Royal Gossip
October 18, 2018, 05:24:51 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 [21] 22   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Transition to Charles' Reign II  (Read 33006 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3980


« Reply #400 on: September 16, 2017, 03:07:38 am »

I think Charles is probably quite anxious to assume some more ceremonial type roles while he's waiting to be King. He's already the oldest living heir in history, so I suppose you can't blame him. He's already 70 and once you reach your senior years sometimes things happen. God forbid that it will, but in fact a very aged parent sometimes does survive an elderly son or daughter.

I do think the Queen is resigned to, if not a retirement role then certainly a much reduced role in public life. The red boxes, the receiving of Ambassadors, Opening of Parliament, PrivyCouncil decisions and State Visits from other HOS, do of course require her participation, but much of the rest can be handed over to Charles. There may be a limit put on the Queen's public engagements in years to come as well.

Let's face it, with a monarch who is 92 next birthday, all eyes, however reluctantly, are turning towards Charles and a new reign, a new way of doing things. His offices at CH have always been regarded as run quite chaotically, (several biographers have pointed that out) but with a new reign coming there's inevitably a jostling for power and Sir Christopher is unfortunately one of the casualties. IMO the Queen allowed his resignation because the power base is shifting towards her son and her son's way of doing things, and so some of her Old Guard are going to have to go, especially if, like Sir Christopher, they have butted heads with the CH people in the past.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 37540



WWW
« Reply #401 on: September 16, 2017, 03:43:17 am »

If Charles spent more time cleaning up his own household (dolt sons) he would in fact be able to focus on himself. Life is NEVER fair, but lets be honest, he's had more than enough to compensate throughout his life. He is owed nothing by HM and frankly I think HM should have protected her private secretary.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9096


« Reply #402 on: September 16, 2017, 12:36:27 pm »

Charles could not even work on his first marriage. He had Camilla constantly flattering him and putting down the first wife. Charles seriously bungled thinking himself superior to mortal men and being able to do as he pleased. It did not help matters that the Queen Mum spoiled him and gave him a big  sense of entitlement. ANd it was always all about HIM. Promoting himself as "great father" for a few months then starting up the Camilla Campaign again. He should have given his sons work in their twenties and not allowed the fake job for William.  His priorities were always messed up. He also was well aware that his mother gave birth to him at a young age and became Queen at a young age and chances are he'd have a long wait. I don't feel the least bit sorry for his having to "wait." Probably better for the country that he is waiting.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3980


« Reply #403 on: September 16, 2017, 06:30:52 pm »

Some nice little titbits from behind the Times paywall about the resignation of the Queen's Private Secretary, Sir Christopher Gelt.

It seems  Charles and Andrew teamed up as Andrew has disliked Sir Christopher for a long time. He blames him for the loss of his Trade Envoy position and also because he blocked some helicopter and jet flights 'more often than Andrew would like'. Charles's staff at CH were unhappy about Sir C announcing Prince Philip's retirement as they reported to Charles, they felt 'he was going above his station'. Charles also apparently felt that Sir Christopher was getting in the way of his King in waiting role.

The article states that the Queen doesn't like the way the younger royals are close to their staff at KP but they had nothing to do with Sir C's ousting as they always got on well with him. The Queen ultimately agreed to Sir Christopher being given the sack, as 'at 91 she wants a quiet life'.

The Lord Chamberlain, Earl Peel, told Sir Christopher that his position was untenable. Earl Peel is a close friend of Charles, who recommended him for the Lord Chamberlain's position.

The BBC have apparently intimated that Sir Christopher was pushed out of the position and didn't go willingly.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4416



« Reply #404 on: September 16, 2017, 06:58:17 pm »

This is why I think the Dutch and Spanish (though Juan Carlos didn't want to) way is the best. The older generation served, did what they could and then retired and handed the reins over, enjoying their life. Liz is often said to want a quiet life now, with most things being handed over to Charles. An abdication will never happen, but the Brits ought to look at their peers a bit closer I think.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4416



« Reply #405 on: September 17, 2017, 03:21:16 pm »

This is well-known already, but anyway:

Prince Charles 'won't live at Buckingham Palace when he becomes King' - even though it is currently getting a 10-year £370m makeover

    Prince Charles intends to live at Clarence House rather than Buckingham Palace after he becomes King, it is reported
    He and wife Camilla said to be 'comfortable' at current home and loathe to move
    Instead palace would be used as a 'monarchy HQ' and opened more to the public
    The 775-room palace is currently undergoing a £370million makeover


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4892462/Prince-Charles-won-t-live-Buckingham-Palace-King.html

--

Prince Charles trying to usurp the Queen? No way, say royal aides

    Controversial claims suggest the Prince worked to increase his responsibilities by the time he turns 70 next year, a move said to be known as Project 70
    But sources told The Mail on Sunday that the so-called project is ‘fantasy’
    Claims that Charles had joined his younger brother Andrew in working to oust the Queen’s Private Secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, have also been dismissed


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4891706/Prince-Charles-usurping-Queen-No-way-say-aides.html
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9096


« Reply #406 on: September 17, 2017, 11:57:14 pm »

It does not mean Charles is "thrifty." He is super privileged. When he becomes King William may reverse the decision and move into Buckingham Palace.
Logged
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6034



« Reply #407 on: September 18, 2017, 04:28:20 am »

the DM promptly reversed that story - can't post the link now but CH people said the story was not true and he would live at BP.  You just cannot trust the DM always stirring the pot
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 37540



WWW
« Reply #408 on: September 18, 2017, 04:49:26 am »

I don't trust the Palace; no one with any sense would want to believe anything at face value.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2523



« Reply #409 on: September 18, 2017, 08:31:15 am »

The rumours about what Charles may do when he is King have been doing the rounds since his birth in 1948 with different ones coming out of the woodwork every five or so years.

