The Future of the British Monarchy 2: Sep 2022 -

[Chimene]

I think lowering the number of working royals is not a bad plan. The most frequent complaint is that they cost too much, regardless if that’s true or not, it’s the perception of a good number of people. Scaling down is a good way to fight that, as well as eliminating the risk of those unable to behave in accordance with the rules or loyal to the institution. But I agree there are occasions when having family members at such events like Christmas celebrations, birthdays etc would be a positive. Although I understand the need for such restrictions currently.

 

[Blog Real]

I think that all the monarch's children (as well as the monarch's siblings) should always have a role to play, even if it's just from time to time, they can always help out on some occasions.

 

[Chimene]

I agree. I think Charlotte and Louis should be coached to understand their role and responsibilities within the institution better than the previous generations. You can’t keep having destabilizing forces in your ranks because over time the whole system will topple.

 

[Maryrose]

Do you think that for the next generation that it would be more of a half in half out sort of situation where they would step in as needed but yet have their own careers and financial independence? I think people would be more willing to accept that in the future.

 

[Chimene]

I think that could be a solution for Louis at least, but the danger is the career can’t be in a field that could be easily exploited by bad actors. He should also be trained, they all should, to be mindful and aware of those situations. If we take Sophie’s mistake in the very beginning, that’s an example that was quickly remedied, but for that to work you can’t be dealing with arrogance, ignorance or entitlement.

 

[tommy100]

I think its possible they'd do something like William - spend some time doing something - military or similar, doing the odd official engagements mainly for big family / royal events before transitioning into full time duties. Andrew actually did the same as well as William and Harry. I think the issue with Ed and Sophie was they were running their own businesses and businesses in areas where being seen to sell their "royal connection" was inevitable.

 

[RabbitRabbit]

I think lowering the number of working royals is not a bad plan. The most frequent complaint is that they cost too much, regardless if that’s true or not, it’s the perception of a good number of people. Scaling down is a good way to fight that, as well as eliminating the risk of those unable to behave in accordance with the rules or loyal to the institution. But I agree there are occasions when having family members at such events like Christmas celebrations, birthdays etc would be a positive. Although I understand the need for such restrictions currently.

Do you think that for the next generation that it would be more of a half in half out sort of situation where they would step in as needed but yet have their own careers and financial independence? I think people would be more willing to accept that in the future.

I agree, I think younger or other Royals out of the main direct line 'who have no awful baggage attached' could be accepted to work part time and have a career. So, here I mean sorry but being realistic, not the Yorks basically and the very far out family members who's names are known but where never meant to be working Royals unless disaster struck and that won't happen. People hanging around in palaces who don't carry out official duties. The public have an awareness of who the wider family are but more people around than who are doing duties from the much wider family will get people grumbling, which we all see and hear in the press and wider public over the years but I think that in some cases they are very blinkered in their sense of entitlement and lost track of public perception decades ago if they ever had it.

I think anyone of adult age more than 6th in line roughly depending who is what age in the future and where in the family, should be going out to work and especially before or after having young children, they could also do evening and weekend engagements around London or more widely. But having said that Edward and Sophie are vital and Edward is technically, what 10th in line maybe? So it needs to be worked out generation by generation but I think all monarchs grandchildren not in the direct line should start from the position that they will go out to work and earn their own living.

I would say in terms of public events (not the balcony scenes) children and grandchildren of monarchs and children of working Royals in public is fine; behind the scenes, for family parties at Windsor or wherever, yes grandchildren of the actual working Royals (not those just with titles) of course should be there to see what their grandparents have done over the years for the country but not the people chasing the spotlight who are a long way off on the list. I think they don't see what this looks like from afar.

For the balcony; officially working Royals and working Royals children only I would suggest in the direct line or the current and the directly previous monarchs grandchildren (Charles and Elizabeth) only if their parents are working Royals. So Louise and James, studies permitting, or Anne's children but not people further out no matter how nice, because that starts the grumbles. If Sarah Chatto or David started helping part time then them too if they wanted but they don't seem like people trying to get onto a balcony and into pictures ironically which actually makes them better suited in many ways to being there.

 

[Hallo girl]

Do you think that for the next generation that it would be more of a half in half out sort of situation where they would step in as needed but yet have their own careers and financial independence? I think people would be more willing to accept that in the future.

The emphasis is on financial independence, it would need to be a career choice that did not depend on their title or connections. That is not that simple.
I do agree it is worth further thought by the family, how would it work. ?

 

[RabbitRabbit]

Post deleted.

 

[Hallo girl]

William does great work and did great work in the Air Ambulance but he stayed away for a long while and there was comment that this perhaps made elder Royals work longer. Who knows, it must have been discussed in the family and up to them. I would have got cracking by 25-28 or so and let the elderly members rest more. We don't know why they did things as they did, their choice.

It has been widely reported over many years that William and his family were allowed time to grow without the pressure of royal life. I don’t think we can blame William for the shortage of royals at this stage. We might like to consider that the older royals see it as service and are happy to continue while their health permits.

 

[RabbitRabbit]

If anything, the recent time with the King at reduced capacity, and both the Princess of Wales and the Princess Royal on sick leave, it shows the value of having a pair of extra hands available…

Without the Edinburgh’s and the Gloucester’s on hand - Queen Camilla and Prince William would be pretty much alone by now…. Not totally unlike how the situation is in Norway from time to time with only Queen Sonja and Crown Prince Haakon available…

That’s why i hope they don’t downsize too much…. I get that they can’t have lots or relatives from outside of the monarch’s own descendants being paid for in all eternity, but at the same time, a part of what motivates people to support a monarchy is that the royals are visible and feels relatable…

And the British Royals have an age gap between the Edinburgh’s and the Wales’s that is not without its own risks, in case of illness’/injuries/controversial members etc

Maybe the real crunch was that Andrew married someone who, to put it mildly, caused a lot of issues and those connected issues still rumble on and if things had worked out differently for him with Elizabeth having four working children with spouses, this feeling of '!' may not be happening but you can't see the future.

 

[RabbitRabbit]

It has been widely reported over many years that William and his family were allowed time to grow without the pressure of royal life. I don’t think we can blame William for the shortage of royals at this stage. We might like to consider that the older royals see it as service and are happy to continue while their health permits.

I'm not blaming him. I think they may well.

 

[Durham]

The emphasis is on financial independence, it would need to be a career choice that did not depend on their title or connections. That is not that simple.
I do agree it is worth further thought by the family, how would it work. ?

Anything non commercial would be ideal.

Education, health, civil service etc would be apt. That could work.

 

[Durham]

My guess would be that it is more likely that in the UK William will be the one to introduce abdication because of age/to make place for the next generation rather than Charles.

Yes I think this may well happen.

Maybe after/if there are no more Commonwealth realms other than the UK to complicate matters?

I'm dead against abdication but I do understand the arguments in favour.

 

[tommy100]

Honestly, I can't see William calling in anyone than his own children - I suspect they'll be set up to have careers for a decade or so then take on more full time royal duties. It was always said Harry was going to be included in Charles "slimmed down" monarchy and, to be frank, it would be daft for Louise or James or another cousin to be doing royal duties but not the King's own children in time.
I think it time we'll see:

Core "senior royals"
King William and Queen Catherine
Prince George and The Princess of Wales

With support from:
Princess Charlotte
Prince Louis

To be honest I can see both Charlotte and Louis' future spouses being left to have their own careers if they already have one by the time they get married. (and that would certainly avoid the slightly awkward issue of why Charlotte's possible husband wouldn't be expected to do royal duties but Louis' potential wife would)

William could still call in his cousins for big events like Garden Parties, the races etc but I don't see the "working royal family" going beyond that.

 

[Royalty Observer]

I think Charles had the right ideea regarding the system of reduced number of working royals (the king and the children of the king with their partners) but unfortunatelly for him this was not possible for the known circumstances. So by following his ideea all 3 of Will's children will be working royals but moving further down the line, only George's children will be working royals and not Charlotte's or Louis's. I don't think there will be a repeat off the Harry situation so the model should work in the future.
This means that once William will be king there will pottentially be 8 full time working royals

 

[tommy100]

...and ironically that is exactly how it has worked with the late Queen's immediate family:

The Queen - 4 children all official working royals (until Andrew wasn't)

1. Charles - future King
   1. William - future King - working royal
   2. Harry - was meant to be a working royal
2. Anne - working royal
   1. Peter - not a working royal
   2. Zara - not a working royal
3. Andrew - working royal (until he wasn't)
   1. Beatrice - not a working royal
   2. Eugenie - not a working royal
4. Edward -
   1. Louise - not a working royal nor titled as Princess despite being entitled to
   2. James - not a working royal nor titled as Prince despite being entitled to

The Princess Margaret - 2 children none of whom were working royals

1. David Armstrong Jones - not a working royal
   1. Viscount Linley
   2. Lady Margarita
2. Sarah Chatto - not a working royal
   1. Samuel Chatto
   2. Arthur Chatto

So things won't be much different, just no more cousins being drafted in to be working royals keeping it much more along the line of only future sovereigns.

 

[RabbitRabbit]

I think the Queens cousins only came on board because her children and Margaret's had all been so small when she was starting out. Margaret's hadn't been born in 1951. Prince Richard was due to be an architect and pursue a professional life just like all these posts above suggest an outline but his brother had a sudden accident. His brother wasn't planning to be a full time Royal either, but just help out sometimes and run his estate. It was only when 'pushe came to shove' that he found himself in that situation. Alexandra was asked to help as she was another female face but her family was also young. I think it got more complicated from there but the Duchess of Kent was and is popular.

 

[Somebody]

Princess Margaret's children were never expected to take on royal engagements as they weren't royals (just like princess Mary's children weren't - except to serve as Counselor of State when they were eligible). The Dukes and heirs to the royal dukedoms were expected to be available for royal service; and princess Alexandra was indeed asked to increase the number of available (younger) female royals. Her younger brother was not.

 

[tommy100]

Yes I agree about the Queen's cousins being called in - wasn't Princess Alexandra called in because there was a real lack of female royals bar the Queen and her sister?

That said, I think the RF will have learnt from that and it is one of the reasons they'd probably rather endure a few years of a "lack of royals" than decades of having "minor royals" who are distant relations and easy hits for the media that the RF is too big and too costly.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And both Luxembourg and Belgium had somewhat 'forced' abdications in the 20th century but this did not make it inconceivable for later monarchs to abdicate for other reasons.

Good point, and the opprobrium they experienced was even fierier than that for Edward VIII, who at least was not accused of being a traitor and collaborator with an enemy nation as Marie-Adelaide and Leopold III were. Besides, I do not believe it is the idea of abdication that was tainted by these unpopular monarchs. Edward VIII was censured for many of his actions, but his decision to abdicate seems to be generally considered the wisest decision he made.

If it is true that Prince William wants to slim down the working Royals even further in his reign, i don't think it's a good idea. The European monarchies are all monarchs of much, much smaller countries/populations.

I would say that the Spanish monarchy is comparable to the British monarchy (which is fundamentally European, even if its monarch is simultaneously the monarch of many non-European countries). Though the population of Spain is smaller, 47 million is not what I would call "much, much smaller" than 68 million. And much like the British monarchy, the Spanish monarchy continues to maintain active relationships with its former colonies, including royal visits and overseas engagements and involvement in international organizations.

The backbone of the Royal supporters are the silent majority. Start cutting down patronages, cutting down this, slimming back that, and just to appease the 'not our King' crowd? Better to keep the supporters happy than the naysayers.

I don't think measures to slim down the monarchy in one way or another are meant to appease the "not our King" crowd, whom I agree will not be appeased by such half-measures. Slimming down the monarchy is meant to appease the silent majority of royal supporters. Even supporters of the monarchy tend to dislike the idea of spending their hard-earned tax dollars to fund the livelihoods of members of a very privileged family, and while they accept it as a necessary evil to some extent (since the monarchy, which they support, needs working royals), they will be dissatisfied if the number of royals who are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as living off of the public purse exceeds what they are willing to tolerate. Note that even European royal families who enjoy higher approval ratings than the British royal family have been taking action to slim down or at least to appear as if they are slimming down.

 

[EllieCat]

I would say that the Spanish monarchy is comparable to the British monarchy (which is fundamentally European, even if its monarch is simultaneously the monarch of many non-European countries). Though the population of Spain is smaller, 47 million is not what I would call "much, much smaller" than 68 million. And much like the British monarchy, the Spanish monarchy continues to maintain active relationships with its former colonies, including royal visits and overseas engagements and involvement in international organizations.

Whoops, my bad. I was thinking more of the Scandinavian monarchies, and didn't think to check the size of Spain's population which is of course definitely substantial. I also included NZ, Aussie and Canada in with the 'much much bigger' comment. I type faster than I think

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Whoops, my bad. I was thinking more of the Scandinavian monarchies, and didn't think to check the size of Spain's population which is of course definitely substantial. I also included NZ, Aussie and Canada in with the 'much much bigger' comment. I type faster than I think

It is one of the most common arguments against downsizing in these discussions, so thank you for raising it. It is true that the UK monarchy is unique in that its monarch also serves as the monarch of a number of other sovereign countries, but I think the distinction is less than it might seem because in practice the royal family is not active on a daily or even monthly basis in those other countries, and there does not seem to be an appetite in those countries for more royal involvement from junior royals (with whom their publics might not be acquainted; I believe Autumn Phillips, who was Canadian, once said that she had no idea who Peter Phillips was upon meeting him).

 

[yukari]

The Japanese imperial family had not experienced any abdications in centuries, but that did not stop the Emperor Emeritus from becoming determined to abdicate. (For the avoidance of doubt, I make no comment about Charles III. The point is merely that most British monarchs reigning until death does not mean that every single future British monarch will consider abdication to be inconceivable.)

I don't think you can compare it to JIF. The last abdication was "only" 2 centuries ago and prior to that abdication was practically a tradition and the one who didn't mostly died young (the one i can think that lived past 60 is Emperor Showa). We couldn't say the same about past British monarchs. And correct me if i'm wrong, but the past abdications of British monarchs were mostly (if not all) forced abdication, which again was not the case for JIF where most of it were voluntary.

 

[EllieCat]

It is one of the most common arguments against downsizing in these discussions, so thank you for raising it. It is true that the UK monarchy is unique in that its monarch also serves as the monarch of a number of other sovereign countries, but I think the distinction is less than it might seem because in practice the royal family is not active on a daily or even monthly basis in those other countries, and there does not seem to be an appetite in those countries for more royal involvement from junior royals (with whom their publics might not be acquainted; I believe Autumn Phillips, who was Canadian, once said that she had no idea who Peter Phillips was upon meeting him).

All true. Of course I come from NZ so I am definitely going to include us as long as we don't turn into a republic. The Royals rarely come here however EVERY week on at least one of the three main 'women's magazines', the Royals are featured front cover, including the York sisters. I do expect to get outvoted one day and NZ will become a republic, however KCIII will always be 'my' king.

 

[Alison H]

there does not seem to be an appetite in those countries for more royal involvement from junior royals (with whom their publics might not be acquainted; I believe Autumn Phillips, who was Canadian, once said that she had no idea who Peter Phillips was upon meeting him).

I wonder if she'd have known Beatrice, Eugenie or Zara. Young female royals do attract a lot more interest and press coverage than young male royals, presumably because they're seen as more glamorous, and the press like to see what they're wearing. Back in the day, Lady Helen Windsor and Marina Ogilvy, as they were then, always had their pictures in the papers and glossy magazines, but their brothers never did. A royal engagement by Prince Edward or the Duke of Gloucester will not make the front pages, but a picture of Zara at Ascot will. That's not a criticism of anyone, just an observation.

 

[RabbitRabbit]

I think Zara, yes, but with Beatrice and Eugenie you would have to be on damage control setting straight away from a press or PR point of view, so I really don't think having them on board works. Since they have been tiny, Sarah wanted them in front of the cameras to build brand and presence and strengthen the case to push for them to be working Royals later on. That's what I see looking back.
Beatrice and Eugenie have never grabbed front pages though really aside from a probable big PR spend or push from Sarah to keep the family profile up. Catherine does, Sophie can, Anne does and is very respected, they need someone senior who also does but that is a hard spot to put someone into. Getting a minor Royal who wants it, or even doesn't, into that spot will backfire in terms of the 'hanger on' grumbling. Maybe Harry coming back and wearing a wig.....
Prince Edward and the Duke of Gloucester in particular should get a lot more coverage because they do work hard. Richard especially doesn't get the coverage he should but again this isn't a 'starry' branch of the family which is really respected.