The Monarchy under Charles

[Grandduchess24]

What would the monarchy be like under Charles, and what the British people think? Because based on YouTube videos he seems to be a nice guy, but strangely enough the media portrays him as a "mother's boy" or a sort of dunce like in the Simpsons for example.

 

[muriel]

What would the monarchy be like under Charles, and what the British people think? Because based on YouTube videos he seems to be a nice guy, but strangely enough the media portrays him as a "mother's boy" or a sort of dunce like in the Simpsons for example.

Not sure where you got your assessment of the perception of Charles, but he is anything but a mothers boy. If anything, one of the comments one gets to hear is that he is very much a free thinker, and that his relationship with his parents is somewhat distant.

 

[Hilda Thomas]

When Prince Charles Become King.

Like Queen Elizebeth her successors would be "Figure Heads" Prince Charles can express his opinions because he is just a Prince of Wales. Charles could have served his country better had he been a polititan or an elected minister in the government. There are laws and rules that demicratic heads of state has to follow. When Charles becomes king it would be a "horse of a different colour"

 

[Le Prince Royale]

I personally don't know exactly how Prince Charles will downsize the monarchy, I'm not even sure whether he's planning on doing it but all I know is that I think that it is an excellent notion to downsize the monarchy. Abolishing the monarchy overall is not what I want but a downsize does sound promising. I think that Princely titles should on be bestowed upon the King or Queen's children and no more (Such as grandchildren).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Currently only male line grandchildren get the HRH Princely title in addition to the children of the monarch. And of course spouses of males but not females.

To make it gender neutral they would either have to do something like restrict it to the children of the monarch only or actually add to the number by allowing all grandchildren of a monarch (currently that would add 4 officially and 6 unofficially - Louise and James who don't use it as well as Peter and Zara from Princess Anne and David Linley and Sarah Chatto from Princess Margaret - with their spouses would add another 4 as well - ok three at the moment and another one with Mike in July but...)

In time the number will reduce via attrition unless William or Harry have heaps of kids - and as they are relatively keen environmentalists they will probably limit themselves to two or even be really planet friendly and have one each).

Currently there are 14 by birth and another 5, soon to be 6 by marriage. Of the other 8 by birth only two could add by marriage - Harry and Andrew.

I can see Charles limiting the HRH to the children of the monarch and children of the heir but not the children of other children of the monarch (that would mean Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra no longer qualifying - whether he would demand the give up the title or something different I don't know but I can see him limiting the number).

So long as a limited number also meant that the extras aren't on the balcony or anything like that - limit those on the balcony to those who are HRH and maybe the people will limit their sniping but when they see 50 people on the balcony they assume that they are all being paid to do nothing and that leads to the negative feelings expressed in the papers etc.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Thanks for posting.

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I kept going to the wrong place to check this, and not seeing your comments

As for my opinion, I prefer a larger British Royal Family. I think of it as an extensive network of generosity. Unfortunately, it doesn't go down well to have too many people on the balcony. Even if the civil list were to be abolished completely, people would still pounce on youthful indescretions and say "what have they done to deserve their title?", as has happened to Beatrice and Eugenie. William and Henry misbehaved as well, but most people were willing to forgive them as they are so close to the throne.

This simply wasn't a problem when the Queens cousins were growing up, as the media kept further away.

I would miss the romance of a larger Royal Family alot , but I can see the benifits of a smaller one.

 

[Anna Catherine]

I think people will complain regardless. I do think it would be beneficial for Charles to designate that only his children and grandchildren have the HRH or thonly his children and the heir's children. When you think about the size of the current royal family, it seems a bit excessive to some, however as some have suggested, the royal family will naturally downsize so it may be unnecessary. It all depends on Charles' mood when the time comes. Same with Camilla's title. Just wait and see.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If Charles was to say his children and grandchildren it would be unfair on others who are children and grandchilden of a monarch unless some are to lose it when that relationship changes and could you imagine that.

Currently not all grandchildren of the monarch get HRH.

There are currently 10 as male line grandchildren who are eligible to be HRH but there are another 5 grandchildren of a monarch who aren't HRH simply because their royal parent was female.

If Charles was to say all grandchildren then those 5 should be added.

Personally I would prefer to see it limited to the children of the monarch during the reign of the monarch but no grandchildren at all. That way children wouldn't get it until their parent became monarch.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

If Charles was to say his children and grandchildren it would be unfair on others who are children and grandchilden of a monarch unless some are to lose it when that relationship changes and could you imagine that.

