What do you expect from our Royal Family

[Spectre8]

There were alot of good discussions and comments on my previous thread re. William missing the VJ day around the role and expectations of the Royal Family. I didn't want it to be a bashing thread to make personal attacks at William or Kate but well some comments were still made.

So its made me think there is still a very worthwhile discussion to be had about the future of the RF and their role. So lets try to keep it about that and not specifically about the person in that current role.

For me, if the next King wants a more private life, that his service and duty is not about the number of engagements he or the working royals do then its needs to be really articulated what their purpose is and 100% transparency of the sovereign grant, even a reduction of it since some of the money goes towards covering the cost of these engagments. I'd also like to see some of assets returned to us so we can monetise them to pay for their upkeep.

Fair enough. I don’t agree-I think a little pragmatism would have been better for everyone including her. But that’s fine.

What do you mean by pragmatism? I don’t think anything was unclear. It was just that there were ghouls who were over thinking the situation and making shit up. That’s not her problem. Her health, her decisions. On a human level, no one has any right to demand information or that she be “pragmatic”. It doesn’t matter who she happens to be. You have no idea how difficult it may have been for her to handle the information that she had cancer, let alone worry about what other people were thinking. Get some perspective

Lets back on track with what this thread is about and it isnt about kates cancer.

Maybe worthwhile discussing what we expect in the role of a royal in terms of how much privacy they should be afforded vs what they share... if there is a desire for more privacy what does that look like does that impact on how much they do..?

Should a future King have more of a private life raising the next heir and leanrinf the ropes more behind the scenes and becomes more public facing when he steps into the role...or is the balance they have now right?

The problem was that they have 3 young children and they needed time and space to talk to them about her cancer as a family. If they’d just announced it to the world’s press it could have been traumatic for their children, with people talking about it at school etc.

When you have a cancer diagnosis the hardest thing is telling your relatives, especially young kids.

Spare a thought for Ireland! Michael Flatley Lord of the dance or the boxer Connor McGregor wanting to run for President, I will stick with our Royal family thanks all the same!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14942151/Michael-Flatley-revealed-surprise-contender-challenge-Connor-McGregor-Irish-presidency-Lord-Dances-political-ambitions-inadvertently-disclosed-High-Court-planning-battle.html

It looks to me as if Charles has a good relationship with William and Catherine.

Charles's elderly cells will not reproduce as quickly as they would have when he was 25. It looks as if he is doing quite well at present and that his cancer is contained. When he went on his shortened trip to Australia, which I think was last autumn, it was said formally that the King had enjoyed being back to work, even if he and Queen Camilla had done fewer engagements than they would have done formally.

If it suits someone to bridle and insist that William should help his father immediately, I can't stop them. I think there exist some people who are anti-William and they will always find fault with him and call him lazy whatever happens, even though they have no idea exactly what he does.

They can't stop me from thinking that Charles might have told William to enjoy as much time as possible this summer with Catherine and the children, that he and Camilla were fine with going to the VJ ceremony and that if they do begin to feel weary they'll soon be in touch with him to come and give a hand.

I also think that Charles might want a bit of his own time in the spotlight after spending over 70 years as heir.

A lovely woman with a dry sense of humour once observed that the 'ladies in the library like their bit of power'. She'd been in trouble for library fines.
I would add that we all like our bit of power, although we might have it only for a few fleeting seconds.
Charles may well be enjoying 'doing it his way', for a while.

This is totally on point for this thread and a very interesting article and the following paragraphs in inverted commas are taken from the article. What a wonderful thing this would be to do, to have 39 acres of green in the heart of London kept from the public really is sacrilege.
It's really well worth a read because it addresses what William is facing when he takes the throne

"The clear answer is to treat these palaces as some are treated now, opened to the public as museums of royalty in the care of the Historic Royal Palaces agency. The real excitement should be Buckingham Palace and its gardens. The house would be a fine museum and art gallery of monarchy. But what of its gardens?

Every royal park in London was donated to the public at some point in history by a monarch. Charles I gave us Hyde Park and Charles II St James’s. Regent’s Park was opened under William IV and Kensington Gardens under Queen Victoria. The Windsors have as yet given nothing.

Buckingham Palace has the largest private garden in London. Its 16 hectares (39 acres) lie unused and unappreciated in the heart of town. Tearing down its walls and merging it with Green Park has often been mooted, but for obvious reasons never dared.

