The Monarchy under Charles

[Denville]

I think he' WILL cut down the RF to a smaller group and if that means having less public appearances he would prefer that to having to support loads of cousins for life because they are "on the duty roster".
in today's world, its possible for them to do a lot on the internet, TV etc, and while I think it is important that some royals do actually get out there and meet people, make actual live speeches and shake hands and go around and see things, we don't need to have hordes of people doing it..
Charles is a traditionalist and he will not ignore his cousins or leave them out of ceremonials that are family based so they will be seen in public at times but they will be free to go and lead their own lives and have their own careers if they want them and he wot be saddled with their upkeep.
In the 80s there was a lot of attention to the RF, In the press and I'm sure he remembers all too well that this meant that people's faults were more obvious to the public and the press's attitude was "if they are donig royal duties then their lives are up for grabs.. and every fault or mistake they make, is good for a story.."
Charles will want to avoid that...

 

[Curryong]

Which cousins are we talking about though, the Kents (the Duke and Princess Alexandra) who are in their 80's and have had recent health scares, or the Gloucesters who do a lot of unsung work for the BRF and are Charles and Cam contemporaries in terms of age?

It's lovely to think of untethering the cousins in the future and no doubt none of them would mind, except that their accommodation, Alexandra's flat at St James's, the Kents' Wren House and the Goucesters' large apartment at KP are all given as part payment for work done representing HM at various engagements all over the place.

I doubt that Charles will be up for a whole lot of subsidising large rents for his mother's retired cousins in the event of some MPs turning their attention again (as they have in the past) on grace and favour dwellings inhabited by Royal relatives.

It will be a conundrum IMO in some ways as Charles would hardly want to ask very very elderly people to move out of their homes because they will be regarded as surplus to requirements.

 

[Denville]

He's not going to throw them out or stop supporting them but I'm sure he does not want any other royals on his hands. Of course the older royals are at the point of giving up steady work in the near future and their children (Kents and Gloucesters) have never been involved in the royal duties.
He will let the older ones stay in thier homes until they go and then I suspect he'll be cutting back, and he wont want say the York girls on the payroll..

 

[Osipi]

I think the key word here is going to be "transition" as far as the "Firm" goes. He'd not boost the older ones out of their homes and declare them unnecessary but most likely, as they eventually fade out of the picture, he's not going to want to replace them either. That's regarding the "Firm".

As far as the extended British royal family, perhaps eventually we'll be seeing Beatrice and Eugenie with their spouses and children on the balcony for occasions such as Trooping the Color, weddings and events where they're seen as being part of the extended family.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens when the time does come.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

But in just 20 years time the working royal family will have thinned. The Gloucesters may still be around but in their late 80s or 90s as will be Charles, Camilla and Anne. Edward, Sophie and Andrew will be in their 70s. George may be in military service and Charlotte just finishing school so neither will be a working royal yet. William, Kate and Harry (and Harry's future wife) will be the middle aged working royals. So at least four or more fewer workers not replaced, and maybe more.

 

[Denville]

I think the key word here is going to be "transition" as far as the "Firm" goes. He'd not boost the older ones out of their homes and declare them unnecessary but most likely, as they eventually fade out of the picture, he's not going to want to replace them either. That's regarding the "Firm".

We'll just have to wait and see what happens when the time does come.

of course he's nto going to throw them out or stop helping them financially, but he will not replace them with other younger royals. Times have changed and the RF needs to be seen as slimmer and less expesnsive..
we'll see Bea and Eugenie at times but they wont be doing royal duties..

 

[Lumutqueen]

of course he's nto going to throw them out or stop helping them financially, but he will not replace them with other younger royals. Times have changed and the RF needs to be seen as slimmer and less expesnsive..

we'll see Bea and Eugenie at times but they wont be doing royal duties..

I don't really get your point as that's what we have now. Charles' Cousin's don't do a lot in the way of royal engagements and certainly don't get a lot for it. It's different when you take some like the DOG out of the picture than to the DOE, dividing up the engagements that will go with 700+ patronages requires a lot of thought and people.

Whilst you are sure Charles wants a slim down monarchy (which he will get anyway when his Cousin's pass), he has the monarchies appearance out there to think about, and there's nothing like seeing a royal in the flesh as opposed to on YouTube. The monarchy is never going to be less expensive because the same people are still there.

