The Monarchy under Charles

[cepe]

We mentioned on a variety of threads, most notably in recent days the Beatrice and Eugenie trip, about Prince Charles wanting a slim line monarchy. And I've asked where is the evidence.

I found the following today on the Royal Reporter Twitter account of Richard Palmer of the Express.

Richard Palmer‏@RoyalReporter
@jennyg2k The idea of Charles wanting a slimmer monarchy seems based on a 1990s briefing by one spin doctor trying to big him up at the time

2:18 AM - 22 Jan 13 · Details

Richard Palmer‏@RoyalReporter@jennyg2k It may be true Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy but I know of nobody inside the Royal Household who is briefing that.


The evidence is rather thin IMO

 

[Grandma828]

Everybody should stop assuming they know what Charles wants. We have never heard from him on the subject. I was wondering if this trip to German was done so he could see how prepared the girls were. Giving them the chance to demonstrate their ability. We shall see what happens.

 

[vkrish]

Grandma828,If at all there are plans of slimming down the monarchy, then I dont see any purpose in 'testing the preparedness' of the girls. In fact I was a bit surprised when I heard about this German trip.
Once they are 'inducted' into duties, there cannot be any looking back. They will continue well in Charles' and even William's reign. They cannot be sacked in middle and asked to fend for themselves..
So what basically will be difference between their reigns and the present Queen's reign (in terms of working royals)? Nothing..Then where is all that much spoken 'reformation' and 'modernisation'?

Am I the only one who wonder how things will work out between Charles and Andrew?

Andrew seems determined, in spite of everything, to have Beatrice and Eugenie as working members of the family. Andrew paid for his daughter's trip to Germany. Charles has made his feelings quite known on the subject. I don't think he has any personal problem with his nieces, but the shadow of their mother is troubling to him. I think that he doesn't trust that she won't intrude on royal engagements and has taken a very hard line with respect to their working status within the family.

Beatrice and Eugenie are seen as party girls usually with their mother in tow. This may not be fair, but it is what people see in the paper. I think he resents Sarah beyond words for not moving on and letting everyone get on with their lives. She wanted out of the family, but won't LEAVE. Andrew isn't troubled by Sarah. He wants to have his girls out front where Charles wants everyone outside his immediate branch of the family to back out of the spotlight.

Cynderella, We have to view these two things separately...

1. Charles' relation with Andrew, his perception of Sarah, his views on their kids' career, jobs, partying etc.
2. Charles views and plans for/against Beatrice/Eugenie taking up royal duties.

The first point is entirely emotional and personal.It is completely his own. And we are never gonna really know cos he s never gonna speak about it publicly with Oprah or Martin Bashir..It is not gonna affect anything in anyway. However his relation with Andrew is, or whatever he thinks of Sarah, he will definitely love B&E, though he doesnt invite paps all over and shower them with hugs and kisses in front of them.

The second thing is totally professional. Any heir apparent has to bring some change at some point of time.
It is not about "wanting his family only", it is just making the monarchy "more central"..Monarchy is always central, but with times, it has to become more and more central..Even if Sarah was as discrete and dutiful as the legendary Alice/Marina, and B&E had been so studious/hardworking, never having seen a nightclub in their lives, Charles will have to keep them out, if he wants to go with the reforms.
It is his duty to make monarchy better with times, for a better future..Nothing about his personal whims and fancies and his likes and dislikes..
But whatever he plans for B&E, he will ensure that personally they are always well-off and comfortable financially..

PS: I am not speculating/justifying the perceived plans of 'modernising' but just saying that we should view the 'two things' separately..and not mix both of them..

 

[Lumutqueen]

Watching the BBC News this morning; there's talk of abdication of course. But the majority of people say if both Elizabeth and Charles abdicate, they'd be fine with that but Elizabeth cannot abdicate for Charles "not yet".

 

[Osipi]

Watching the BBC News this morning; there's talk of abdication of course. But the majority of people say if both Elizabeth and Charles abdicate, they'd be fine with that but Elizabeth cannot abdicate for Charles "not yet".

I really don't see HM ever abdicating the throne for any reason. If anything, should her health decline or she is needed to be by a declining DoE, the most that would happen is that Charles would be appointed Regent to act in her stead until she passes.

 

[padams2359]

I have no doubt Charles will become Regent. She will not abdicate. I don't think she believes in QV's approach of being The Widow of Windsor. If she did, she would slow down. The Monarch must be seen. When she cannot appear, Charles will become Regent. She will allow that. Unfortunately, Charles will not have much time to go to her for advice.

 

[MARG]

Grandma828,If at all there are plans of slimming down the monarchy.

And there is the rub. We have only ever heard gossip about slimming the monarchy.

