The Monarchy under Charles

[csw]

Andrew has to know he's simply on the wrong side of this argument, surely? He has to recognise that in the 21st Century, there is just no appetite among the British people for an extended working royal family.

It seems to me that in the past, that is before the Internet, having a large Royal family increased the opportunity for the public to "see" a royal. With the Internet, we all can "see" the royals on a fairly regular basis. It takes fewer royals in order for the public to be aware of them and their activities. I think a smaller cadre of royals can provide adequate coverage and too many royals can lead to overload.

 

[TLLK]

MichelleQ-Excellent summary of what is likely to happen in the BRF in the next few years.

 

[MARG]

Slimming down the BRF has been the buzz words for the last decade. That being said, Beatrice was at the pre-Olympic bash was she not, mixing and mingling and just helping things along, chatting to people and making them feel important. Schmoozing is the word. Do we know if Eugenie was there? Or how many other members of the "lesser Royal Family" were there, quietly doing their thing for The Firm?

Of course we don't unless we see the photo's. It seems that Beatrice at least is doing exactly what she is purported to have said she wanted, namely have her own life and just "help out" like the lesser BRF members have been doing for decades.

None of this gels with Richard Kay's allegations and his attempt to stir bad feelings between members of the BRF and to paint Prince Charles as some type of spite filled royal megalomaniac to an international "captive" audience during the Olympics. That man!

 

[scooter]

I have to say I feel that this us a poor thank you to the Princess Royal who is, at the very least, one of the hardest working members of the family in favor of some of the least hard working. JMHO

 

[Iluvbertie]

Who are you describing as least hard working - certainly not Andrew who has been one of the hardest workers since leaving the navy. Last year only his older siblings did more than he did and consistently he has been only behind them and his parents, but since they have been cutting back he has picked up the slack.

What I didn't like in the Kay article was the suggestion that Charles had the Queen make the decision to reduce the number of people on the balcony after the church service after Philip took ill when that had been announced weeks earlier.

Seeing royals in pictures isn't the same as seeing them in person and a reduced working family will see many fewer people actually having a personal contact with a royal. The ones who will miss out will be the ordinary people - as there simply won't be a chance for them to meet royals in person - too few of them to do the 4000+ engagements so halve the number of engagements meaning that it will be visits to the smaller towns and villages that will be the ones missing out on their royal visit. It will also be the smaller Commonwealth countries (e.g. Tuvalu should make the most of this upcoming royal visit from William and Kate - it will probably be the last one they experience as the reduced size family won't be able to spread them to those countries).

The Duke of Gloucester for instance did the Jubilee tour to Malta and the Wessexes to Gibraltar and the Caribbean while Anne visited a number of African nations.

In 20 years there will be Charles and Camilla in their 80s, William and Kate in their 50s and Harry and spouse in their late 40s with maybe Anne still doing some things in her 80s but I think Andrew and Edward will have totally retired (I do feel sure that given the way the wind is blowing that The Queen will give her younger children hefty trust funds so that they can be independent after she goes and will be able to live quietly without the need to work for the monarch). The next generation are not yet born - so they will still be teenagers and still therefore 10 years or so away from full time work - unless William is so selfish that he will insist that his children start those duties at younger ages than he has done.

 

[Mariel]

The Cambridges will probably have children, even if they have to resort to artificial insemination as two modern predecessors in the family are reputed to have done (who knows for sure if they did?) I think, though, of the cases where rulers or heirs had no children, such as Badouin of Belgium, whose wife says she had "more" the the three miscarriages reported by the press, and of course the heir became his brother Albert. Albert's son seemed to be not marrying, and there was a move to put his sister Astrid into the Crown Princess position (she had children) but then Phillipe finally married and had four children to date (and counting). Looking back in history, the crown teetered when women failed to conceive (as in Henry VIII's day). And then, look at the incredible situation of the many children of George III, who bore only one viable legitimate heir (Charlotte) and then Charlotte passed away, making it imperative to have an "heir-race" which produced Queen Victoria. Today, childbirth is probably much safer, and so one expects such things will not happen often. But one does not know for sure until the heir arrives. History would be less exciting if it was cut and dried.