The idea of Charles not wanting to move into BP was first floated as far as I can remember in the 1970s. I can remember my grandmothers having a discussion about it and they both died in the 1970s.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4416



« Reply #410 on: September 25, 2017, 12:34:38 am »

Now Charles promotes his loyal aide to director role: Controversial former valet appointed to firm Prince set up to sell goods at Highgrove

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4915806/Charles-promotes-loyal-aide-Michael-Fawcett-director.html

Very interesting article.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9096


« Reply #411 on: September 25, 2017, 02:21:26 am »

I think Fawcett is the true non-negotiable in CHarles' life.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3980


« Reply #412 on: September 25, 2017, 03:04:46 am »

I think there'll be a lot more to come out in future years about Fawcett the Fence and his nefarious dealings on behalf of his employer. It's very funny how when the spotlight turns on something shady he's done for Charles he gets the sack and then when things cool down he's rehired again.
Logged
CathyJane
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5027


« Reply #413 on: September 26, 2017, 02:26:47 am »

Somehow I can't see Ol' Drip Drip getting the boot officially. Probably Chucky's PR announces the 'firing' but it never happened. And i agree, he is more non-negotiable the Cammie ever has been.
Logged
Val
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5755


« Reply #414 on: September 26, 2017, 07:22:40 am »

PD recorded in her 'dossier' of RF scandals that there was much more to the relationship between Fawcett and PC.  She used the dossier as leverage and it was said that it was one of the reasons for her alleged assassination.  It disappeared when she died and was said to be the true reason
for the search of Burrell's home and the sudden end of his Court case after QE suddenly 'remembered' that she had said he could keep some of PD's things for safekeeping.  Many think it will 'reappear' over the transition period.
Logged
marion
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2904



« Reply #415 on: September 26, 2017, 06:49:17 pm »

Would be greatly if that dossier were to describe light if day again. Even without these revelations the reputation of the RF is in the gutter
Logged
windsor2
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10893


Harryite #21


« Reply #416 on: October 01, 2017, 05:53:48 pm »

Prince Andrew is running out of time to persuade his family he is an important Royal/

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/wars-succession-windsors-flux-courtiers-depart-prince-charles-prince-andrew-jockey-position
Logged

Keep Calm and Carry On
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2523



« Reply #417 on: October 01, 2017, 09:45:58 pm »

Has anybody ever come across any official announcement that Charles intends on 'slimming down' the royal family?

I do know that in 1992, after the first meeting of the now defunct Way Ahead Group, a minor staffer made that comment to the press but can't find any official comment from Charles or his office to this effect.

There are lots of reports in the press but they all quote unnamed 'sources' which often means 'we are making this up as we go along'.

I have seen a tweet from at least two royal reporters in answering that question stating that there is no such intention from Charles - and certainly not the idea that he will cut out anyone currently working but his intention is to not add the York girls, or in time, Harry's children to the working royals roster.

All i can get from my contacts is that there is nothing official and there won't be any changes made to any current arrangements when Charles becomes King other than a lot fewer people appearing on the balcony at Trooping the Colour so the visual of the size of the royal family is a better image. His siblings will continue working for the Firm for the rest of their working lives but not their children.

If anyone has a link to a comment from Charles or a senior staff member from CH on Charles' behalf I would love to see it as otherwise this is a comment made in 1992 that has become a de facto official position without actually ever being such.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9096


« Reply #418 on: October 01, 2017, 09:48:39 pm »

Charles stated intentions should wait until he's King. The Queen is still very much alive. Why would he do this now? It would show disrespect to the Queen or he was in some sort of a "hurry."

It will all have to wait until Charles gets to be King.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4416



« Reply #419 on: October 01, 2017, 10:14:44 pm »

It's mostly all rumours and I doubt they'd say anything official anyway, even now (and 10 or 20 years ago even more so) no one knows who's going to live how long and more importantly, in what state the country and the world and its citizens are going to be, plus how the family will change until a new monarch. So I guess these were all legitimate ideas and as usual a mix happened of unwanted and deliberate leaks; someone who wasn't supposed to sold stuff to the press or blabbed and some things the Winds themselves "leaked" to gauge public reaction. The ever standing word that the York girls aren't going to work (for Charles) and neither will Harry's possible children, means de facto a "slimmed down monarchy" focused on Charles and his direct line, more so the direct heirs. A model used already in many other European monarchies. Beyond the Yorkies there's only Anne's offspring who are not official members of the RF so strike those out, and then Ed's kids who are so young still, you can't count them in and they are far down the line. A slimmed down monarchy is kind of very much a given, taking these things into account and the fact that there are less and less titles going around with each new generation and a lack of interest to "work" for the rf when everyone has other dreams and accomplishments.

I doubt much change would be made, as you say meememe, if Liz dropped now or soon, there wouldn't be much need for change, really, except for Bill (& Harry, not to forget Kate) to step up much more. They keep saying that after the disaster of Ed taking over from Vic, the direct heir(s) is clued in so well, and with Liz's age I can see how Charles would be stepping more and more into the role of king, even though he isn't in name so, so basically I think the operations are pretty much shaped into sth Charles wants for his reign, hence not much change needed/ planned.

PS Even if not intended as such, the monarchy under Charles is going to look slimmed down, because he has only two kids whilst Liz has four, and before that most generations had many kids, so you always had a big family and titles were handed out like sweets, so when the exceptional happened and a past king had only two kids (Liz & Marg), there were so many cousins and siblings and titles that it didn't seem like a "small" family, the balcony was crowded. Will be much different with Charles's "only" two children and a lack of titled cousins (eg Zara & Peter) & extended family.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2017, 10:19:40 pm by HRHOlya » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 [21] 22   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!