Education and Preparation of the Next Royal Generation

[crownprincessrhey]

Crown Princess' Education Background

Being a woman in the 21st century, I greatly value the educational attainment of women..and I am glad that most of our crown princesses are well-educated and have high educational attainment. I know cp mathilde has a master's degree in psychology, maxima is well-versed in microfinance, mary has a master's degree and leticia is also well-accomplished. Could somebody give more details and with other crown princesses???As for future CP Kate Middleton..don't you think she needs to widen her educational background???Which leads me to my ultimate question...is educational background important in today's future queens???

 

[Charlotte1]

Neither Mary nor Mathilde have masters' degrees. Mathilde according to the official Belgian royal site has a 'diploma in psychology' and Mary has a double degree Bachelor of Commerce and Law. ( It's 2 degrees, double degrees are common in Australian universities for those that want a real academic challenge. Mary chose not to get a job in a law office but rather a marketing traineeship and used her commerce degree)
Maxima has a degree in economics.
Letizia is the only CP with a Master's degree it's in Audiovisual journalism.
Mette-Marit is currently studying for Masters of Business Administration.
Masako has a bachelor's degree in business, she never finished her masters.
Kate Middleton has a Masters of Art in Art History degree.

The only CP that will be a reigning Queen, CP Victoria has no university degree, she has just done short university courses. Queens Beatrix and Margrethe also did university courses but have no degree. Queen Elizabeth II attended no university.

 

[sgl]

Being a woman in the 21st century, I greatly value the educational attainment of women..and I am glad that most of our crown princesses are well-educated and have high educational attainment. I know cp mathilde has a master's degree in psychology, maxima is well-versed in microfinance, mary has a master's degree and leticia is also well-accomplished. Could somebody give more details and with other crown princesses???As for future CP Kate Middleton..don't you think she needs to widen her educational background???Which leads me to my ultimate question...is educational background important in today's future queens???

I personally believe that an educational background is extremely important for anyone who will be ruling over a nation. Would a nation that is a republic elect a leader without an education? I highly doubt it. Monarchies should not be any different, IMO. In addition to a university education, it is extremely important that the royals are educated in every aspect of their nation's history, industries, diplomatic relations, and everything else that comprises their societies.

 

[Tilda1234]

Mathilde's Degree:

I know "Diploma" is something less to the Bachelor in English-speaking countries. But i think it was wrongly translated to English on the royal website, because the degree given in the other languages (German, Dutch) is a lot higher and equal to a Master.

If it is good translated to German Mathilde has "ein Psychologiediplom cum laude" (see heer Monarchie - Prinzessin Mathilde). In Germany this would mean the highest examination in a subject below the Doctor. In Germany a "Diplom" is totally equal to a Master.

Here Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz - Wikipedia is said she has an Licentiaat, which is equal to an Master (see Licentiaat - Wikipedia).

 

[Lady Claire]

I think education is important but so is experiance. Victoria has basically been training for her job her entire life.

 

[ashelen]

yes, but I think an university education should be important for all this crown princess, may be one of the reasons in Diana life is that she was so joung when married and she didn't have any education cologe or university degree , may be her life as a royal would have been diferen if she had the oportunity of more education before her marriage, not so joung!

