blame at Charles door is doing him a misservice. I don';t know if you have had the chance to look over this thread and the BRF thread in general but this is a hot topic.

The BRF have a high level of output with c. 12 ft royals averaging 350-400 engagements a year so your view on how this is to be managed is valid.

But there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to say that Charles wants this to happen. He may, but no evidence. If someone has the evidence, I think everyone would welcome it.

nascarlucy 02-10-2013 07:51 PM

It's interesting that this keeps coming up over and over again. The truth of it all probably lies somewhere in the middle. Someone might have heard a single comment and read into it things that weren't there. Or assumed certain things because of a comment here and there which may or may not be the case.

Iluvbertie 02-10-2013 07:53 PM

Currently there are 15 full-time working royals:

The Queen
The DoE
The PoW
The DoC
The DuY
The EoW
The CoW
The PR
The DoG
The DuoG
The DoK
Princess Alexandra

Last year they did about 4000 engagements between them.

There are also three part-timers - William, Kate and Harry who managed about 250 between then last year.

William, Kate, Harry and Harry's spouse will be able to pick up 2000 of the current 4000 between them as that would only be 500 per person.

Andrew, Anne, Edward, Sophie and the Gloucesters will still be active during Charles' reign.

The intention, from my understanding, is to drop from the current 15 to around 6 - 8 over the course of a generation - not stop is all at once.

Looked at that way there is no need for the York girls.

20 years from now William's kids will be approaching the stage where they can become part-timers- like William, Kate and Harry are now to start replacing the current royals in their 60s while Andrew, Edward and Sophie will still have about 10 years left.

Why the cousins were called into work was the fact that The Queen only had one sister and her mother, one uncle and two aunts - so there were only 7 at the start of the 50s while the demand was quite high so Alexandra was drawn in early - while the men did their military stuff.

cepe 02-10-2013 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nascarlucy (Post 1515477)
It's interesting that this keeps coming up over and over again. The truth of it all probably lies somewhere in the middle. Someone might have heard a single comment and read into it things that weren't there. Or assumed certain things because of a comment here and there which may or may not be the case.

My post from 25 th January. Charles never said it - someelse said it once between 10-20 years ago@

QUOTE:
We mentioned on a variety of threads, most notably in recent days the Beatrice and Eugenie trip, about Prince Charles wanting a slim line monarchy. And I've asked where is the evidence.

I found the following today on the Royal Reporter Twitter account of Richard Palmer of the Express.

Richard Palmer‏@RoyalReporter
@jennyg2k The idea of Charles wanting a slimmer monarchy seems based on a 1990s briefing by one spin doctor trying to big him up at the time

2:18 AM - 22 Jan 13 · Details

Richard Palmer‏@RoyalReporter@jennyg2k It may be true Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy but I know of nobody inside the Royal Household who is briefing that.

The evidence is rather thin IMO (END QUOTE)

tommy100 03-09-2013 05:30 AM

I agree, Charles went through a point in the 1990s when he was not brilliantly popular and to me it seems as if anything and everything was suggested/hinted by spin doctors to make him popular. This was probably one of those things that was suggested especially as at the time many other European monarchies had quite small royal families (or appeared to at least).
Personally I think we will see an appearance of a slimmed down monarchy, with the focus on Charles, Camilla, William kate and Harry taking on the overseas visits and big appearances but I don't think Charles would stop his wider family from working as,as its been noted here, they do too much especially for "smaller" events.

padams2359 03-16-2013 09:07 PM

It may go to Pay Per View for the non-direct decendents, not including his siblings. The more events they do, the more they get.

scooter 03-16-2013 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommy100 (Post 1525110)
I agree, Charles went through a point in the 1990s when he was not brilliantly popular and to me it seems as if anything and everything was suggested/hinted by spin doctors to make him popular. This was probably one of those things that was suggested especially as at the time many other European monarchies had quite small royal families (or appeared to at least).
Personally I think we will see an appearance of a slimmed down monarchy, with the focus on Charles, Camilla, William kate and Harry taking on the overseas visits and big appearances but I don't think Charles would stop his wider family from working as,as its been noted here, they do too much especially for "smaller" events.

'Not brilliantly popular ' what a masterpiece of understatement!

Iluvbertie 03-16-2013 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padams2359 (Post 1528209)
It may go to Pay Per View for the non-direct decendents, not including his siblings. The more events they do, the more they get.


As Charles will be the one doing the 'paying' I doubt that he would be encouraging them to do much.

Just as a clarification - there is one reference some time ago to an idea that there should be fewer working royals and not directly from Charles himself - it seems to be a story that has grown and grown based on very flimsy evidence.

There was, even in the original suggestion, no concept of Charles' sibling not continuing to work until they drop off the proverbial perch so to speak.

The idea has always been to not add more in the next generation other than Charles' children and their spouses. The future is for the monarch and monarch's children to work for the family but only the heirs children after that - so Harry children will have to earn their own money, or leave on whatever Harry and Charles leave them while William's children will work for the Firm.

monarchist-us 03-16-2013 10:25 PM

I think any "slimming" of the BRF should come through attrition...the Gloucesters and Kents won't be around forever, and the York sisters are the only male-line grandchildren to have titles other than William/Harry. So the BRF will slim down naturally over time.

I think the issue of Prince Harry's children holding titles will depend on how many children William and Catherine have. If they only have one child (which is possible, considering how rough her first pregnancy started off and today's family-size trends), then I could Harry's children getting royal titles too like any other male-line grandchild of a monarch. In that scenario, Harry's first child would end up being the proverbial "spare", and it wouldn't make sense to have an untitled (possible) heir presumptive.

Also, if indeed Charles hopes for a "smaller" royal family, he needs to be careful what he wishes for. Because he just might end up with a royal family that's too small to meet the needs of modern Britain. One of the nice things about the BRF is its size -- the monarchy is able to be in more places at once, if you will. I don't think it suits Britain or the Commonwealth to have a Sweden-sized royal family.

branchg 03-17-2013 11:26 AM

I agree the attrition will happen naturally over time and work itself out. They will need a large number of people to carry out the public duties currently undertaken as the older members of the family pass away.

Roslyn 03-17-2013 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monarchist-us (Post 1528238)

Also, if indeed Charles hopes for a "smaller" royal family, he needs to be careful what he wishes for. Because he just might end up with a royal family that's too small to meet the needs of modern Britain. One of the nice things about the BRF is its size -- the monarchy is able to be in more places at once, if you will. I don't think it suits Britain or the Commonwealth to have a Sweden-sized royal family.

Why not? We are used to a large working RF, but if the number of available royals diminishes, things will change. Royals will no longer open as many things as they currently open, won't attend so many community events. We won't see them scoffing bits of cheese at local fetes and things. They'll only do the big events. The public will adjust their expectations downwards. The palaces will still be there and there'll still be changing of the guard. etc., so the tourists will still be catered for and that's where the royals bring in the big bucks, isn't it?