Currently not all grandchildren of the monarch get HRH.

There are currently 10 as male line grandchildren who are eligible to be HRH but there are another 5 grandchildren of a monarch who aren't HRH simply because their royal parent was female.

If Charles was to say all grandchildren then those 5 should be added.

Personally I would prefer to see it limited to the children of the monarch during the reign of the monarch but no grandchildren at all. That way children wouldn't get it until their parent became monarch.

Agreed. I would also suggest that titles not be stripped from someone, except for good reasons, such as treason, etc. Hence if Prince Charles upon ascending to the Throne were to issue new LPs limiting the HRH to the monarch's children and children of the Heir Apparent, I'd hope he'd leave alone those who already have the titles (such as Prince Andrew's daughters, etc). In other words, grandfather their titles, but don't issue HRH to future grandchildren, etc.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I hope Charles realises that the Royal Family is headed for a smaller size anyway. His daughters in law (two at a time, and lets hope two over all) will be the only spouses of The Queen's Grandchildren who are eligable for HRHs (I can't see James opting for princely status when he turns eighteen), and his Grandchildren (lets say four or five) will be the only great Grandchildren of Her Majesty's who will qualify.

On top of that The Duchess of Kent is retired (and I think the Duke is as well, but if he's not, its likely he will in a few years) and Alexandra, the Michaels of Kent, and The Gloucesters are getting close to retirement as well.

It would be perfectly fine for Charles to change some of the rules, but not at the demotion of any member of the Royal family (which means no stripping of HRHs), and not at the exclusion (from the Royal Family) of Henry's children. Too many people on the balcony is one thing, but too few would make The Monarchy seem like an exclusive elimination game

 

[Madame Royale]

Retirement doesn't really work like that in royal circles, though.

If of able body and mind, they'll generally continue to represent the monarch, or themselves for as long as they can or is required of them.

The Duke of Kent is not retired and the Duchess retired due to personal reasons which has enabled her to focus on her love of music and teaching, amongst other pursuits.

Nice avatar btw

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Good point. Thanks for clearing that up.

The Kents and The Gloucesters will hopefully all overlap with Harry's children, and wonderful as it would be for them to have such long lives, The Monarchy would not exactly be downsized, as Charles seemingly wants it to be.

I hope he opts for a gradual downsizing, though, because when William is King, it will be a very small Family if Henry's children are not members. Pretending that the spouses of Henry's children don't qualify (a downsizing measure I would not object to), is anyone going to revolt over presence of two or three peripheral members, who aren't even on the civil list?

About my avatar, Thanks I chose a Dragonfly because there's a dragonfly in the logo of the Darwin City Council (I live in Sydney at the moment, as my stats show, but I want to live in the tropical north when I live by myself. I like warm weather) The stained glass is the Royal aspect. I was going to change my avatar every month, but I don't think I will now.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Is it only those with HRHs who stand on The Balcony at The Troping of The Colour?

I came across a short thread on here (admittedly an old one) about Marina Oglivy, and someone linked to a picture of her and her daughter on the balcony. I mean no disrespect to them, but they are not Princesses.

Surely it would project the image of a smaller Royal Family, if only those with HRHs stood on the balcony. Others in the line of succession could still stand at the front of the crowd

What does everyone think of this idea?

 

[MARG]

Is it only those with HHS who stand on The Balcony at The Trooping of The Colour?

I came across a short thread on here (admittedly an old one) about Marina Oglivy, and someone linked to a picture of her and her daughter on the balcony. I mean no disrespect to them, but they are not Princesses.

Surely it would project the image of a smaller Royal Family, if only those with HRHs stood on the balcony. Others in the line of succession could still stand at the front of the crowd

What does everyone think of this idea?

At the front of the crowd? Sandwiched against the railings with the general public? No way!

Imagine in the elbowing going on when they try to enter the Palace for Luncheon or High Tea or whatever follows said Trooping.

They may not be HRH's, but they are family. The Queen's cousins, second cousins, grandchildren, etc.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is it only those with HRHs who stand on The Balcony at The Troping of The Colour?

I came across a short thread on here (admittedly an old one) about Marina Oglivy, and someone linked to a picture of her and her daughter on the balcony. I mean no disrespect to them, but they are not Princesses.

Surely it would project the image of a smaller Royal Family, if only those with HRHs stood on the balcony. Others in the line of succession could still stand at the front of the crowd

What does everyone think of this idea?

The problem with limiting the balcony to HRH's is that some of the HRHs are lower in the line of succession than totally untitled persons.