 

[Tyger]

Princes at war: How Charles' plans for a slimmed-down monarchy have 'driven a dagger through Andrew's heart' - and sparked a Palace power struggle | Mail Online

SNone of this gels with Richard Kay's allegations and his attempt to stir bad feelings between members of the BRF and to paint Prince Charles as some type of spite filled royal megalomaniac to an international "captive" audience during the Olympics. That man!

As in all of this kind of journalism there is a pinch of salt in the brew to tasty the pot imo - in this case it's the spin that Andrew is in distress as is the rest of the 'set aside' royals - with a decision that they all made together in the Way Ahead Committee. How could any of this be a surprise?

The article has wheat with the chaff and in the spin is meant to stir up the Charles-Haters, I do believe. I also think we saw a very similar article - same picture, in fact - a few months ago. It seems to be perennial.

My understanding is that all the significant royals are on the Way Ahead Committee - meaning that they all are discussing this 'in committee' and are moving along together to 'reform the monarchy'.

I understand that there here have been 4 reforms suggested out of the committee: receiving income only from the Crown Estates, "reducing the number of members of the family who would have official status as the existing members died", ending the crown link to the Church of England and allowing females to have equal right to be monarch - with only the last being adopted.

Surely all this talk suggesting that Andrew is lobbying for royal work for his daughters is counter to what they have all agreed to in committee.

The little bit of wheat in the chaff, though, is in these sentences -

"What has emerged is that he blames Charles for what is happening, rather than the Queen and Prince Philip. He sees Charles, who will be 64 in November, as effectively running the show, apparently having established an ‘understanding’ with their elderly parents that after the Jubilee he would have an enhanced say in ‘the firm’.

‘The idea was very simple, really,’ says a senior figure. ‘Charles was to be allowed to begin to initiate some of the changes in style he would want when he becomes king.’"

The good news is that Charles will be effectively starting to run things, giving his parents their opportunity to be 'retired'. The bad news is that this eventuality/reality is being spun as a negative by the DailyMail. A bit nasty if you ask me.

One can see the intent of this article coming from a mile away.

 

[Madame Royale]

Edward and Sophie would not have an issue with the proposed (?) downsizing I'd imagine. Afterall, they want their children to have as normal life as possible. That they do not wish their children to be known by their official styles and titles whilst under their majority all but supports this. And when the children do reach 18 I cant envision either them suddenly wishing to be known as an HRH. Evidently the Earl and Countess recognised the probability of a smaller working RF in the years to come and acted accordingly; thus they acted both in the interests of their children and of the monarchy.

The Princess Royal need not worry. Her children are considered 'private citizens' and she is without doubt a devoted and hardworking member of the institution which I'm sure has not gone unrecognised. I imgaine she will continue with her engagements until the day she drops or is otherwise unable to perform such duties due to health.

The Duke of York has never endeared himself to me and to be frank, from what I've seen in documntaries, he comes across as frightfully haughty and arrogant. I don't really believe his presence would be missed from the Court Circular were he informed of a royal revamp.

His two lovely daughters seem content to pursue work within private industry and are happy living life according to their individual hopes and aspirations. They also appear more than happy to support their grandmother, and thus the royal family, when asked to do so or otherwise offer.

 

[COESpiral]

Count me as another that really does not care for Andrew. Were he born three or four centuries ago I'd peg him as the type to try to usurp the throne. And yet, Beatrice and Eugenie both seem lovely and smart and very different from both their parents. I do hope that Charles (and William as well) will use them as royal representatives in the future, even if it isn't as a "full time" royal. At the same time, I'd like to see both ladies excel away from The Firm and carve out successes for themselves.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but it seems to me that only Andrew will consider it a great personal loss if Charles slims down the monarchy. All the others look like they'd be able to cope without too much difficulty.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The problem for me is that either the girls are going to be working royals or they family can't expect them to represent them ever - they can't expect employers to allow the girls to take off days from work to do royal engagements and if they are in full-time real work then they will need their actual holiday time to have real holidays to bond with partners and children.