Molly2101 03-17-2013 07:58 PM

I think Charles should really just leave the family to slim down naturally, as in 40 years there will not be the same amount of HRH's simply because William and Harry will likely not have 4 children each. If the Queen had not had Andrew and Edward then there would be 5 less HRH (Andrew, Bea, Eug, Edward and Sophie) therefore a smaller selection of family. This will eventually happen as the older members pass on, which I think Charles should really wait for. Beatrice and Eugenie will have to make their own way in life, as their older cousins Peter and Zara have managed to do. Of course they will ALWAYS have money and wealth because of inheritance, as will Louise and James, but they will all make their own way in life. Charles for one should be glad Edward and Sophie chose to not have their children styled as HRH's as it has made him not have to "deal with" two more HRH's in his lifetime.

cepe 03-17-2013 08:24 PM

Charles is not going to DO anything willy-nilly. He will organised the family according to demand and available members at the time. He will not treat people unkindly and remove people from their current roles. People who imply that are, IMO, wrong. And if he does bring people on board because of demand, ie Beatrice or Eugenie, then he will treat them with respect and kindness. They are his nieces after all. I think he will be a thoughtful and considerate King.

monarchist-us 03-17-2013 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1528482)
Why not? We are used to a large working RF, but if the number of available royals diminishes, things will change. Royals will no longer open as many things as they currently open, won't attend so many community events. We won't see them scoffing bits of cheese at local fetes and things. They'll only do the big events. The public will adjust their expectations downwards. The palaces will still be there and there'll still be changing of the guard. etc., so the tourists will still be catered for and that's where the royals bring in the big bucks, isn't it?

It gives more organizations the chance to have a "royal" connection, and allows the monarchy to be in more places at once.

While the Gloucesters or the Kents may not command the most publicity, there's something to be said about the work they do on behalf of the Queen.

Iluvbertie 03-17-2013 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molly2101 (Post 1528563)
I think Charles should really just leave the family to slim down naturally, as in 40 years there will not be the same amount of HRH's simply because William and Harry will likely not have 4 children each. If the Queen had not had Andrew and Edward then there would be 5 less HRH (Andrew, Bea, Eug, Edward and Sophie) therefore a smaller selection of family. This will eventually happen as the older members pass on, which I think Charles should really wait for. Beatrice and Eugenie will have to make their own way in life, as their older cousins Peter and Zara have managed to do. Of course they will ALWAYS have money and wealth because of inheritance, as will Louise and James, but they will all make their own way in life. Charles for one should be glad Edward and Sophie chose to not have their children styled as HRH's as it has made him not have to "deal with" two more HRH's in his lifetime.


It has been pointed out already a couple of times that the idea of a smaller working family is based on a comment from about 20 years ago that can't even be attributed to Charles.

Every article I have read has made it clear that the making the family smaller is by a process of not adding new people in the younger generation to replace the extended family in older generations so, if it is to happen at all, it will be natural.

George V had 6 children, 5 reached adulthood, 1 more had no children and only his three sons had 7 HRH grandchildren of whom 2 have died. So in The Queen's generation there were 4 princes and 3 princesses with only the princes automatically having HRH spouses - The Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent and Princess Michael while the spouses of the 3 princesses were Philip, Tony and Angus - one a consort to a Queen and the others husbands of princesses. Of those 7 only 1 passed on HRH - the Queen.

She had 4 children - 3 princes and 1 princess with a possible 3 HRHs by marriage. There are 6 eligible HRHs in the next generation but already 2 aren't using it.

In the next generation there will only be the children of William and Harry to have the HRH and that could easily be only 4.

Natural reductions follow naturally smaller families that we are having today.

DukeOfAster 03-17-2013 10:56 PM

I feel that it will not be him taking people out but as current law suggest these people will lose the HRH due to the style is not granted to nieces or nephew of the monarch or second cousin to the monarch. we will keep balcony appearances to Charles and his family and so forth. It is not like he is mean it is just the natural progression of things.

Iluvbertie 03-17-2013 11:12 PM

What current law are you referring to?

The current titles are under the 1917 LPs -

The children of the monarch:

Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward

Male line grandchildren of the monarch:

William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard, Edward, Micheal and Alexandra

The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales:

William's eldest son

This last LP was adjusted recently to give ALL of William's children HRH.

Under the 1917 LPs only William and Harry now living can pass the HRH on and Harry only to his children and only if Charles becomes King.

There is no law that I know that has suggested anyone currently with HRH will lose it.

The balcony appearance at the end of the Jubilee was focussed just on the immediate heir and family - as did Victoria at her golden jubilee. At Trooping the Colour we will still see the entire extended family - HRHs and others like the Philips, Tindalls, Linleys and Chattos.

Ish 03-18-2013 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DukeOfAster (Post 1528631)
I feel that it will not be him taking people out but as current law suggest these people will lose the HRH due to the style is not granted to nieces or nephew of the monarch or second cousin to the monarch. we will keep balcony appearances to Charles and his family and so forth. It is not like he is mean it is just the natural progression of things.

Why would anyone with an HRH lose their HRH?

There are very few people who have an HRH and use, and most are actually fairly old. These people are:

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 91 (through his marriage)
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, 68 (male-line grandson of George V)
The Duchess of Gloucester, 66 (through her marriage)
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, 77 (male-line grandson of George V)
The Duchess of Kent, 80 (through her marriage)
Prince Michael of Kent, 70 (male-line grandson of George V)
Princess Michael of Kent, 68 (through her marriage)
Princess Alexandra, 76 (male-line granddaughter of Kent)
Charles, Prince of Wales, 64 (son of the Queen)
The Duchess of Cornwall, 65 (through her marriage)
Anne, Princess Royal, 62 (daughter of the Queen)
Prince Andrew, Duke of York, 53 (son of the Queen)
Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, 49 (son of the Queen)
The Countess of Wessex, 48 (through her marriage)
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, 30 (male-line grandson of the Queen)
The Duchess of Cambridge, 31 (through her marriage)
Prince Harry of Wales, 28 (male-line grandson of the Queen)
Princess Beatrice of York, 24 (male-line granddaughter of the Queen)
Princess Eugenie of York, 22 (male-line granddaughter of the Queen)

Right now the only way for an HRH to be created is through the birth of a new HRH to Prince William or the marriage of either Prince Andrew or Prince Harry (or for Andrew to get married and then have children). Prince Harry's future children will only become HRH's if and when his father becomes king.

The only 2 people who it would make any sense to have the HRH removed from would be Beatrice and Eugenie, but to do so without addressing the HRHs of the Gloucesters and Kents can (and likely would) be seen as an insult to Andrew and his daughters. There is no point in removing the HRHs from either Gloucester or Kent, as the youngest person with one through those lines is 66. Why bother striping someone of a title that they've had for 40+ years and can't pass on? Similar can be said of the York girls - why bother striping them of a title that they can't pass on? So the royal family is 2 people smaller? It changes nothing.

Regardless of who currently has an HRH, the family is going to get smaller. There are 5 HRHs who we can safely assume will not be alive in the next 20 years, and another 4 who will definitely be pushing their life expectancy. Within 40 years, we can assume that 14 of the currently 19 HRHs will no longer be alive, and another (William) will no longer be HRH. That leaves 4 of the current HRHs. The only additions will be through the marriage of Harry, any children born to Harry or William, any wives of William and Harry's sons, and any male-line grandchildren born to William (or female-line heirs).