It is not about "wanting his family only" . . . . . Charles will have to keep them out, if he wants to go with the reforms.

What reforms would those be?

It is his duty to make monarchy better with times, for a better future..

If it is his duty as King which will (hopefully) not be for some time, it must be imperative for Her Majesty to be doing it now as she has throughout her reign.

Basically, I don't understand your point. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie in Germany had to have the approval of Her Majesty the Queen to be there in an official capacity. Prince Charles probably has an opinion and I am sure his mother is not likely to create any problems for him at a later date. However, the decision is hers and hers alone. Charles is not running a shadow Monarchy that is the "real" monarchy with his mother as a doddering, somewhat benign, grandmotherly figurehead!

We keep hearing gossip. Gossip about Charles and his siblings and their children, how he is trying to sideline them, maybe doesn't like them much, maybe even loathes them heaps. But, that is just gossip. We have absolutely no verifiable source to confirm any of this.

What we do have is an ageing group of "workers" who will inevitably slow down sooner rather than later. How that is managed by Her Majesty now and His Majesty later, will remain to be seen.

 

[Queen Camilla]

1)The Queen & Charles abdicating in favor of William.. Really..

As the saying goes: Be careful what you wish for...

If the Queen & Charles abdicate, do you really think they & their spouses would continue to perform royal duties. How about the Queen's other children would they support a nephew the same way they supported the Queen? The Queen had her mother & her cousins then her children. William has....

2)Just a rumor that Charles doesn't want Beatrice & Eugenie to perform royal duties.

Edward is taking over Phillip's charities.

Who takes the charities of the Queen, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester. (maybe Beatrice & Eugenie?)

 

[padams2359]

1)The Queen & Charles abdicating in favor of William.. Really..

As the saying goes: Be careful what you wish for...

If the Queen & Charles abdicate, do you really think they & their spouses would continue to perform royal duties. How about the Queen's other children would they support a nephew the same way they supported the Queen? The Queen had her mother & her cousins then her children. William has....

My thinking of Charles possible doing it would be long from now. Say in his 80's, retire to Sandringham.

2)Just a rumor that Charles doesn't want Beatrice & Eugenie to perform royal duties.

Pay Per View. An apartment and paid for events, and have careers of there choosing.

Edward is taking over Phillip's charities.

Who takes the charities of the Queen, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester. (maybe Beatrice & Eugenie?)

They will go nuts trying keep up. Even if you say, 50% of all appearances for a year are charity related.

 

[COUNTESS]

Charles is the rightful heir. He should inherit. It will be the same, stodgy monarchy, with a mistress as queen. He will do his job well, whatever one considers the job to be. It is the UK's problem, not anyone else's, no one, really, has a voice.

 

[Roslyn]

Aww! Don't we get a say like we do with the Succession Act amendments? *pouts*

I think it would be a big, big, mistake for the UK monarchs to start a habit of abdicating. If "the people" get it into their heads that if they kick up enough of a fuss about a monarch they don't like then that monarch might step down, there'll be nothing stopping them and it will be like a permanent election campaign with all the candidates trying to prove they can smile better than the others. The current system will crumble and you'll end up with either an elected monarchy or a republic.

 

[scooter]

We keep hearing gossip. Gossip about Charles and his siblings and their children, how he is trying to sideline them, maybe doesn't like them much, maybe even loathes them heaps. But, that is just gossip. We have absolutely no verifiable source to confirm any of this.

Here's the other rub, for half a century with Charles, over and again 'where there is smoke there is fire' gossip wise has been most times the rule not the exception with him. Yes, I can list what I refer to if you really want to go through the form of it, but you know what I mean....and I would just as soon not have the argument...

 

[MARG]

Here's the other rub, for half a century with Charles, over and again 'where there is smoke there is fire' gossip wise has been most times the rule not the exception with him.

That is one hell of a slow burn because I don't think we have seen much in the way of flames!

Yes, I can list what I refer to if you really want to go through the form of it, but you know what I mean....and I would just as soon not have the argument...

As to your reference? You are being so obscure as to become obtuse. I don't know what you are actually trying to say. In fact I haven't a clue?

As to not having "the" argument? Well, we would all need to know what you were talking about before anyone could take exception and dare to post an opposing let alone contentious view.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I thought it was only me who didn't understand Scooter's post.

 

[Roslyn]

No, I don't have a clue what it means either.