 

[Madame Royale]

I think the necessary arrangements/understandings would be reached between princess and employer given the nature of their societal position. Whatever their chosen occupations, and should they wish to work full time, I'd be surprised if their prospective employers didn't anticipate the probability that both women would at times be required elsewhere with arrangements having been established prior to the date of absence. That's if there were any schedule clashes.

As for nature of their personal relationships, that's something entirely private and I'm sure both women are capable of managing that aspect of their lives themselves.

 

[Tyger]

I have to agree, or it seems reasonable to me. I don't actually know what kind of work Beatrice will be doing - but it's not uncommon for full-time positions to be split between two people, for example. In the US there are all kinds of creative ways to approach career positions to accommodate personal needs.

I always thought it was sad that Andrew wasn't allowed to have Beatrice along on his India trip. As a single man, she would have acted as his hostess if called upon. I am not inclined to believe the Daily Mail - but I did wonder why such a perfect opportunity for Beatrice to support her father was passed up. It would have been charming to watch - he likely would have gotten more press coverage had she been along.

Thought just occurred to me - is that why she was not allowed? Ha! My mind works in such devious ways - if Beatrice were allowed to be a full working royal might it happen that she would surpass William in popularity like Anne did for a while there with Charles - and instead of William being called upon to be King, it would be Beatrice people would be calling for to be Queen? That just came to me - I'm so bad. I should be a screen writer - oh, wait, I am.

I haven't paid all that much attention to Beatrice but I've been hearing good things about her. She seems to impress people - and actually likes the role of royal - has an affinity and a liking for it. How ironic that the one young person of that generation who has the maturity to take hold of the tasks required is blocked and the ones who resist the role must take it on. The ironies of life.

 

[Madame Royale]

Thought just occurred to me - is that why she was not allowed? Ha! My mind works in such devious ways - if Beatrice were allowed to be a full working royal might it happen that she would surpass William in popularity like Anne did for a while there with Charles - and instead of William being called upon to be King, it would be Beatrice people would be calling for to be Queen? That just came to me - I'm so bad. I should be a screen writer - oh, wait, I am.

Haha, I doubt that very much!

You and your elective monarchial ambition, Tyger!

 

[Princess of Durham]

Hmmm screen writer ...really? That explains a lot.

 

[Charlotte1]

Andrew has to know he's simply on the wrong side of this argument, surely? He has to recognise that in the 21st Century, there is just no appetite among the British people for an extended working royal family. It's a sad reality that as the years go, Andrew's position in the family becomes weaker and smaller, a situation that Harry will face in a few decades' time if the Cambridges have children. The fact that Beatrice and Eugenie are 'blood princesses' doesn't have the same cache that is used to.

If this article is in any way accurate, the Queen needs to have words with Andrew and Edward, and point out the reality that they face, and be clear that she expects them to support Charles and to stop what appears to be some pretty crude briefing against him to journalists who are notorious for their anti-Charles bias. All this does is make Andrew, and Edward to a lesser extent, look like they're living in dreamland, not Britain in 2012.

You're making a huge assumption that this article is true rather than a piece of tabloid writing. A bit of research will reveal that Andrew hasn't made any statement about wanting his daughters to have fulltime royal duties. Infact what he has actually said to a journalist when talking about what Beatrice will do in the future is that it's her choice. Beatrice was given the choice of becoming a fulltime royal or working outside the family 'Firm'. The Queen is the person who gave her this choice, Beatrice was asked and said that she wanted to make her own way in the world and take on a regular job and that's what she's doing. It doesn't mean that neither she nor Eugenie won't appear at royal events (such as the reception for Olympic Heads of States)

The Daily Mail often writes totally negative articles based on the agenda they want to promote, currently it's Andrew who is their whipping boy. But they will write speculative articles, such as 'Beatrice banned from travelling to India with Andrew" BUT she was never going there with him since she was doing work experience hoping to line up a permanent job, which she has. Even BP stated that Andrew was always scheduled to do the India trip on his own.

