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:

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?[/quote

Harry is a granchild not great granchild fyi

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

They'll get back to work after the royal mourning period is over. I believe that's next Monday (7 days after the funeral). I would assume Charles and Camilla will be the first for protocol/optics reasons, since they're the new King and Queen Consort.

The Prince and Princess of Wales will also step up in terms of work, since they've just gotten a fairly significant promotion. I think we'll be seeing more of them. We may see a little more of the kids, but I think William and Kate will do their best to protect them for now. There will almost certainly be a continuation of their agreement with the press that they'll release photos regularly but the kids are otherwise to be left alone. Prince George will probably start appearing at events when he's a teenager, but there's some time before then.

I think we'll also see more of the Wessexes (Edward and Sophie) - they were in prominent roles during the mourning events and I think they will be useful to Charles as members of the family who can handle some engagements/patronages. I hope they get the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh titles as Prince Philip reportedly wanted.

[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.

14M in trust for great grandchildren, 50-70M valuables left to queen, many

[Anonymous]

Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They'll get back to work after the royal mourning period is over. I believe that's next Monday (7 days after the funeral). I would assume Charles and Camilla will be the first for protocol/optics reasons, since they're the new King and Queen Consort.

The Prince and Princess of Wales will also step up in terms of work, since they've just gotten a fairly significant promotion. I think we'll be seeing more of them. We may see a little more of the kids, but I think William and Kate will do their best to protect them for now. There will almost certainly be a continuation of their agreement with the press that they'll release photos regularly but the kids are otherwise to be left alone. Prince George will probably start appearing at events when he's a teenager, but there's some time before then.

I think we'll also see more of the Wessexes (Edward and Sophie) - they were in prominent roles during the mourning events and I think they will be useful to Charles as members of the family who can handle some engagements/patronages. I hope they get the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh titles as Prince Philip reportedly wanted.

The kids are expected to go to school, then college and/or military service. When William started school they asked paparazzi to leave him alone. And paparazzi laws have changed in UK since Diana’s death.

[Anonymous]

How did the women walk in high heels on cobblestone and not fall or stumble?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did the women walk in high heels on cobblestone and not fall or stumble?

The same way you get to Carnegie Hall. Practice. Practice. Practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the women walk in high heels on cobblestone and not fall or stumble?

The same way you get to Carnegie Hall. Practice. Practice. Practice.

I would never be able to walk them without falling. I noticed Camilla had ticker, flatter heels. That would be me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the women walk in high heels on cobblestone and not fall or stumble?

The same way you get to Carnegie Hall. Practice. Practice. Practice.

I would never be able to walk them without falling. I noticed Camilla had ticker, flatter heels. That would be me.

me too but she has better excuses: she's 75, doesn't seem like she's been a lifetime wearing those heals, and reportedly had a broken toe!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Why didn’t the Queen give it away after Prince Philip died?

[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?

Harry is a granchild not great granchild fyi

Harry is indeed a great-grandchild of the Queen Mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Why didn’t the Queen give it away after Prince Philip died?

+1. It might be too soon after Philip’s death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

I think the decision to promote William to PoW was largely a practical one. He would get the title upon his investiture no matter what, whereas the king's brother is not entitled to the Edinburgh title -- it would just be a nice thing to do for him.

I think Charles made William PoW now because it's an acknowledgement that unlike Charles, William has essentially been performing this role for several years as the queen's health declined and both Charles and William stepped up in their roles. It's very different from Charles' own experience, because Charles grandfather the king died when he was a child. So Charles had his investiture and received the PoW title at the same time, which was when the family felt he had come of age and sufficiently completed his education and military service in order to fill that role. But William is in his 40s and passed that milestone a long time ago. He is already married and settled into family life and plays a major role in the family's business. Postponing the title until his investiture (which will have to wait until after Charles' coronation) would just be logistically tedious. Easier to simply grant it now and the investiture will be a formality, which is what the family wants because they do not want to convey any sense that the line of succession is in any doubt right now.

Giving the king's brother a desired title in appreciation of his service is a totally different thing and does not really stand to benefit the family in any way. Petty or not, it's really not comparable to giving William PoW status now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am asking this sincerely: How so? Was the Queen more internally focused? I don't remember her making a lot of state visits that weren't part of the Commonwealth. But she had a 70 year reign and I'm not an avid royal watcher, so may I am wrong.

Does William have any particular "cause" or issue like Charles does with the environment or Kate with early childhood education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Why didn’t the Queen give it away after Prince Philip died?

+1. It might be too soon after Philip’s death.

The title automatically passed to Charles upon Philip's death, as his eldest son, now that the title has merged with the Crown, Charles can create the title again, and pass it on.