 

[Denville]

not everyone wants to see royals

 

[MARG]

Are you saying that when apartments fall empty in KP they should be occupied by the the richest rather than the royal?

 

[Osipi]

I don't think that places like Kensington Palace will ever be made available for the richest and the greatest. If anything, it will become solely under the HRP (Historical Royal Palaces) and preserved as a national treasure with some of the state rooms still being available for rent for events. One aspect of KP is that it is a logical choice for London residences for members of the BRF as the security and ease of access to London is already in place. I would even bet my last glass of banana strawberry smoothie that Buckingham Palace will become a public national treasure before Kensington Palace does.

There will always be an interest in seeing the royal family in the flesh and interacting with them. Even though social media and videos on YouTube are becoming more and more the way to reach more people, seeing the royal family out and about actually doing things is never going to fade away. I think the Queen said it best when she said "I have to be seen to be believed."

There will always be royal events where the old traditions are still followed such as the State Opening of Parliament and Trooping the Color. Nobody, but nobody, does traditions and pomp and circumstance better than the British.

 

[Skippyboo]

The state rooms of KP are already under the control of HRP. People aren't going to want to tour the old apartments of the Gloucesters or Kents. I toured BP, Windsor, Tower of London and KP. KP was the least interesting of the four. If it didn't have the ties to Diana and Victoria, I don't think a lot of people would go there. I found the garden the best part. After seeing it once, I don't feel the need to go back.

 

[Osipi]

And there, folks, speaks experience of actually *being* there which I've never had the pleasure.

It does kind of confirm in my mind that Buck House would be more of a tourist draw than KP and KP would be more apt to be kept as residences. But this is kind of straying from the topic of the Monarchy under Charles. It does tie in somewhat as I believe I've read places that when Charles becomes King, he may opt to keep Clarence House as his residence. That would make sense if BP is still under major renovations. It would also be a quiet "transition" to move the royal residence of the monarch elsewhere from BP but BP would still be continued to be used for purposes it is now such as state dinners.

The House of Windsor plans things out in advance so completely that changes happen without a whole lot of fanfare over time (*if* you discount the media going berserk and speculating about things). Perhaps their plans that we see in action now are only the tip of the iceberg in even further long range plans.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that all the major work that was done for Apt. 1A at KP wasn't solely for the Cambridge's move in but to assure that KP will be fit for royal residency for decades to come.

 

[royal-blue]

With the announcement of the retirement of the DoE, would now be a good time for ghe Queen's cousins to do likewise? This would properly shift the focus to Charles and his immediate family, and free up even more engagements and patronages for the younger royals.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Please, just let these people who have served Queen and Country all their lives, reach decisions in the fullness of their own time. No one wants to feel nudged to the curb. They want to cross the street on their own terms.

 

[EllieCat]

The state rooms of KP are already under the control of HRP. People aren't going to want to tour the old apartments of the Gloucesters or Kents. I toured BP, Windsor, Tower of London and KP. KP was the least interesting of the four. If it didn't have the ties to Diana and Victoria, I don't think a lot of people would go there. I found the garden the best part. After seeing it once, I don't feel the need to go back.

I visited KP, Windsor, Tower of London and Balmoral (2012). I found them ALL fascinating in their different ways; I really liked KP and the Victoria displays. Those staircases are so easy to walk up; i could imagine a princess in a long gown would have no trouble.

But back to the Monarchy under Charles; i too would not be at all surprised is he keeps his 'home' at Clarence House and the 'business' at BP. That would make sense for future Monarchs too. After all, it's only a hop, skip and jump away. A decorous hop, of course.

 

[MARG]

Sometimes I think people actually think HM runs the BRF like a business. The idea of kicking the olds to the kerb is wrong on just so many levels, the first being that HM is still QEII so the monarchy under Charles is irrelevant.

Further, this idea that Charles could, should or would "retire" the older relatives, let alone evict them from KP is bizarre. I see nothing in his behaviour during his life that would indicate he thinks that people, human beings, family no less, have a ''Use By" date. Quite the contrary as he sees how sharp both his parents still are.

 

[Iluvbertie]

With the announcement of the retirement of the DoE, would now be a good time for ghe Queen's cousins to do likewise? This would properly shift the focus to Charles and his immediate family, and free up even more engagements and patronages for the younger royals.

Why should the Gloucester's give up when they are as young as they are? They are only a couple of years older than Charles and Camilla.