(Another incorrect story that gets repeated as a negative one relates to Beatrice. First when it came to her university study, it was going to be fashion design (not even close with history and history of ideas, naturally a more boring story than fashion design) then still flogging the whole fashion angle. Beatrice was going to design for her own fashion label. The reality was the far more boring working in finance. But lots of critical comments about Beatrice and how shallow she was, unrealistic,etc as she was going to study/work in fashion. These stories were created by the press and people still comment on them as though they were true, when they were obviously not!)

With Andrew being the current whipping boy, then naturally negative stories need to make a regular appearance and of course the best one is arguing/fighting with family members. But Charles is said to be quite realistic about the workforce needed for the future and he certainly isn't pushing for a reduction in the amount of fulltime royals. He's giving his sons time to do what they want to do and I'm sure he wants other young royals to have the same opportunity.

Who knows in later years Beatrice may take on more royal duties, this pattern was certainly followed by other royals. Even Anne didn't take on fulltime duties until after she retired from competitive riding and having children. Andrew had 20 years in the navy and Edward a 10 years of working outside the family Firm. The Duke of Kent did 20 years in the army, so did his brother, the Duke of Gloucester didn't take on fulltime duties until his father died in 1974. Even Princess Alexandra had a few years working fulltime as an enrolled nurse in the early 1950s.

 

[Mirabel]

Princes at war: How Charles' plans for a slimmed-down monarchy have 'driven a dagger through Andrew's heart' - and sparked a Palace power struggle | Mail Online


If it's true that Charles and Andrew are on hostile terms these days, it's a shame.
I can't help thinking that Charles may relax his views when he realizes that more institutions require royal patrons, and he and his immediate family can't possibly satisfy them all.

In any event, quarreling with his brother is unlikely to help Andrew. He should try using honey instead of vinegar!

 

[suztav]

Princes at war: How Charles' plans for a slimmed-down monarchy have 'driven a dagger through Andrew's heart' - and sparked a Palace power struggle | Mail Online

If it's true that Charles and Andrew are on hostile terms these days, it's a shame.
I can't help thinking that Charles may relax his views when he realizes that more institutions require royal patrons, and he and his immediate family can't possibly satisfy them all.

In any event, quarreling with his brother is unlikely to help Andrew. He should try using honey instead of vinegar!

That's my thinking too. Many organizations are "royal" patronages. Are they going to be left out in the cold? Good luck with that one!

 

[EIIR]

You're making a huge assumption that this article is true rather than a piece of tabloid writing.

Which is why I specifically qualified my post by saying "If this article is in any way accurate....". The only statement Andrew has made on this is that Beatrice was going to choose her own path. He's never actually said that he agrees with her decision and that it's best for all concerned that she not become a working royal. If anything, he looks increasingly unappy and lost.

We've seen similar articles on this topic lots of times in many different papers. Personally, I feel there's a bit of truth here. We've heard that it was Andrew who wanted to maintain his daughters' 24-hr security. The only way that could possibly be justified is if they began undertaking full time working roles. But the RF is being downsized, as shown on the balcony for the Jubilee finale.

The idea that Beatrice doing public engagements would somehow threaten William's position or popularity is simply laughable. William is consistently ranked in polls as the most popular member of the family, even more so that the Queen. It's harsh, but there is no discernable public affection for B and E. If anything they've become a bit of a laughing stock. They seem like nice girls, but their image in the press is pretty awful with a widespread assumption that they want the trappings of royal life and would prefer to live a life of occasional royal duties with the grace and favour apartments, the chauffeurs, the security etc. etc. That might be unfair, but it's fact.