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

Nowadays, the young people of the seven kingdoms are usually indifferent to monarchies or perceive monarchies in a negative way. It might be because there have been a few controversies surrounding some royals such as Juan Carlos' financial scandals this year, Prince Charles' infidelity in the 1990s, and a controversial biography about Carl XVI Gustaf in 2010, or the alleged misuse of taxpayer money in the renovation of Stenhammar Palace in 2013. Or it might just be that the monarchs are so old and the concept of monarchy is so old-fashioned. Young people like their peers and new things. And now let me express how I feel young royals of my age outshining their parents and grandparents in terms of popularity among people.
-
The ages of the monarchs in the seven countries are:
GB: (94)
NO: (83)
DK: (80)
SE: (74)
BE*: (60) [86]
NL*: (53) [82]
ES*: (52) [82]
-
Elizabeth II is a highly respected queen due to the supreme status of the Commonwealth in the later half of the 20th century. However, I cannot say the same about Prince Charles because of his infidelity.
Prince William is definitely more popular than his younger brother who pulled a Megxit.
I personally think that the British Royal Family will be less popular in the following years before Prince George grows up to be a strong royal figure like Crown Princess Victoria.
-
In Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf has lost popularity and people prefer his daughter much more.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/780362/survey-on-best-representative-in-royal-house-of-sweden/ and https://www.statista.com/statistics...l-gustav-to-hand-over-the-throne-to-victoria/ has shown that Victoria has the upper hand in the recent years over her father. In my opinion, Carl XVI Gustaf is a decent king for Sweden who overcame dyslexia and lived out his motto "For Sweden with the times", yet to be honest, Victoria my favorite royal of my times. It would have been a waste if she didn't get to be Queen.
I'm also expecting Estelle to be a great queen for Sweden after her mother.
-
Statistics have also shown Danes to be more pro-monarchy and there isn't much to worry about the Danish monarchy's popularity.
-
In Norway, the status of Marius Høiby and the actions of Märtha Louise has stirred much controversy. Perhaps the tides will change when Ingrid Alexandra learns from Victoria and becomes Queen.
Personally I would prefer Ingrid Alexandra to marry Prince Emmanuel of Belgium to make the next royal wedding of Norway less controversial and more worth celebrating.
-
The situation's a bit different in the Netherlands where Royals live more expensive lives than their Swedish counterparts. There have been a "no housing, no coronation" protest in 1980 and the "Ik Willem niet" movement in 2013. Yet confidence in the royal house is at all time high per this article (https://nltimes.nl/2020/04/27/confidence-royal-house-time-high), and Amalia's gaining some popularity in the Netherlands now. I hope it's from the youngsters. When Amalia becomes Queen I sincerely hope that she can live less luxuriously and take up more responsibilities to foster the development, unity and peace of the Netherlands.
-
Belgium is commonly seen as a country divided between the Walloons and the Flemings. In the old days French have been the prevalent language of Belgium and royals traditionally disregarded Dutch. There have been secessionist movements in Flanders that RTBF made a parody of it in 2006.
The only hope to unite Belgium is its Royal House. Yet Belgians have been very disappointed in King Albert II recently over the Delphine Boël case. Prince Laurent isn't a very good royal either, and is commonly viewed as a black sheep. I see great potential in Elisabeth though. She speaks all languages of her nation and English fluently, and this proves she has a great potential of uniting a country of three languages. Moreover, as the first HRH to be born in the 21st century, she'll be a role model for her juniors in the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Denmark, Sweden and Britain on how to be a good 21st-century royal.
-
Spain is now engulfed in a royal crisis involving Juan Carlos. Despite Felipe VI's best efforts to distance himself from his father, support for monarchy still faded. I'm counting on Princess Leonor to be the shining star of hope for the Spanish people. In my opinion, once Spain becomes a Republic, the nation will be more divided by politics, and more so if a presidential system like the US system is chosen. I feel more secure to put my trust in a princess three years my junior who has been trained to be the Head of State and has great ambitions and potentials to unite Spain with responsibility, rather than a politician who use tricks and empty cheques to attract voters.
-
These are the dates when our future Kings and Queens will reach the age of majority:
BE: 2019.10.25. (Elisabeth)
NL: 2021.12.07. (Amalia)
NO: 2022.01.21. (Ingrid Alexandra)
DK: 2023.10.15. (Christian XI)
ES: 2023.10.31. (Leonor)
SE: 2030.02.23. (Estelle)
GB: 2031.07.22. (George VII?)
-
I have strong confidence in my generation, and one day we, the young people, will recognize constitutional monarchy as the best form of state we've ever had.

 

[Mbruno]

