The Duke of York wants his daughters to be full time Royals?

[MidnightVelvetthe7th]

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/724136/prince-andrew-requests-princesses-beatrice-eugenie-kensington-prince-charles-queen-william

This is a Sunday Express link, not a Fail one.

So Andrew wants both of his daughters to have full time royal roles funded by the public & have larger apartments at Kensington Palace. Given that the only time I ever see them in the news is for dreadful outfits & holidays, to me they are embarrassing & a bit cringy.

Andrew is complaining that they are overshadowed by William, Catherine & Harry. But if you believe & support a system of privilege by birth such as the monarchy, then it stands to reason that the direct heirs are more important than the rest.

Does Andrew have a point & IABU?!

This thread sent me into a Wikipedia black hole about the various royal titles. My absolute favourite bit is the (probably alleged) story around Edward's title. It was very unusual for the Queen's son not to be created a duke on his marriage and the dukedom of Cambridge was considered. Edward ended up with an earldom on the understanding that he will become Duke of Edinburgh when his father dies. In the meantime, he had recently seen Shakespeare in Love and requested the earldom of Wessex...just like Colin Firth in the film.

I really, really hope it's true.

Mynest
I stand corrected. Was it the "Her Majesty" bit that was added, then? I'm sure there was something that made me think "arrogant ole cow".

None of the European royal families have hangers on like that

Damn right. The Queen of Belgium actually used to WORK as a Speech and Language Therapist (we are the Chosen Profession of Royalty!)

When Charles was his age & with a young family was probably about when he was doing the most!

And look how well that turned out!

2dogs, "Was it the "Her Majesty" bit that was added, then?"

The Queen Mother was Her Majesty from when she originally became Queen Consort and they stay HM throughout their lives even after their husband/King dies.

Queen Mary, mother of Edward VIII and George VI, was the Queen Mother, but just used HM Queen Mary.

I think the Queen is pretty amazing - most people her age are in care homes and most of us don't even get to her age but she's still plodding on

If you'd had the best medical care, best food and been brought up in a life of privilege from the minute you were born - your body and mind would stay young for your age and you too wouldn't end up plodding along in a care home.

I don't know, look at her younger sister! younger by five years and passed away about a decade ago

but she was a smoker

So they would have to find the money from current funds (for example by laying off a few modestly paid members of staff who would also presumably lose their housing too)
The current funds they have are huge, they wouldn't have to lay anyone off. But I was thinking more about the queens whopping £330 million fortune. Or has that not to be touched. What is it for I wonder.

I think the Queen is pretty amazing - most people her age are in care homes and most of us don't even get to her age but she's still plodding on

Yeah, the thing is that other 90 year olds just aren't trying, they can think of nothing better than lazing around in care homes. Not to mention the ones who died earlier - there's nothing amazing about them.

She's had the best care all her life, quality food, opportunities to exercise (horse anyone?) and probably drawn a lucky straw genetically.

I remember watching William talking about his granny (the queen) saying how she amazes them all with her stamina and energy. I felt like screaming at the telly...."that's because she's not had to struggle to pay bills, had her own private physician, the best food, holidays etc, of course she's going to do better than most 90 year olds. They're usually worn down after a life time of toil. It makes me sick that the likes of William whose life is supported by the taxpayer doesn't ever consider other 90 year olds who haven't been cosseted throughout their lives like his grandmother has. . It's all taken for granted.

A chunk of the £330 million would be Sandringham, another chunk would be Balmoral....

Is anyone aware that the royals were recently granted a total exemption from "freedom of information"

Yes I was aware of it, and it stinks. Then again, given that support for the monarchy consistently hovers around 70%, I imagine they know their positions are safe, which is why we're unlikely to see any significant changes ... though it'll be interesting to see what happens to that 70% if Charles is inflicted on us

And given that Sandringham and Balmoral are private possessions (even having been funded through savings from the Civil List) it's hard to see how royalty could claim they're "not able to dispose of them" ... though I'm sure they'd give it a good try

though it'll be interesting to see what happens to that 70% if Charles is inflicted on us

I want Charles inflicted on us if they stay.

