The Monarchy under Charles

[Princess Larisa]

I’m pretty sure that the Kents or Gloucesters each have more patronages than William, Harry and Kate together.
Our Iluvbertie compiled league tables for 2016:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...-engagements-2016-a-40032-16.html#post1950565

 

[Nice Nofret]

People tend to accumulate over the years - no on started with all the patronages... so you can only compare what everyone did after they started with the work.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I will put up a count which will show the Gloucester's and Kent's work for this year - as best as I can given the appalling online CC coverage this year (missing in action now since 20th November ...) but at the end of September the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent had a total of 327 to the combined total of WKH of 320 (baring in mind the number of missing days). I thought it only fair to include three so two princes and a spouse rather than add in Alexandra who adds another 40 to the total of the over 70s Gloucester's and over 80's Kent's.

As for needing Harry's kids - we must remember the intention seems to be - based on the rumours and the non-royal work of the York girls - is for the future to be the monarch, spouse, siblings and children but not nieces and nephews.

In 30 years time the working BRF will probably look something like:

William
Kate
George
Charlotte
Baby #3
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie


That is 10 compared to the current 14 which every seems to agree it way too many. The age ranges in 30 years would be 29 (baby #3) to 87 (Andrew). Today it is 33 (Harry) to 91 (The Queen). I no longer count Philip as he has retired.

I haven't included Charles or Anne as they will either be gone or retired (Charles would have just turned 99 and Anne 97).

 

[texankitcat]

Harry's cousins aren't because there are enough people (for now) to do what the Queen wants done. As time passes and people pass on, there will be a need for more working royals.


LaRae

Thank you LaRae! That was exactly my point although not so clearly stated.

 

[texankitcat]

I will put up a count which will show the Gloucester's and Kent's work for this year - as best as I can given the appalling online CC coverage this year (missing in action now since 20th November ...) but at the end of September the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent had a total of 327 to the combined total of WKH of 320 (baring in mind the number of missing days). I thought it only fair to include three so two princes and a spouse rather than add in Alexandra who adds another 40 to the total of the over 70s Gloucester's and over 80's Kent's.

As for needing Harry's kids - we must remember the intention seems to be - based on the rumours and the non-royal work of the York girls - is for the future to be the monarch, spouse, siblings and children but not nieces and nephews.

In 30 years time the working BRF will probably look something like:

William
Kate
George
Charlotte
Baby #3
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie


That is 10 compared to the current 14 which every seems to agree it way too many. The age ranges in 30 years would be 29 (baby #3) to 83 (Edward). Today it is 33 (Harry) to 91 (The Queen). I no longer count Philip as he has retired.

I haven't included Charles or Anne as they will either be gone or retired (Charles would have just turned 99 and Anne 97).

Thank you for that list Bertie! In 30 years Andrew will be 87. I think realistically we could possibly eliminate those in their 80’s since we really can’t depend on every family member being able to perform as the Queen and Prince Phillip have done into their 90’s. Also in 30 years any grandchildren will be too young. That would mean just 7 adults carrying the entire load if Harry’s children are not included.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In 30 years George will be older than Harry is now - 34, Charlotte will be 32 and the new baby 29 - hardly 'too young.

 

[texankitcat]

In 30 years George will be older than Harry is now - 34, Charlotte will be 32 and the new baby 29 - hardly 'too young.

I was referring to William’s grandchildren, not his children.

 

[jacqui24]

Seeing as she's met the Queen several times already and Charles, etc..I'd wager she's got her curtseying down pat. Now she'll have to get used to people curtseying to her.

Do people still curtsey to members of the royal family, other than HMQ and Prince Philip, very often? But I agree, she won't have curtsy to that many people compared how many would have to curtsy to her if we are all going by the strictest protocol.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I was referring to William’s grandchildren, not his children.

Sorry - your post didn't specify whose grandchildren so I assumed you were referring to the current 'grandchildren' meaning William's children or William's generation itself not a generation that is yet to come.

7 people could easily do the work necessary. Most of the family now do around fewer than 250 engagements a year. If all 7 up their game to 500 they would be around the total done now and if Anne and Charles can do that on a regular basis then they all can.

 

[jacqui24]

7 people could easily do the work necessary. Most of the family now do around fewer than 250 engagements a year. If all 7 up their game to 500 they would be around the total done now and if Anne and Charles can do that on a regular basis then they all can.

That does seem to stretch it though. I'm not sure if I feel comfortable with someone in their 70s or 80s doing 500 engagements a year. That does seem a lot. And yes I know the Queen and Prince Philip had a lot of engagements and the Queen still does, but I think that's really pushing it for Charles' younger siblings. Also, I know the younger generation gets a lot of flack for not doing more number of engagements, but I do think there is benefit for them to spend more time working in the background setting up charities and raising young children. I still think there will be fewer royal engagements overall to accommodate that though.

 

[Leopoldine]

Harry's cousins aren't because there are enough people (for now) to do what the Queen wants done. As time passes and people pass on, there will be a need for more working royals.


LaRae

Exactly right.

Right now its....18? 17?

Most of these people undertook the role of professional royal because the Queen asked them to, or they were so close they had to.

Now, a lot of that was before all of the new ways of connecting with subjects via the internet. Still, the future for the BRF looks to be a smaller core group of HRHers. That core group must get it right and not stumble out of some club at 4:30 in the morning.

There is no prestige in meeting an HRH if they lead a debauched lifestyle.

Eugenie, to me, is the most socially attractive York woman.

Some commentators here deplored how her early-evening charity speech went unremarked, while her later-that-evening bar crawl grabbed headlines.

She should have known better! If you do attend an event as the honored guest ..... hold on ... forget that, if you're Royal, don't be a a 4:30 AM barfly! Is that really too much to ask? We're in your corner, you see.

If you are a Royal, act like one.

 

[Osipi]

One thing that has not been brought up along with the amount of working royals is that we don't know just how royal engagements will be scheduled and performed by the time William's children are old enough to take on the roles.

For instance, when Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, it took months for the Queen and Philip to visit other countries. Now, a royal engagement by a member of the British royal family can be done in Norway with being home in time for dinner. With the onset of instant communications and fast travel, global events can be scheduled and pulled off easily. Invictus Games is a prime example of this.

The days of individual, single visits to places to unveil plaques may even be fading into the sunset as more organizations band together under the umbrella of a royal foundation.

We just can't assume that the level and ways of engagements we have today for the working royals are going to be the same 30 years from now. We just have to look and see just how much our world has changed in the past 30 years and the differences that have come about because of those changes.

 

[Lady Nimue]

In 30 years time the working BRF will probably look something like:

William
Kate
George
Charlotte
Baby #3
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie


That is 10 compared to the current 14 which every seems to agree it way too many. The age ranges in 30 years would be 29 (baby #3) to 83 (Edward). Today it is 33 (Harry) to 91 (The Queen). I no longer count Philip as he has retired.

I haven't included Charles or Anne as they will either be gone or retired (Charles would have just turned 99 and Anne 97).

So interesting to now see the x-factor (Harry's spouse) now have a name.

I am so very happy for Harry, having found such a gifted woman to work alongside him. As he said, it's a relief. It is.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Exactly right.

Right now its....18? 17?

With Philip's retirement it is, in reality, 14


The Queen
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate
Harry
Andrew
Edward
Sophie
Anne
Richard
Birgitte
Edward
Alexandra

The two Kent's are definitely slowing down and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that one or both of them are going to retire in the next year or so due to the health issues they have both experienced in recent years.

I know my 'count' includes royals like the York girls and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent but the reality is that none of them are working for 'The Firm' - they turn up at the really big events and the odd garden party or something relevant.

 

[Countessmeout]

They do more then just 'turn up for the odd garden party'. They all represent a number of different patronages and do events all year around. The difference is they don't get recognition or compensation for it as they are considered 'private'.

Tim is also in that category. If his and Anne's genders were reversed, he would likely be considered working. He accompanies her as well as doing events for the war graves commission.

But yes, the royals people can complain about supporting, as we all know they do, is 14 and going down from there.

 

[xenobia]

With Philip's retirement it is, in reality, 14

The Queen
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate
Harry
Andrew
Edward
Sophie
Anne
Richard
Birgitte
Edward
Alexandra

And in a couple of years, my guess is that it will be:

The Queen
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie
Anne

And with Willam and Kate having thee young ones at home - perhaps Harry and Meghan will also have little ones - the actual numbers of working royals will be significantly less in just a couple of years. At least that's my guess.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why would the Gloucester's not be working in a couple of years? They are only 2 and 4 years older than Charles after all.

I know the Kent's are over 80 but the Gloucester's aren't. Prince Richard is the youngest of George V's grandchildren and is 21 years younger than the eldest grandchild and 18 years younger than the third grandchild - The Queen. He may be of the Queen's generation but is closer in age to Charles and both he and his late older brother William were almost like Charles' older brothers in many ways. Richard was even too young to be a page boy at the Queen's wedding.

The Gloucester's will continue well into Charles' reign. If they are 'too old' than Charles would be 'too old' only four years later.

 

[tommy100]

One thing that has not been brought up along with the amount of working royals is that we don't know just how royal engagements will be scheduled and performed by the time William's children are old enough to take on the roles.

For instance, when Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, it took months for the Queen and Philip to visit other countries. Now, a royal engagement by a member of the British royal family can be done in Norway with being home in time for dinner. With the onset of instant communications and fast travel, global events can be scheduled and pulled off easily. Invictus Games is a prime example of this.

The days of individual, single visits to places to unveil plaques may even be fading into the sunset as more organizations band together under the umbrella of a royal foundation.

We just can't assume that the level and ways of engagements we have today for the working royals are going to be the same 30 years from now. We just have to look and see just how much our world has changed in the past 30 years and the differences that have come about because of those changes.

The bold part I whole heartedly agree with. Remember in the early days of the Queen's reign royal visits were often known as "tours" as they took so long. Also more countries were under 'British rule' therefore requiring more visits. For example Princess Alexandra represented the Queen for Nigeria's 1960s Independence. Bear in mind such events would probably have taken at least two weeks to attend, nowadays that could be done in 2-3 days jetting in and out. If you have a royal away for a month you need someone to take up the events at home.

 

[Osipi]

My sister, M. Payton, sent me this link and I think it is well worth posting here.

https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com...es-accession-trigger-debate-disestablishment/

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I see the passing of the Queen as a benchmark for change for the Monarchy. The Queen and Prince Phillip did so much to restore the honor of the Monarchy after the events in the 1930's. The mess of everything in the 80's and early 90's, coupled with the handling of Diana's passing almost pushed it to the edge.

The Queen has been steadfast in her role. Charles...outspoken. His marriages had and have their challenges. The younger royals have grown up with a desire to be us but still be them.

I sometimes think in their goodhearted desire to be more open, William, Catherine and Harry have behaved along the lines of reality TV people, and not royals in the sense of one must not let the daylight in, so to speak.

I think a certain wedding has moved it closer to that sense of E! reality.........

I do also think you will see countries currently part of the Commonwealth may vote to leave after he becomes King.

One must still realize what the psychology of the what is "popular" and PC does not translate into an automatic acceptance being forced down peoples' throats.

I guarantee you changes are coming from other countries after she passes.

It is sadly in SOME respects to close to a Bravo or E! show.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

It is sadly in SOME respects to close to a Bravo or E! show.

I disagree--not even close for the past 20 years.

 

[jacqui24]

The Queen has been steadfast in her role. Charles...outspoken. His marriages had and have their challenges. The younger royals have grown up with a desire to be us but still be them.

I sometimes think in their goodhearted desire to be more open, William, Catherine and Harry have behaved along the lines of reality TV people, and not royals in the sense of one must not let the daylight in, so to speak.

We have to remember that this letting the daylight in thing started with the Queen. I do think there are improvements that the younger generation has made in terms of talking about issues that weren't talked about before. The younger ones have not made it into a reality television by any means. I would say the reality television aspect of the royal family started well before the actual reality television with the War of Waleses. Charles is hugely unpopular due to the stiffiness he gives off at times and also his marriages. However, one thing I don't think he gets enough credit for is the work he has done as Prince of Wales. They seem to be taking a backseat because people aren't as interested in the mundanes of issues rather than the drama that is the royals' personal life.

I think even during the Queen's reign, there has been criticisms of her and how she runs of the monarchy, but she has adapted to a certain extent and has been around for so long that people nowadays have a lot of deference for her.

 

[Lady Nimue]

We have to remember that this letting the daylight in thing started with the Queen.

Agree. It was the Queen in the late 1960's who began opening up the monarchy with that initial documentary. Charles continued to follow that lead with all the documentaries he allowed in the 1980's with his marriage to Diana. Even so, the openness still had a boundary. It was Diana who breached all boundaries and ran with an 'openness' with the media in a way the Queen (and Charles) never dreamed (I think we can safely say that). Wayyyy too much daylight was let in with Diana taking 'openness' to a full throttle extreme.

With William and Harry we now have a reverting to the privacy and closed aspect of the pre-documentaries days (so I would disagree with a previous poster on this). Would others agree? It is true that Harry exhibits more of his mother's tendency to use the media/public as a shoulder but I don't think the tabloid press coverage of William, Catherine and Harry (altogether) should be conflated with 'openness' by these three royals. If anything these three are far tighter with their privacy than Diana. JMO.

 

[jacqui24]

With William and Harry we now have a reverting to the privacy and closed aspect of the pre-documentaries days (so I would disagree with a previous poster on this). Would others agree? It is true that Harry exhibits more of his mother's tendency to use the media/public as a shoulder but I don't think the tabloid press coverage of William, Catherine and Harry (altogether) should be conflated with 'openness' by these three royals. If anything these three are far tighter with their privacy than Diana. JMO.

I don't think Harry necessarily used the public as a shoulder. He talked about the issues he's had with his mom's death only after he's dealt with it. And it wasn't done to whine or do a poor me tour, but rather highlight and issue that he wants to improve on. He only shared his struggles to tell others it is ok to admit having this problem and seek help. As for the statement about Meghan, I saw that as more pushing back on quite disgusting coverage of his personal life rather than opening up his personal life. I think if the press had just outed that they were dating, and the thinly veiled headlines didn't happen, he would've just gotten on with it.

 

[Rudolph]

“Prince Charles and Camilla's new website has removed statements saying she will be known as Princess Consort when he becomes King”

Read more: Queen Camilla: Duchess of Cornwall poised to get title as Princess Consort plan is 'ditched'

 

[Terri Terri]

I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.

 

[rominet09]

I was an avid Princess Diana fan but goodness...the woman has been dead for more than 20 years! I have recently started to warm up to Charles and Camilla, especially with their support of Harry and Meghan. It's time that this nonsense ends...Camilla should be called the Princess of Wales and be the future Queen. end of story.

I totally agree with you ! And I have always felt this !

 

[Dman]

I think Camilla won over a lot of respect by not officially going by the title of Princess of Wales. She simply didn’t need to be addressed by that title. She very successfully carved out her own royal role under the title Duchess of Cornwall. A very smart move by a very smart cookie!!

By The Queen appointing the Duchess to Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, I think it’s pretty obvious that Camilla is on her way to being Queen Consort.

The Mark Bolland campaign worked.

 

[Madame Verseau]

If you go by a recent poll there is still pushback by the public for Camilla to be queen consort. This news about the website looks like a trial balloon to test current attitudes, especially with Meghan and Harry on the scene. I wonder if all the stories of Camilla being a sounding board for Meghan and Kate for marrying into the BRF a PR effort to soften Camilla's image more?

 

[Missjersey]

She should be Queen.