Nowadays, the young people of the seven kingdoms are usually indifferent to monarchies or perceive monarchies in a negative way. It might be because there have been a few controversies surrounding some royals such as Juan Carlos' financial scandals this year, Prince Charles' infidelity in the 1990s, and a controversial biography about Carl XVI Gustaf in 2010, or the alleged misuse of taxpayer money in the renovation of Stenhammar Palace in 2013. Or it might just be that the monarchs are so old and the concept of monarchy is so old-fashioned. Young people like their peers and new things. And now let me express how I feel young royals of my age outshining their parents and grandparents in terms of popularity among people.
-
The ages of the monarchs in the seven countries are:
GB: (94)
NO: (83)
DK: (80)
SE: (74)
BE*: (60) [86]
NL*: (53) [82]
ES*: (52) [82]
-
Elizabeth II is a highly respected queen due to the supreme status of the Commonwealth in the later half of the 20th century. However, I cannot say the same about Prince Charles because of his infidelity.
Prince William is definitely more popular than his younger brother who pulled a Megxit.
I personally think that the British Royal Family will be less popular in the following years before Prince George grows up to be a strong royal figure like Crown Princess Victoria.
-
In Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf has lost popularity and people prefer his daughter much more.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/780362/survey-on-best-representative-in-royal-house-of-sweden/ and https://www.statista.com/statistics...l-gustav-to-hand-over-the-throne-to-victoria/ has shown that Victoria has the upper hand in the recent years over her father. In my opinion, Carl XVI Gustaf is a decent king for Sweden who overcame dyslexia and lived out his motto "For Sweden with the times", yet to be honest, Victoria my favorite royal of my times. It would have been a waste if she didn't get to be Queen.
I'm also expecting Estelle to be a great queen for Sweden after her mother.
-
Statistics have also shown Danes to be more pro-monarchy and there isn't much to worry about the Danish monarchy's popularity.
-
In Norway, the status of Marius Høiby and the actions of Märtha Louise has stirred much controversy. Perhaps the tides will change when Ingrid Alexandra learns from Victoria and becomes Queen.
Personally I would prefer Ingrid Alexandra to marry Prince Emmanuel of Belgium to make the next royal wedding of Norway less controversial and more worth celebrating.
-
The situation's a bit different in the Netherlands where Royals live more expensive lives than their Swedish counterparts. There have been a "no housing, no coronation" protest in 1980 and the "Ik Willem niet" movement in 2013. Yet confidence in the royal house is at all time high per this article (https://nltimes.nl/2020/04/27/confidence-royal-house-time-high), and Amalia's gaining some popularity in the Netherlands now. I hope it's from the youngsters. When Amalia becomes Queen I sincerely hope that she can live less luxuriously and take up more responsibilities to foster the development, unity and peace of the Netherlands.
-
Belgium is commonly seen as a country divided between the Walloons and the Flemings. In the old days French have been the prevalent language of Belgium and royals traditionally disregarded Dutch. There have been secessionist movements in Flanders that RTBF made a parody of it in 2006.
The only hope to unite Belgium is its Royal House. Yet Belgians have been very disappointed in King Albert II recently over the Delphine Boël case. Prince Laurent isn't a very good royal either, and is commonly viewed as a black sheep. I see great potential in Elisabeth though. She speaks all languages of her nation and English fluently, and this proves she has a great potential of uniting a country of three languages. Moreover, as the first HRH to be born in the 21st century, she'll be a role model for her juniors in the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Denmark, Sweden and Britain on how to be a good 21st-century royal.
-
Spain is now engulfed in a royal crisis involving Juan Carlos. Despite Felipe VI's best efforts to distance himself from his father, support for monarchy still faded. I'm counting on Princess Leonor to be the shining star of hope for the Spanish people. In my opinion, once Spain becomes a Republic, the nation will be more divided by politics, and more so if a presidential system like the US system is chosen. I feel more secure to put my trust in a princess three years my junior who has been trained to be the Head of State and has great ambitions and potentials to unite Spain with responsibility, rather than a politician who use tricks and empty cheques to attract voters.
-
These are the dates when our future Kings and Queens will reach the age of majority:
BE: 2019.10.25. (Elisabeth)
NL: 2021.12.07. (Amalia)
NO: 2022.01.21. (Ingrid Alexandra)
DK: 2023.10.15. (Christian XI)
ES: 2023.10.31. (Leonor)
SE: 2030.02.23. (Estelle)
GB: 2031.07.22. (George VII?)
-
I have strong confidence in my generation, and one day we, the young people, will recognize constitutional monarchy as the best form of state we've ever had.

One of the advantages of a family institution like the monarchy is that, while the King gets older, there will always be young royals as people have children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so on.



Ten years from now, several European kingdoms (Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain) will have young, attractive heirs (or seconds in line) in their 20s, and, twenty years from now, it will be the turn of Estelle's and George's generation in Sweden and the UK. And, when all of the above are in their 30s and early 40s, they will have cute children and attractive families. So, I see a "bonus phase" for most RFs in the near future.


Having said that, we live in an age of uncertainty and anxiety. In this environment, many people turn to the steadiness and sobriety of the older generation for reassurance. There are exceptions of course like JC, but it is no coincidence that Queen Elizabeth in the UK or Queen Sofia in Spain are the most popular royals in their respective countries.

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

Having said that, we live in an age of uncertainty and anxiety. In this environment, many people turn to the steadiness and sobriety of the older generation for reassurance. There are exceptions of course like JC, but it is no coincidence that Queen Elizabeth in the UK or Queen Sofia in Spain are the most popular royals in their respective countries.

