The Monarchy under Charles

[cepe]

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

I agree with Lumutqueen - what a strange idea. Diana had no claim to the throne at all.

 

[DukeOfAster]

Just saying if popularity had anything to do with it then she could have overtaken the show with her popularity.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Just saying if popularity had anything to do with it then she could have overtaken the show with her popularity.

You can't overtake. It's not a running race m'dear.

 

[EIIR]

You can't overtake. It's not a running race m'dear.

I think DukeofAster is well aware of that fact. He/she (sorry, not sure which), is merely responding to the suggestion of personal popularity having anything to do with who should or should not be monarch. I think it was Tyger who suggested that if Beatrice began undertaking royal engagements, she might become more popular than William and there would be a clamour for her to become Queen. DukeofAster is merely pointing out that if popularity with the public were the main criteria then Diana would've been made Queen at the height of Diana-mania.

DukeofAster, I hope I'm not misrepresenting your point.

 

[cepe]

I think the other point is if she doesn't take up royal engagements and the scenario as described (no off-spring from William and Harry) occurs, she would not be known and therefore the public might reject her and the monarchy.

Interesting conumdrum (spelling? why dint I just write puzzle?) Personally I'd hedge my bets and get her doing some voluntary/charity work just in case. But I like the idea of insurance.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I think DukeofAster is well aware of that fact. He/she (sorry, not sure which), is merely responding to the suggestion of personal popularity having anything to do with who should or should not be monarch. I think it was Tyger who suggested that if Beatrice began undertaking royal engagements, she might become more popular than William and there would be a clamour for her to become Queen. DukeofAster is merely pointing out that if popularity with the public were the main criteria then Diana would've been made Queen at the height of Diana-mania.

DukeofAster, I hope I'm not misrepresenting your point.

Thank so very much. That is exactly my point.l feel this is being made into a bigger deal than it needs to be. We are making this out to be that organizations will loose it's patron once Charles is King and that can be done if he wants to but are we sure we want to go there. What is being said he plans to do is more far fetched than Diana being Queen. I do believe I have witnessed many a countries loosing a leader and someone easly taking over. I just find it funny some of things that are being said and yet a popular women being made queen because she is popular could not happen. We must have a poor idea of the power of the people and sadly we must not think highly of Charles.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Thank so very much. That is exactly my point.l feel this is being made into a bigger deal than it needs to be. We are making this out to be that organizations will loose it's patron once Charles is King and that can be done if he wants to but are we sure we want to go there. What is being said he plans to do is more far fetched than Diana being Queen. I do believe I have witnessed many a countries loosing a leader and someone easly taking over. I just find it funny some of things that are being said and yet a popular women being made queen because she is popular could not happen. We must have a poor idea of the power of the people and sadly we must not think highly of Charles.

I don't get what you mean? Diana becoming Queen because she was popular is a ridiculous idea because she had no actual real concept of her role, for her it was just fun and games. When she lost her HRH she disappeared and didn't seem to care that much.

What exactly do you think Charles is planning to do that is so far fetched? It's probably fact that organisations will loose their royal patronages because their aren't enough royals to go around.

 

[EIIR]

I think the other point is if she doesn't take up royal engagements and the scenario as described (no off-spring from William and Harry) occurs, she would not be known and therefore the public might reject her and the monarchy.

I don't think Beatrice will fall into a black hole, never to be seen again. It's clear she'll continue with a handful of charitable endeavours, even while working privately. She'll still be a princess, likely attend all the big royal events (weddings, birthdays, funerals etc. etc.), I'll bet we'll still see pictures of her out and about in London. Plus, it would be clear whether Kate and the future Princess Henry are able to produce the next generation within the next 15-20 years say. Even then William will only be about 50, and Harry 47, with a good 30+ years' life expectancy each. That's plenty of time to call on Beatrice, get her into a proper royal role, and get her children used to being part of the Firm proper.

There'll be plenty of time to address this problem if it ever (God forbid) actually happens. No need to panic.

 

[cepe]

no panic - keep royal and carry on. I was just taking some of the discussions points already expressed to a possible conclusion. My view is that it will carry on as it does at present but with no additional family members going onto the permanent payroll. But the priority is Charles' and his family which is what the Jubilee service and balcony appearance was about.

 

[NGalitzine]

Just because the intention seems to slim down the official working royal family does not mean that those who don't make the cut cannot be involved in cultural and charitable activities on their own (much like everyone else) and could still do the ribbon cuttings/openings/galas on behalf of those groups in a manner similar to what the Michaels of Kent do today. Also they will still attend the big family events like weddings/funerals/birthdays etc. In a sense they will get the best of both worlds, royals when they want to be and pretty much private citizens the rest of the time or at least out of the glare of the royal spotlight unless they misbehave. Not too bad a deal really.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

That sounds absolutely ideal, and far preferable over being first or second tier.

 

[padams2359]

It will be the same as it is now. Princess Margaret's children are around for big or family events like Christmas. That is about it. Eug & Bea are the same thing.