If it was to be only HRHs then it would be limited to:

The Queen
Philip
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate (after 29th April)
Harry
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
Anne
Duke of Gloucester
Duchess of Gloucester
Duke of Kent
Duchess of Kent
Michael of Kent
Princess Michael of Kent
Alexandra

but...

# 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 would miss out as they aren't HRH but the Duke of Gloucester is 20th but is an HRH. The Duke of Kent is 28th (those between the Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester and the non-HRH descendents of the Duke of Gloucester. Princess Alexandra is 39th but again is an HRH with a number of non-HRH's above her in the line of succession.

This comes about of course because of the discrimination within the 1917 LPs that allows male line grandchildren to be automatic HRH but doesn't allow female line grandchildren the same rights (#8 and 9 could be classes as HRH but they don't use it and there is one argument that although no new LPs were issued the Queen's will has been made known and that is enough to deprive Louise and James of HRH while others argue that it isn't).


Personally I would restrict the balcony to the children and grandchildren of the present monarch only - thus Savannah wouldn't be there and nor would Princess Margaret's descendents or the Gloucester, Kents, Mountbattens etc who all regularly appear.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

At the front of the crowd? Sandwiched against the railings with the general public? No way!

Imagine in the elbowing going on when they try to enter the Palace for Luncheon or High Tea or whatever follows said Trooping.

They may not be HRH's, but they are family. The Queen's cousins, second cousins, grandchildren, etc.

Good point. Maybe they could have a special stand

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

The problem with limiting the balcony to HRH's is that some of the HRHs are lower in the line of succession than totally untitled persons.

If it was to be only HRHs then it would be limited to:

The Queen
Philip
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate (after 29th April)
Harry
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
Anne
Duke of Gloucester
Duchess of Gloucester
Duke of Kent
Duchess of Kent
Michael of Kent
Princess Michael of Kent
Alexandra

but...

# 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 would miss out as they aren't HRH but the Duke of Gloucester is 20th but is an HRH. The Duke of Kent is 28th (those between the Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester and the non-HRH descendents of the Duke of Gloucester. Princess Alexandra is 39th but again is an HRH with a number of non-HRH's above her in the line of succession.

This comes about of course because of the discrimination within the 1917 LPs that allows male line grandchildren to be automatic HRH but doesn't allow female line grandchildren the same rights (#8 and 9 could be classes as HRH but they don't use it and there is one argument that although no new LPs were issued the Queen's will has been made known and that is enough to deprive Louise and James of HRH while others argue that it isn't).


Personally I would restrict the balcony to the children and grandchildren of the present monarch only - thus Savannah wouldn't be there and nor would Princess Margaret's descendents or the Gloucester, Kents, Mountbattens etc who all regularly appear.

The only way to avoid untitled people coming before HRHs in the line of sucession, would be to give absolutely everybody, or absolutely nobody HRHs. It would happen in any system where Neices/Nephews could displace their Uncles/Aunts. The current system is sexist, and needs changing, but it is not the sole reason some non HRHs come before HRHs.

Restricting the balcony to children and Grandchildren of The Sovereign would be a good idea. It would give the impression of a small family. Of course everyone else could get a special stand to be in. It has been bought to my attention that it would be a nightmare to be at the front of the crowd O_O

 

[yvr girl]

Who cares who is on the balcony? They are guests of the Queen. It doesn't cost the public anything for them to be there. It's a treat for the children to see the flypast.

 

[Madame Royale]

Who cares who is on the balcony? They are guests of the Queen.

You are absolutely right. The Queen can allow whoever she likes on her balcony. And whoever Charles allows on it when he is King is entirely up to him.

 

[Dierna23]

I second that. And also, the more family members on the balcony, the more fun to watch.

 

[pacomartin]

Downsizing

I have heard alot on this forum, about Prince Charles planning to downsize the British Monarchy, when he is King. Some people have claimed that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will be stripped of their HRHs upon marraige, and that Prince Harry's children will not enjoy Princely status.

In 1714 with the arrival of King George I, the British monarchy adopted the German traditions. The children and grandchildren of the monarch all became royal and prince/princess. The great grandchildren from male lines became Prince and Princess, but were only entitled to HH (His/Her Highness with the royal omitted).

In 1917 when George V was trying to cut ties with German titles, he also decided to downsize the titles of the royal family. Basically he cut out the great grandchildren with the sole exception of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. He eliminated the HH title entirely, and he cut back grandchildren to only male line descendants.

