Something strange has been in the air all year about the royal family and the succession plans. I think part of it has to do with the Queen coming down with that brutal cold over Christmas 2016, and the fact that the cold lingered around long enough that people were quite concerned that the Queen might not recover. Add to that the fact that Prince Philip has retired from public life this year, and the whole situation feels very… morbid. The Guardian even published an article earlier this year about what will happen in the days and weeks after QEII kicks the royal bucket, and the summer brought us interesting gossip about whether or not QEII and the Prince of Wales are basically conspiring to set up his regency. Many of the Queen’s long-time staffers have been resigning lately, and they’re being replaced with Charles-approved people. Even if they’re not calling this a regency, that’s basically what it is. So now E! News claims there’s something called a Project 70 plan. Hm.
Is “Project 70” real? Well according to reports, it’s real and happening right now. The term Project 70 refers to Prince Charles’ transition to become king and increase his royal involvement by his 70th birthday in November 2018. U.K.’s The Times reports, “Royal sources said that the prince’s staff were keen to ‘accelerate’ plans to increase his involvement in key royal events by the time he reaches 70 in November next year.”
The report continues, “Prince Charles’s team is thought to want him to be more involved in occasions such as the Royal Maundy service, when the monarch distributes alms to pensioners on the day before Good Friday, and in Commonwealth events.”
Prince Charles has been an heir apparent since Feb. 1952 when Queen Elizabeth II was crowned. Now, 65 years later, Prince Charles still remains the heir apparent, but if he is ready to increase his royal involvement, a source tells The Times it would be “to show that he is the king in waiting.” However, despite reports about Project 70, Clarence House has denied its existence. These claims come on the heels of reports that there’s been increasing royal tension. Including claims that Prince Charles played a role in the firing of his mom’s private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt.
According to The Times report, Geidt ended his position with Queen Elizabeth after “complaints” from Prince Charles and Prince Andrew. The firing is now being called the “climax” in the strain between Buckingham Palace and Clarence House. A statement about the firing was made by Clarence House, Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace. The statement read, “While we never comment on the confidential employment details of individuals, it was previously announced in July that Sir Christopher Geidt is stepping down after ten years as private secretary. At the time of the announcement, the lord chamberlain paid tribute to the major contribution made by Sir Christopher, who in turn commended the support offered to Her Majesty by other members of the royal family. Recent years have seen an ever-closer working relationship between all the different royal households and their respective teams. The Prince of Wales and the entire royal family are committed to supporting the Queen in whatever way they can at Her Majesty’s request. Beyond that, we are not going to engage with a story based on rumours from unnamed sources.”
Honestly, the vibe I’ve been getting from all of these morbid stories about royal succession and death is that the Queen and the Prince of Wales are increasingly on the same page on a lot of things. The Queen is quietly preparing her people – if not the nation – for her death and Charles’ ascension to the throne. Charles and the Queen seem to be working together even if their separate staffs are having issues. I also think Charles and the Queen agree on one really important thing: that the younger ones need to do more. That’s what this fall was supposed to be about: William, Harry and Kate starting to pull their weight. Good luck with that!
Also: this story also has sources claiming that Charles has no interest in moving into Buckingham Palace, which his office denied. I think that most royals don’t want to live in BP – it’s apparently pretty drafty and not very homey. But Charles will live there when he becomes king.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
The palace had to put out a very passive aggressive statement the other day over all the resignations aka sackings.
I want them to go full-on Game of Thrones for my own personal amusement.
Does Project 70 means Charles will take over when he is 70- that’s next year. I don’t see her abdicating, and she seems to have her mother’s genes. But yeah, a bid morbid.
I don’t think most people would consider a ninety-one year old passing away, kicking the bucket. I know this website is not a huge fan of the royal family but you could have a little more respect than that.
Kicking the bucket isn’t offensive this side of the Pond. My dad often refers to his own death as “when I’ve kicked the bucket”.
Personally, I really dislike the terms passed away and passed on/over. It’s DIED. I avoid euphemisms generally and, as an atheist, I don’t think I’ll be passing anywhere.
A lot of people have a bucket list, things to do/experience before they die. which is positive. “Kicked the bucket” is more of a humorous euphemism, not really negative, like “croaked” or “taking a dirt nap.”
Yes, that’s how we use it in the UK. A kind of a wry way about talking about something. Not a mean way.
@Sixer I dislike the term “passed” too. It’s creepy. “Passed” where? “Passed” what? It’s sounds like a weak attempt to be delicate.
You are correct. It’s died.
Exactly. Died. I posted that a few weeks ago, I forget on which post, though.
I was an adult before I even heard anyone say “passed” in that context and had no idea what they meant. Talk about a brain of mass confusion, my instinct was to be happy for someone who has passed something (a test? the bar exam? a kidney stone?) but the look on their face told me it wasn’t happy news. Luckily I was able to figure it out quickly.
So yes, people die. And kick the bucket, hence the term “bucket list”.
I use ‘died’ too, but sometimes fall into the “passing” trap in certain situations or with certain people who seem to comforted by that kind of euphemistic language.
I grew up in the USA and ‘kick the bucket’ was humorous/irreverent, not negative.
Never heard of ‘taking a dirt nap.’ Rather like that.
kicking.the.royal.bucket. THERE
For people in England: is there any political will to dissemble the monarchy if/when the queen passes on? The younger ones don’t seem to want it and I doubt the under 40 set are as invested in the BRF. Then Buckingham Palace could be purely a tourist attraction and no one would have to subject themselves to living there.
No, not really. It’s not even so much about not wanting a constitutional monarchy as having no desire for any of the alternatives.
Charles will become king. I suspect any actual discussion about moving away from monarchy will come when either Normal Bill or George decide they don’t want it.