 

[Elizabeth R]

I can't imagine... It makes me cry. I do not want the world without The Queen.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I don't get what you mean? Diana becoming Queen because she was popular is a ridiculous idea because she had no actual real concept of her role, for her it was just fun and games. When she lost her HRH she disappeared and didn't seem to care that much.

What exactly do you think Charles is planning to do that is so far fetched? It's probably fact that organisations will loose their royal patronages because their aren't enough royals to go around.

I do not think people will loose their title and no longer be royal. The key is that instead of all those royal being at events that will not happen. King Charles will not be taking titles or patronages away we just will not be seeing them at center stage. You do not just take that away and you just do not take a Royal Patron away from a organization. It is very simple only five people are going to be at events that require the royal family. They will be all you see stepping out on the balcony. Lets not make streamlining the royal house into more then you need to.

 

[DukeOfAster]

Just because the intention seems to slim down the official working royal family does not mean that those who don't make the cut cannot be involved in cultural and charitable activities on their own (much like everyone else) and could still do the ribbon cuttings/openings/galas on behalf of those groups in a manner similar to what the Michaels of Kent do today. Also they will still attend the big family events like weddings/funerals/birthdays etc. In a sense they will get the best of both worlds, royals when they want to be and pretty much private citizens the rest of the time or at least out of the glare of the royal spotlight unless they misbehave. Not too bad a deal really.

Well said.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I step back and ask why is this going on. As an American who follows the major British press, it's obvious that they are not sold on Prince Andrew as someone who can draw readers when on official engagements. They cover him about as little as they cover the Kents, the Glousters, and to a certain extent, Princess Anne. Anne seems to have grown into her role. PA less so.

The press, of course loves Andrew's gaffes - but no so much his official duties.

The problem with automatically accepting family into the OFFICIAL firm, is that there is no guarantee that they will be an asset. Charles has some very political folks surrounding him - and they have no doubt figured out this issue. And once someone joins the firm - it is hard to control them. Andrew has certainly demonstrated that in recent years.

It may be cold, but in an era when continued appeal of the monarchy has moved with tightening of the royal purse, I think the firm wants to back winners, rather than potential problems. One can always make an offer later...

 

[yvr girl]

One problem I see with a slimmed down monarchy is servicing the Commonwealth (and in particular the Commonnwealth Realms)

In Canada, we get at least one visit a year (usually) and a major visit every few years. If they want to remain relevant, they need to be seen.

 

[Mirabel]

It may be cold, but in an era when continued appeal of the monarchy has moved with tightening of the royal purse, I think the firm wants to back winners, rather than potential problems. One can always make an offer later...

Very true!

It may well be that this will happen with Beatrice and Eugenie.
The Wessexes tried and failed to have independent careers; it may be that Beatrice will have to give up her job in finance as well. If so, she and Eugenie may yet beome valuable members of the Firm.

 

[Mariel]

I think you are right, Mirabel. Bea and Eug will give up their careers when they marry and then will become gradually more active as they mature and settle down. Remember that Queen Victoria was once just a glimmer in King William IV's eye, who got his brothers to see who could produce a crown prince or crown princess, since there was no one left at all from his family of l5. But that's not likely to happen.

I hate to see the charming Wessex's disappear and I don't think they will. That is, if the family is still ruling in the manner we are used to. No one in the immediate family would have time for their overseas journeys to weddings, funerals, coronations, etc. Of course Beatrice and Eugenie could start doing that role....there's a role for them right there. Maybe they will take over part of that role as the family ages. but then there is Lady Louise....

 

[NGalitzine]

Beatrice and Eugenie may have careers and they may or may not work after marriage. That does not mean that they would necessarily become working members of the official royal family and undertake official engagements on a regular basis in support of the monarchy. They could however become involved in supporting charities or other groups of their own chosing in much the same way as the Michaels of Kent do.
I think the idea of slimming down the official royal family is to help eliminate the public perception, even if wrong, that there is the huge family all living off the public purse.

 

[Daz_Voz]

Prince Charles speaks on integrated reporting and sustainable finance - YouTube

Prince Charles's address to the UNEP Finance Initiative 2011. I thought it was quite impressive.

 

[Tyger]

Prince Charles speaks on integrated reporting and sustainable finance - YouTube

Prince Charles's address to the UNEP Finance Initiative 2011. I thought it was quite impressive.

Prince Charles is a man of considerable substance. Those that heckle him only disclose their own ignorance.

It occurred to me as I listened to this that once Princess Beatrice has tried her wings and flown 'on her own' in a finance job - she could do worse than to work for her Uncle Charles in some aspect of his truly comprehensive network of organizations.

I do agree that the York siblings being (apparently) side-lined may in fact be PR because of the perception of a large royal family living off the state. Charles impresses me as a man who carefully weighs all the ramifications. It seems unlikely to me, given his own experiences, that he would be frivolous or petty in matters of such importance to his family. An invitation to come into the official family later, is better than a pushing out later - and this may be something both girls have even been part of deciding with their Grandmother and Uncle.