The Kent's are older of course - both in their 80s but the Gloucester's were born in 1944 and 1946 with Camilla only a year younger in 1947 and Charles in 1948,

 

[royal rob]

Why should the Gloucester's give up when they are as young as they are? They are only a couple of years older than Charles and Camilla.



The Kent's are older of course - both in their 80s but the Gloucester's were born in 1944 and 1946 with Camilla only a year younger in 1947 and Charles in 1948,

Yes I agree. If they are too old then that would make Charles too old as well hand it over to William !! The BRF have long life genes I think they will carry on a bit longer

 

[Osipi]

One word that could describe the British monarchy best is continuity. It continues on strong and the words change and replace aren't something that is done by the bucketfuls and I don't think that will apply when the time comes and Charles takes the throne.

The changes that are made happen gradually. There has been a steady winding down of the Queen's and Philip's roles in certain things since the Diamond Jubilee year and a ramping up of the younger royals involvement in things at the same time. Right now the monarchy is very much into a transitional phase with Charles and Camilla gradually doing more and more for Charles' parents.

The cousins like the Gloucesters and the Kents have long served the crown in their own capacity and Charles' isn't about to houseclean and deem them unnecessary but rather, with the passage of time, they'll also slow down and not be able to do as much as the younger royals will be able to do.

I don't think we're going to see a whole lot of changes to the monarchy that will be termed as "instant" when Charles succeeds his mother. There will be changes, yes, over the years but they'll be gradual and when we look at them years from now, we'll probably see how some of them have already been started to be implemented now. Perhaps even now there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that are actually preparing ahead of time for the smooth transition between Charles and William.

The monarchy isn't like a political party where there's a change of Prime Minister and you have a labor or a conservative influence with each PM but the monarchy itself is an institution that reflects all of the British people and not the individual sitting on the throne as a rule. Charles will, for sure, add his own touches and flavor to his reign but the underlying continuity of the monarchy will not change.

At least that's how I see it. How different a lot of republican governments would be if the core of their governments were for all of the people instead of their different political parties.

 

[Iluvbertie]

BTW I think the 'slimming down' oft spoken of is only in terms of titles and salaries, correct?

I haven't heard that Charles intends on cutting down the titles. He only has two children and William already has two children. The Queen issued LPs that to ensure all of William's children will be HRHs thus extending the number that qualify under the 1917 LPs.

The only adjustment Charles could make would be to limit HRH to only the children of the heir apparent and thus deny Harry's children HRHs which I don't see him doing and Harry is the only other person who can have HRH children in the next generation.

No royals get a salary so the 'slimming down' won't affect that at all. Charles will get the Duchy of Lancaster estate for his private income and to use to support any members of the family that he chooses - presumable Harry and Harry's family. William will get the Duchy of Cornwall estate to support himself, Kate, George and Charlotte. He will also have to negotiate a Sovereign Grant with the parliament and may end up with basically the same as his mother - 15% of the income of the Crown Estate.

What he means by 'slimming down' is to have fewer royals undertaking royal duties and appearing to be part of the royal family. That means, I suspect, that no one who currently undertakes royal duties will be stopped but only George and possibly Charlotte, along with Harry's wife, in the future will be added to the working royals - no place for Beatrice or Eugenie or Harry's children.

That means that as for instance The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra retire there won't be anyone to replace them.

That would not preclude King Charles from continuing on with his mother's twice-a-year family reunions, I would think. Why give up on that, just because of a change in reigns? It seems to me, Charles would want to gather his extended family around him, if only just twice a year. It's a way of thank you, too.

I suspect it will be a smaller balcony - his children and grandchildren and maybe his siblings and their spouses but not necessarily his siblings children.

I am not sure he will see a need for the extended family get-togethers at all. He doesn't seem all that close to his brothers or their children. He is actually closer to his mother's cousins - in age and thinking.

I think he may still have some sort of Christmas get-together as I doubt he will have his siblings or cousins at Sandringham so a smaller gathering at the big house as well (although I suspect Camilla's children will be there but not do the walk of course).

BTW will King Charles have an official June Birthday, too, because of the weather being so nasty in November? Wondering.

As they didn't move the date to December for George VI or back to April for the Queen and it will move back to June for William and George it makes sense to leave it where it has been now for over a century.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Great post, Iluvberie. Thank you.

I haven't heard that Charles intends on cutting down the titles. He only has two children and William already has two children. The Queen issued LPs that to ensure all of William's children will be HRHs thus extending the number that qualify under the 1917 LPs.

The only adjustment Charles could make would be to limit HRH to only the children of the heir apparent and thus deny Harry's children HRHs which I don't see him doing and Harry is the only other person who can have HRH children in the next generation.

Understood.

No royals get a salary so the 'slimming down' won't affect that at all. Charles will get the Duchy of Lancaster estate for his private income and to use to support any members of the family that he chooses - presumable Harry and Harry's family. William will get the Duchy of Cornwall estate to support himself, Kate, George and Charlotte. He will also have to negotiate a Sovereign Grant with the parliament and may end up with basically the same as his mother - 15% of the income of the Crown Estate.

What he means by 'slimming down' is to have fewer royals undertaking royal duties and appearing to be part of the royal family. That means, I suspect, that no one who currently undertakes royal duties will be stopped but only George and possibly Charlotte, along with Harry's wife, in the future will be added to the working royals - no place for Beatrice or Eugenie or Harry's children.

That means that as for instance The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra retire there won't be anyone to replace them.

Understood. Thank you. Hope I remember all this and don't go blank with it all. I think this has been explained before. Pregnancy brain, methinks, too soon after my last one.

I suspect it will be a smaller balcony - his children and grandchildren and maybe his siblings and their spouses but not necessarily his siblings children.

Okay, we'll see how that plays out.

I am not sure he will see a need for the extended family get-togethers at all. He doesn't seem all that close to his brothers or their children. He is actually closer to his mother's cousins - in age and thinking.

Plus he has a large circle of friends that are interesting. Maybe more house parties, perhaps? A more lively social scene? Do you think? Would love to see a glitterati of guests.

I think he may still have some sort of Christmas get-together as I doubt he will have his siblings or cousins at Sandringham so a smaller gathering at the big house as well (although I suspect Camilla's children will be there but not do the walk of course).

Not sure what you're saying here: are you saying there will be no family gathering at Christmas? Won't William and his family be at Anmer, and wouldn't they be with him for 'the walk'? Hard to say, I know - being future tense.

As they didn't move the date to December for George VI or back to April for the Queen and it will move back to June for William and George it makes sense to leave it where it has been now for over a century.

Thank you. Now I know.

 

[Osipi]

If I remember right, the only time we saw a personification of a "slimmed down monarchy" was the balcony appearance during the Diamond Jubilee where it was the Queen (Philip was sick at the time I believe), Charles and Camilla, William, Kate and Harry. It was the future of the monarchy that was represented and not "slimmed down" to exclude other family members.

The Queen's birthday parade known as Trooping the Color includes all of her extended family. Savannah and Isla have the same relationship to their great grandmother as George and Charlotte do.

The difference is the tone of the celebrations. The Diamond Jubilee was a celebration of the reign of a monarch. Trooping the Color is a celebration of the Queen herself.

As far as I know, all the rumors about a "slimmed down" monarchy in the future whether under Charles or William are just that. Rumors. We have no clue whatsoever what plans future monarchs will implement.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Plus he has a large circle of friends that are interesting. Maybe more house parties, perhaps? A more lively social scene? Do you think? Would love to see a glitterati of guests.

I don't see that happening. He has grown up with his mother's example and I really don't think he wants to go down the route of lots of public displays of wealth. He knows that the British people don't want that and would be very upset - note how many people are arguing that even Trooping should have been cancelled or the colours toned down for this year due to recent events. Charles has his pulse on things like this and won't go down a route that would see him put the institution at risk.

Not sure what you're saying here: are you saying there will be no family gathering at Christmas? Won't William and his family be at Anmer, and wouldn't they be with him for 'the walk'? Hard to say, I know - being future tense.

I don't think Charles will have his siblings and their children with him for Christmas at Sandringham at all.

I do think he will have Camilla's children and grandchildren there instead.

Of course William will be at Anmer and Harry will either stay with his brother or father.

The 'walk' will simply be Charles and Camilla, William, Kate and kids, Harry, wife and kids and no one else. Camilla's kids may or may not go to the church but they want walk there with the rest of the royals.

Of course Charles may not even have Christmas at Sandringham as he currently spends less than 24 hours there over Christmas. He may decide to have Christmas and New Year at Birkhall where he spends New Year now.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Of course Charles may not even have Christmas at Sandringham as he currently spends less than 24 hours there over Christmas. He may decide to have Christmas and New Year at Birkhall where he spends New Year now.

I was thinking exactly the same thing, Iluvbertie. I can see that. But then what about Camilla en familia? And does Charles then leave William and Kate and children with Harry et al to do 'the walk' at Sandringham? That would be startling, don't you think?

However, what happens if there is a successful splitting off of Scotland?

 

[Iluvbertie]

William only spends every second Christmas with his father now and I don't see that changing time in the future - even when his father is King. Harry will be the same I suspect.

Camilla and her family will be with Camilla and if that means Scotland then that is where they will be.

If Scotland does have another referendum - and that isn't a given - the current polls show even less support for independence than in 2014 so I don't think they need to worry about that.

 

[Lady Nimue]

William only spends every second Christmas with his father now and I don't see that changing time in the future - even when his father is King. Harry will be the same I suspect.

So where would they be? If Charles is in Scotland for Christmas and New Year's, would that be where William and Harry would bring their families? They'd do church up there and all?

I can honestly see why Charles so likes it up there during that season, for just the snow alone. Though I'd be toasty warm with some decent indoor heating as well as a fireplace roaring in every room! Perfect cozy with all the holiday trimmings!

Camilla and her family will be with Camilla and if that means Scotland then that is where they will be.

Okay.

If Scotland does have another referendum - and that isn't a given - the current polls show even less support for independence than in 2014 so I don't think they need to worry about that.

Understood. But it's an interesting speculation: what would happen were that to eventuate? Charles would be going into a foreign country for the holidays, not so? Would that be cricket? Would he be compelled to stay at Sandringham, then?

 

[Iluvbertie]

So where would they be? If Charles is in Scotland for Christmas and New Year's, would that be where William and Harry would bring their families? They'd do church up there and all?

Yes - I would expect every second or third year that William and Harry would take their families to Scotland if that is where Charles wanted to spend Christmas and go to church there as well

Understood. But it's an interesting speculation: what would happen were that to eventuate? Charles would be going into a foreign country for the holidays, not so? Would that be cricket? Would he be compelled to stay at Sandringham, then?

If Scotland was independent I suspect that Charles would be discouraged from going to there for Christmas but ... all the evidence at the time of the last referendum was that the Scots would keep the monarchy and so he would simply be going to another realm - same as going to Australia or Canada.

 

[Osipi]

Thing is that no matter what happens in Scotland, the Balmoral estate, Birkhall and Sandringham are personal holdings and private properties with no connection to the Crown. Charles has always had a deep affinity for Scotland and loves his times spent there and I really don't think that will change. For all we know, he may even decide on Christmas at Windsor Castle if the renovations for Buckingham Palace are still ongoing.

So much in what Charles or William may do as monarch is primarily guesswork and we really won't know until the time comes. We've just lived for so long with the familiarity of the way the Queen does things that any little thing different could signify a "break" in tradition when actually its been the Queen's traditions that we've lived with for so long.

 

[tommy100]

Maybe Charles will do one year with the RF family (his siblings and their children) and one year with Camilla's family. Bear in mind Camilla's children probably also like spending time at Christmas with their father.

 

[Mbruno]

The Queen's birthday parade known as Trooping the Color includes all of her extended family. Savannah and Isla have the same relationship to their great grandmother as George and Charlotte do.

They may have the same degree of kinship (i.e. "proximity of blood") to the Queen, but it is hardly the same relationship in broader terms. For starters, Savannah and Isla are not HRHs, nor are their parents. In other words, they are not members of the Royal House of Windsor in the technical sense, but rather members of the Phillips family, which, whether people on this forum like it or not, goes back to the old patrilineal definition of family. Besides, Savannah and Isla are 14th and 15th respectively in the line of succession to the throne whereas George and Charlotte are 3rd and 4th, and George in particular is in direct line, i.e. he will very likely be king one day, as will his father and grandfather probably.

Personally, I don't think it is necessary to limit the rank of prince/princess of the United Kingdom to children of the monarch and of the heir apparent only. I do think, however, that , with the introduction of equal primogeniture under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, it doesn't make sense anymore to keep the distinction between the monarch's grandchildren in male and female line as far as titles are concerned. I would be satisfied with a system like in Belgium or Sweden where all grandchildren of the monarch are princes/princesses and HRHs, or, at least, where the heir's children are HRHs while children of the heir's siblings are HHs as in Denmark, but nonetheless acknowledged as members of the Royal House.