Such a gift to London would be unequalled in Europe. It would also be a symbol of monarchical descent to normality. The gardens would complete a vale of greenery stretching across west London from Westminster to Notting Hill. They could be filled with bicycling monarchs"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/21/prince-william-forest-lodge-pushbike-royal-family

What a WONDERFUL vision!!

I will remember this and if chance ever comes, join others in lobbying for it.

Yes, it is a wonderful vision. I sort of understand Charles not making huge changes given how old he was when he came to the throne, (although I have been disappointed on certain things) but I do expect this sort of change from William when he becomes Monarch.

As the article says...
If France, Austria and Spain can forget their empires and set their palaces free, Britain can surely do likewise. Versailles, Hofburg and El Escorial no longer shelter royal uncles, aunts and cousins

William has the capacity to make huge changes when the time comes, lets hope he grabs those opportunities. It is an article of hope.

If Charles does gift the grounds it would be a wonderful legacy and might just turn me into a monarchist.

Yes, it would be a wonderful legacy, not sure it would make me a monarchist but it would certainly mean I would revise my opinions a tad !

No corruption - no accepting cash in seedy circumstances in brown bags or otherwise.

Prudence exercised in choice of friends and business colleagues. Proper due diligence carried out.

Some morality in personal relationships.

In fact I’d like to see MPs, members of the HoL and state remunerated royals sign up to a code of conduct along the lines that U.K. company directors are subject to - statutory duties to, for example, avoid a conflict of interest situation or avoid a bribe.

No more acceptance of gifts or overly lavish hospitality without a scrupulous and common sense assessment of whether the giver of such a gift expects - or where it may lead to the perception that such a giver expects - a favour or other inappropriate return for such largesse.

Raising children to be functioning working members of society.

Therefore no children on display or active in “royal” stuff ever so they can learn how to be normal (UC) people who work and are low profile to invisible.

Only royals who are in line to the throne are visible and only once they reach adult age and can consent to it.

They have the same right to raise their children in the way they see fit as anyone else. The things I mentioned above are, on the contrary - or should be - prerequisites of the job - obvious to any decent human being.

I agree with your views about children on public display, but it’s a different category of thing. Many other adults expose their children on social media / tv etc. Unless that’s banned in law for all minors, the royals are free to do as they wish too.

But this is the public expectation- they want to see a royal family

I think that is not only unethical for children who can’t give informed consent to what this will mean for the rest of their lives, but is also partly what creates the Prince Andrews who cannot function properly and independently, have zero skills to work and network independently of their family background and behave unethically.

How would the public feel if the only royalty they see is the monarch and the heir? And only the adult heir?

No more family. That would solve your problems but it’s not what the public want.

Only royals who are in line to the throne are visible and only once they reach adult age and can consent to it.

I think it would be very difficult to be suddenly thrust into the limelight at 18 with no preparation whatsoever.

I understood that was the point of the carefully controlled exposure the Wales children are receiving - appearances with their family at official functions to get used to the public, innocuous photos released on special occasions like birthdays, guided increase in exposure to interaction (such as George at the VE day tea party).

Only royals who are in line to the throne are visible and only once they reach adult age and can consent to it.

No royal family does this and to expect that from the most famous royal family in the world is ridiculous. European royals prepare their children from a young age, in fact their children are more visible than our royal children.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11311355/How-European-royals-offering-example-children-adapt-spotlight.html

Well isn’t that our uncomfortable truth?

We want to see the royal children even if they have no choice in it and it fucks up their lives and family unit?

And we demand that the children’s parents maintain our social contract to keep being seen and to react to public desires - a contract they had no choice in, and to walk away from would be high risk of destabilising the country?

I don’t blame PW for trying to do things on his terms.

This article is a bit old but interesting, none of these royal children are in hiding until they are 18, well apart from Archie and Lily who have no role as royals now.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/g13861995/royal-kids-around-the-world/

I think I trust the parents and families of the royal children across the world to bring up their children as they see fit. You have no idea if it “fucks up their lives and their family unit” they could all be living wonderful happy fulfilled lives for all we know, and let’s face it not many have rejected their destiny so it can’t be too shabby a life.

I don’t blame PW for trying to do things on his terms.

Which are pretty much the same as other royal families around the world.

Not many reject their identity because they like the riches they are accustomed to. And they see what happens if you do reject and walk away.