In regards Beatrice, at some point working for her Uncle, William and Harry would be smart to start working in their father's 'businesses' imo - like the children of many wealthy families do, learning the ropes from the inside-out. Charles' breath of interest and scope of influence is such, that both sons' would find that working for their father would be a sterling way to prepare themselves for their future roles (Harry less, William more). The opportunities available for work inside one of Charles' many initiatives goes far beyond charity work - opening centers and cutting ribbons. Let's face it - not everyone's cup-of-tea - and maybe not William's. Here would be a chance for considerable substantive work of a satisfying kind - even international in scope.

 

[Grandma828]

I think Charles is well prepared to be King and I'll bet that William is being taught many things by him. I personally think that William will become a full time royal when his present tour of duty is finished, but not before, unless something happens to Philip. It will be fun just to follow.

 

[tommy100]

I think once Charles is King the following will happen:
The current Queen’s cousins (if still alive) will pretty much stop any public engagements but maybe still support a very small number of charities close to them in a more low key way.

Anne will continue pretty much as now – I think she and Charles seem to get on the best and she doesn’t annoy him as much as his brothers. I think she’ll reduce the number of engagements she performs each year to spend more time with her family and sailing but will continue to do a lot of UK engagements. I can see her as the deputy when Charles and Camilla or Wills and Kate or Harry can’t attend an event. I think it would be hard to force her out of official duties as she is now so known as being hard working the media would go mad if Charles and his staff tired to shut her out.

The Wessex’s will move to support the Duke of Edinburgh awards scheme focusing mainly on that with some UK based engagements – I think Sophie likes working hard for the Queen but may be less wanting to under Charles. Their children will lead pretty much private lives and forge their own careers – like the Queen’s cousins children or Peter Phillips.

I think the problem is Andrew- to be honest I think he is very much like Charles. They both like being very Royal and the privileges that goes with it. It seems to me that Andrew likes to have a big, important role – (Trade Envoy)- but Charles won’t let him. I think Andrew will begrudgingly get on with some UK engagements and still mingle with foreign millionaires – I see a few more bad headlines for him to give Charles a headache.

I think Bea & Eugenie will be pretty much forced out (by which I mean against Andrew’s wish) of official royal duties. I think once they marry and start their own families they’ll really fade out, I think we’ll end up seeing as much of them as we do the kids of the Queen’s cousins or Peter Phillips at the very most.

Wills and Kate will take over some of the things Charles does now – overseas visits ad overseas weddings/funerals etc – though I think Anne may do a few for the older generations of overseas dignitaries. They’ll have their foundation or charities and get on with it in a very high profile way as well as starting their own family.

I think Harry will continue to mix Royal duties and military duties – the focus shifting more on Wills and Kate especially once they have a family of their own. I think Harry will always have the military get out card to make sure he’s not seen as surplus to requirement. I think his wife (if he marries) will do the same sort of things the Wessex’s do now - low level but good work.

All just my opinion - all we can do really is wait and see

 

[cepe]

Interesting ideas Tommy100.

My view is that nothing will change.

Two aspects: they are bred to carry out and live under the banner of duty. To support the country and specifically charities, the military and the commonwealth. It's instincitve, like breathing.

Secondly, it wont stop overnight, although it will slow down for some as they are getting older. People are employed to support the royals and that means reduction over a period of time.

It probably doesn't play a major role but funding will cease for those who do not carry on which is another kettle of ball games.

 

[cepe]

I have just listen/watched the video of PRince Charles speaking on sustainable finance. I agree with those who say that he is a man of substance and will make a great king.

But it does highlight an issue we have here in the UK as to who will speak out like this once he is King? HE cannot do this once he ascends the throne because the monarch cannot enter into even a remotely political arena. And as it stands, we do not have a royal who is interested in or articulate enough to take up his current role.

I dont think that William is prepared enough to do so. I'm not fully decided but I am moving towards him moving towards a full time role, not so he can do his fair share of royal visits pa, but that he can learn about how the world of finance, politics and economy functions and its impact on people and the environment in the deepest sense.

 

[tommy100]

I think things will change over time, i agree that Charles' wont come in one day and everything will change within the week, slow and steadily I think things will change.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I was reading a royalist newspaper today, and an article praising HM for her 'involvement' with the Abu Hamza file. There was a lot of high praise from a conservative commentator, he even stated that he was willing to "bear to arms against Westminster, in the name of the monarchy" BUT he added something that threw me. He added he was willing to bear arms in the name of monarchy , *at least until Charles becomes king*

It got me thinking about what percentage of the public's support for monarchy is tied to the Queen. Obviously Charles is a very capable man and he is popular with most monarchists and I personally think he will make an excellent king.
I just wonder with people who are passive supporters of the monarchy, will HMs popularity transfer over to Charles.

 

[nascarlucy]

There are some people that like Prince Charles and some people that don't. It has always been that way. Basically I like him and think he will be a good King. Would be interesting to know the reasons why this commentator support of the monarchy doesn't extend to when Prince Charles become King.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

There are some people that like Prince Charles and some people that don't. It has always been that way. Basically I like him and think he will be a good King. Would be interesting to know the reasons why this commentator support of the monarchy doesn't extend to when Prince Charles become King.

Those were his words, "at least until Charles becomes king" but didn't give any reasons