He has to be in order for William to succeed.

Charles cant step aside for william afaik. if charles abdicated it would take his entire line out of the succession.

then we'd have King Andrew and then Queen Beatrice.

Oh hell no.

If Charles abdicated then William would take his place. Charles can't abdicate for anyone other than himself.

The only way to knock your children out of the line of succession is to take yourself and all future offspring out before they are born, or to have them christened as Catholic when they are children.

For Andrew to be King he needs Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Harry to remove themselves from the line.

The abdication ruling out any heirs only applied in the case of Edward VIII. It was to prevent any future offspring of his from making a claim on the throne.

Every abdication is supposed to have its terms drawn up individually, so no two are alike.

if charles abdicated it would take his entire line out of the succession.

Are you sure, queen? (Great, appropriate name, BTW I thought, like cavemum said, each time had it's own conditions attached ... not that there have been too many precedents to go by

I guess it's unlikely to happen anyway; it seems clear Charles is keen to be king, and as we've so often seen, what Charles wants Charles expects to get

One person taking themselves out of the line doesn't take their children out.

Prince Michael of Kent took himself out of the line when he married a catholic. However, they brought their two children up CoE and therefore Frederick and Gabriella Windsor are still in the line of succesion.

The Earl of St Andrews was in a similar position - he took himself out by marrying a catholic. His two eldest children were brought up catholic so were taken out of the line. His youngest child wasn't catholic so wasn't ruled out, and he himself is now back in the line of succession since the change.

Charles would take his whole line out of succession

No, it was specific like that to avoid secondary claims as has happened in bygone days, but moreso because any issue Edward would have had with Wallis would have been according to Church Of England standards born of adultery, which, when you think of how the C OF E was founded, is ironic.

If William were to die before George was 18, Harry would probably be regent til he came of age (assuming Charles is already dead) If Charles were to abdicate, it would go to William.

I think Kate would probably be regent. If William became King before George was 18 he would have to appoint someone to be regent in case of his death. The last time this happened was when the current Queen ascended to the throne when Prince Charles was 3. The Queen ruled out Princess Margaret and appointed Prince Philip. I think it would normally be expected to be Kate unless she didn't want to do it.

Prince Michael of Kent took himself out of the line when he married a catholic. However, they brought their two children up CoE and therefore Frederick and Gabriella Windsor are still in the line of succesion.

I can never understand why that is the case. The whole point of ruling out people who marry Catholics is that if Catholics want to marry protestants they have to promise to bring their children up as Catholics to be allowed to marry by the Catholic Church so it's expected the children will be Catholic.

But then Princess Michael is a very bad Catholic being divorced and remarried and having an open marriage.

Kate isn't blood royalty though, whereas Phil was. Margaret was generally thought of as being completely unreliable also.

I think Kate would probably be regent

I wonder if the public would accept that as easily as they did Philip being regent. The automatic regent would be Harry and it would take a specific new law to make it Kate.

Although Andrew would quite probably become a counsellor of state in that situation and that might be more worrying that Kate as a regent!

I don't understand the catholic thing either. It seems quite odd. Especially so in the case of the Earl of St Andrews. I mean, I know he's far down the line so it's not a huge issue, but what is the difference in his three children? Same parents, brought up in the same household so presumably in the same way/same religion and yet two of the three of them are barred because of a christening?

But then Princess Michael is a very bad Catholic being divorced and remarried ...

I thought Princess Michael was granted an annulment rather than getting a divorce?

Though some might well argue that it's the rich and/or well connected who manage to get those, leaving divorces for the "ordinary folk"

It's outrageous that the royal family still have the most outrageous and antiquated rules regarding Catholics. Who else would be allowed to get away with such obscene religious prejudice.