 

[tommy100]

I can see why a slim down monarchy is the most likely - look at most other European Royal Families and they have gone through a similar process, Norway has limited the title HRH to the first born child of the Crown Prince with even the youger child only being HH, The Dutch have a bigger distinction between the Queen's family and teh Royal House (Working Royals), the Spanish have cut down the apperances of the king's daughters (though there are other reasons for that). In the countries where there are still larger families there is alot of talk about what those royals will/should do - (Belgium - debate over the allowances for the King's daughter and younger son) and in Sweden about the roles of the king's younger children.
Given that I think we will see a smaller Royal Family both because the Royal Family at present is heavy with 'older' members and becuase it reflects the more modern UK. I really just don't think so many working Royals are seen as necessary anymore, I'm not saying they don't work hard I'm saying I don't think most people in the UK see them carrying out Royal duties as compeltely necessary. I think if Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy it refelects this as well as prehaps in part his own sense of wanting to focus attention on him and his family.
Personally I don't see why Andrew thinks (if he does) that his daughters should have a Royal role because t"hey have HRH status", when you look at the fact that none of the Queen's other grandchildren (apart from Wills and Harry) have HRH titles. Its been clear since the Wessex's chidlren were born that there would be no role for the other grandchildren.

 

[Meadow]

I wondered about that too. Andrew, Anne and Edward have a lot of patronages between them what happens to all of that when Charles becomes King? Do they continue to do Royal Duties or is the plan to get them to "retire" as such. I for one can't see Anne doing that. It's going to be a very lonely balcony at Trooping of The Colour time....

 

[Madame Royale]

What I anticipate to happen in the years to come is Letters Patent issuing a change of the styles and titles granted to the grandchildren of the monarch. I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that Henry's offspring will be accorded the styles of a Duke's children (assuming that he shall be created a Duke when married) and not that of Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom through the male line as was seen with Beatrice and Eugenie. And for any daughters of the sovereign who have children, then I'd imagine the current system to remain much the same (as is seen with Peter and Zara).

The royal house will consist of the sovereign, their consort, children and grandchildren who are born of the heirs apparent or presumptive. Any other grandchildren, if any, would be classified as membes of the extended royal family and would have no official function to perform, but who are "left" to 'enjoy' their familial connections. In this instance, Henry's children would hold no official representative position, only William's.

 

[Lumutqueen]

^^^^
If that happens, it's a true shame because the amount of engagements the royal family does now is going to plummet.

I wondered about that too. Andrew, Anne and Edward have a lot of patronages between them what happens to all of that when Charles becomes King? Do they continue to do Royal Duties or is the plan to get them to "retire" as such. I for one can't see Anne doing that. It's going to be a very lonely balcony at Trooping of The Colour time....

Anne, Andrew and Edward will retire and give up or pass on their patronages when they see fit. This does not exclude them from the balcony appearance as we see every year that it's a huge family event whether you are participating in royal engagements or not. Charles, IMO, cannot afford to push out the working royals when his own children aren't set on what they want to do with their lives yet. If he wants to maintain the image of the royal family, the engagements they do year to year then a slim down Monarchy is going to ruin that. I have an image of Charles trying to do everything himself and excluding his family because he doesn't think they can do it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wondered about that too. Andrew, Anne and Edward have a lot of patronages between them what happens to all of that when Charles becomes King? Do they continue to do Royal Duties or is the plan to get them to "retire" as such. I for one can't see Anne doing that. It's going to be a very lonely balcony at Trooping of The Colour time....

The has been a report somewhere that Charles has no intention of depriving his siblings of their royal duties but he only wants his own sons in the next generation.

 

[Madame Royale]

^^^^
If that happens, it's a true shame because the amount of engagements the royal family does now is going to plummet.

I think quite naturally that there will be various organisations, causes or charitable services that will no longer hold royal patronage in the coming reign anyway.

I think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect that the majority of patronages currently held by the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh will be inherited by their children or grandchildren. Realistically something's got to give and I can't see it being the causes of interest of either Charles, his children or siblings. Nor of those of the women who have married into a senior position within the family, i.e; Camilla, Sophie and Catherine.