According to these rules, Prince Charles and Princess Anne were grandchildren along a female line, and were not automatically royal. George VI used his position to make them royal at birth. If William's first born is a girl, she will not qualify either, but you can bet that Queen Elizabeth will make her a princess.

I sincerely doubt that as monarch, Charles will remove the HRH titles from his 3 nieces and 1 nephew. Edward's children do not use the title right now anyway. He has the power to strip their titles (as did George V), but I am sure that he is more concerned with them being working royals. They will probably not be given grace and favor apartments in Kensington Palace.

Harry's children will not automatically be royal as long as his grandmother lives. In the event the QEII outlives Charles, Harry's children will never be royal, as they will never be the male line grandchildren of a monarch.
However, as fount of honor, Queen Elizabeth II can make anyone royal. So it remains to be seen what they will decide.

 

[Lenora]

I think Prince Charles will downsize the royal family,keeping just family members and his siblings' family.Many papers stayed this idea and that many people are not satisfied that the royal family is so extended.From other side,it will be interesting to see his actions towards this.I wonder just about a thing,let's suppose he will downsize the royal family,will this affect his cousins' families?I mean Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto 's families?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The question really comes down to who qualifies as the 'royal' family? How far distant from the monarch should that qualification extend?

Obviously the children of the monarch and the siblings of the monarch. The grandchildren of the monarch would also qualify but.. should neices and nephews, cousins and cousins' children also be regarded as members of the royal family?

If limited to the children, grandchildren and siblings of the monarch currently the royal family would be The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Sophie, Louise, James, Anne, Tim, Peter, Autumn, Savannah and Zara with Kate and Mike to be added later this year. That is 21 members by the end of this summer.

Currently though it extends beyond those 21 to include the 4 Linley's, 4 Chatto's, 7 Gloucesters, 28 Kents and then the Mountbattens also regularly appear.

Now most of these 43 other members of the royal family aren't on any form of taxpayer support but...that isn't the appearance given to the public and public perception is important.

If the limit is applied to children, grandchildren and siblings of the monarch then when Charles becomes King those extra 43 will disappear along with the Linley's, Chatto's and also his neices and nephews. The number on the balcony would then be 11 currently living and in time an extra as Harry's wife and William and Harry's children (of course Philip will cease to appear in time as he will also pass away).

Even 11 appearing gives the impression of 11 being supported totally by the taxpayers but that is better than the current number that are perceived as being supported - we know better here but unfortunately the majority of people don't.

 

[Anna Catherine]

If Charles was to say his children and grandchildren it would be unfair on others who are children and grandchilden of a monarch unless some are to lose it when that relationship changes and could you imagine that.

Currently not all grandchildren of the monarch get HRH.

There are currently 10 as male line grandchildren who are eligible to be HRH but there are another 5 grandchildren of a monarch who aren't HRH simply because their royal parent was female.

If Charles was to say all grandchildren then those 5 should be added.

Personally I would prefer to see it limited to the children of the monarch during the reign of the monarch but no grandchildren at all. That way children wouldn't get it until their parent became monarch.

So here its what I am actually saying. You can split everyone into Royal Family and Royal House like some monarchies do. He only has to included his immediate family and grandchildren in the royal family. His siblings and nieces and nephews and everyone else can be in the Royal House. I don't think he needs to strip titles, but he can separate out. Besides that fact not everyone even now are on the Civil List so it's really not that big of a deal in my opinion.

 

[pacomartin]

The question really comes down to who qualifies as the 'royal' family? How far distant from the monarch should that qualification extend?..
Now most of these 43 other members of the royal family aren't on any form of taxpayer support but
...
that isn't the appearance given to the public and public perception is important.

The term royal family is informal, and I don't think anyone cares who is in or out. The definition is arbitrary. The royals is a legal definition. The working royals is an even smaller group.

I don't think King Charles III cares who is in the royal family, and I don't think he will further limit who is royal. But I think he wants to limit the working royals to his own descendants.

As I understand it, when QEII came to the throne in 1952, she was originally asked to limit her working family to her sister and two cousins (the dukes and the future duke). In 1953, Peter Townsend was divorced from his first wife; he proposed marriage to Margaret. He was sixteen years her senior, and had two children from his previous marriage. Margaret accepted, and informed the Queen of her desire to marry Townsend. After this incident, parliament wanted to increase the working royals to three cousins, as Princess Alexandra (who was only 15 when her cousin ascended) was very popular and seen as a more controlled princess to counterbalance Margaret.

When Prince William died in 28 August 1972, the working royal cousins ended up being all of them except for Prince Michael.