Sure. I have never thought of replacing incumbent royals with very high reputation, such as Elizabeth II. However, I think that William will be more suitable as Elizabeth's successor and a representative of Great Britain while Charles can be Prince Father the same way Beatrix is the Princess Mother of the Netherlands. If Charles ever ascended the throne there is a possibility that the Brits will be reminded of Princess Diana again.
-
Abdication is not necessary in the next ten years in Belgium and the Netherlands, in my opinion, as Elisabeth and Amalia still have to gain royal experience like serving in the military and embassies of their country abroad, as well as a number of official visits before becoming Queens. Their fathers also have some degree of acceptance compared to other senior royals. In 2030, Elisabeth will be 29 years old and Amalia 27.
-
For reference, Elizabeth II ascended at 25, Carl XVI Gustaf ascended at 27, Margrethe II at 31.
-
It isn't easy to have a controversial royal in the monarch's generation. Such as Laurent, the brother of Philippe, and when William ascends, Harry.
Sweden had it better though, as the Haga Princesses have a good reputation and do not feed on taxpayer money. Carl Philip also has a good reputation in Sweden as a racer and as a patron of many chartiable organizations. Victoria is excellent in her own right too, so I won't expect Estelle to ascend before Victoria had been Queen for at least two decades.
-
As for Spain, I don't know how things will work out but it seems that Leonor has to get onto the throne earlier in her life (possibly 26) than her Belgian and Dutch counterparts. It's better than a Republic anyway.
-
Margrethe II, Frederik X and Christian XI are all great in their own right and I would definitely NOT suggest abdication.
-
And I have nothing to say about Norway because their monarchy is smallest among the seven kingdoms.

 

[Blog Real]

Sure. I have never thought of replacing incumbent royals with very high reputation, such as Elizabeth II. However, I think that William will be more suitable as Elizabeth's successor and a representative of Great Britain while Charles can be Prince Father the same way Beatrix is the Princess Mother of the Netherlands. If Charles ever ascended the throne there is a possibility that the Brits will be reminded of Princess Diana again.
-
Abdication is not necessary in the next ten years in Belgium and the Netherlands, in my opinion, as Elisabeth and Amalia still have to gain royal experience like serving in the military and embassies of their country abroad, as well as a number of official visits before becoming Queens. Their fathers also have some degree of acceptance compared to other senior royals. In 2030, Elisabeth will be 29 years old and Amalia 27.
-
For reference, Elizabeth II ascended at 25, Carl XVI Gustaf ascended at 27, Margrethe II at 31.
-
It isn't easy to have a controversial royal in the monarch's generation. Such as Laurent, the brother of Philippe, and when William ascends, Harry.
Sweden had it better though, as the Haga Princesses have a good reputation and do not feed on taxpayer money. Carl Philip also has a good reputation in Sweden as a racer and as a patron of many chartiable organizations. Victoria is excellent in her own right too, so I won't expect Estelle to ascend before Victoria had been Queen for at least two decades.
-
As for Spain, I don't know how things will work out but it seems that Leonor has to get onto the throne earlier in her life (possibly 26) than her Belgian and Dutch counterparts. It's better than a Republic anyway.
-
Margrethe II, Frederik X and Christian XI are all great in their own right and I would definitely NOT suggest abdication.
-
And I have nothing to say about Norway because their monarchy is smallest among the seven kingdoms.

Why do you think Leonor has to ascend to the throne so soon? I see no reason for this to happen.

 

[Denville]

and why is it better than a Republic?

 

[Mbruno]

S
-
As for Spain, I don't know how things will work out but it seems that Leonor has to get onto the throne earlier in her life (possibly 26) than her Belgian and Dutch counterparts. It's better than a Republic anyway.
-

Why? Felipe will probably be still alive when Leonor is 26 and I don't see why he would abdicate so early. It might look like abdication is the norm because several monarchs have abdicated recently, but that is not necessarily the case.


Besides, the point I was making was that the popularity bonus of having high-profile young members in a Royal Family does not require that those younger members be the King or Queen. Leonor, Christian, Elisabeth, etc will have a positive impact on the popularity of their respective RFs (at least in my opinion) irrespective of becoming king/queen at 26 or not.


It is true that Elizabeth, Margrethe or Carl Gustaf ascended the throne at a very young age due to their particular circumstances, but, nowadays, if possible, I suppose most people would rather NOT have a 20-something king/queen. Instead it is better to let them finish their education, gain experience, start a family and look after their children etc. before taking the big job. Having young kings in that sense may be worse than having young crown princes and a 60-year-old king. People live longer today and being at the top of your career and in positions of authority at 60 or over is no longer so uncommon (retirement ages are being pushed back).



In the US, for example, the two presidential candidates are now 74 and 77 (or something like that). Who would have imagined that even a decade ago?

 

[Blog Real]

and why is it better than a Republic?

It is better than a republic, because if the monarchy is abolished in Spain, Spain itself as we know it may end. There are strong independence movements in various areas of Spain, especially in Catalonia.

 

[Somebody]

In Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf has lost popularity and people prefer his daughter much more.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/780362/survey-on-best-representative-in-royal-house-of-sweden/ and https://www.statista.com/statistics...l-gustav-to-hand-over-the-throne-to-victoria/ has shown that Victoria has the upper hand in the recent years over her father. In my opinion, Carl XVI Gustaf is a decent king for Sweden who overcame dyslexia and lived out his motto "For Sweden with the times", yet to be honest, Victoria my favorite royal of my times. It would have been a waste if she didn't get to be Queen.
I'm also expecting Estelle to be a great queen for Sweden after her mother.
-
(...)
-
The situation's a bit different in the Netherlands where Royals live more expensive lives than their Swedish counterparts. There have been a "no housing, no coronation" protest in 1980 and the "Ik Willem niet" movement in 2013. Yet confidence in the royal house is at all time high per this article (https://nltimes.nl/2020/04/27/confidence-royal-house-time-high), and Amalia's gaining some popularity in the Netherlands now. I hope it's from the youngsters. When Amalia becomes Queen I sincerely hope that she can live less luxuriously and take up more responsibilities to foster the development, unity and peace of the Netherlands.

What's your evidence for the Dutch royal living more expensive lives than the Swedes? I have noticed that the Swedes use far more palaces and holiday homes and have more gala events... But still think it is hard to decide who lives more expensively; like all other monarchies both families live in luxury.

And being Dutch I never heard of the "Ik Willem niet" movement, so I am sure that in every country a fringe group can be found protesting at important moments of the monarchy but just so you know: they were in no way representative of the Dutch population.

The 'no housing, no coronation' was indeed a much bigger event 40 years ago(!) but they mainly jumped on the inauguration of the new queen to share their ongoing problem of the housing crisis.

 

[Somebody]

Abdication is not necessary in the next ten years in Belgium and the Netherlands, in my opinion, as Elisabeth and Amalia still have to gain royal experience like serving in the military and embassies of their country abroad, as well as a number of official visits before becoming Queens. Their fathers also have some degree of acceptance compared to other senior royals. In 2030, Elisabeth will be 29 years old and Amalia 27.

No, of course not. Abdication in the Netherlands at least isn't done because the royal is no longer popular but to both give the monarch a well-earned semi-retirement while providing the heir the opportunity to step up to the position of head of state before normal people are supposed to retire.

So, nobody in their right mind in the Netherlands or Belgium would expect a reign of less than 20 years by the current monarch (that both are doing fine). In the Netherlands I would expect an abdication around 2043: Willem-Alexander would be on the throne for 30 years, turning 76 in April of that year (a few days before his 30 years on the throne), while Amalia is turning 40 in December of 2043. So, Amalia would still be quite young and they might decide to wait 2 more years or so, depending on Willem-Alexander's health.

For reference, Elizabeth II ascended at 25, Carl XVI Gustaf ascended at 27, Margrethe II at 31.

All did so because their successor died; I am quite sure Elizabeth wouldn't have picked it herself had she and her father had been able to choose the best moment for her to ascend the throne.

As for Spain, I don't know how things will work out but it seems that Leonor has to get onto the throne earlier in her life (possibly 26) than her Belgian and Dutch counterparts. It's better than a Republic anyway.

Why? Her father is doing fine! He is doing everything he can to distance himself from questionable behavior by his close family members; who are also still family members of Leonor...

 

[Mbruno]

What's your evidence for the Dutch royal living more expensive lives than the Swedes? I have noticed that the Swedes use far more palaces and holiday homes and have more gala events... But still think it is hard to decide who lives more expensively; like all other monarchies both families live in luxury.

I can give you my opinion as someone observing it from the other side of the Atlantic, which makes me more "neutral" perhaps.




The Scandinavians have more gala events, but the Danes and the Dutch in particular look more "futile" and extravagant to me, especially Queen Maxima (that isn't necessarily associated with living more expensive lives). The Brits (who are the richest of all actually), the Belgians and the Spaniards look very frugal and austere (Spain doesn't even have a "Court" in the old sense wth ladies in waiting, mistresses of the robes, or lord chamberlains). The Swedes have their galas, but project an image of greater professionalism than the Dutch and the Danes.