 

[Neighbourlady]

Slimmed Down Monarchy

I don't know how to start a new thread (I'm brand new here), but I must say that I truly think Charles is wrong to "slim down" the monarchy. Who else reads the Court Circulars? Does Charles realize how much work is done not only by the Princess Royal, but by the Kents and the Glouscters (please excuse spelling)? Once Charles becomes King, and William becomes Prince of Wales, all of these people are going to be so elderly they will not be able to continue in their active royal roles, if indeed they are still with us. Who is going to take on all of these patronages? Harry, all by himself? I hardly think so... It is only by training, RIGHT NOW, Beatrice and Eugenie, and in their turn, Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, that William and Harry will have well-seasoned assistants to help them. If 3,000 patronages go unfilled, we will have so many charities themselves saying what is the point of the monarchy? They used to support us, now they don't - off with their heads! The Queen herself was DEPENDENT on her cousins to help her (and they all stepped up admirably!) - William and Harry need their cousins to be there for them! Someone MUST talk some sense into Charles!!!!

 

[cepe]

Hi and welcome.

Charles has not made any public statement nor is there any briefing being done by the palace that this is what he wants. IT is speculation.

However, costs (especially security) do increase and the BRF are always under pressure to reduce their outgoings. To put the "blame at Charles door is doing him a misservice. I don';t know if you have had the chance to look over this thread and the BRF thread in general but this is a hot topic.

The BRF have a high level of output with c. 12 ft royals averaging 350-400 engagements a year so your view on how this is to be managed is valid.

But there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to say that Charles wants this to happen. He may, but no evidence. If someone has the evidence, I think everyone would welcome it.

 

[nascarlucy]

It's interesting that this keeps coming up over and over again. The truth of it all probably lies somewhere in the middle. Someone might have heard a single comment and read into it things that weren't there. Or assumed certain things because of a comment here and there which may or may not be the case.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Currently there are 15 full-time working royals:

The Queen
The DoE
The PoW
The DoC
The DuY
The EoW
The CoW
The PR
The DoG
The DuoG
The DoK
Princess Alexandra

Last year they did about 4000 engagements between them.

There are also three part-timers - William, Kate and Harry who managed about 250 between then last year.

William, Kate, Harry and Harry's spouse will be able to pick up 2000 of the current 4000 between them as that would only be 500 per person.

Andrew, Anne, Edward, Sophie and the Gloucesters will still be active during Charles' reign.

The intention, from my understanding, is to drop from the current 15 to around 6 - 8 over the course of a generation - not stop is all at once.

Looked at that way there is no need for the York girls.

20 years from now William's kids will be approaching the stage where they can become part-timers- like William, Kate and Harry are now to start replacing the current royals in their 60s while Andrew, Edward and Sophie will still have about 10 years left.

Why the cousins were called into work was the fact that The Queen only had one sister and her mother, one uncle and two aunts - so there were only 7 at the start of the 50s while the demand was quite high so Alexandra was drawn in early - while the men did their military stuff.

 

[cepe]

It's interesting that this keeps coming up over and over again. The truth of it all probably lies somewhere in the middle. Someone might have heard a single comment and read into it things that weren't there. Or assumed certain things because of a comment here and there which may or may not be the case.

My post from 25 th January. Charles never said it - someelse said it once between 10-20 years ago@

QUOTE:
We mentioned on a variety of threads, most notably in recent days the Beatrice and Eugenie trip, about Prince Charles wanting a slim line monarchy. And I've asked where is the evidence.

I found the following today on the Royal Reporter Twitter account of Richard Palmer of the Express.

Richard Palmer‏@RoyalReporter
@jennyg2k The idea of Charles wanting a slimmer monarchy seems based on a 1990s briefing by one spin doctor trying to big him up at the time

2:18 AM - 22 Jan 13 · Details

Richard Palmer‏@RoyalReporter@jennyg2k It may be true Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy but I know of nobody inside the Royal Household who is briefing that.

The evidence is rather thin IMO (END QUOTE)

 

[tommy100]

I agree, Charles went through a point in the 1990s when he was not brilliantly popular and to me it seems as if anything and everything was suggested/hinted by spin doctors to make him popular. This was probably one of those things that was suggested especially as at the time many other European monarchies had quite small royal families (or appeared to at least).
Personally I think we will see an appearance of a slimmed down monarchy, with the focus on Charles, Camilla, William kate and Harry taking on the overseas visits and big appearances but I don't think Charles would stop his wider family from working as,as its been noted here, they do too much especially for "smaller" events.

 

[padams2359]

It may go to Pay Per View for the non-direct decendents, not including his siblings. The more events they do, the more they get.

 

[scooter]

I agree, Charles went through a point in the 1990s when he was not brilliantly popular and to me it seems as if anything and everything was suggested/hinted by spin doctors to make him popular. This was probably one of those things that was suggested especially as at the time many other European monarchies had quite small royal families (or appeared to at least).
Personally I think we will see an appearance of a slimmed down monarchy, with the focus on Charles, Camilla, William kate and Harry taking on the overseas visits and big appearances but I don't think Charles would stop his wider family from working as,as its been noted here, they do too much especially for "smaller" events.

