Prince William wants cousin Zara Tindall to help weather royal staffing storm

[Postapocalypticcowgirl]

www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/celebs-tv/prince-william-wants-cousin-zara-5304916

Obviously this is all rumour and speculation, but I thought it was interesting.

I can see all the reasons why William might want Zara involved in the future- although I know she's said in the past she's glad not to be a HRH or titled.

But if true, this suggests that Andrew's family are pretty much on the out when the Queen dies? Which is interesting?

Personally, I can't see this actually working out the way the article suggested, but it's interesting such articles are even being floated, I think?

The two things are separate. You're conflating what I said, not that I give two hoots smile

No I'm not. You said that was how you knew these secret details. Go on then, explain how you know about this affair then?

if they didn't do charity work, one would be asking why we pay an estimated £350mn pa for one family to live in idle opulence. Can we stop with that one any time soon?

Or is it just going to rumble on and on? The Sovereign Grant is entirely different from the civil list.

If you are going to spit bile about them at least make it accurate!

Celebs can’t always give up time to charities free whereas the Royals can as they’re paid from the public purse for doing just that.

And are in the happy position of not even having to make a pesky visit very often if at all.

Out of interest, what have I said that was inaccurate?

Royals can as they’re paid from the public purse for doing just that. No, they really aren't. There are many reasons to dislike the idea of an aristocracy. But if you are going to voice your dislike at least do it with up to date information. Information that is publicly available, accounts and all!

Don't be led by the histrionics and falsehoods of various SM accounts.

The Sovereign Grant is entirely different from the civil list

This is true in principle, but the RF don't rely on support from just the well informed - they need it from a much larger pool, and perception being what it is I can well believe many would question what we're paying them for if they ceased the ribbon-cutting

ExConstance was also spot on about the hassle and expense that goes with a visit, but at least theirs was from a well regarded royal
Try it with Princess Margaret (not that you can now with her being dead and all) and you'd probably have been spitting

many would question what we're paying them for if they ceased the ribbon-cutting But we aren't paying them, let alone for ribbon cutting.

The Crown Estate exists and THAT is where the debate should be! The ownership of that is what people who choose the more trite "But we are paying for them" argument should focus on!

I’m not a royalist (just nosey) but really like Zara and Mike tindall, seem down to Earth and bit of a laugh - would be fun to see them do some royal stuff! They’re not so formal, might make it interesting. Plus they’d ace the sports events, I say go for it

@CuriousaboutSamphire I’m not criticising the royals! I’m quite happy with them doing what they do. Sorry if I wasn’t quite right in my post but I was just trying to point out that it’s not quite as simple as ‘get a celebrity to replace them’.

Sorry, I was half still answering a previous post @Puzzledandpissedoff

I am never sure why this is still in the annals of consipracy theorists. But it does seem to be reluctant to come out into the open.

One day we will have a referendum on the monarchy and,if it as ill infotmeed as Brexit and the Scottish independence ones then we will, again, throw away something we didn't know we had!

Throw it away by all means, but at last KNOW what it is first!

The Crown Estate exists and THAT is where the debate should be

I couldn't agree more - though it goes a lot further than that - but for a proper debate to happen we'd need real transparency around the issues being discussed

And unfortunately, where the RF are concerned, there isn't any (or at least, none if it doesn't suit)

@Pinkywoo

The only reason Andrew and his children are above Anne and her offspring is the outdated rule which put boys before girls in the line of succession. If this had been overturned earlier (rather than when Charlotte was born) then Zara and Eugenie/Beatrice's places would be switched.

Absolutely. And Zara is down to earth unlike the Yorks.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Sorry, I was half still answering a previous post *@Puzzledandpissedoff*

I am never sure why this is still in the annals of consipracy theorists. But it does seem to be reluctant to come out into the open.

One day we will have a referendum on the monarchy and,if it as ill infotmeed as Brexit and the Scottish independence ones then we will, again, throw away something we didn't know we had!

Throw it away by all means, but at last KNOW what it is first!

I agree

The only reason Andrew and his children are above Anne and her offspring is the outdated rule which put boys before girls in the line of succession. If this had been overturned earlier (rather than when Charlotte was born) then Zara and Eugenie/Beatrice's places would be switched.

Only if it had been made retroactively. Or made before Andrew was born.

Any income derived from the Crown Estate which was itself derived from historic landgrabs and diverted to one family deprives the government of funds to pay for public services and infrastructure.

We're paying for them with the loss of public amenities.

@ChessieFL

I think it’s because William and Zara are very close in age and spent a lot of time together when younger so are close. The York sisters are younger so William isn’t as close to them.

