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)

MARG 11-07-2015 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1836628)
Could someone point me to the source of the story that Charles is going to downsize the official BRF?

I'm aware that a couple of royal reporters have said that Charles doesn't think the Queen should personally pay (ie private money) for BRF members to carry out royal duties - that it should come from Sovereign Grant - but that has not been confirmed by CH in any way.

So what's the source?

As far as I can remember, it was tracked back to a comment made by a "little grey man" to somebody else, and so on. Charles has never, ever, made such a comment in public.

The only thing I do know is that HM created "The way ahead" committee consisting of members of the BRF, including all her children.

cepe 11-07-2015 08:22 PM

:previous: thank you Marg.

I do enjoy this thread which, apparently, is based entirely on speculation. But it is interesting and wide ranging which I like.

hernameispekka 11-07-2015 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1836764)
:previous: thank you Marg.

I do enjoy this thread which, apparently, is based entirely on speculation. But it is interesting and wide ranging which I like.

I agree. I mean... this thread is just speculation, and that's the only way it could be. None o us, as far as I know, can see into the future. So it's very interesting to see what qualities and attributes people see both in Charles but also the monarchy!

Lady Nimue 11-07-2015 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 1836761)
As far as I can remember, it was tracked back to a comment made by a "little grey man" to somebody else, and so on. Charles has never, ever, made such a comment in public.

The only thing I do know is that HM created "The way ahead" committee consisting of members of the BRF, including all her children.

Recently on this forum a poster said that the Way Ahead Committee is no more. It was dissolved. :cool:

I think the poster was Iluvbertie. :flowers:

cepe 11-07-2015 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hernameispekka (Post 1836766)
I agree. I mean... this thread is just speculation, and that's the only way it could be. None o us, as far as I know, can see into the future. So it's very interesting to see what qualities and attributes people see both in Charles but also the monarchy!

I was specifically mentioning the reduction/cutting back of the BRF. It is written about as if people know it is definitely going to happen.

Stuff about how what sort of king he will be has to be speculative - it was just this aspect of reduced numbers.

I was asked about it personally and realised that I thought it would happen and then couldn't nail down why.

That's why I asked.

Iluvbertie 11-07-2015 10:02 PM

Queen of the spinners

The Queen instigated the “Way Ahead” group, a secret body of advisers and members of the family that met twice a year. It was in this forum that she and Prince Philip agreed that they should start paying income tax. The “minor” royals were taken off the civil list and forced to find salaried work or live off their private fortunes. (That the Way Ahead group no longer meets or even exists is testament to the fact that its work is done.)

hernameispekka 11-07-2015 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1836790)
I was specifically mentioning the reduction/cutting back of the BRF. It is written about as if people know it is definitely going to happen.

Stuff about how what sort of king he will be has to be speculative - it was just this aspect of reduced numbers.

I was asked about it personally and realised that I thought it would happen and then couldn't nail down why.

That's why I asked.

Yeah, I know! I was just continuing on how I like the thread even though it's all speculation. I agree fully with you that it should be accknowledged that it's just that. Speculation!

Skippyboo 11-07-2015 10:25 PM

Isn't it a given that everything in this thread is speculation since Charles isn't King yet.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

hernameispekka 11-07-2015 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippyboo (Post 1836796)
Isn't it a given that everything in this thread is speculation since Charles isn't King yet.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Sure.. But some things have been stated so many times that people belive them to be facts. As the "Charles will be called George", "Charles will downsize the monarchy", "Charles doesn't like Andrew" etc.

MARG 11-07-2015 10:31 PM

:previous: Yes, we are all "speculating", but when we quote a decision purported to have been made by the PoW, it is no longer "speculation" it is a "reference". However, there is no evidence that Prince Charles ever made the decision referenced.

LauraS3514 11-08-2015 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1836641)
Add in the fact that in, say 10 years when the Queen, DoE, the Kents, and the Gloucesters are less likely to still be around then Charles, Camilla, and Anne will all be in their 70s, Andrew, Edward, and Sophie will all be in their 60s, and George and Charlotte will not be anywhere near close to being active royals. Which means that the working royal family will consist of 6 people who are (or almost are) at or past the age of retirement, and 3-4 people who are not, assuming the Yorks don't step up. Add in another 10 years and you likely still don't have George and Charlotte being active royals, while Charles, Camilla, and Anne are in their 80s and Andrew, Edward, and Sophie are in their 70s.

I would like to point out that while The Queen, The Duke of Kent & Princess Alexandra and The Duke of Gloucester are all grandchildren of George V, the current Duke of Gloucester is only four years older than The Prince of Wales. He and his Duchess are likely to be doing engagements much longer than, say, the Kents, as they are ten years younger (and nearly twenty years younger than The Queen.)

royal-blue 11-09-2015 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1836643)
Excellent post.
Interesting point is that when the Queen came to the throne, she did not think that she had sufficient #of the family to carry out duties.
There were 7 active at the time (HMQ, DoE, QEQM, PssM, PssMarina, D&Dss Gloucester) which is why she asked Princess Alexandra of Kent to help.

Demand has not diminished.