'Not brilliantly popular ' what a masterpiece of understatement!

 

[Iluvbertie]

It may go to Pay Per View for the non-direct decendents, not including his siblings. The more events they do, the more they get.

As Charles will be the one doing the 'paying' I doubt that he would be encouraging them to do much.

Just as a clarification - there is one reference some time ago to an idea that there should be fewer working royals and not directly from Charles himself - it seems to be a story that has grown and grown based on very flimsy evidence.

There was, even in the original suggestion, no concept of Charles' sibling not continuing to work until they drop off the proverbial perch so to speak.

The idea has always been to not add more in the next generation other than Charles' children and their spouses. The future is for the monarch and monarch's children to work for the family but only the heirs children after that - so Harry children will have to earn their own money, or leave on whatever Harry and Charles leave them while William's children will work for the Firm.

 

[monarchist-us]

I think any "slimming" of the BRF should come through attrition...the Gloucesters and Kents won't be around forever, and the York sisters are the only male-line grandchildren to have titles other than William/Harry. So the BRF will slim down naturally over time.

I think the issue of Prince Harry's children holding titles will depend on how many children William and Catherine have. If they only have one child (which is possible, considering how rough her first pregnancy started off and today's family-size trends), then I could Harry's children getting royal titles too like any other male-line grandchild of a monarch. In that scenario, Harry's first child would end up being the proverbial "spare", and it wouldn't make sense to have an untitled (possible) heir presumptive.

Also, if indeed Charles hopes for a "smaller" royal family, he needs to be careful what he wishes for. Because he just might end up with a royal family that's too small to meet the needs of modern Britain. One of the nice things about the BRF is its size -- the monarchy is able to be in more places at once, if you will. I don't think it suits Britain or the Commonwealth to have a Sweden-sized royal family.

 

[branchg]

I agree the attrition will happen naturally over time and work itself out. They will need a large number of people to carry out the public duties currently undertaken as the older members of the family pass away.

 

[Roslyn]

Also, if indeed Charles hopes for a "smaller" royal family, he needs to be careful what he wishes for. Because he just might end up with a royal family that's too small to meet the needs of modern Britain. One of the nice things about the BRF is its size -- the monarchy is able to be in more places at once, if you will. I don't think it suits Britain or the Commonwealth to have a Sweden-sized royal family.

Why not? We are used to a large working RF, but if the number of available royals diminishes, things will change. Royals will no longer open as many things as they currently open, won't attend so many community events. We won't see them scoffing bits of cheese at local fetes and things. They'll only do the big events. The public will adjust their expectations downwards. The palaces will still be there and there'll still be changing of the guard. etc., so the tourists will still be catered for and that's where the royals bring in the big bucks, isn't it?

 

[Molly2101]

I think Charles should really just leave the family to slim down naturally, as in 40 years there will not be the same amount of HRH's simply because William and Harry will likely not have 4 children each. If the Queen had not had Andrew and Edward then there would be 5 less HRH (Andrew, Bea, Eug, Edward and Sophie) therefore a smaller selection of family. This will eventually happen as the older members pass on, which I think Charles should really wait for. Beatrice and Eugenie will have to make their own way in life, as their older cousins Peter and Zara have managed to do. Of course they will ALWAYS have money and wealth because of inheritance, as will Louise and James, but they will all make their own way in life. Charles for one should be glad Edward and Sophie chose to not have their children styled as HRH's as it has made him not have to "deal with" two more HRH's in his lifetime.

 

[cepe]

Charles is not going to DO anything willy-nilly. He will organised the family according to demand and available members at the time. He will not treat people unkindly and remove people from their current roles. People who imply that are, IMO, wrong. And if he does bring people on board because of demand, ie Beatrice or Eugenie, then he will treat them with respect and kindness. They are his nieces after all. I think he will be a thoughtful and considerate King.

 

[monarchist-us]

Why not? We are used to a large working RF, but if the number of available royals diminishes, things will change. Royals will no longer open as many things as they currently open, won't attend so many community events. We won't see them scoffing bits of cheese at local fetes and things. They'll only do the big events. The public will adjust their expectations downwards. The palaces will still be there and there'll still be changing of the guard. etc., so the tourists will still be catered for and that's where the royals bring in the big bucks, isn't it?

It gives more organizations the chance to have a "royal" connection, and allows the monarchy to be in more places at once.

While the Gloucesters or the Kents may not command the most publicity, there's something to be said about the work they do on behalf of the Queen.