If we assume that William and Harry each have 2 sons, all who marry, and each of William's 2 sons have 2 kids each, then there'll be 13 additional HRHs, for a total of 17 HRHs. If Harry only has daughters then there would 2 fewer, and if William had an heir and a daughter, there would be 3 fewer - meaning that we can project an estimate BRF size of between 9 and 18 people by the time William is king (8-17 HRHs plus the monarch). That's natural shrinkage, no need to revoke any HRHs.

Ish 03-18-2013 12:09 AM

Iluvbertie, technically Andrew can pass on the HRH if he remarries and has more children (a possibility that can't be ruled out). Charles can't only because of the age of his wife, and Edward technically does, but his children don't use it.

Iluvbertie 03-18-2013 01:38 AM

Of course Andrew could pass it on if he remarried. If Camilla died and Charles remarried a younger women so could he as could Edward but...

The only ones in the current circumstances are William and Harry as it is highly unlikely that Andrew would remarry.

I would love Andrew to remarry a woman young enough to give him a son but I don't think he would do so. Why a son?? Because Beatrice can't inherit York and I would love for him to be able to pass on the title of York to one of his descendents - and yes I know the history and how it hasn't happened since the 1400s. I just find it offensive that in this day and age a woman can't inherit a title on the grounds that she is a woman.

The situation with Edward's children is difficult as there are two interpretations 1) that because there were no LPs they are HRHs but not using them and 2) because all that is needed is for The Queen's will to be known and that happened they never had the HRH.

Ish 03-18-2013 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1528661)
Of course Andrew could pass it on if he remarried. If Camilla died and Charles remarried a younger women so could he as could Edward but...

The only ones in the current circumstances are William and Harry as it is highly unlikely that Andrew would remarry.

I would love Andrew to remarry a woman young enough to give him a son but I don't think he would do so. Why a son?? Because Beatrice can't inherit York and I would love for him to be able to pass on the title of York to one of his descendents - and yes I know the history and how it hasn't happened since the 1400s. I just find it offensive that in this day and age a woman can't inherit a title on the grounds that she is a woman.

I agree with this completely and think that while they're hashing out the current changes to the succession laws they should look at the general inheritance of titles - although as non-royal hereditary nobles are no longer created, the idea might be to let the nobility die out through the lack of male heirs and the inability of female heirs to inherit titles.

When William was created Duke of Cambridge, was it established that only his male heirs could inherit, or could daughters inherit as well?

Iluvbertie 03-18-2013 02:44 AM

William's LPs were the traditional 'heirs male' which could lead to an interesting scenario - girl first, then boy and William dies before becoming King - Cambridge is inherited by the son who won't become King.

Ish 03-18-2013 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1528669)
William's LPs were the traditional 'heirs male' which could lead to an interesting scenario - girl first, then boy and William dies before becoming King - Cambridge is inherited by the son who won't become King.

In which case Cambridge continues, something that no one is really expecting now.

It's similar to the idea that not all of the realms pass the changes to the succession laws, in which case if there's a girl first then a boy later there could be one Queen of the United Kingdom and a King of *insert Commonwealth country*. In theory, because of the Catholic provisions, we could get up to 4 or 5 monarchs if the various realms passed none, some, or all of the changes, or inserted their own changes, independently of each other, and William had enough children.

Iluvbertie 03-18-2013 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1528672)
In which case Cambridge continues, something that no one is really expecting now.

It's similar to the idea that not all of the realms pass the changes to the succession laws, in which case if there's a girl first then a boy later there could be one Queen of the United Kingdom and a King of *insert Commonwealth country*. In theory, because of the Catholic provisions, we could get up to 4 or 5 monarchs if the various realms passed none, some, or all of the changes, or inserted their own changes, independently of each other, and William had enough children.


Actually that latter can't happen as the changes to the succession act doesn't take effect until passed in all the realms so if a girl first and then a boy and if one of the countries hasn't changed the law then it is still boy first everywhere - so even if this child is a girl it is still possible that a younger son will take precedence.

Ish 03-18-2013 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1528683)

Actually that latter can't happen as the changes to the succession act doesn't take effect until passed in all the realms so if a girl first and then a boy and if one of the countries hasn't changed the law then it is still boy first everywhere - so even if this child is a girl it is still possible that a younger son will take precedence.

Ah, see it's been reported here that it is possible (although, I wouldn't hold my breath on newspapers being right).

There is a part of me that would enjoy the results of different succession laws, though.

DukeOfAster 03-18-2013 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1528664)

I agree with this completely and think that while they're hashing out the current changes to the succession laws they should look at the general inheritance of titles - although as non-royal hereditary nobles are no longer created, the idea might be to let the nobility die out through the lack of male heirs and the inability of female heirs to inherit titles.

When William was created Duke of Cambridge, was it established that only his male heirs could inherit, or could daughters inherit as well?

the Queen issued letter of patents stating that the children of William would get HRH and be Prince or Princess. that is what I am looking at.

BrazilianEmpire 03-18-2013 04:06 PM

History always repeats itself. And I see a lot of similarities between the current Royal Family and the one from the late XIX century, early XX century.

Queen Victoria was a long-lived Sovereign, with a long reign. She was succed by her son, King Edward VII, who was, himself, a old man at his ascension. He's reign was quite short, and his son and successor, King George V, alongside his wife, Queen Mary, reinvented the Monarchy, so, the Institution was able to survive through the XX century.

Queen Elizabeth II is a long-lived Sovereign (even older than Queen Victoria). Her Majesty will, probably, live as long as her mother (so she has about more 15-20 years on hold). King George VII's (or Charles III, wathever) reign will be a short one (10-15 years). Will be upon King William V and Queen Catherine to reinvent the Monarchy, so the Firm will be able to survive through the XXI century, and reach the XXII.

So, in my opinion, during his reign, the Prince of Wales will start to change somethings, but the great renovation of the British Monarchy will only happen during the Duke of Cambridge's reign.

I don't think the Prince of Wales will do any slimmig down, that will occur naturally, during the course of time.

NGalitzine 03-18-2013 04:09 PM

^^^^
Edward VII was succeeded by his son George V who was the monarch married to Queen Mary.

BrazilianEmpire 03-18-2013 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1528849)
^^^^
Edward VII was succeeded by his son George V who was the monarch married to Queen Mary.

Yeah, I got confused.

I corrected. Thanks.

Iluvbertie 03-18-2013 05:09 PM

The big difference between Edward VII and Charles is that Edward smoked heavily, ate and drank to excess so he died due to not taking care of his health.

Charles has always taken care of his heath and therefore stands a great chance of living to the same age as his parents - whatever age he becomes King a reign of 20+ years is still possible.

William has smoked, and probably still does only we don't see it. He has also been a heavy drinker in his youth. He hasn't taken the same care of his health as his father has and so stands a greater chance of not living to the great ages of his grandparents. Add to those listed he also spends a lot of time in the sun so skin cancer is also a possibility - and that can also be fatal (I hate seeing people with tans as it is a sign of an unhealthy person not a healthy one).