On the contrary, Beatrice and Eugenie were very close to William and Harry, probably still are. Actually all the royal cousins are quite close. However they have their own lives to lead.

I like Zara but she has only just had her third child so doubt she is up for any more work, she does her own equestrian things anyway.

It sounds like rumour to me.

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch

So if the Royals were abolished then 100% of the Crown Estate profits would revert to the people (the government of the day.) As the RF are conveniently exempt from the FOI Act their finances are notoriously opaque.

As the RF are conveniently exempt from the FOI Act their finances are notoriously opaque

Exactly - although even so, some of their notorious grasping still comes to light

Once again we see the difference between principle and reality; as with so many "firms" the rules can be a pretty useful cover for what actually goes on, especially when they have hundreds of years of experience

As long as Charles doesn't think about bringing other minor royals into the fold, all well and good.

The age of the masses of minor royals all funded has gone. The public will not put up with it any more. There's been too many of them in the past... the Kents, Gloucesters, the Yorks.... enough. At one point that balcony on the front of BP was jammed with masses of them. That time has gone.

@Forestiere

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch

So if the Royals were abolished then 100% of the Crown Estate profits would revert to the people (the government of the day.) As the RF are conveniently exempt from the FOI Act their finances are notoriously opaque.

Bear in mind that income from the Crown Estates is already paid to the government, who then return SOME of that money to the Queen as the Sovereign Grant which then pays for the upkeep of places like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

Sadly in this day and age, if the Crown Estates reverted to the government of the day (whichever party were in power) they would end up selling most of it off to private enterprises. So getting a short term gain but losing out on the long term benefits e.g. income, protection of the environment, protection of heritage etc.

They have very full days, going to different places in the country, eg one visit in the morning, somewhere else lunch time, another place in the afternoon. Evenings too. I certainly couldn't cope with all that travelling, I'd be worn out in five minutes!

If you look at the number of engagements they do, and info about those engagements, it doesn't equate to "very full days" very often. Maybe sometimes in tours and things, but not every day.

Often they'll do a single Zoom meeting or a single phone call as their only engagement of the day. Maybe two or three Zooms in a week, and often they'll go weeks between engagements. There have been times when royals have done a single engagement in a day and left after 20 minutes. So they'll work for 20 minutes (maybe an hour if you include getting dressed and travelling and that's being generous) and that's counted as a day's work.

Events like attending the Wimbledon final, taking their kids to the panto, attending the Baftas, or even attending family events are all considered work engagements and count towards the end of year numbers.

I respect the Queen and Anne's work ethic, but the younger royals are just very workshy. Kate's first patronage had to close its doors due to lack of funding last year, and it came out she'd literally not visited them once since she first became patron, despite the charity seemingly meeting Kate's interests (art and children's well-being) perfectly, and Kate using the excuse of taking her time to pick the right charities so she could carefully select charities that she really cared about and could be hands on with, when the press were criticising her for taking more than a year to start appointing patronages.

Last year she did a Zoom call with a different one of her patronages and it came out then she'd not visited that charity since the day she first became patron, either. That's shockingly bad. But at least Kate did her Chelsea garden, and has been high profile in talking about early years which she clearly cares about. What does William do? He sometimes talks about mental health or racism in football, but at nearly 40 he has no major projects or initiatives to his name the way Philip had the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, Charles has the Princes Trust and Duchy range, Harry has Invictus and Sentebale, even Camilla has her project supporting rape victims.

The RF don't need Zara or the York girls, they just need Will and Kate to start pulling their weight.

Blimey, just read that link above about how many engagements the RF do.

One video call in any day is counted as a working day. William at the very most in two of the months in the year, did 13 'working days'. A total of 103 working days in the whole year. What the heck is he doing the rest of the time, given that Catherine only did 79 in the year. Why can't he do more? I know Covid has put paid to stuff but seriously... this is workshy surely. 2019 was not much different.

If the slimmed down monarchy stays slimmed down he really will have to pull his finger out.

I don't think we can really compare the Royals workload in Covid times to normal times.

On many occasions my mum moans their are too many charities all looking for money for different causes. Many of them must overlap in what they are doing. Many charities will have struggled to raise cash in covid due to events not happening, people not passing collecting tins, not carrying cash etc

So maybe that is a part of the issue too for charities trying to complete with each other.

He can want what he wants, doesn't mean he'll get it.
Up to Queenie, isn't it?
Long way before little willy becomes king.
He'll be about 70 surely, if Charles lives to be as old as his ma or pa.

It issue will come when William is in the position Charles is in now.
Queen is very elderly, Charles must be doing a chunk of the Monarch role. 10-15 years Charles will be king but an 80something king at that.

That's when William will need support.