The average age of the seven minor working royals is 76 - should younger members take on more

[Solent123]

Excluding the King, Queen and the Wales family there are seven other working members of the Royal family with a combined average age of 76, carrying out hundreds of engagements every year - for example the Duke of Kent is 89 and still carries out regular engagements - should younger members take on more or will all these engagements become unnecessary in the future as Charles streamlines things.

They are,
Duke Of Edinburgh - 68
Duchess Of Edinburgh 59
Duke Of Gloucester 80
Duchess Of Gloucester 78
Princess Royal 74
Duke Of Kent 89
Princess Alexandra 87

@MrsLeonFarrell "Having said that, yes the Royal version was a big mistake but the very fact it's still being used as a stick to beat Edward with is good evidence that he learnt from his mistakes and has settled down into working royal life"

Could also mean that he has done nothing remotely memorable since!🤣

Thank you! A post-work treat! 😀

Well, why would he need to? The job is to turn up, look and sound appropriate, and put the spotlight on the good work of the people you are visiting. Like our town mayor (no political power). She was handing out some youth awards the other day - I can't remember her name, but she did a great job of making the young people feel recognised and valued.

@Baital "Like our town mayor (no political power). She was handing out some youth awards the other day - I can't remember her name, but she did a great job of making the young people feel recognised and valued."

Out of interest-how much does she get paid?

Expenses and allowances, according to a quick Google. That includes staff e.g. the Mayor's Attendent, who drives the Mayor to events, and presumably some admin hours to manage their diary. They also apparently take formal precedence over all other dignitaries except the Lord Leiutenant or members of the RF. They can appoint a Mayor's Chaplain... no idea if that comes with an allowance. Presumably the allowance covers things such as clothing, phone calls etc

Same principle as what Edward and Sophie get from the Sovereign Grant, from what I understand? No salary, or pay-per-event, but the costs associated with the role.

Not exactly, any costs e.g. travel / accommodation are also paid for - and Edward has received millions (in total) from the Sovereign Grant as has Anne, however... Anne has a number (11) of ladies in waiting for official visits and admin work which presumably she pays for out of her cost reimbursement, I assume they are paid and not volunteers but could be wrong.

I take that back - google tells me ladies in waiting are volunteers.

@Solent123 One of the few things I like about Camilla is that she has the Queen's Companions rather than Ladies in Waiting, and I think they are all her proper friends from pre Queen days. I think it sounds proper Arthurian!

@Baital So what has Edward done to earn his living?

what have any of them done to justify the millions we give them

He hasn't, he has inherited wealth. Is that fair or equitable? No it isn't. Is it fair and equitable that millions of children are living in poverty while others go to schools costing £10,000s pa, plus holidays, plus whatever else you care to mention? No it isn't.

That is a separate issue to whether he 'should' have acheived something memorable since Royal Knockout. If we have a constitutional monarchy then I think it is a good thing if they are bland and unremarkable.

Of course there are arguments against a monarchy in this day and age, but that is a different argument than whether a specific person is doing a good or bad job, based on the job as it is (and has been for the past couple of decades).

Just as there is a question about whether having a ceremonial mayor, with chauffeur (Mayor's Attendent), someone to manage the diary and admin etc is a good use of Council Tax payers money, plus questions over how they were chosen.

That is a separate issue to whether the current Mayor is or isn't doing a good job of being Mayor - which is to turn up, show an interest, and be 'encouraging' on behalf of the community.

Edited for typo

She was handing out some youth awards the other day - I can't remember her name, but she did a great job of making the young people feel recognised and valued.

If a local dignitary can achieve this there's surely less of an argument for royal stardust being essential to any given cause.

Essential? No, plenty of good causes exist without. But I think there is a role for having figureheads that represent The Community, and a place for ceremony/ ritual in recognising and celebrating Good Works.

In the UK, as things stand, there is a patchwork of formal representational roles that have emerged and then survived. The RF being one, Mayor's, Lords Leiutenant (what on earth do they do?!), the Lord Mayor of London (as opposed to the Mayor of London).

It is perfectly valid to say that any or all of them shouldn't exist, or shouldn't cost so much, or wear the archaic uniforms - and other people may disagree. As with any ceremonial, some people like it and others don't.

But, as I said, that is a different issue than whether an individual fulfils the role, as it stands, well or badly.

There is scope for ceremonial roles, I agree.whether those roles should be heritable and let, let's face it, mediocrities live a life of absolute luxury is a different question and the one that bothers us anti-royalists.

Certainly. Inherited positions are an anachronism. Whether it's worth tackling is a matter of opinion, given that the alternatives are also not perfect and it would create a huge amount of division along the lines of Brexit. But there are good arguments for republicanism.

Mediocrity living a life of luxury due to inherited wealth is not limited to the RF. Personally I would prefer to tackle the core issues (inherited wealth and privilege, access to decision makers and influenceto protect personal interests) rather than focus on half a dozen examples and make personal attacks based on the fact they fulfil a particular position.

If they fill the position badly (Andrew!) fair enough, of course. But if they are plodding along, following the rules, then attacking them for plodding along and following the rules seems a bit pointless, when it's the rules you have an issue with.

They've not exactly had hard lives have they? Let them keep on "working" for as long as they're physically/mentally able to.

Most of the current lot seem to do exactly that.

Andrew was disgraced, of course, and Harry stormed out because he wasn't important enough to suit his sense of entitlement.

But the rest seem to turn up as requested until way past formal retirement age.