It is perfectly possible that William won't become King until the middle of the century unlike George V who was King 100 years ago.

ladongas 03-18-2013 05:26 PM

What Laura Bush had to say in her book,
 
"Spoken from the Heart" :

During the account of her rise from an oil town in Texas to the world stage, Mrs. Bush describes her unexpected encounters with global leaders and heads of state. Her meeting with the Prince and Duchess came in November 2005. ‘When Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, came to visit us,’ she wrote, ‘they requested glasses of ice before we began a long receiving line. The staff dutifully produced them, and the Prince removed a flask from his pocket and added to each a small splash of what I presume was straight gin, so that they might be fortified before the hour of shaking hands’,” Times writes, citing Mrs. Bush herself.

Wonder why he didn't just ask Laura for a couple of drinks?

I've never thought of Charles (or Camilla) as being particularly abstemious, at least not when they were a bit younger. He does seem the picture of health, although I wonder if he has rosacea.

cepe 03-18-2013 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1528886)
"Spoken from the Heart" :

During the account of her rise from an oil town in Texas to the world stage, Mrs. Bush describes her unexpected encounters with global leaders and heads of state. Her meeting with the Prince and Duchess came in November 2005. ‘When Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, came to visit us,’ she wrote, ‘they requested glasses of ice before we began a long receiving line. The staff dutifully produced them, and the Prince removed a flask from his pocket and added to each a small splash of what I presume was straight gin, so that they might be fortified before the hour of shaking hands’,” Times writes, citing Mrs. Bush herself.

Wonder why he didn't just ask Laura for a couple of drinks?

I've never thought of Charles (or Camilla) as being particularly abstemious, at least not when they were a bit younger. He does seem the picture of health, although I wonder if he has rosacea.

I cant see what this has to do the Monarchy under Charles or how you've reached your final conclusion.

ladongas 03-18-2013 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1528896)
I cant see what this has to do the Monarchy under Charles or how you've reached your final conclusion.

The post prior to mine compared the habits and lifestyles of various royals, pointing out Charles' healthy lifestyle. I've been reading about and seeing pictures of Charles (and Camilla) for many years. There is no doubt in my mind that they enjoy (or enjoyed) alcoholic beverages. And why not? Many adults do, and I'm not suggesting either of them drink to excess. In fact, the occasional drink is considered healthful by many medical professionals.
I wonder about rosacea because of his complexion.

gerry 03-18-2013 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1528902)
The post prior to mine compared the habits and lifestyles of various royals, pointing out Charles' healthy lifestyle. I've been reading about and seeing pictures of Charles (and Camilla) for many years. There is no doubt in my mind that they enjoy (or enjoyed) alcoholic beverages. And why not? Many adults do, and I'm not suggesting either of them drink to excess. In fact, the occasional drink is considered healthful by many medical professionals.
I wonder about rosacea because of his complexion.

agree about complexion and is rosacea not exacerbated by alcohol? here is hoping that the prince of wales and his duchess take after his esteemed and much missed grandmother who quite enjoyed the odd tipple or three:flowers:i

cepe 03-18-2013 06:36 PM

You obviously don't know much about this Prince. The Prince of Wales leads an outdoor lifestyle - that would account for his complexion. In all the years of people being negative about this man, no one has ever accused him of drinking too much.

ladongas 03-18-2013 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1528914)
You obviously don't know much about this Prince. The Prince of Wales leads an outdoor lifestyle - that would account for his complexion. In all the years of people being negative about this man, no one has ever accused him of drinking too much.

Nor did I.

cepe 03-18-2013 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 1528932)
Nor did I.

I know you didn't. I was just underlining the fact that his complexion is about his outdoor lifestyle; not roseacea or alcohol.

BritishRoyalist 03-18-2013 08:07 PM

There was a similar topic like this on another message Forum (Except it more abput the furutre of the English Monarhcy). This is what I wrote:

Sorry for this long post. t I wanted to add some stuff

1. I like Prince Charles. I have always like him but I have came to like him more over the last few years especially during the Diamond Jubilee last Year. I like the Documentary (Family Videos) he did and the Tribute he paid to his Mother at the Jubilee concert you could tell that Queen Elizabeth got a little emotions (genuinely moved) but she held back. You could tell he love his mother and that there is special bond there. I think Charles will make a Good King and will do a Good Job, his private life (The Diana/Camilla thing) should not get in the way of it or should not stop him. He is not the first King and will not be the last to have affairs and make mistakes before they came to the throne or after acceding. There are King who did much worst things then Charles ever did! I am not trying to open up another can of worms but Diana had her faults as well and cheated also let not forget (Diana was nice person but I never understood why some made her out to be some saint). obviously they both had their faults but Some peoples need to move on and let it be history. Camilla seem like a decent person to me. I have came to soften up to her more but not totally. I think Charles will make a fine King when it his time. He was raise by two Great Parents (Queen Elizabeth and Philip) The Queen was raised King George VI and The Queen Mother (Elizabeth) who I am sure prepared Elizabeth before she became Queen and The Queen Mother no doubt had a influence of her daughter up until the day she died and mostly likely had the same influence on Charles in preparing him. Charles is most trained Ready King you could have in my opinion. He has had his whole life to prepare. Whether peoples like it or not Charles will be King when The Queen dies even if he is 64 or 77 or even if He is only King for 1 years or 20 years. it won't matter because Charles is next in line not William And the first in Line to the throne to succeeds which it state in the Succession Law of the Act of Settlement .


2. There are some resisting Similarities/Parallels with Elizabeth/Charles and Queen Victoria/Edward VIII. The Mother (Victoria and Elizabeth) Having Long rein spanning more then 60 Years and then their heir/Oldest Son (Prince of Wales Edward and Charles) Being Party Animals (Mainly Edward) and having Mistresses, their Actions, causing scandals and embarrassment for their Mothers and putting the Monarchy Image at risk. Victoria blamed Albert death on her Son Edward Pretty much did not give him anything to do at all and did not share any information with him and he was pretty much in the dark so he went out and had affairs and Partied which did not make his Mother happy at all (As well as his actions and Countless Scandals he caused which she believe that he was trying to ruin the Monarchy after she ahs spent Years restoring it) and she believe that he did not have what it took to be A King and did not think that he was suitable to be king She loved her Son but he disappointed her at times. She did Question his suitability. Many people in Britain did not want Edward VII To be King either and did not thing he was suitable enough part of it had to do with his many mistresses, Scandals and partying ways. But in the End when Edward VII Came to the throne he proved his Mother and The Peoples of Britain wrong and he became a Successful and Popular King! Edward VII said that in order for the Monarchy to survive into the 20th century it had to change and Re-form it self. Victoria and Edward had a Difficult Relationship and she wasn't sure about the Future after she wads gone but in the End I think she would be Happy with what Edward did.

Same thing can be said with Elizabeth and Charles who at times over the years have been said to have had Difficult periods in their relationship (Mainly during the whole Diana thing). Elizabeth not allowing Charles to marry who he wanted and then the whole Charles-Diana-Camilla story. Charles and Diana Marriage falling apart, Cheating on each other then going to the press and airing their dirty laundry to the public/press, books and Leaked Taped Phone calls come out threatening the Monarchy. It was found out that Charles Had been seeing camellia for the entire marriage, Diana gives the infamous interview in 1995. Queen Elizabeth was not happy at all with what Charles and Diana were doing (Cheating, Airing Dirty Laundry in public/Press, Trashing each other, Playing Blame game, etc). She then told them to divorce. Diana was killed in 1997 and The Royal Family was Harshly and Unfairly Criticize I think! I think the queen handled that right. Diana was made to look like a Saint and Charles was made to look evil. Peoples blamed Charles which is not fair. The Monarchy Images was almost ruined but it survived and recovered! A lot of peoples do not want Charles to be King mostly because of what happened in the pass and Camilla. It had caused some problems between Mother and Son at certain times. Elizabeth has given Charles more to do and let him go out o his thing but not a lot. Elizabeth (Like Victoria) had been said to question Charles suitability as a King at times but in the long Run I think she believes he will do okay. I think some also question Charles suitability as King(Like Edward) and pretty much when ask why they don’t want him to be King the Answer is because of Diana-Camellia. You have to better then that. Many, Many Kings over the years has affairs (Including Edward VII) and Beheaded their wives and they were still popular or successful. Charles will do good Job and Will make a King. He has been training for the job for more then 60 Years now and all you have to do is go back and look at what he has done. He will prove peoples wrong just like King Edward VII. Like Victoria Queen Elizabeth love her son but is not always happy at the choices he make or the things he does but I think every parent is like that at times.


3. think The British Monarchy will last for a long time. Charles will do a Good Job and William will be Popular. The British Monarchy in times of Controversy and Scandals always recovers and it image is never completely damaged or tarnished. It popularity may have dipped a bit at times but it always remains high and it recovers Eventually Like in the 1870s (Including what I said above about Edward and as well as the fact there was a Republican Movement going on in which Victoria became Unpopular because she would not be seen in public eventually she was forced to come out into the public and The Movement died down and Eventually she became very popular again) or in 1980s and 1990s with all the Scandals, Controversy, affairs, Divorces going on. The Popularity of the Monarchy has never fallen below 60% in the last 70 Years and today it still very Popular(Now above 75%) with lot of Support for it. Elizabeth is now more Popular then she has ever been( Much like Victoria was at the end of her rein) Charles Image has been improved. The British Monarchy is now Very Popular with strong supports and also stable again after the 1990s.

4. It would really take a Huge Scandal or a Massive Controversy or embarrassment to really knock down the British Monarchy and abolish it! The British Monarchy is still the Most Popular and famous Royal Family in Europe and in the World. It will be the last one standing of all the current Royal Families in the world( And Europe) and the last one to ever fall!

Remember they already abolished the Monarchy once in 1649 when Charles I was beheaded but was restored 11 Years later in 1660 with His Son Charles II.

Much Like Victoria-Edward VII-George V Which was In order Long rein, Short rein and Geroge V had a Long Rein (But still much shorter then victoria. Charles will be a short rein and William will be longer then Charles but much shoter then that of Elzbaeth.

Ish 03-19-2013 03:35 PM

While there are similarities between Edward VII and Charles, I wouldn't say that history is repeating itself.

Victoria came to the throne at a very young age after the short reign of her uncle, William IV. She did not save the monarchy, that can be attributed to her uncle, she just provided her nation (and empire) with a stability in the monarchy. I would even go so far as to say a lot of the early successes of her reign can be attributed to the influence of her ministers and husband - Victoria was a woman who allowed herself to heavily influenced by both - while in some way the continued existence of the monarchy during Victoria's later reign can be attributed to the then Prince Albert-Edward, who gave the monarchy a presence in the UK while Victoria was in perpetual mourning. The idea that Prince Albert-Edward would not be a good king himself came from the fact that he was a playboy prince who was not trained for the role of monarch. In actuality, his short reign was very successful and he did a lot to establish the monarchy (and royal duties) as we know them today. Far more than his mother, he can be seen as having saved the monarchy.

Like her predecessor, HM came to the throne at a young age, and when combined with her own good health, that age can be attributed to her long reign. She has proven to be much better suited for her role than Victoria was, and despite some scandals during her reign she had proven to be a good monarch. Her son, whatever his personal issues have been, has been shown to be the most well trained heir apparent in the history of the British monarchy. There is little reason to believe that he will be an unsuccessful monarch (in contrast to the reason to worry about the success of the then Prince Albert-Edward), nor should we expect that his reign will be short - or that the reign of his son will be longer.

Despite HM's recent health problems, there is little reason to believe that she will not reign for another 10-15 years (at which point she will be 97-102). Assuming she reigns for another 15 years, Prince Charles will be almost 80 when he becomes king, but there's no reason to believe his life won't be long either - at that point his mother will have lived to be over 100, like his maternal grandmother did, his father has so far lived into his 90s (presumably with years to come). We have no reason to believe that Charles himself won't live to be 100 as well, giving him a 20 year reign. Right now he is older than Edward VII was when he became king, and in better health.

We don't really have reason to believe that William will live as long as his paternal grandmother (or as long as we can expect his father to live). Yes, paternally William's family has been long lived, but both his maternal grandparents died before their 70th year. Furthermore, unlike his father, William has been a smoker and as such is less likely to have good health in his old age. If his grandmother lives another 15 years, then William will be 45 when his father becomes king, and if Charles rules for 20 years then William will be 65 when he becomes king. As he's lived life more like Edward VII did, I wouldn't expect his reign (at that age) to be longer than 15 years. If all of that happens, then by the time Baby Cambridge will be 50. If Baby Cambridge is anything in lifespan like the late Queen Mother and what we can project for HM and Charles, then perhaps Baby Cambridge will have an especially long reign of 50 years.

blauerengel 03-19-2013 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1528914)
You obviously don't know much about this Prince. The Prince of Wales leads an outdoor lifestyle - that would account for his complexion. In all the years of people being negative about this man, no one has ever accused him of drinking too much.

Haha,well-said! The Prince obviously has sensitive skin and if you don´t use an oily cream outdoors you get red cheeks.I find red cheeks quite attractive but I am battling with rosacea because like Charles I spend lots of time in the nature and often forget to use my lanolin facial cream...
HRH is definitely NOT an alcoholic,he just loves to be outside and spend his time in a natural environment which is showing in his face.

blauerengel 03-19-2013 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1529281)
While there are similarities between Edward VII and Charles, I wouldn't say that history is repeating itself.

Victoria came to the throne at a very young age after the short reign of her uncle, William IV. She did not save the monarchy, that can be attributed to her uncle, she just provided her nation (and empire) with a stability in the monarchy. I would even go so far as to say a lot of the early successes of her reign can be attributed to the influence of her ministers and husband - Victoria was a woman who allowed herself to heavily influenced by both - while in some way the continued existence of the monarchy during Victoria's later reign can be attributed to the then Prince Albert-Edward, who gave the monarchy a presence in the UK while Victoria was in perpetual mourning. The idea that Prince Albert-Edward would not be a good king himself came from the fact that he was a playboy prince who was not trained for the role of monarch. In actuality, his short reign was very successful and he did a lot to establish the monarchy (and royal duties) as we know them today. Far more than his mother, he can be seen as having saved the monarchy.

