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

He is making serious accusations about the Head of State and the machinery that surrounds him. Celebrities leak stories all the time, don't care about that at all. People around the royals leak, that's human nature to gossip, papers make up 'sources close to' lots of people including royals, dinner belive that either or cares about what they say. We know that in the War of the Wales' both sides briefed the press, and I think the less of both sides for that.

Harry is accusing his father and step mother and brother of briefing against him, he is claiming it is one sided and vindictive. I'm sure he believes that it is true, but we know that he thinks truth is what he believes rather than the actual facts of a situation. If you are making claims that part of the machinery of the state deliberately gives stories to the press to make you look bad, that is a serious character matter and I want proof before I believe it.

The fact that this has been discussed ever since Spare was released and no actual proof has been forthcoming means I tend to fall on the side of it being evidence of a broken family relationship rather than press briefing itself. Which is sad but something that needs therapy rather than anything else. If it is proved that he has been briefed against with the full knowledge and consent of the King or Camilla or William then I think steps need to be taken to stop that happening.

He is making serious accusations about the Head of State and the machinery that surrounds him

Agreed, @MrsLeonFarrell, and even that wouldn't be quite so bad if folk said "Oh it's just Harry's take on it"

But they don't ... instead we're often expected to take it as if written in stone, as with his (since retracted) suggestions of racism, and that can be damaging

@Alibababandthe40sheets

“I think although they would never admit it treating Harry and Meghan like absolute shite is biting the Royal family in the ass.”

In what way were they treated like absolute shite ? The £30+ million wedding ? The beautiful home with 24/7 security ? The clothes ? Jewels? Titles ?
If they were treated like absolute shite why were they so keen to remain part of the RF ? Why not dump the titles and make new lives elsewhere ? Why insist on their children being Prince and Princess yet refuse to allow them to be part of the family ?

Why insist on their children being Prince and Princess yet refuse to allow them to be part of the family ?

It is their birthright. Why can't the two little children decide whether to use those titles when they are older. It's what I would be doing. Who knows what private conversations happen between Charles and Harry. The only people that know are those close to them. We have no idea who refuses who.

"why were they so keen to remain part of the RF ? "
and
"yet refuse to allow them to be part of the family ?"
Contradictory statements all in one paragraph! I presume you mean the royal bit and the family bit.

Yes I know Anne refused them for her children, a good move on her part because both Zara and Peter can milk their connection for all it's worth and not have to do much for it. At the time Anne wasn't going through what Harry & Meghan were, so their decision was at a different time in different circumstances.

Of course the Palace briefs one royal household against another, that is as old as time, it's what has always happened! Feed a story, and you might not notice the other story. @Alibababandthe40sheets has it spot on in her post. I can't believe anyone would think otherwise!

I am amused at a PP saying that although the Queen was formal with her children in the public eye, she was loving and different in private. With all due respect, unless you were a footman to the Queen you would have no idea what she was like with her children in private!

There are home movies of the Queen's family. But people are free to believe those are staged.

I'm fascinated as to how the next chapter will play out.

I think there is a wider problem with the press and social media; people tend to believe what they read without looking at the validity of the source. So many things are brought up here that originate with a "source" in a tabloid press article or a tweet. Often the tabloids story is then contradicted in the same paper a few days later, quoting another "source ". It's all for clicks and little is credible.

from what I saw around her death, the old films of the family looked like they were close.

it is odd that we now have 4 senior royals, one the King is ill but keeps working. Camilla obviously is not well. Kate is just doing occasional stuff.
where William is I have no clue.

yet has it made any difference. they have kind of proved how as long as you have a King/queen working. you don't need the others.

@BustingBaoBun

So how were they treated like “ absolute shite” ?

@MrsLeonFarrell I'm not talking so much of her parenting when they were little. I'm talking about, for example, her championing of Andrew. And I am surprised you think the palace PR machine is doing well-do you think that William and Catherine's public profile has been well handled?

I mean, they are not going to produce home videos of family rows, are they?

Not ‘staged’ in the sense of ‘the moon landings faked in a movie studio’, no, but no royals of that generation would have been unaware of the fact that they were not private individuals, even on home videos filmed by one of themselves.

