So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

No, most came from Queen Mother who did in fact leave the bulk to Harry because William would be king and a billionaire. Also, Charles cut them a large check when they left the Royal Family. Plus Diana's money. Plus the money from the book deal. Harry left the Royal Family a very wealthy man. He wants billionaire status and lifestyle. I don't think that will materialize, but it's not because he did not start out with a shit ton of money, connections and privilege's.

He wants billionaire status and lifestyle..really? What makes you think that? Please. Enough

[Anonymous]

It’s in Harry’s interest not to go back. He’s in his 40s so as an influencer/celebrity he has maybe 10 years. He can do more outside the palace than inside.

Going back as a part time royal is in Charles interest not Harry’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s in Harry’s interest not to go back. He’s in his 40s so as an influencer/celebrity he has maybe 10 years. He can do more outside the palace than inside.

Going back as a part time royal is in Charles interest not Harry’s.

I agree, however being shut out of the family must feel awful. He may just go along with it to repair the relationship. Also Harry must feel like a fish out of water in a way. He’s been a Royal all of his life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

that would make sense if he were revoking their titles but less so when you think about the fact that their kids are actually different people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to that article the QM's estate was worth 14 million, and she had 6 grandchildren, including Margaret's children, so if she split her estate between all of her great grand children, there's no way the amount would be greater than the 10 million+ he received from Diana.

No her estate was reportedly more than $100M four decades ago, that's just the portion for Harry and Will. Plus the trust would have been invested and grown substantially in the last several decades. Diana's trust would have grown too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

No, most came from Queen Mother who did in fact leave the bulk to Harry because William would be king and a billionaire. Also, Charles cut them a large check when they left the Royal Family. Plus Diana's money. Plus the money from the book deal. Harry left the Royal Family a very wealthy man. He wants billionaire status and lifestyle. I don't think that will materialize, but it's not because he did not start out with a shit ton of money, connections and privilege's.

He wants billionaire status and lifestyle..really? What makes you think that? Please. Enough

His spending habits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to that article the QM's estate was worth 14 million, and she had 6 grandchildren, including Margaret's children, so if she split her estate between all of her great grand children, there's no way the amount would be greater than the 10 million+ he received from Diana.

No her estate was reportedly more than $100M four decades ago, that's just the portion for Harry and Will. Plus the trust would have been invested and grown substantially in the last several decades. Diana's trust would have grown too.

They’ll all likely get nice sums from the Queen’s will too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to that article the QM's estate was worth 14 million, and she had 6 grandchildren, including Margaret's children, so if she split her estate between all of her great grand children, there's no way the amount would be greater than the 10 million+ he received from Diana.

No her estate was reportedly more than $100M four decades ago, that's just the portion for Harry and Will. Plus the trust would have been invested and grown substantially in the last several decades. Diana's trust would have grown too.

They’ll all likely get nice sums from the Queen’s will too.

Their children probably will, but in trusts that can't be touched until the children are middle aged so their parents can't squander it nor they themselves when they are young. That's how the wealthy operate.

Harry is Charles' problem, the Queen probably left him something symbolic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s in Harry’s interest not to go back. He’s in his 40s so as an influencer/celebrity he has maybe 10 years. He can do more outside the palace than inside.

Going back as a part time royal is in Charles interest not Harry’s.

Like what, this empty room?




I agree he is better off outside, but not by cosplaying a Royal outside the Royal family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to that article the QM's estate was worth 14 million, and she had 6 grandchildren, including Margaret's children, so if she split her estate between all of her great grand children, there's no way the amount would be greater than the 10 million+ he received from Diana.

No her estate was reportedly more than $100M four decades ago, that's just the portion for Harry and Will. Plus the trust would have been invested and grown substantially in the last several decades. Diana's trust would have grown too.

They’ll all likely get nice sums from the Queen’s will too.

Their children probably will, but in trusts that can't be touched until the children are middle aged so their parents can't squander it nor they themselves when they are young. That's how the wealthy operate.

Harry is Charles' problem, the Queen probably left him something symbolic.

Americans maybe.

[Anonymous]

So, at what point is it appropriate or expected that the Royal Family will get back to "work"? Will Charles and Camilla be the first to appear at an event and what will it be?

Prince George is 9 - what is expected of him at this point?

Both he and his sister seemed really well-behaved at the funeral and seemed to know what was expected.

[Anonymous]

They’ll be back once the official mourning period is over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

No, most came from Queen Mother who did in fact leave the bulk to Harry because William would be king and a billionaire. Also, Charles cut them a large check when they left the Royal Family. Plus Diana's money. Plus the money from the book deal. Harry left the Royal Family a very wealthy man. He wants billionaire status and lifestyle. I don't think that will materialize, but it's not because he did not start out with a shit ton of money, connections and privilege's.

Why would the QM put Harry above all her other great grandchildren?

Because he's the only one whose brother will be king.

So? She didn’t put him above the others just gave him Williams share.

[Anonymous]

The public appearances are a small portion of their work, most happens behind the scenes. King Charles is making a state visit, his first, to France next month. Sets the tone and clearly a break with the deceased Queen's priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s in Harry’s interest not to go back. He’s in his 40s so as an influencer/celebrity he has maybe 10 years. He can do more outside the palace than inside.

Going back as a part time royal is in Charles interest not Harry’s. [/quo

Harry just turned 38.