Work/duty habits of historic royals

Started by corydora, August 17, 2010, 07:47:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

corydora

I was wondering if historical Princes and Princesses and other royals went out to do daily work among the people like the modern day royals do. I can't picture Elizabeth I cutting a ribbon to open a hospital, or King Henry visiting a childrens home. But I may be wrong.

My question is, did historical royals work like modern ones do, and if not, when did it become the norm?

Recycle yourself - Be an Organ Donor

drezzle

Good question -- from what I can tell, the royal heirs of the past were kept much busier and with a more thorough and rigid education than those currently.   I think Edward VII set a new trend for  the British monarchy though -- with less education / preparation for his sons and more pagentry and ceremony as well as more engagements among the common people.
If the lessons of history teach us anything it is that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.

Hale

corydora  :thankyou: for joining the forum.  I am really enjoying the topics you are posting.

Actually, the British Royals back then did similar work to what they are doing today.  They would attend the commemorations of new churches and colleges.  They would inspect new fortifications, harbours and the launch of new ships.  The thing to remember is travel by road took ages.  For example, when Elizabeth I first learnt that she had ascended the throne she was then residing at Hatfield.  It took 3-7 days for her to reach Westminster where she was coronated.  That's unbelievable when you compare that to today where you could drive to Hatfield, spend all day there and still be back in time for tea. 

Also, during the Tudor/Elizabethan days, the royals would go about what they called their 'progress'.  This would entail them visiting different parts of the country whereupon the whole court would travel with them.    Whomever the King/Queen decided to honour with their presence, it fell upon the owner of the household to feed the entire court. 

Jumping ahead, George III who is regarded as the father of the modern monarchy (in England) did very similar things to what the British royals do today.  He was very much a high profile monarch for his day and laid stones, planted trees, opened hospitals, launched ships and inspected troops and ensured he was seen with his family.

I agree with drezzle, it was Edward VII who increased the ceremonial aspects of the monarchy.  It was he who turned the Trooping of the Colours into a pageant, but when Prince of Wales he also laid stones, planted trees etc.....

I believe it was with George V that the Garden parties started and it was following the First World War that the British Royal Family began to ally themselves to the public service sector.  By that I mean they increased the honours to those who worked in various areas of the government such as civil servants and those who worked in and for charities , and met a wider array of people from different social backgrounds.  I'm not sure at what stage the walkabouts were introduced.  It may have been under George V, but something which his children did.

The other thing to remember here is, the monarchy has changed a great deal.  Before it was the monarchs who used to govern the country, but that role has decreased to virtually nil and that role is now the domain of the elected politicians and so the role of the monarchy today is more ceremonial, ambassadorial  and charitable.

Trudie

Hale if I am not mistaken Walkabouts were introduced during HM's silver jubilee celebrations. However it was HM who introduced television as a way of seeing the monarchy via her coronation and the televised events that followed starting with Princess Margaret's wedding or Princess Anne's first wedding.



corydora

That is all so interesting. I tend to think that our generation invented/discovered the royal family, and it is hard to imagine the kings and queens who I have only seen in old oil paintings as living breathing people. Sort of like our George Washington or Abe Lincoln.

And thank you for the compliment. I was afraid I was talking too much.





Recycle yourself - Be an Organ Donor

Lindelle

Corydora, yet another interesting post of yours, I'm enjoying them very much.

Hale may have read the same book as I regarding Elizabeth 1.
The poor hosts who had to feed and tend to E1 and staff.
And I don't think they were asked.

drezzle

Quote from: Hale on August 18, 2010, 10:54:12 PM

The other thing to remember here is, the monarchy has changed a great deal.  Before it was the monarchs who used to govern the country, but that role has decreased to virtually nil and that role is now the domain of the elected politicians and so the role of the monarchy today is more ceremonial, ambassadorial  and charitable.

Hale, I'm amazed how much royal history you know ;)   Anyway, when did this change occur?  Seems somewhere I read it was with George I or was it George IV with all his expenses he needed covered?  Or was it more gradual with some lessening of influence with each successive monarch -- well after James I?
If the lessons of history teach us anything it is that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.

Hale

I know Walkabouts were being done by the King & Queen during WWII.   

drezzle    :notamused:  cute.

I believe the decline of the Monarchies powers began with James I.  The Stuarts were always strapped for cash.  Needless to say, following the restoration with Charles II more and more powers began to devolve to Parliament.  It was George III who relinquished the Crown Estates in exchange for an annual annuity.  Which looking back was pure nuts on his part.   George III used to try and influence Parliament through bribes, consequently whatever revenues he received from the Crown Estates was never enough for him. 

The final crunch came with Edward VII.  He recognised that if the Monarchy was to survive long into the future then whatever powers his mother Queen Victoria had should ALL be relinquished to the government.  Edward VII recognised that the monarchy's role should be purely ceremonial, ambassadorial etc.....  George V approached his role as a referee of two opposing government parties.  He saw his role as conciliatory and consistency.  I happen to think the Queen has carried on the from where George V left off.  The Queen doesn't try to influence political parties, she remains neutral and endeavours to work with the government of the day.