Was Princess Mary not a working royal until her death in 1965? She was only 67 at the time.

padams2359 11-09-2015 10:05 PM

Although I do think QE2 & DoE and QEQM working into their 90's + is a great thing, and working for them, it has placed some pretty substantial expectations on the rest of the family. Most people in the US have retired by PoW's age, his parent's schedule is unheard of completely. I think the duration of his reign will be closer to that of his grandfather's than his great-grandfather.

royal-blue 11-10-2015 12:43 PM

I really hope that when the Queen celebrates her 90th birthday next year, that people will fully appreciate what a burden she has to carry. At the same time, the five young HRH royals, for varying reasons, do next to nothing on the royal front. Many say that the minor royals such as the Queen's cousins shouldn't be needee at all, but the reality is there is noone to take their place. Even when the reigning couple pass away, there will be a real difficulty in keeping up the current number of engagements.

Lumutqueen 11-10-2015 01:27 PM

When The Queen and Philip pass William will be heir to the throne and therefore has very little if no excuse not to become a full time Royal and I expect he and his family understand this. That's why The Queen is giving him "this time" to be a "normal" family, exactly like she had before her father became King.

If needed at this present time all five young HRH's would step up to the plate. But The Queen has decided to leave them be for now.

Whilst I will always advocate to see more of any of our royal family, as exposure is what they need. I do not begrudge William time to watch his children grow.

Marty91charmed 11-10-2015 04:21 PM

I must confess that I am a bit eager and curious to see the monarchy under Charles... I know that this is a conflicting thought, as it would mean that HM is no longer with us, but I would like to see what a new king would bring and all the inevitable changes that would come with his accession.... I think I would like to witness a new reing after the long one of queen Elizabeth... I both fear and welcome that moment!

grevinnan 11-10-2015 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1837569)
When The Queen and Philip pass William will be heir to the throne and therefore has very little if no excuse not to become a full time Royal and I expect he and his family understand this. That's why The Queen is giving him "this time" to be a "normal" family, exactly like she had before her father became King.

If needed at this present time all five young HRH's would step up to the plate. But The Queen has decided to leave them be for now.

Whilst I will always advocate to see more of any of our royal family, as exposure is what they need. I do not begrudge William time to watch his children grow.

I fully agree with you. The Queen is in control of who does what when it comes to royal engagements. Very few will question the monarchy as long as Queen EII is active but the republicans will be more vocal once she is gone. She will be active and visible until her last breath. As far as the royal children and grandchildren's royal engagements I would expect that she and Prince Charles have had many talks about the issue. He will after all inherit whatever royal commitments and sponsorships are in place when he becomes the King. The question is whether there needs to be so many royals attending so many openings, ribbon cuttings, anniversarys and so on. It appears that has grown to big business under QEII by involving her cousins and other relatives in addition to her close family. Prince Charles may have other ideas regarding the family involvement when he is in charge.

royal-blue 11-10-2015 06:37 PM

Regarding the BRF being slimmed down under Charles, is there actual proof that other European royal families have downsized, ot is it just perceived this way because of the number of monarchs who have abdicated, shifting the focus to the new nuclear family, while the number of HRHs (or equivalent) in these families still exists.

tommy100 11-10-2015 08:08 PM

I don't think many European RF's have deliberately 'slimmed down', look at the Dutch RF they have just as many HRH or HH titled people. The big difference there is that they have created a separate entity- THE Royal House - which is different from the royal family and only members of the Royal House work full time on royal duties (i think).
I think the difference in other European RFs is that most current monarchs have had sisters rather than brothers as siblings (Juan Carlos x2 sisters, Harold of Norway x2 sisters, Margrethe of Denmark x2 sisters, Carl Gustafe of Sweden x 4 sisters, Beatrix of Netherlands x 3 sisters, Elizabeth of UK x 1 sister) and under many royal family's old rules women lost their royal status when they married (or at least when they married 'below' royal status).
If there has been more brothers we might have bigger royal families in much of Europe as mainly royal/HRH status is passed down through males.

I think if/when the Kent's and Gloucesters stop doing royal duties Charles (possibly William) will have to decide whether to 'replace' them as such or whether to have less working royals. I often hear people say these royals do so much, and of course they do carry out 100s of duties each year but that alone doesn't mean Charles would decide to 'replace' them. HE may choose to have a much smaller RF doing much less. Because they simply don't have the royals to do it many European RFs don't have 11+ working royals all doing duties. Its down to Charles to decide what he wants the RF to do.

Curryong 11-10-2015 08:28 PM

In terms of members performing public engagements I think the Spanish Royal family have the least. There is just the King, Queen and the ex King and Queen now. The two young Infantas won't be doing Royal duties for a decade or more probably and Felipe's sisters are no longer taking them on.

Yes, they seem to manage perfectly well, but it seems to me that most European Royal houses have about six or seven people to call on for Royal engagements and that appears to be enough.

The Duke of Kent is not a particularly well man and his Duchess has withdrawn from Royal life. Princess Alexandra is not very well either and I can see retirement from active Royal duties for them all within the next year or two. It will be the same for Prince Philip.

As the ranks drop out then the young royals will have to take over patronages and charities. I can't see the Yorkies doing this, but the Cambridges and Harry and his wife when he gets one will certainly be performing many more Royal duties than they do now, and this will multiply when Charles comes to the throne. The numbers, if Charles's siblings continue, will still be larger than those of most Royal houses.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises