The Monarchy under Charles

[Mbruno]

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

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

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

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

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

Christmas at Sandringham, "the walk", or even summer at Balmoral may be family traditions, but they don't compare IMHO to Trooping of the Colour, the Christmas broadcast, or a constitutional ceremony like the State Opening of Parliament, all of which Charles is bound to keep. I see family traditions changing under Charles and, maybe even more so, under William and Catherine, but more institutional events that make sense to keep will probably be kept.

 

[Osipi]

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

It is very true that in relation to the monarchy, George and Charlotte do have a more significant place and role in it. The entire point of the post that I was trying to make was that in a celebration of a Diamond Jubilee of a reigning monarch, it was appropriate to enhance the future of that monarchy with the Queen appearing on the balcony with her heir and his two sons (and Kate) symbolizing continuity of the institution of a constitutional monarchy.

Trooping the Color, although one of the biggest and most impressive displays of pomp and pageantry that the British do so well, is actually a personal celebration of the monarch's birthday. In her personal life, George, Charlotte, Isla and Savannah are all equally her great grandchildren. In her personal life, her children and her grandchildren are her family. I don't for a minute believe that HM would prefer, for example, William over Louise because William is higher up in the succession to the monarchy than Louise is or because William is a HRH and Louise is not. Familial relationships are totally different than the rank and file and titles of the monarchy.

This was the point I was trying to elaborate on. One occasion stressed the continuity of the monarchy and the other represented a family coming together to celebrate a family member's birthday.

 

[Mbruno]

It is very true that in relation to the monarchy, George and Charlotte do have a more significant place and role in it. The entire point of the post that I was trying to make was that in a celebration of a Diamond Jubilee of a reigning monarch, it was appropriate to enhance the future of that monarchy with the Queen appearing on the balcony with her heir and his two sons (and Kate) symbolizing continuity of the institution of a constitutional monarchy.

Trooping the Color, although one of the biggest and most impressive displays of pomp and pageantry that the British do so well, is actually a personal celebration of the monarch's birthday. In her personal life, George, Charlotte, Isla and Savannah are all equally her great grandchildren. In her personal life, her children and her grandchildren are her family. I don't for a minute believe that HM would prefer, for example, William over Louise because William is higher up in the succession to the monarchy than Louise is or because William is a HRH and Louise is not. Familial relationships are totally different than the rank and file and titles of the monarchy.

This was the point I was trying to elaborate on. One occasion stressed the continuity of the monarchy and the other represented a family coming together to celebrate a family member's birthday.

Thanks, Osipi. I agree with your opinion on the family relationship !

My main point though in the previous message was actually to emphasize why I think the 1917 LPs will have to be changed soon. Let's assume William and Catherine have another boy. Under current law, that hypothetical boy and his future children would be further removed from the throne than Charlotte and Charlotte's future children. Nevertheless, his children would be HRHs under the 1917 LPs whereas Charlotte's children would not. Again, it doesn't make sense.

To become compatible with the new succession rules, the LPs also have to become gender neutral. Either Charles moves to a Dutch-like system where only the heir's children are HRHs (regardless of the heir's gender), which would be the "minimalist" solution and IMO unnecessary/ too draconian, or he follows the Belgian example under KIng Philippe's latest royal decree and introduces a rule that all future grandchildren of a sovereign, starting with his own grandchildren, will be HRHs. That wouldn't increase the number of HRHs in the next generation, as Charles only has two sons whose children would already be HRHs anyway, but it could potentially increase the number of HRHs in the future. Again, I don't personally see that as a problem (others may disagree).

 

[Osipi]

I've just realized that what happened between our posts Mbruno is that they were moved. My response was actually to something that was stated in the Trooping the Color thread and you most pleasantly brought it all on topic in this one. Nothing like the smooth flow of things eh?

It got me to thinking though and I've come up with something that may or may not be of concern when it comes to Charles' reign. I'm not stating any kind of fact but rather questioning as I have no clue how this would work. Is it possible that should Harry marry Meghan, an American citizen, that should she not renounce her citizenship in the US and perhaps have dual citizenship in the US and the UK, that Harry and Meghan may decide to go the route of Sophie and Edward and prefer their children not to be HRH? Its possible should they have children that with Meghan keeping her citizenship that their children will also be able to have dual citizenship.

Not sure how that all works. Would Meghan be *required* to renounce her US citizenship or not?

 

[Denville]

I would say it would be advisable for her to do so... commiting to her husband's family and country. And I'm sure that their children will be HRH. (if this marriage ever happens)

 

[Leopoldine]

I think she should become a British subject.

Autumn Phillips was from a Commonwealth country, so it was a different situation.

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

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

I think that Charles is extremely dependent on staff and winds up doing whatever the more dominant employees think he should be doing.

When he ascends, his court is going to be a giant tangle of handbag-wielding rivals who will do whatever it takes to get him favourable press.

I think Prince Andrew was wise to purchase that chalet.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

It would be nice to see Princess Alexandra of Kent's children and grandchildren at royal events when Charles is King. It would be good to extend a olive branch to the extended family.

 

[Osipi]

Why would an olive branch be necessary. I've never heard that there is discord among the extended family.

 

[cepe]

It would be nice to see Princess Alexandra of Kent's children and grandchildren at royal events when Charles is King. It would be good to extend a olive branch to the extended family.

They were there for TTC. What are you talking about?

 

[Iluvbertie]

How far to we go with the 'extended family' though? Are the children and grandchildren of a person's parents first cousins that close in most families that they are invited to events? I don't think so (in my family even the first cousins don't get invited let alone their children and grandchildren).

The reason we still see some of the Queen's first cousins is that the are exactly that - her first cousins. Note that the Harewood's weren't invited to these events and the late Earl was as much a grandchild of George V as is the Queen but from a daughter and as such not invited to many events - Coronation yes but Trooping as the years went on - no.

That will be the same for Charles and then William and George etc. If every descendant of George V was on that balcony there would be nearly 100, including spouses. Go back another generation to Edward VII and add in quite a few more and then with Victoria there are about 4000, without including spouses - and growing.

There has to be a cut off point and first cousins of the monarch is more than reasonable. Joe Blow Public I suspect believes that every person up there is getting paid by the state rather than only the few who benefit from the Sovereign Grant but impressions are also important and seeing fewer on the balcony will send a message that there are fewer on the 'payroll'. The rest could still enjoy the birthday 'party' if there is one without sending out the message that the majority of the public appear to believe.

Charles gets on very well with Alexandra but he, I suspects, realises that the public don't want to see her children and grandchildren paraded as members of his family - but would rather stick to the core family - those that they can identify (and the DM can't even do that correctly as they can't tell the difference between Beatrice and Eugenie - no wonder they write articles about one and the public applies that same information to the other and treats them as one girl at times).

 

[MARG]

I would suggest the lower numbers have more to do with terrorist attacks and a devastating fire. Many tourists come to London especially at this time of the year just for all the pageantry, Order of the Garter, Trooping of the Colour and Ascot and, of course, The State Opening of Parliament.

I am quite happy with the "Balcony" appearance following the TTOTC. I assume they adjourned for a light lunch and a chance to touch base with the rest of the family. They are celebrating her "Official Birthday".

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rN_KZzxN...CPlQfDLhu-wI8cQCLcBGAs/s640/2017-Balcony2.jpg

Edited

 

[Leopoldine]

How far to we go with the 'extended family' though? Are the children and grandchildren of a person's parents first cousins that close in most families that they are invited to events? I don't think so (in my family even the first cousins don't get invited let alone their children and grandchildren).

The reason we still see some of the Queen's first cousins is that the are exactly that - her first cousins. Note that the Harewood's weren't invited to these events and the late Earl was as much a grandchild of George V as is the Queen but from a daughter and as such not invited to many events - Coronation yes but Trooping as the years went on - no.

That will be the same for Charles and then William and George etc. If every descendant of George V was on that balcony there would be nearly 100, including spouses. Go back another generation to Edward VII and add in quite a few more and then with Victoria there are about 4000, without including spouses - and growing.

There has to be a cut off point and first cousins of the monarch is more than reasonable. Joe Blow Public I suspect believes that every person up there is getting paid by the state rather than only the few who benefit from the Sovereign Grant but impressions are also important and seeing fewer on the balcony will send a message that there are fewer on the 'payroll'. The rest could still enjoy the birthday 'party' if there is one without sending out the message that the majority of the public appear to believe.

Charles gets on very well with Alexandra but he, I suspects, realises that the public don't want to see her children and grandchildren paraded as members of his family - but would rather stick to the core family - those that they can identify (and the DM can't even do that correctly as they can't tell the difference between Beatrice and Eugenie - no wonder they write articles about one and the public applies that same information to the other and treats them as one girl at times).

Zanouska Mowatt has been on the balcony over the years with Alexandra and Alexandra's son James has been there with his wife.

You know who I didn't see on the balcony this weekend, the Chattos and the Linleys.

 

[Denville]

It would be nice to see Princess Alexandra of Kent's children and grandchildren at royal events when Charles is King. It would be good to extend a olive branch to the extended family.

what Olive branch? Why is one required IYO?

 

[Curryong]

Each one is determined on a case by case basis and is reviewed regularly.

I would suspect that when George, Charlotte and the new baby reach their early 20s, them, like Sophie, Meghan will lose it unless on royal duties as she will be then only be married to a very minor royal - as is Sophie today.

When George and siblings are in their twenties, Meghan will be married to either the only other son or only brother of the monarch. Hardly a minor Royal. Sophie is married to the sovereign's fourth child. Big difference, plus the Wessexes have never been high profile.

 

[Pranter]

Harry and Meghan will never be minor royals. I'm not sure even their children (I fully expect them to receive titles) will be since they will be the only cousins the Cambridges have ...and perhaps needed as full time working royals.


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

Harry and Meghan will never be minor royals. I'm not sure even their children (I fully expect them to receive titles) will be since they will be the only cousins the Cambridges have ...and perhaps needed as full time working royals.


LaRae

With three children already, I don't think Harry's children will be working royals. And I think Harry and Meghan would prefer them to be private citizens and have the freedom to be whomever they wish.

 

[Pranter]

That's assuming that George's siblings will all be working royals. Charlotte could marry and not be full time or a working royal at all.

I have thought that Harry (in the past) might opt out but not after the past 6 months or so. I think after he decided for sure he wanted to remain a full time royal and commit to spending his life doing patronages/charitable works, he's going to accept titles for his children (assuming he has any).


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

That's assuming that George's siblings will all be working royals. Charlotte could marry and not be full time or a working royal at all.

I have thought that Harry (in the past) might opt out but not after the past 6 months or so. I think after he decided for sure he wanted to remain a full time royal and commit to spending his life doing patronages/charitable works, he's going to accept titles for his children (assuming he has any).


LaRae

I don't doubt that Harry would devote his life to being a full time royal. I think he's really found his purpose. And being that he won't be monarch, it actually allows him to focus on the issues he finds closest to his heart whereas monarchs tend to need a diverse profile.

I'm still not sure about accepting HRH titles for his children. I think Harry might be wary of the attention that his York cousins and get. In a way, I do think the HRH title holds Beatrice and Eugenie back from leading private working lives to their fullest potential while not having the option of working for the Firm. Harry and Meghan might want to protect their children from that.

 

[Pranter]

I don't think it will be possible for them to protect their children from it simply because of who their parents are. Folks are interested in Harry and now that he's marrying (an American of mixed ethnicity no less) interest will probably increase...let them have kids and they'll be as bad as they have been for the Cambridge children.

So title or not title...they will have to prepare their children for the interest they will be likely to get their entire lives.



LaRae

 

[Countessmeout]

That's assuming that George's siblings will all be working royals. Charlotte could marry and not be full time or a working royal at all.

I have thought that Harry (in the past) might opt out but not after the past 6 months or so. I think after he decided for sure he wanted to remain a full time royal and commit to spending his life doing patronages/charitable works, he's going to accept titles for his children (assuming he has any).


LaRae

As evidenced by Anne and Alexandra, Charlotte getting married certainly doesn't mean she wouldn't or couldn't be a working royal. When William is king, she will be second in line for the throne until George has kids. She is just as likely to be a working royal as her younger sibling is to be. Even if that younger sibling is another boy.

Charlotte if she marries say Mr John Smith, will be HRH The Princess Charlotte, Mrs John Smith. As Eugenie will be when she marries, HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank. Charlotte's husband may be titled or he may be given a title along the way like Antony was.

IMO the streamlining will mean a focus on only children of the sovereign being working. So while Harry and his wife will work, not their kids. George and all his siblings (if they choose) will be working royals, but only George's kids will be. And so on.

I don't doubt that Harry would devote his life to being a full time royal. I think he's really found his purpose. And being that he won't be monarch, it actually allows him to focus on the issues he finds closest to his heart whereas monarchs tend to need a diverse profile.

What do you picture as the difference? What in your mind does a 'working royal' do that Harry doesn't?

The majority of the work a working royal does, is charity work. The ceremonial 'royal duties' is a very small part. Harry being a 'full time working royal' simply means picking up the number of duties he is expected to do. His main job is representing the royal family through the odd 'duty' and his charity work.

The majority of Charles' 'full time work' is with his foundation. As well as his ceremonial duties. For Harry, his military patronages like Invictus, and others like Senteble are the same path.

 

[jacqui24]

What do you picture as the difference? What in your mind does a 'working royal' do that Harry doesn't?

The majority of the work a working royal does, is charity work. The ceremonial 'royal duties' is a very small part. Harry being a 'full time working royal' simply means picking up the number of duties he is expected to do. His main job is representing the royal family through the odd 'duty' and his charity work.

The majority of Charles' 'full time work' is with his foundation. As well as his ceremonial duties. For Harry, his military patronages like Invictus, and others like Senteble are the same path.

The difference is that the Queen doesn't seem to have her own specific passion issues. The Royal Foundation, while does have a big umbrella, has some pretty recurring themes.

 

[Countessmeout]

Didn't answer my question? What are the duties you imagine Harry would be doing if he was a full time working royal????

The queen may not have a specific passion but she has Hundreds of charities she was and is patron of. Even for the queen, serving as patron of charities is a huge part of her job. As queen, like her son, she has a number of royal duties as well.

For the countless other 'full time royals' as in Anne, the Wessexes, Andrew, Gloucesters, Kents, and now the Cambridges, being a 'working royal' is very much having patronages and devoting your time to those. And of course the odd 'royal duty event' like trooping. This is the category that Harry is under. So him working with Invictus and his other charities in no way is in conflict with him being a full time royal, it is part of him being a full time royal.

 

[jacqui24]

Didn't answer my question? What are the duties you imagine Harry would be doing if he was a full time working royal????

The queen may not have a specific passion but she has Hundreds of charities she was and is patron of. Even for the queen, serving as patron of charities is a huge part of her job. As queen, like her son, she has a number of royal duties as well.

For the countless other 'full time royals' as in Anne, the Wessexes, Andrew, Gloucesters, Kents, and now the Cambridges, being a 'working royal' is very much having patronages and devoting your time to those. And of course the odd 'royal duty event' like trooping. This is the category that Harry is under. So him working with Invictus and his other charities in no way is in conflict with him being a full time royal, it is part of him being a full time royal.

The answer is the topics that he finds most interesting. Obviously, within some limits that's typical for the royal family.

I'm not sure what you are trying to disagree with me on? I'm just saying he'll be able to have more options to have passion projects as opposed to whoever is the monarch. Your comment about the Queen not having specific passion projects, but patronages just agreed with exactly what I said. I'm sure he'll have other patronages as well, but he can also have passion projects moreso than a monarch.

 

[Mbruno]

The difference is that the Queen doesn't seem to have her own specific passion issues. The Royal Foundation, while does have a big umbrella, has some pretty recurring themes.

The Queen has state matters to attend to unlike other members of the family.

 

[jacqui24]

The Queen has state matters to attend to unlike other members of the family.

I’m not saying it like it’s a bad thing. I’m just noting the difference because there is a different than the type of organization HMQ and future monarchs when they are monarchs have versus a senior royal that isn’t monarch.

 

[texankitcat]

I realize they will be scaling the working Royals back in the future, but my understanding is that it would not exclude the direct line of the reining Monarch. Since Charles only has two sons, Harry’s children would be titled Prince and princesses and would be expected to be working royals. There is only so much they can do with all their patronage’s and other official duties, traveling as representatives of the UK, etc.. to accomplish it all with just William and his 3 children when he ascends the throne. It just won’t be possible.

 

[jacqui24]

I realize they will be scaling the working Royals back in the future, but my understanding is that it would not exclude the direct line of the reining Monarch. Since Charles only has two sons, Harry’s children would be titled Prince and princesses and would be expected to be working royals. There is only so much they can do with all their patronage’s and other official duties, traveling as representatives of the UK, etc.. to accomplish it all with just William and his 3 children when he ascends the throne. It just won’t be possible.

Harry's children won't be the mainline just as his cousins aren't really considered mainline royals now. Harry will likely play a more prominent role during Charles' reign and likely early in William's reign than the Queen's younger children individually do now. Obviously because there is only one of him and there are three of them. His children are obviously entitled to HRH status at some point in their lives, if not from the very beginning, unless Charles pass away before the Queen, however I wouldn't be surprised if Harry and Meghan makes the same choice the Wessexes did. Sometimes the HRH is more of a burden.

 

[Pranter]

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


LaRae

 

[Somebody]

So, how many people do you think are needed at any given point in time?

The second-largest monarchy (in terms of citizens) of Europe (Spain) currently has only 2 active, 1 partially active and 1 hardly active member. In most countries there are 3-6 active members and sometimes a few members who occasionally carry out an engagement.

Even if none of William's uncles and aunts would be available during his reign (and I do hope that especially Andrew, Edward and Sophie have many more years - and most likely will be able to help out until the Cambridge kids will become working members of the royal family) as they are a lot younger than Charles, you would still have: William, Catherine, Harry, Meghan, George (plus 1?), Charlotte (plus 1?), Cambridge 3 (plus 1?). So, 7-10 people - which should be enough. So, I don't see a need for Harry's children to become working royals as well.

 

[jacqui24]

I think the current count is:

Queen
Prince Charles
Duchess of Cornwall
Duke of Cambridge
Duchess of Cambridge
Prince Harry
Prince Andrew
Princess Anne
Prince Edward
Countess of Wessex

I'm not sure how many patronages the Kents or Gloucester carry out, so I'm not including them here. I do think there will be fewer royal engagements overall though through the slim down.