Anything else would become, certainly in my mind, a secondary priority if deemed manageable.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I just want to say this on the whole matter.If a person is a royal patron today they will be even when Charles is King. No one is saying that the York girls threaten anyone position. The reason behind the downsize is like young Couple getting married and choosing a guest list. You can only fit so many people on a balcony and you can only say close family for so many people. Right now this family is including Grand children of King George the fifth at events. Now when you see official photos come out from a event even the press stop taking pictures after a point. These organizations will not loose a patron because a person is not on a balcony or at a event. Just like the Duke of Windsor remained royal after Leaving the crown behind it will not be taken from these people. We try to make this more of a issue then it is. Time has come to let the balcony breathe and the photographers leave a event and go home to their loved ones before midnight. What man would not want protection for his girls and not have to pay for it himself. The old saying is Keep It Simple Stupid and I am sure it is not a big deal to most involved.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I think quite naturally that there will be various organisations, causes or charitable services that will no longer hold royal patronage in the coming reign anyway.

I think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect that the majority of patronages held by the Queen and Duke of Eddinburgh will be inherited by their children or grandchildren. Realistically something's got to give and I can't see it being the causes of interest of either Charles, his children or siblings. Nor of those of the women who have married into a senior position within the family, i.e; Camilla, Sophie and Catherine.

Anything else would become, certainly in my mind, a secondary priority if deemed manageable.

Well said. I say the person passes away and that organization looses it patron unless that organization is picked up by someone else. I noticed how the Duchess of Cambridge once married announced her organization she was going to be patron for. They were not forced on her once announced they made since for her. I understand when you hear of things going to them that had been the Queen Mother because let's face it she was a big part of this family as a core. I would find it strange if a patronage went to Catherine or Camillia that was Queen Alexandra's unless they like it.

 

[Mirabel]

Thought just occurred to me - is that why she was not allowed? Ha! My mind works in such devious ways - if Beatrice were allowed to be a full working royal might it happen that she would surpass William in popularity like Anne did for a while there with Charles - and instead of William being called upon to be King, it would be Beatrice people would be calling for to be Queen? That just came to me - I'm so bad. I should be a screen writer - oh, wait, I am.

I really doubt that, since every time there's an item about the York girls in the press the reader comments are pure vitriol!

If it's true that Charles doesn't want them in the Firm because he can't separate them from their mother, it seems he is not alone.
Far from calling for Beatrice to become Queen, I expect if it ever seemed likely to happen, then the Republicans would get their way and abolish the monarchy altogether.

 

[cepe]

I really doubt that, since every time there's an item about the York girls in the press the reader comments are pure vitriol!

If it's true that Charles doesn't want them in the Firm because he can't separate them from their mother, it seems he is not alone.
Far from calling for Beatrice to become Queen, I expect if it ever seemed likely to happen, then the Republicans would get their way and abolish the monarchy altogether.

This is interesting because in the "normal" course of events, its a case of "The King is dead, Long live the King" - ie it is instant. As soon as the reigning monarch dies the heir becomes the monarch. But if the example as raised occurred, ie William and Harry did not have children, then it would become apparent early on that Beatrice would be the next Monarch and politically that could lead to a referendum on the future of the Head of State role.

I agree - end of the monarchy.

 

[DukeOfAster]

We are putting to much thought into this. If that was the case Diana would have overtaken the whole family and would have been made Queen and we would be in a Windsor-Spencer royal family and William would be her heir. I am sure Prince Charles is not fond of Sarah but I do not see him in that way to distance himself from Beatrice and Eugenie because of Sarah. I feel we are going way out there but I guess we can because we do. I still say it is time to streamline and that is what is happening. We all know who is in line to be Monarch and streamlining does not change that. It goes to in line to the throne and presidence. They are different but nothing in that sense has changed. Just what we call the immediate royal family has. It is the Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, and the Prince of Wales Family. Lets not hope for the saddest thing and the lost of so many making Beatrice Queen. No one wants that

 

[Lumutqueen]

We are putting to much thought into this. If that was the case Diana would have overtaken the whole family and would have been made Queen and we would be in a Windsor-Spencer royal family and William would be her heir.

Where did you get that from?!