@BustingBaoBun

"I am amused at a PP saying that although the Queen was formal with her children in the public eye, she was loving and different in private. With all due respect, unless you were a footman to the Queen you would have no idea what she was like with her children in private"

Were you that footman? If not then all points of view are equally valid .

You missed out on" in my opinion" in this post and of course you are perfectly entitled to believe that. It doesn't make it a fact however.

"The Prince of Wales role would really would have benefited from a sibling in this generation. "

Oh would he? History doesn't always agree on that point 😂

I think they appeared to do fewer visits because they had three young children and wanted to be "present" parents rather than "absent" parents extensively using nannies etc. I fully expect them to be a lot more active as the years pass and their children grow older, subject to Kate's health of course.

By all accounts, Liz and Phil weren't very hands on at all with their four kids, and Charles wasn't hands on with William and Harry (arguable whether Diana was as much hands on as she made out), so I think this new generation are trying to be more modern and less stuffy, and being "hands on" parents is part of that.

Within a decade or two, we'll have five active Royals from the next generation, with William and Kate as King and Queen, and their three children as other "active" Royals.

I think a close family of five is more than enough to deal with most of the Royal visits, patronages, etc., with Edward and Sophie & their kids bolstering up the numbers when needed and for their personal interests re charities etc and less important openings etc.

@taxguru you highlight that point well. The RF is either too small or too big. Republicans will opt for whatever suits their cause. It changes from thread to thread. It must be frustrating for real Republicans to live in a country where the monarchy has such a long history. Detractors of Harry and Meghan are often described on here as obsessed. I think their supporters over estimate their relevance to many . The Sussexes are a joke, an "omg have you seen this now ?" The supporters are usually the ones who are obsessed. They talk about people being in awe of the RF yet they are in awe of this odd pair.

@Samcro

yet has it made any difference. they have kind of proved how as long as you have a King/queen working. you don't need the others.

It's easy to deal with relatively short term problems like Kate and Charles' illnesses as it's easy to defer planned overseas visits or send minor royals to events/openings etc. You can "gloss over" short term unavailability of the major Royals for a while, but as the years pass, you can't keep refusing invitations to commonwealth events etc and sooner or later, you have to send someone to "fly the flag" as it were, same with event, openings, etc.

As it is, Charles and Kate were only "unavailable" a few months so we were very lucky especially now that they're back doing at least some royal duties and hopefully that will increase over time as they recover. Obviously that extends to William who wanted to look after Kate during her treatments (and help look after the kids too!). All very easy to deal with - just send someone more minor or cancel/defer any non-essential foreign trips.

But you can't delay/defer forever. The commonwealth is important to the UK and if we never went to those countries for Royal visits for a decade or two, they'd soon take offence, support would fade, etc., and the UK as a whole would suffer. As I say, we can get away without a senior Royal visit to them for a short while, especially when there's clearly a valid reason like cancer, but if we're perceived to ignore them for too long, they'll start to take it as an insult and lose interest and pull away from the UK.

@isitsnowingyett "You missed out on" in my opinion" in this post and of course you are perfectly entitled to believe that. It doesn't make it a fact however"

That applies to every single post in this section. Except possibly for their dates of birth! We can be sure of nothing except the most basic of facts.

This. I’d like to see less of them, not more.

Ideal time to get rid of the whole family I say.

Difference is...I'm not saying she was 'much more loving in private' and posting it as fact..., it wasn't opinion, it was a statement
We don't know what she was like.

with his (since retracted) suggestions of racism, and that can be damaging
I think there is a wider problem with the press and social media; people tend to believe what they read without looking at the validity of the source

Tell me about it, @MrsLeonFarrell

I agree with you about Andrew, that was a complete mess. It isn't unusual though when people are accused of such crimes for the family to refuse to believe the accusations. That is not to excuse her, just to point out she isn't alone in making that mistake.

Can you say what about palace PR around the Wales family you don't like, then I can respond more specifically? Overall I don't think they do badly.

I’m sure it will. As we see the older generations of the general public die off, so too will support for the monarchy. At the last major poll it was 54% in support v 46% not but what was interesting was that support has been in steep decline over the last 10 years and also showed a significant difference between the age groups. I think there were a lot of older people who felt a real affection for the Queen - she is gone now and younger generations don’t feel that for any of them.