I agree with your observations of Q. Victoria´s reign but I would not attribute so much of her success to other people.Yes,she came at the right time and was in the right place,she had the luck of working with highly intelligent politicians and good advisors-but it was also her who chose to LISTEN to them and Victoria who sought out the best advice-this is also an acchievement and something that takes good instict,strategic thinking and intellect.

Nowadays I see many politicians with a lot of smart,educated and experienced advisors-but would they listen to them?
No!They mostly do what they think is the right thing to do or what they think will give them good PR and a good chance to get re-elected.
(Not applying to all politicians,but in Austria it seems to be quite the norm!)

Q Elizabeth II has also heavily relied on good advisors and always tried to get as much information as possible to make a well-informed decision-some ppl call her the best-informed person in the British Empire because she is always reading every newspaper and special reports that are sent to her in a red suitcase (it was shown in a documentary).

Prince Charles is more independent and relies more on his own instinct and intuition than his advisors-he is also not afraid of speaking his mind and saying things that are more controversial and get discussed heavily by the public.

On the contrary-both Queens tried to be balanced and as little controversial as possible.They wanted to have a stable,peaceful empire with content citizens and the most important thing was to smoothen conflicts of interests and balance different political ideas that could have made UK more unstable from within or lead to fractions within the Royal family.They are rather conservative & pragmatic while Charles is not afraid to think out of the box and risk doing things in a new way (which might fail),or finding a creative approach to problems that have yet to be solved.

At least that´s how I see it,but it´s just my personal observation.

padams2359 03-19-2013 09:36 PM

When Edward VII came to the throne, the people needed a little party in their king. The many gloomy years with QV were long. The people wanted happy times. KE was "the Uncle of Europe.". He lived at some of the best years of Monarchy in Europe, and died right before it almost all died.

royal-blue 07-03-2013 10:37 PM

When Charles is King, is he likely to continue to invite Princess Margaret's son and daughter and their families to Balmoral and Sandringham each year as his mum currently does, or is he more likely to focus on just his parent's descendents?

The Queen doesn't invite her own cousins, the Kents and Gloucesters.

NGalitzine 07-03-2013 10:44 PM

I expect there will eventually be changes in the guest list which is only natural I think with any change in generations and leadership. Even now I believe the Linleys and the Chattos are only at Sandringham for Christmas every second year.

Roslyn 07-03-2013 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal-blue (Post 1571204)
When Charles is King, is he likely to continue to invite Princess Margaret's son and daughter and their families to Balmoral and Sandringham each year as his mum currently does, or is he more likely to focus on just his parent's descendents?

The Queen doesn't invite her own cousins, the Kents and Gloucesters.

Did George VI have similar house parties like these which the Kents and Gloucesters attended during his lifetime but ceased attending after his death? I don't know. If he did, and they stopped going, there would be a useful precedent. Otherwise, my feeling is that since they have been a part of those festivities for so long, Charles might continue to invite the Linleys and Chattos, though making it clear that there is no pressure on them to attend. If there is no precedent, it might be perceived as rude of him to suddenly stop asking them to do something that has been a feature of their lives for so long, especially if they enjoyed it, and I don't think Charles would be rude in that way. However if the Chattos and Linleys only go now out of a sense of duty, they might be delighted to be able to decline.

Iluvbertie 07-04-2013 12:04 AM

The Gloucesters and Kents joined the royal family for Christmas at Windsor early in The Queen's reign but when she moved the Christmas celebrations to Sandringham they stopped attending and attend just the 'family' lunch before The Queen decamps to Sandringham each year. She continued to invite her sister of course because The Queen Mum always attended so of course Margaret's children went to be with their mother and grandmother and she has continued the invites. The Queen is quite close to her nephew and neice but I am not so sure that Charles is as close to all his siblings and their children as The Queen was to her sister and still is to David and Sarah.

I could see Anne continuing to be invited along with her children etc but no so sure about the younger brothers and their children as I don't get a sense that Charles is that close to Andrew and Edward and their children.

MARG 07-04-2013 12:44 AM

Coming from a family where the children span 18 years from oldest to youngest, I think many people underestimate the closeness of the children and their families.

Just because we don't actually see them doing the old continental air kisses at regular intervals doesn't mean that they only get together for official occasions. The Olympics gave us a rare glimpse into their private lives and if we took the time to run through the different threads and align them I think we would be a little surprised.

Harry joining the York's during their annual skiing trip and, a few years ago there were fantastic shots of Zara planting herself on Uncle Charles lap at Ascot!

And the extended family is an interesting mix as well. Camilla's granddaughter seemed quite familiar and happy to let Charles pick her up and hold her so she could see over the balustrades of the balcony after Willam and Catherine's wedding. Check out the fun shared by Princess Ann and Prince Harry at the Horse Jumping.

In short, I think they are closer than most families because they share a particular and somewhat peculiar lifestyle. Who else understands just what and pushes their buttons and how they handle it. Who else can they be themselves with in the sure and certain knowledge that it will not appear on Twitter or Facebook?

Iluvbertie 07-04-2013 12:55 AM

Despite all the images we see of the younger members of the family etc we don't see much interaction, if any, between Charles and his own younger brothers and their children. His children might interact and obviously he interacts with Anne but it is rare to see him, even on official occasions, with Andrew or Edward and even less often, if ever, with the York girls - and we do have a report of him calling them 'twits'.

As Charles will be monarch I can see him not having his own siblings present every years for Christmas - and even including Camilla's children and grandchildren - on occasions.

NGalitzine 07-04-2013 01:45 AM

It seems some people believe that the PoW does not like sny of his own family and intends to cut them out of as much as possible once he comes tp the throne. I dont think we have any hard evidence of any animosity between the siblings or anything to substantiate claims that they will be cut out when he is king.

muriel 07-04-2013 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1571224)
Despite all the images we see of the younger members of the family etc we don't see much interaction, if any, between Charles and his own younger brothers and their children. His children might interact and obviously he interacts with Anne but it is rare to see him, even on official occasions, with Andrew or Edward and even less often, if ever, with the York girls - and we do have a report of him calling them 'twits'.

As Charles will be monarch I can see him not having his own siblings present every years for Christmas - and even including Camilla's children and grandchildren - on occasions.

I think Camilla's children and grand children will certainly become regulars - perhaps every alternate year to allow them to see other in-laws and APB. I think you will continue to see Charles' siblings continue, and perhaps even the Linley / Chatto cousins. They all seem reasonably close. William and Catherine are hardly likely to have borrowed David and Serena's home in France if they were not close.

MARG 07-04-2013 05:47 AM

:previous: Good point. On the "evidence" of what we see in the media we could have been expected to believe that there was no interaction between these members of the BRF on any level whatsoever.

Nevertheless, we would have been wrong! :lol:

Neighbourlady 07-04-2013 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal-blue (Post 1571204)
When Charles is King, is he likely to continue to invite Princess Margaret's son and daughter and their families to Balmoral and Sandringham each year as his mum currently does, or is he more likely to focus on just his parent's descendents?

The Queen doesn't invite her own cousins, the Kents and Gloucesters.

I think he will - Charles has always been close to his cousin Sarah (one of my favourite pics of him is he and Sarah dancing an impromtu Scottish reel outside at Balmoral when she was about 8 yrs old), and don't forget it was at Viscount Linley's home that the infamous "topless" pics of Kate were taken (her and Wills were staying there at the time). So obviously, they must be close to him as well.

AdmirerUS 07-04-2013 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1571224)
Despite all the images we see of the younger members of the family etc we don't see much interaction, if any, between Charles and his own younger brothers and their children. His children might interact and obviously he interacts with Anne but it is rare to see him, even on official occasions, with Andrew or Edward and even less often, if ever, with the York girls - and we do have a report of him calling them 'twits'.

As Charles will be monarch I can see him not having his own siblings present every years for Christmas - and even including Camilla's children and grandchildren - on occasions.

If he is smart - he will consider not only what he wants -but what is good for the family. I think at Holidays - it is a simple gesture to invite family so that they can see ONE ANOTHER, not just me. That's what family leaders do.

I do hope he continues the tradition of "silly" gifts at X Mas.

Iluvbertie 07-04-2013 10:49 PM

The other thing is - do the others want to spend time with him?

Meadow 07-04-2013 11:04 PM

That is a point. I would think he would still invite his younger brothers for Christmas it's only once a year and his kids are friends with their cousins. Mind you things do change when parents pass away. Charles may start his own traditions.....

vkrish 07-05-2013 03:15 AM

And even if he doesnt invite them, that should not be seen as snubbing/cold-shouldering/abandoning them..It must be pure commomsensical, that once all his nieces/nephews have their spouses and kids, its impossible for all of them to be at Sandringham.
I dont understand why people jump to conclusions about Charles relations with Andrew and Edward, just bcos we never have a pic showering them with kisses and hugs in public.. I didnt see any such "PDAs" between Frederik-Joachim or WA and his brothers, or for that matter, even between George VI and DoG.. But no one thinks so about them..

Iluvbertie 07-05-2013 03:27 AM

I would like to see them even speaking to each other in public on occasions but Charles is never seen walking with Andrew or speaking to him anymore whereas going back 15 - 20 years they would often be seen walking together to church and on the balcony etc. Whereas their kids are seen interacting on these occasions they are not, anymore.

vkrish 07-05-2013 03:47 AM

But Iluvbertie, were there any such public occasions in recent past, when they were all together, other than services in Westminster/St Pauls/Garter/Jubilee events? And at all those, Charles and Camilla wait for Queen and walk down the aisle with her very late, almost the service has begun. Even the Queen doesnt "interact" with anyone such times. The service begins immediately.
And if you are speaking about Trooping Balcony appearance, thats very random, based on where they are standing, Charles hardly talks to anyone on Balcony, not even to Anne. Their standing positions are much streamlined now a days. Charles always to right of the Queen, others either behind or to the left..They dont talk to someone who is across 2-3 other persons. They would have talked till then in the room..
Anyways, I also wish there is more public interaction, but thats what we get.
The only thing I wished is Charles walks with one of his brothers on the Christmas "parade"..But then C-C wanna potray that "perfect-couple-oh-so-happy-with-each-other" image so they always walk together..
And I think this discussion actually belongs to Relationships among BRF thread..:ohmy:

Iluvbertie 07-05-2013 04:02 AM

There are a number of occasions when they are together - and the Christmas walk to church is the most obvious one - the others walk mixed up a bit but Charles is the only one not to do so - always with Camilla. They actually stand on the balcony in groups not all in a row and even if Charles and Andrew are near each other they never speak.

Andrew seems to only walk with his daughters, or if they are walking with their cousins, which they do at lot, he walks in front of them or behind them, alone.

SLV 07-05-2013 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1571631)
Andrew seems to only walk with his daughters, or if they are walking with their cousins, which they do at lot, he walks in front of them or behind them, alone.

But that does not mean that the 'fault' lies with prince Charles.

Skippyboo 07-06-2013 04:05 PM

Events where the protocol is in place such as memorial services..etc they always walk in the order Anne's then Edward then Andrew and Charles then the Queen and Phillip. So you have William Kate and Harry plus Bea and Eugiene between the 2 brothers plus the aisle of Westminster abbey or St. Paul's isn't the place for chit chat.

At Christmas, husbands walk with their spouses except Phillip and Edward since Sophie is with the queen. Autumn was with Peter, Mike with Zara, William was with Kate with Harry on her other side. Why wouldn't Camilla walk with Charles?

The Linleys and Chattos are very close to Charles. His godfather to one of Sarah's boys and Charles Armstrong Jones is named for the PoW.

I think that they will be invited but not attend every year as their families get older. I would expect the same thing with his brother and sister especially when the kids start to marry and have kids.

Camilla's family hasn't really attended royal family functions except for William's wedding. They may want to continue being out of the spotlight.

Iluvbertie 07-06-2013 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLV (Post 1571638)
But that does not mean that the 'fault' lies with prince Charles.


I didn't say the fault lies with Charles but rather that the brothers don't get along. As Charles will be the King and thus the one issuing invitations he will be the one to decide if he has his brothers and their children over for Christmas.

NGalitzine 07-06-2013 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1572252)
I didn't say the fault lies with Charles but rather that the brothers don't get along. As Charles will be the King and thus the one issuing invitations he will be the one to decide if he has his brothers and their children over for Christmas.

My brothers are 19 and 16 yrs older than me. Obviously our life experiences and interests are different. This however does not mean we do not get along when we are together for family events. I still have seen no evidence that Charles, Andrew and Edward do not get along.

Iluvbertie 07-06-2013 08:45 PM

I have seen and read lots of evidence that Charles doesn't get along with Andrew and have sited examples of when they could show some togetherness but don't. They used to be close but as their marriages collapsed they went totally different ways and Charles has made it clear that he has no time for the women Andrew still has strong feelings for.

Charles is possibly closer to Edward but he certainly doesn't come across as close at all to Andrew or Andrew's girl - even reportedly calling them 'twits' - not a comment that you would make in public about your neices if you had any respect for them at all.

The age gap isn't the only reason for siblings to not get along. My closest sibling is a year younger than me and we never speak to each other at all.

COUNTESS 07-06-2013 09:14 PM

Charles is Charles. He is only close to Charles and Camilla. And Camilla's family are not royal and, probably, have not been included. Not their fault just circumstances. They are not the Brady Bunch.

Iluvbertie 07-06-2013 09:36 PM

I don't agree that Charles is only close to Camilla. He is close to Anne and her kids and to Harry - I have doubts about his closeness to William and Kate as I get the vibe that William is more Middleton than Windsor now.

Mirabel 07-06-2013 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1572282)
I have seen and read lots of evidence that Charles doesn't get along with Andrew and have sited examples of when they could show some togetherness but don't. They used to be close but as their marriages collapsed they went totally different ways and Charles has made it clear that he has no time for the women Andrew still has strong feelings for.

Charles is possibly closer to Edward but he certainly doesn't come across as close at all to Andrew or Andrew's girl - even reportedly calling them 'twits' - not a comment that you would make in public about your neices if you had any respect for them at all.


I have always heard that Charles and Andrew are at odds; however, I surmise that Charles rather despises Edward and considers him a nonentity. I've heard that he frequently makes disparaging or dismissive remarks about Edward.
However, it's been said that Charles remains close to his sister.

COUNTESS 07-06-2013 10:22 PM

Of course, to Harry and William and Kate. I never thought, differently. That was a given. He is a good father. As far as Anne, I am not aware that they have any particular closeness, except they are siblings. As for Peter and Zara, I have no idea, because I have never heard nor seen it demonstrated. Edward and Andrew are younger and Andrew is less uptight about who he is. Perhaps, for Charles that is a minus.

Queen Camilla 07-06-2013 11:49 PM

Charles does speak to Andrew & his siblings. Each year, he abandons Camilla during the morning walk to the 1st Christmas service.

2011 He is walking & talking with Andrew after coming from the 1st Christmas service.
2011 On the to/back he is walking/talking to David Linley.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/ne...hoto/136104862#

When/if Charles comes to the throne, he might be in his 80s. His siblings & cousins will have grandkids. They might not all want to travel to Sandringham.

Ish 07-07-2013 12:01 AM

I think a lot is made out of the so-called animosity between Charles and his brothers, more so than should probably be made.

It's clear that Charles isn't likely friends with Andrew or Edward, or particularly close with their children - although it should be noted that Edward's children are still really young. That said, Charles is a fair bit older than either of his brothers and had a different childhood than either of them, because of the generation he grew up in, the position of his mother throughout his childhood (the new queen versus the one who'd been at the job a while), and the fact that he was the oldest and the heir.

I think we can safely assume that Charles isn't friends with his brothers. There's every indication of that. But that doesn't mean that they dislike each other or don't get along: it just means they're not friends. They're not likely to pop in at each other's home for tea, but that doesn't mean that Charles is necessarily going to exclude his brothers and their families from Christmas.

I think what we're likely to see when Charles is king, regarding events like Christmas, is a continuation of the same, but with Charles the host instead of the Queen. The Linleys and Chattos will get invited, and while they may opt to turn down the invitation they also might continue it given as Christmas with their Windsor cousins has been how they've celebrated their entire lives. Similarly, I would expect Anne, Andrew, Edward, and their families to continue to be invited, and attend. That Charles' sons are friends with their similarly aged cousins would definitely help to keep things together.

As for Camilla's family, while I can see them being invited I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't attend. The Parker Bowles family likely has it's own Christmas traditions. I could also see the Middletons being invited more, and I think they'd be more likely to begin attending. It's clear that William and Catherine remain very close with her family and are stressing the importance of not cutting them out, and I can see Charles inviting the Middletons to make it easier for William and Catherine to do both families at Christmas.

Queen Camilla 07-07-2013 12:17 AM

I believe Camilla's kids will stay at Sandringham for Christmas after Charles becomes King. Or he might celebrate Christmas at Windsor as it is closer. I think Camilla's kids aren't invited now because they are not related to the Queen.

Here's the one with Charles & David Linley Christmas 2011.
English Royals attend services at Sandringham Christmas 2011 - Pictures - Zimbio

Another one of Charles & Andrew.
English Royals attend services at Sandringham Christmas 2011 - Pictures - Zimbio

More Charles & Andrew
https://www.zimbio.com/pictures/3XAyo...am/WQvsKW7Abbs

https://www.zimbio.com/pictures/3XAyo...am/jWbVWNKq9M0

camelot23ca 07-07-2013 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1572319)
I think a lot is made out of the so-called animosity between Charles and his brothers, more so than should probably be made.

It's clear that Charles isn't likely friends with Andrew or Edward, or particularly close with their children - although it should be noted that Edward's children are still really young. That said, Charles is a fair bit older than either of his brothers and had a different childhood than either of them, because of the generation he grew up in, the position of his mother throughout his childhood (the new queen versus the one who'd been at the job a while), and the fact that he was the oldest and the heir.

I think we can safely assume that Charles isn't friends with his brothers. There's every indication of that. But that doesn't mean that they dislike each other or don't get along: it just means they're not friends. They're not likely to pop in at each other's home for tea, but that doesn't mean that Charles is necessarily going to exclude his brothers and their families from Christmas.

I think what we're likely to see when Charles is king, regarding events like Christmas, is a continuation of the same, but with Charles the host instead of the Queen. The Linleys and Chattos will get invited, and while they may opt to turn down the invitation they also might continue it given as Christmas with their Windsor cousins has been how they've celebrated their entire lives. Similarly, I would expect Anne, Andrew, Edward, and their families to continue to be invited, and attend. That Charles' sons are friends with their similarly aged cousins would definitely help to keep things together.

As for Camilla's family, while I can see them being invited I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't attend. The Parker Bowles family likely has it's own Christmas traditions. I could also see the Middletons being invited more, and I think they'd be more likely to begin attending. It's clear that William and Catherine remain very close with her family and are stressing the importance of not cutting them out, and I can see Charles inviting the Middletons to make it easier for William and Catherine to do both families at Christmas.

Good post!

I also think it's worth remembering that almost all the information we have about the emotional and inner lives of the royal family is second hand or press conjecture. The senior members of the family don't show strong emotion in public and they clearly feel most comfortable with a certain amount of distance between themselves and the regular man/woman on the street. Charles, in particular, has never mastered the art of telling anecotes or cute stories that are humanizing but actually reveal very little, (his sons are much better at walking this line, IMO). Even if they were very close it would be hard to imagine either Charles, Andrew or Edward dropping joking references to each other into their speeches the way William and Harry do, for example. That's just not their style.

If I had to guess, I would say Charles is probably not especially close to either of his brothers. I think it was always unlikely the brothers would turn out to be good friends, given the age differences between them and the difference in position between Charles and the rest of the siblings. "Not good friends" isn't synonymous with "bad", though.

Anna Catherine 07-07-2013 03:07 AM

There is no evidence for any of this! A quick Google search would show recent pictures of Charles laughing or chatting with his brothers and sister. As for him not being close with William, I don't know where that came from. This is also completely off topic and unfounded. Like I said we could easily Google it. Besides that fact, the press loves to make up unflattering stories about Charles. I don't believe any of them!

Can we please get back on topic?! I think if the Yorks, Wessexs, and the Princess Royal's families want to come they can. This is everyone's immediate family and they all seem to be a close knit family. However, I can see some of the younger generation doing like William and Kate and splitting their time between the royal family and their spouses' families if they choose to. Camilla still visits her children on holidays and spends time with her husband's family.

I apologize if I came off harsh or rude, but I think this conversation is disrespectful of the royal family and it's unfair to assume such things especially based off of hearsay, press, and what little we can derive from pictures or videos.

Iluvbertie 07-07-2013 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anna Catherine (Post 1572340)
I apologize if I came off harsh or rude, but I think this conversation is disrespectful of the royal family and it's unfair to assume such things especially based off of hearsay, press, and what little we can derive from pictures or videos.


But that is what you are doing when you say 'recent pictures of Charles laughing or chatting with his brothers and sister.' basing youder opinion on what you derive from pictures or videos.

If you can do so to see something nice happening then I can see the opposite in the pictures and videos I have seen over half a century of watching the royals in person and through the media.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises