The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Claire]

I am trying to find the origin of the slim down monarchy idea - tracing it through the media to see if anyone with any real authority has mentioned it and such.

We did find something interesting - a radio programme in Jan 1989 when the Earl of Wessex resigned his Marine Commission. The royal expert noted that it was best that Prince Edward leave the royal family now as he was surplus to the royal family's future and this would be better sooner rather then later. So any wife and children would be out the British royal family. It is also noted that the armed forces is the only respectable occupation for non - heirs to the throne.
As what normally happens it is rather odd reading the notes of the interview. There is disturbing comments like the future King Charles and Queen Diana should consider only have two children to prevent this type of role irrelevance occurring in the future. And that monarchy is strong in the hands of the Prince and Princess of Wales and Duke and Duchess of York.
And in case I thought people only became horrible on the advent of social media - one of the letters they read in the broadcast was from a woman who demand that Edward pay back every cent the tax payer has ever spend on him - including the Queen's child birth costs.

 

[Denville]

I am trying to find the origin of the slim down monarchy idea - tracing it through the media to see if anyone with any real authority has mentioned it and such.

We did find something interesting - a radio programme in Jan 1989 when the Earl of Wessex resigned his Marine Commission. The royal expert noted that it was best that Prince Edward leave the royal family now as he was surplus to the royal family's future and this would be better sooner rather then later. So any wife and children would be out the British royal family. It is also noted that the armed forces is the only respectable occupation for non - heirs to the throne.
As what normally happens it is rather odd reading the notes of the interview. There is disturbing comments like the future King Charles and Queen Diana should consider only have two children to prevent this type of role irrelevance occurring in the future. And that monarchy is strong in the hands of the Prince and Princess of Wales and Duke and Duchess of York.
And in case I thought people only became horrible on the advent of social media - one of the letters they read in the broadcast was from a woman who demand that Edward pay back every cent the tax payer has ever spend on him - including the Queen's child birth costs.

I think that the idea of slimming down has been in the air fro a long time. Most other monarchies have done or are doing the same, so why not Britain? The public dont take that much interest in the RF other than the few top players...
And yes people have been critical of the RF and oftne quite nasty in comments going back a long way. Just now with the internet its a lot easier to make nasty comments.. and publicisie them and start a flame war...

 

[AC21091968]

Like other poster have mentioned earlier, I think it's unlikely that the monarch and members of the royal family having more than 3 children (i.e. Queen Victoria had 9 children, Edward VII and George V both had 6 children). Compare to the 19th or even early 20th Century, the monarchy has slimmed down quite significantly, thanks to both reduced number of children being born and George V's Letter Patent. Yes, some may argue that since the Elizabeth II became the Queen, the number of royal family members have grown (with grandchildren and great-grandchildren). However, if the new hypothetical LP is introduced (only anyone born after 2013), the numbers (of HRH Prince/Princess) will be reduce again. Of course, if this new LP comes in effect on any members (regardless on what year they are born), there will be significant/sudden reduction in the number of Prince/Princesses, given that individuals who are HRH Prince/Princess under 1917's LP would lose theirs.

Speaking of people who are critical of the Royal Family, I remember The Sex Pistol released the song God Save the Queen in 1977, the same year as Queen Elizabeth II's silver jubilee. Apparently (well, I wasn't born at that time), most of the general public viewed the song was an assault on the Queen and the Monarchy. I do think with the rise of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression", any artists any releasing project with this similar theme would not have the same level of outrage compare to what The Sex Pistol did. Yes, there might be some people who are angry about it, but the general principle is "If you don't like the work/project, don't buy or engage with it".

Social media certainly speeds up the negative opinions of the royal family. The argument "Royal Family is an outdated institution that is out of touch of 21st Century" would continue to grow, unless there is a rise of traditionalism/conservatism or any ideologies that are pushing back certain political and social changes.

 

[winifred]

"I think that the idea of slimming down has been in the air for a long time."

That may be but the Press states as fact that Charles has said this and he hasn't. Probably because, unlike the people who "quote" him, he can actually look to the future and add up.

Even in a best case scenario, in 10 years time the current 13 working members of the family will be reduced to 11, Alexandra and the Duke of Kent in their mid-90s; Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Anne, Charles and Camilla in their 80s, Edward and Sophie in their 60s, and William and Kate in their very late 40s.

George (and possible partner) will probably be at least another 10 years away from full-time royal duties and we don't even know if Charlotte and Louis will be become full-time royals.

We've seen in Japan an extreme example of the lack of heirs. In Norway, with Harald and Mette-Marit both having health problems, Sonja and, in particular, Haakon, are carrying all the responsibility.

If monarchies survive they will have to evolve, of course, but I don't think it's going to be as simple as just saying "cut the numbers down".

 

[Denville]

"I think that the idea of slimming down has been in the air for a long time."

That may be but the Press states as fact that Charles has said this and he hasn't. Probably because, unlike the people who "quote" him, he can actually look to the future and add up.

Even in a best case scenario, in 10 years time the current 13 working members of the family will be reduced to 11, Alexandra and the Duke of Kent in their mid-90s; Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Anne, Charles and Camilla in their 80s, Edward and Sophie in their 60s, and William and Kate in their very late 40s.

George (and possible partner) will probably be at least another 10 years away from full-time royal duties and we don't even know if Charlotte and Louis will be become full-time royals.

We've seen in Japan an extreme example of the lack of heirs. In Norway, with Harald and Mette-Marit both having health problems, Sonja and, in particular, Haakon, are carrying all the responsibility.

If monarchies survive they will have to evolve, of course, but I don't think it's going to be as simple as just saying "cut the numbers down".

of course there is going to be a cutting the numbers down. Monarchy is not logically defensible... and increasingly I htink that younger royals wont want to be landed with royal duties but will prefer to be independent... Look at Harry.. Look at the awkward situation of Andrew.

 

[winifred]

of course there is going to be a cutting the numbers down. .

Yes as I said, by natural attrition, not by Charles becoming King and saying to Anne, Edward, Sophie. the Gloucesters and the Kents, thanks but your years of service mean nothing and I don't want you any more.

 

[Denville]

Yes as I said, by natural attrition, not by Charles becoming King and saying to Anne, Edward, Sophie. the Gloucesters and the Kents, thanks but your years of service mean nothing and I don't want you any more.

of course he's not going to brutally kick out the cousins and siblings. I cant imagine why anyone would think he would do that.. But the cousins are getting quite old now and will be giving up, they are slowing down. Anne is 70 Andrew is out and Edward and Sophie are the only ones who are likely to go on for several years. but he wont take on new helpers IMO, even though he may be a bit short handed wihtout Harry....

 

[Darius1]

of course he's not going to brutally kick out the cousins and siblings. I cant imagine why anyone would think he would do that.. But the cousins are getting quite old now and will be giving up, they are slowing down. Anne is 70 Andrew is out and Edward and Sophie are the only ones who are likely to go on for several years. but he wont take on new helpers IMO, even though he may be a bit short handed wihtout Harry....

Undoubtedly it will be a process of natural attrition. I suspect that the "slimming down" notion was discussed at the Way Ahead group at some stage however, depending on how the Sussex situation evolves, within the next 10 years William is likely to be grateful for the support of Beatrice and Eugenie who it must be noted are living apparently blameless, scandal-free lives and should be called upon to represent the Crown as the older generation dwindle. We have had small Royal Families in the past, and given contemporary birth rates I can't envisage a large Royal Family again in the near future beyond the children of the Duke of Cambridge.

 

[Denville]

Undoubtedly it will be a process of natural attrition. I suspect that the "slimming down" notion was discussed at the Way Ahead group at some stage however, depending on how the Sussex situation evolves, within the next 10 years William is likely to be grateful for the support of Beatrice and Eugenie who it must be noted are living apparently blameless, scandal-free lives and should be called upon to represent the Crown as the older generation dwindle. We have had small Royal Families in the past, and given contemporary birth rates I can't envisage a large Royal Family again in the near future beyond the children of the Duke of Cambridge.

I dont think so. Anyone that charles or William has as support will end up being helped out financially by them for years, mabye for life. I dont see Charles wanting to take on that sort of obligation.

 

[Osipi]

I dont think so. Anyone that charles or William has as support will end up being helped out financially by them for years, mabye for life. I dont see Charles wanting to take on that sort of obligation.

Actually, a lot of the "support" the monarch makes to their "support system" is covered by the Sovereign Grant. We have *no* idea how much the monarch supports the family members financially from their own private purse. ?

 

[Queen Claude]

It's anecdotal, but I tend to hear the opposite. The articles I read, especially the ones that claim that the source is a palace source tend to report that The Queen is using her private sources and tend to downplay use of public funds like the Sovereign Grant.

I dont think so. Anyone that charles or William has as support will end up being helped out financially by them for years, mabye for life. I dont see Charles wanting to take on that sort of obligation.

The current Queen has given consideration to, if not flat out deferred to Charles in certain matters because they will significantly impact his reign. I would like to think that Charles will do likewise. If William thinks that one or both of his York cousins will be needed to support him during his reign and he wants to get them onboard I can't see Charles putting up too much of a fight. And if he did, William can do an end-run around Charles and go to The Queen, and if it happens during Charles' reign, William, who will have access to the Duchy of Cornwall income, can fund them himself.

I doubt if either or both of York princesses would take on the kind of workload that their father, uncles and aunt did/do, especially considering that William himself only does a fraction of what his father, uncles and aunt do. So I don't think that their addition will break the bank especially considering that the BRF has recently lost three working members. Furthermore considering that things have been scaled back due to the pandemic, William has enough time to plan and lay the groundwork for his tenure as Duke of Cornwall / Prince of Wales and eventually monarch and then have the needed discussions with The Queen and his father.

The York princesses are already set for life. The lease on the Royal Lodge will pass on to Beatrice and Eugenie and will last until they are in their 80s. That does not include whatever inheritance they will receive from their grandmother, father or other relatives or wealth they and their husbands will personally accumulate. In addition to the Royal Lodge, they both already have residences in London on royal property. If they become working royals of any consequence, they will probably get their London residences upgraded.

 

[Osipi]

It's anecdotal, but I tend to hear the opposite. The articles I read, especially the ones that claim that the source is a palace source tend to report that The Queen is using her private sources and tend to downplay use of public funds like the Sovereign Grant.

Its kind of hard to downplay the Sovereign Grant expenditures as they're published yearly and itemized and shows where the money goes.

Here's an example. https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2018-19

 

[Denville]

a nd its known that Charles has supported WIll and Harry to the tune of about £5M a year, so he was shelling out a lot in addtion to the Sov Grant....

 

[Osipi]

a nd its known that Charles has supported WIll and Harry to the tune of about £5M a year, so he was shelling out a lot in addtion to the Sov Grant....

Has there ever really been a credible and verifiable source of how much Charles doles out of his private funds or is this palace sources and rumors and speculations? I'd really like to know as I've not seen anything published attesting to this.

 

[Denville]

Has there ever really been a credible and verifiable source of how much Charles doles out of his private funds or is this palace sources and rumors and speculations? I'd really like to know as I've not seen anything published attesting to this.

As far as I know its in his accounts of the Duchy of Cornwall...

 

[Osipi]

As far as I know its in his accounts of the Duchy of Cornwall...

Any expenditures from Charles' Duchy of Cornwall funds that are published and itemized are considered "business" expenditures and totally separate from his own private expenditures supporting his family. It serves to determine what is tax deductible and what is not. Paying for Catherine's working wardrobe would be a business expenditure. Buying Camilla another pearl choker with an emerald set in it would not be. Charles pays income tax on his Duchy of Cornwall funds like every other British citizen does with their income. ?

 

[Denville]

the point is that Charles is using money from the DOC to add to the money from the Soveriegn Grant. The SG is presumably not enough to keep Will and Harry in princely style and to do their job. So anyone who starts to work as a royal will problaby also get an allowance from Charles or from him as DOC.

 

[Queen Claude]

Its kind of hard to downplay the Sovereign Grant expenditures as they're published yearly and itemized and shows where the money goes.

Here's an example. https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2018-19

The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall also publish financial reports. No one is disputing that the monarch gets funding from the Sovereign Grant and those funds are used to fund the activities of not only the monarch but other members of the royal family, the point I was making is that the articles and reports that I have read tend to point out and/or want to direct attention, where applicable, to the fact that The Queen uses her own funds to support her family members.

 

[Osipi]

To be honest, I've seen many, many more reports that put the emphasis on the "tax payer" monies than the Queen's private expenditures.

the point is that Charles is using money from the DOC to add to the money from the Soveriegn Grant. The SG is presumably not enough to keep Will and Harry in princely style and to do their job. So anyone who starts to work as a royal will problaby also get an allowance from Charles or from him as DOC.

So where is the itemized listing of Charles' *private* expenditures on his family? How do we know just how much Charles *privately* spends on anybody at all? We *don't*. Private expenditures are not open for public perusal. When it is stated that Charles no longer funds Harry and Meghan, its referring to the "business" expenditures the couple incurs working for the "Firm" and the family.

Would be interesting to find out though just how much Charles spends a year on toilet seats though. ?

 

[Denville]

To be honest, I've seen many, many more reports that put the emphasis on the "tax payer" monies than the Queen's private expenditures.



So where is the itemized listing of Charles' *private* expenditures on his family? How do we know just how much Charles *privately* spends on anybody at all? We *don't*. Private expenditures are not open for public perusal. When it is stated that Charles no longer funds Harry and Meghan, its referring to the "business" expenditures the couple incurs working for the "Firm" and the family.

Would be interesting to find out though just how much Charles spends a year on toilet seats though. ?

Osipi my point was that Charles has been funding members of his family who are working royals... so if he were to designate Beatrice say as a working royal, he would problaby be giving her an allowance which might end up being for life. Charles does not want to take on more royals who will involve him in expenses...

 

[Osipi]

Osipi my point was that Charles has been funding members of his family who are working royals... so if he were to designate Beatrice say as a working royal, he would problaby be giving her an allowance which might end up being for life. Charles does not want to take on more royals who will involve him in expenses...

I get what you're saying but I sincerely believe that when the time comes and Charles has decisions to make on who represents the monarchy, he's going to put the monarchy over how much he has to pay out in allowances. Personally, I've never seen Charles to be a miser. However, he does spend his money wisely and has had increased the Duchy of Cornwall by his investments. He's a pretty astute businessman. ?

 

[Denville]

I get what you're saying but I sincerely believe that when the time comes and Charles has decisions to make on who represents the monarchy, he's going to put the monarchy over how much he has to pay out in allowances. Personally, I've never seen Charles to be a miser. However, he does spend his money wisely and has had increased the Duchy of Cornwall by his investments. He's a pretty astute businessman. ?

He's careful with money, and in recent months has spent a lot on paying for his employees during the Covid Crisis, so I think he will balance carefully whether its better for him and his helpers to work a bit harder for a time or whether he is going to be paying an allowance to someone for life.. because that is what it might amount to. HIs major reason for cutting down on royal helpers is financial.. same as with other monarchies...

 

[Claire]

Well I agree that Prince Charles has the funds to look after the other royals - the other royals actions to make money does make me wonder if they would rather prefer not to. Think Prince Andrew here and I am aware of their stock portfolios that the Queen set up for them - makes me think that they would prefer not to rely on it.

 

[Curryong]

Probably we will see all younger royals who are not in the direct line to succeed quite happily following their own careers and lifestyles and earning their own money, as happens in Europe. There might be a trust fund arrangement as well if the parents are very wealthy, or maybe not.

As far as the BRF are concerned, let's face it, the only one likely to have a life of royal duties for ever out of the Queen's grandchildren will be William. The others already have their own careers or in the case of the Wessex children, almost certainly will have.

 

[Denville]

Well I agree that Prince Charles has the funds to look after the other royals - the other royals actions to make money does make me wonder if they would rather prefer not to. Think Prince Andrew here and I am aware of their stock portfolios that the Queen set up for them - makes me think that they would prefer not to rely on it.

I suppose it depends. Royals who have obeyed the convention that royals dont work, except in the military, are likely to need/depend on money from the queen or charles to help them out. So IMO its Charles who does not want to take on royals as helpers and have them then claiming that they had to give up any chance of earning their own money and need an allownace from him. He has added to Will and Harry's incomes and when the older Royals like the Kents give up all work, he'll still probalby be paying them an allowance. So that's why he is wary and wnats to manage with relatively few helpers....I think that ANdrew for example DID resent that as a younger son he didn't have as much money as Charles and didnt' want to have to live largely on an allowance from him, and he wanted to make his own money...

 

[Curryong]

I agree that Andrew wished that he had the equivalent of the Duchy of Cornwall money and, during and after his RN years resented having to rely, in part at least, on his mother's largesse in the form of a yearly allowance being doled out to him. After all, that sort of allowance is in some ways a form of control.

One of Andrew's daughters has married an extremely wealthy man and the other has a thriving career, so the pattern isn't likely to be repeated even though there's a trust fund for both of them. IMO that's what will occur in the future with all the grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of HM, with the exception of one person in each generation. And everyone will be a lot happier in their private lives.

 

[ACO]

I agree that ultimately earning your own way and not having to depend on the Monarch or heir apparent to support you is likely a more ideal situation for some of them. Especially in these current times.

None of these people will ever be broke by any means but independence is no small thing.

 

[Durham]

Hopefully all these issues can be ironed out for the next generation. Some sort of code of conduct would be helpful. What no one wants is individuals trading off their unearned status or monetising it. Inevitably relatives of the monarch will benefit from their connections but they must be dignified & discreet in what they do.

Careers in which they are promoted by merit & assessment in the same way as other employees would be ideal.

 

[Mbruno]

Hopefully all these issues can be ironed out for the next generation. Some sort of code of conduct would be helpful. What no one wants is individuals trading off their unearned status or monetising it. Inevitably relatives of the monarch will benefit from their connections but they must be dignified & discreet in what they do.

Careers in which they are promoted by merit & assessment in the same way as other employees would be ideal.

It is difficult to build a career when any job one holds leads to accusations of conflict of interest or influence peddling. Unfortunately that is what happens in the UK to younger children of the sovereign.

 

[LauraS3514]

Hopefully all these issues can be ironed out for the next generation. Some sort of code of conduct would be helpful. What no one wants is individuals trading off their unearned status or monetising it. Inevitably relatives of the monarch will benefit from their connections but they must be dignified & discreet in what they do.

Careers in which they are promoted by merit & assessment in the same way as other employees would be ideal.

The York princesses, especially Beatrice, were for years pilloried in the gutter press for "taking away jobs" from other, more "needy" or "deserving" people. Yet if they were not seen to work, they were "lazy" and living off the taxpayers. Eugenie has worked steadily since she graduated university, in the field she received her degree in no less, and still had the press focusing on her "holidays" many of which were actually business trips with the after work hours down-time being what hit the papers.