Of course, I know many posters will disagree, but then, again, those are personal impressions and how it comes across to me.

 

[JR76]

I am quite sure Elizabeth wouldn't have picked it herself had she and her father had been able to choose the best moment for her to ascend the throne.

Princess Anne has been quite clear in that Queen Elizabeth doesn't like to celebrate her accession to the throne because it's also when she lost her father and Crown Princess Victoria has said that she doesn't like to think of when she becomes queen since it means that her father has died.
I'm sure that Queen Margrethe would have preferred to have her father alive for a few more years and King Carl Gustav would have preferred to become crown prince aged 27 instead of king. It's quite telling that one of King Carl Gustav and Queen Silvia's arguments against an abdication is that they want their daughter to have time to raise her children without the burden of being queen since they themselves know how important that is and wish they'd had that opportunity themselves.

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

Why? Felipe will probably be still alive when Leonor is 26 and I don't see why he would abdicate so early. It might look like abdication is the norm because several monarchs have abdicated recently, but that is not necessarily the case.


Besides, the point I was making was that the popularity bonus of having high-profile young members in a Royal Family does not require that those younger members be the King or Queen. Leonor, Christian, Elisabeth, etc will have a positive impact on the popularity of their respective RFs (at least in my opinion) irrespective of becoming king/queen at 26 or not.


It is true that Elizabeth, Margrethe or Carl Gustaf ascended the throne at a very young age due to their particular circumstances, but, nowadays, if possible, I suppose most people would rather NOT have a 20-something king/queen. Instead it is better to let them finish their education, gain experience, start a family and look after their children etc. before taking the big job. Having young kings in that sense may be worse than having young crown princes and a 60-year-old king. People live longer today and being at the top of your career and in positions of authority at 60 or over is no longer so uncommon (retirement ages are being pushed back).

I know, and this is what Crown Princess Victoria has been doing before her eventual ascension. As I have said before, military service, service at embassies, official visits, etc. are vital experience for royals. And I agree with you on the point of starting a family and raising children to adulthood, because a royal would better get accustomed to a work-life balance when taking up such a great duty - even if they were trained since young to take on it. If that is so then will 2045 be a better year for Elisabeth's and Amalia's enthronement?
-
It's good when the senior royals are acting like how they are supposed to be - a representative for the country, a role model for citizens, a symbol of national unity. Elizabeth II, Harald V, Carl XVI Gustaf and Margrethe II have been doing it excellently. I believe that Philippe and Willem-Alexander have been doing well as heads of their respective states too. I'm sorry for my ignorance if I didn't know about Felipe VI's best efforts to dissociate himself from the financial scandals.
-

What's your evidence for the Dutch royal living more expensive lives than the Swedes?

As for the evidence, this article (https://nltimes.nl/2018/04/25/dutch-royals-cost-far-budget-says-report) says that the Dutch Royals has a budget of 60 million euros per year in 2018 (equivalent to 3,44 Euro = 31,66 HKD per Dutch citizen)
-
This report (https://www.kungahuset.se/download/.../1556878000254/Verksamhetsberättelsen2018.pdf) says that 139,2 million kronor (equivalent to 13,77 SEK = 12,29 HKD per Swedish citizen) has been allocated by the State to the Court and the Palace Administration.
-

It's quite telling that one of King Carl Gustav and Queen Silvia's arguments against an abdication is that they want their daughter to have time to raise her children without the burden of being queen since they themselves know how important that is and wish they'd had that opportunity themselves.

And if raising Estelle to adulthood is one of Victoria's main foci, it might be time for Carl XVI Gustaf to abdicate around 2032.

 

[Somebody]

I can give you my opinion as someone observing it from the other side of the Atlantic, which makes me more "neutral" perhaps.

The Scandinavians have more gala events, but the Danes and the Dutch in particular look more "futile" and extravagant to me, especially Queen Maxima (that isn't necessarily associated with living more expensive lives). The Brits (who are the richest of all actually), the Belgians and the Spaniards look very frugal and austere (Spain doesn't even have a "Court" in the old sense wth ladies in waiting, mistresses of the robes, or lord chamberlains). The Swedes have their galas, but project an image of greater professionalism than the Dutch and the Danes.

Of course, I know many posters will disagree, but then, again, those are personal impressions and how it comes across to me.

Thanks, that's interesting. I can see how Máxima may look more extravagant. She looks extravagant to the Dutch as well who normally seem to attribute that to her being Latin. However, while that brings a certain 'touch' to the monarchy (after a very down-to-earth reign by Juliana (at least image-wise; and a very strict and professional reign by Beatrix (again, image-wise but I'd say that is closer to the true), for most of us it doesn't necessarily translate to 'more expensive lives' but is mostly perceived as approachable and somewhat trade-oriented.

I would agree that Willem-Alexander and Máxima are clearly a bit more into the jet-set than his mother; especially since their Greek holiday home and therefore Greek connections.

What do you mean by 'a greater professionalism'? Can't that go together with both a more austere image and a more luxurious one?

 

[Somebody]

As for the evidence, this article (https://nltimes.nl/2018/04/25/dutch-royals-cost-far-budget-says-report) says that the Dutch Royals has a budget of 60 million euros per year in 2018 (equivalent to 3,44 Euro = 31,66 HKD per Dutch citizen)
-
This report (https://www.kungahuset.se/download/.../1556878000254/Verksamhetsberättelsen2018.pdf) says that 139,2 million kronor (equivalent to 13,77 SEK = 12,29 HKD per Swedish citizen) has been allocated by the State to the Court and the Palace Administration.

Thanks for the clarification. So, you are not talking about how expensive the lives of the royal family members are but about the budget allocated directly to the royal house. Those are two very different things. Only a small portion of those costs go to the royals themselves.

While the Dutch royal house appears to be one of the more expensive ones that is partly because the Dutch budget is FAR more transparent than the budget of most other royal families (because the Dutch parliament has been very insistent about this). While in many cases lots of the cost of a royal family are for example attributed to the ministry of Defense (for example: the Belgians fly military planes while the Dutch take passenger flights for long distances) or 'buried' elsewhere on the budget, so, unless the budgeting is done EXACTLY the same for each royal house we don't know how they actually compare to each other.

You may want to look up previous discussions on the cost of royal houses for more in-depth analyses of these issues.

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

Nonetheless, young royals should have a role in making support for the monarchy more popular among their generation regardless of when they're going to be enthroned.
-
Though I'm a great fan of Victoria, I have great support towards Elisabeth, Amalia, Ingrid, Leonor and Christian XI, and I've been watching the careers of Estelle and George VII with great interest.
-
It's not common for a 21st century kid to be a monarchist, but when they do, it's usually because of royals in their generation. Of course I'm not into which dress the princess five months my senior is going to wear tomorrow, because I'm just an ordinary Hong Kong boy living in a 71 m^2 flat and I won't wear her dress even if I can afford it. I'm more into our futures and our respective roles, about how we will join hands and contribute for a new and better century. Monarchies have to be more popular among we 21st century kids rather than Kpop idols.

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

Thanks for the clarification. So, you are not talking about how expensive the lives of the royal family members are but about the budget allocated directly to the royal house. Those are two very different things. Only a small portion of those costs go to the royals themselves.

While the Dutch royal house appears to be one of the more expensive ones that is partly because the Dutch budget is FAR more transparent than the budget of most other royal families (because the Dutch parliament has been very insistent about this). While in many cases lots of the cost of a royal family are for example attributed to the ministry of Defense (for example: the Belgians fly military planes while the Dutch take passenger flights for long distances) or 'buried' elsewhere on the budget, so, unless the budgeting is done EXACTLY the same for each royal house we don't know how they actually compare to each other.

You may want to look up previous discussions on the cost of royal houses for more in-depth analyses of these issues.

Thanks for that. I'm just a layman to royal finances. I used to focus on the genealogy of the kingdoms, the institutions, the titles and styles and the history and future of monarchy (especially Sweden) before coming to TRF. I'm not very familiar with the Dutch royal family apart from Amalia and her younger sisters.

 

[Eskimo]

Interesting that the OP talks about his generation as being the young royals and then starts banging on about Charles being Prince Father (no such title exists) because of Diana. OP- You’ll find that people of “your generation” hardly know of or care about Diana.

Also, Beatrix is a former monarch not the Princess Mother (again such a title does not exist)

 

[vivat]

It is better than a republic, because if the monarchy is abolished in Spain, Spain itself as we know it may end. There are strong independence movements in various areas of Spain, especially in Catalonia.

I agree very much, but to me it seems to be an almost inhuman burden now.
JC had the bonus of stating the democracy after Franco,
Felipe well, he struggles a lot, let alone with the social problems and tendencies in Catalonia f.e.
but Leonor?
Maybe her, being a woman, is a chance and Felipe manages to deploy a solid base for her reign during his, if not, taking the reign will be a lifelong burden unequal to other monarchies who are existing for more generations since.
For Spain I hope it very much, Felipe and Leonor can suceed and stabalize the nation but I have to admit I doubt it more and more.
vivat

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

Interesting that the OP talks about his generation as being the young royals and then starts banging on about Charles being Prince Father (no such title exists) because of Diana. OP- You’ll find that people of “your generation” hardly know of or care about Diana.

Also, Beatrix is a former monarch not the Princess Mother (again such a title does not exist)

Never have I said that "Princess Mother" is an official title or a title at all. It's just that "Princess" is the title used by Beatrix now. And the seven kingdoms never had a "Prince Father" since their formation because we don't usually skip the heir apparent and jump to his heir, but William is a better representative than Charles in my horrible opinion. Again, I'm more familiar with the Swedish Royal Family than its British counterpart.
-
I'm just saying that George will outshine Charles for sure if William outshone him. Charles' reputation is not as good as William's if I remember correctly, and that has to do with Princess Diana. Even if 21st century kids like me aren't born during the 1990s, some of us would still look back in time and know who Diana was through television reels and web articles. It's surely rare to find a 21st century kid to be monarchist rather than a kpop fan.

 

[JR76]

I think it's important to remember that for many posters English is only the second or third language.

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

I agree very much, but to me it seems to be an almost inhuman burden now.
JC had the bonus of stating the democracy after Franco,
Felipe well, he struggles a lot, let alone with the social problems and tendencies in Catalonia f.e.
but Leonor?
Maybe her, being a woman, is a chance and Felipe manages to deploy a solid base for her reign during his, if not, taking the reign will be a lifelong burden unequal to other monarchies who are existing for more generations since.
For Spain I hope it very much, Felipe and Leonor can suceed and stabalize the nation but I have to admit I doubt it more and more.
vivat

Let's pray for the best. I do not fancy royal lifestyle per se, I admire royals' perseverance in bearing great responsibility to be representatives of the nation and to unify their people. They contributed the most to their respective Kingdoms.

 

[Somebody]

Never have I said that "Princess Mother" is an official title or a title at all. It's just that "Princess" is the title used by Beatrix now. And the seven kingdoms never had a "Prince Father" since their formation because we don't usually skip the heir apparent and jump to his heir, but William is a better representative than Charles in my horrible opinion. Again, I'm more familiar with the Swedish Royal Family than its British counterpart.

You seemed to imply that Charles could become the Prince Father just like Beatrix is the Princess Mother. Nobody in the Netherlands would ever use that term, so it is a bit misleading. Beatrix is currently known as 'princess Beatrix' and upon death will return to be known as 'queen Beatrix' immediately. Just like her mother and grandmother before her. The only combination with 'mother' that was used in the Netherlands was for Queen Emma who was known as 'the queen-mother' during her daughter's reign (except for the first 8 years when Emma was known as 'the queen-regent').

I'm just saying that George will outshine Charles for sure if William outshone him. Charles' reputation is not as good as William's if I remember correctly, and that has to do with Princess Diana. Even if 21st century kids like me aren't born during the 1990s, some of us would still look back in time and know who Diana was through television reels and web articles. It's surely rare to find a 21st century kid to be monarchist rather than a kpop fan.

Yes, however, the royal family is not about popularity but about traditions; and tradition dictates that the eldest - not the most popular - ascends the throne. However, I guess the topic of skipping Charles has been discussed in either the 'Line of Succession to the British throne' or the Future of the British Monarchy-topic; so, if you'd like to discuss it further one of those seems to be an excellent place to do so.

 

[Denville]

I think that "Skipping Charles" may have been an idea that was floated some years ago, but its long since faded into obscurity and isn't going to happen. William will not succeed his grandmother and Charles wont be "prince Father".

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

Yes, however, the royal family is not about popularity but about traditions; and tradition dictates that the eldest - not the most popular - ascends the throne. However, I guess the topic of skipping Charles has been discussed in either the 'Line of Succession to the British throne' or the Future of the British Monarchy-topic; so, if you'd like to discuss it further one of those seems to be an excellent place to do so.

I think that "Skipping Charles" may have been an idea that was floated some years ago, but its long since faded into obscurity and isn't going to happen. William will not succeed his grandmother and Charles wont be "prince Father".

I agree. Details about the British succession should go to the British thread.
Yet I wonder what are your perceptions on Royals born in the 21st century?
Do you think they will most likely outshine their parents and grandparents, even if they won't be head of state until decades later?