Prince Michael and his mother, Princess Marina, moved to Kensington Palace shortly after the Queen ascended to the throne in 1952. She died in 27 August 1968, when Prince Michael was age 26. He married at age 36 in a civil ceremony, and had a son 40 weeks later. The Queen gave him a grace and favor apartment in Kensington Palace where he had lived as a teenager.

Parliament made him pay rent recently (so he had to sell his country house in 2006). I think Charles is concerned about this sort of thing and does not want to guarantee jobs and apartments for his nieces and nephews.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Whatever he wants to do he needs to make it clear to his neices now and the public also needs to be made aware of the situation.

When some people are becoming anti-monarchy because of the people living off taxpayers money who actually aren't then something needs to be done to clear up the perception of who is supported by the taxpayers and who isn't so limiting the balcony, defining who is part of the family etc would make that clearer to the general public - on whose support the royal family depends.

 

[LadyG]

Happy a future King has opinions which reflect his own views. A study of architecture makes his question of a library plausible. Perhaps the media has not shown enough of the genuine man. In a world possibly headed for a singular global control it is nice to know how intelligent this man really is and how he thinks about world affairs. With an outstanding Mother, Her Majesty, such likenesses are considered valueable. Looking out for the future and the ways of the world I admire his opinions. Hope to hear more of them and read between the lines of some biased press pieces.

 

[Kataryn]

In 1714 with the arrival of King George I, the British monarchy adopted the German traditions. The children and grandchildren of the monarch all became royal and prince/princess. The great grandchildren from male lines became Prince and Princess, but were only entitled to HH (His/Her Highness with the royal omitted).

.

The German system is very patriarchically orientated. Thus only the male line grandchildren became HRH. Alas, the daughters either married princes or remained spinsters, so these grandchildren, if they were born to the married daughters, had titles through their father.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

There have been some interesting points raised here

I think that people get on their high horses because it is not made clear who benifits from their money, and who doesn't.

My original opinion was that this was an issue of princely status or no princely status, but I have come to appreciate that it is not so clear cut. They are, at the end of the day, a large group of relatives, who socialise, on a very public scale, which is all very well, but Charles will have to show a cynical public, just who he's giving pocket money.

Titles are not an issue, if it's clear what money who lives off. Limiting the balcony is a start (I have already suggested a special stand for guests who don't stand on the balcony) and a Family/House seperation of those with princely titles would also be a great idea.

I would also recommend a minimum amount of Royal duties, and charity work for Royals over the age of eighteen. Of course this could be ajusted to suit circumstances (study, personal issues, health issues) but a lot of disgruntlement stems from the fact that it is supposedly acceptable to do absolutley nothing.

This is all easier said than done when not everyone bothers to do their research like we do, but it is possible.

Sorry to ramble, but you've all got alot of thoughts going through my head

 

[pacomartin]

Everybody gets to keep their titles, but I suspect there will be some pressure on B & E to drop the Princess title - which I think they will fight to keep!

Would be happy to hear everybody's views.

I think there is absolutely no chance the Beatrice and Eugenie will be asked to give up their titles, which seems to be the common consensus.

The question is who will replace duties of the Princess Royal (age 60) when she retires. Will that duty fall naturally to Beatrice, and will it come with her own regal apartment in Kensington Palace?

Prince Andrew often has travel expenses equal to or exceeding that of Prince Charles or the Queen and Prince Phillip. Frequently he goes over 0.5 million pounds in jet charters and airline tickets alone. Who will succeed to that post at the UKTI? It's less of an issue since Prince Andrew is only 50. However, the Princess barely shows up on the travel budget because she primarily uses the royal helicopter and very seldom charters a jet for an international trip.

It's no secret that Prince Charles would like to have his own jet in addition to the royal helicopter.

Itemized travel expenses last year
Her Majesty £692,916
Prince of Wales £529,722
Duke of York £519,062
Princess Royal £28,095
Duke of Kent £25,627
Duke of Gloucester £11,714

The royal do not itemize most of their trips. It is only required if they exceed £10,000. Because Princess Anne did not travel overseas last fiscal year, only two trips went over £10,000
a) a 4 day trip using the royal helicopter from her home to 16 different destinations (£17,521 transient costs)
b) A trip to London, Belfast, and Edinburgh that required a charter jet for £10,574

Her majesty is very frugal, but she usually has one or two major state or commonwealth visits involving the charter of a large jet.

The Duke of York takes the lions share of public criticism for travel expenses.