There is a movement called ‘Republic’ but I don’t think they can even get enough people to sign the petition needed to get a matter debated in Parliament. Which is a shame.
We get brought up to just accept that they are here and that the alternative would be worse but people forget that we could have a model like Ireland or France, it doesn’t have to be like the US.
Ireland is my favoured model.
Even the Australians and Kiwis haven’t ditched the monarchy yet. On the list of hot political issues in any of these countries, the monarchy comes about 47th.
Hmmm. I don’t think these moves are morbid so much as realistic – at 90, no matter how good her health seems, it’s smart to begin transition planning. Her mother wasn’t Queen Regnant, either, but a widowed Queen Consort – a cheerful dowager with no power and less significance constitutionally. HM strikes me as being extremely realistic: the idea of a 100 year old Queen Regnant moving slowly through weekly PM meetings, opening Parliament, etc., does seem a bit dismaying. Planning for increasing decline, at a minimum, seems sensible. But these days it’s impossible to keep planning like this as quiet and under wraps, as would have been the case decades ago. We’ll never know exactly what is said.
It was always my impression that it was Charles’ doing that the Yorks were marginalized, pushing the Cambridges forward on balcony appearances and such, while Andrew kept trying to insist they were “front line royals”, an effort that clearly failed. I think they aren’t, no matter what he says or does, and with Harry’s eventual marriage (to whomever, not just referring to MM) they will again be further marginalized, just as Harry’s children will be as the Cambridges’ kids get older and step further up in precedence to Prince and Princess of Wales when Charles ascends the throne.
And speaking of MM, did anyone else see her brother’s prominent interview in the DM yesterday, telling Harry to hurry up and put a ring on it because his sister is a “hot commodity”? Story was picked up by The Sun and a wide range of other outlets – really, with relatives like these, who needs conniving courtiers behind the scenes?!
I agree with you. I think transitioning to Charles before HM dies is a smart move and will ease the shock of her death if he’s already actively involved. It’s smart for the royal family, definitely, because a lot of goodwill comes with the Queen and her death will be a big shock even though she’s 91 and we know she’s got to go sometime.
I also agree Andrew is dreaming if he thinks he and his daughters will be front line. Second or third line, perhaps, but not front line. I freely admit I can’t stand him, so I’m hardly objective on him, though.
And I too was surprised to read that Christopher Geidt is the architect of the streamlined monarchy not Charles. Although if I were Charles I would watch my back getting in bed with Andrew on this.
I’m mostly neutral on Andrew and agree that he’s unlikely to prevail against Charles on this issue. But I wonder how long that position will last. Despite so many claims that they will step it up, the Cambridges have yet to demonstrate any action to support their words. And we don’t see any real hope of improvement in the future. So, at what point does Charles say that it’s better to have the York sisters, who have demonstrated a willingness to do royal work, up front to fill the gap and make the whole family look better?
Charles is an extremely resolute man and his dislike of Andrew is irrevocable at his age. To be fair, several years ago, Charles did extend a sincere invitation to Andrew to have him and his children help shoulder more public duties. Andy said he would consider it but was torn between that and another option – he was currently angling for the UK trade ambassadorship and we know how that turned out. Andrew chose greed and grift over fealty and family. Charles was aghast and felt personally slighted. Andy, however, thought his mother’s preference and fondness for him would protect him from sibling fallout. But the queen puts the continuity of the monarchy first and Andrew discovered this during the jubilee celebrations when Charles relegated the Yorks to a nominal role and Elizabeth refused to step in on their behalf.
You raise a good point MissMarierose. If the Cambridges and Harry don’t step up, I don’t think there will be much choice. Although I have to give William credit for being out quite a bit lately — as they said he would — and he’s been quite personable doing it. I hope he keeps it up!
Enough Already, if I were Charles I would be holding that grudge too. Say no when you think something better’s in the offing, and then be a pompous ass and run to mummy when it doesn’t work out. I personally think HM got him out of the Epstein mess as well, although I’ve got nothing to back that up. I don’t hold that against B&E though, and if they want to work (which they say they do) then if there’s work for them, I think they should.
Bluhare
That entire Epstein business turns my stomach, especially the queen giving Andrew that medal in the immediate aftermath. Agree with you about Charles’ dismay with Andy’s decision. Air Miles Andy has only ever been out for himself. Maybe he did Charles a favor and saved him a lot of embarrassment. I don’t think this justifies shutting out the York princesses in the long game. Although they seem overly fond of the good life I find them both to be charming, personable and energetic. It’s never okay when kids have to pay for their parents’ sins. But I wonder why William and Harry don’t independently make B+E a more visible part of their own public works? Pressure from Charles? Growing apart over the years?
@Bluhare – my own guess as to why Charles did not want to let the York girls turn into frontline royals is because of sensitivity to a burgeoning set of royals on the Sovereign Grant – Charles has made it clear that he wants to “streamline” the monarchy to avoid public resentment of so many people being paid for patronage. Putting the York girls forward also puts them onto the royal gravy train, which is also why I suspect Andrew wanted to move them forward when he realized the impact of William’s marriage and children. The “long game” goes to William and Kate and their children, who aren’t going anywhere. With three children, their growing family will be the focus, and Harry’s secondarily so, although he and his family will turn into the Yorks of the future as time goes on.
Given unsteady economic times, it’s too risky to keep expanding the circle of already wealthy royals onto the public purse. And I doubt B&E would set to work for free.
Trading Clarence House for Buck House is a real bummer. I don’t blame Charles for not wanting to move.
I (sort of) called it lol. I think the compromise is that Charles will similarly abdicate at some point so Will can take the throne while he is relatively young with a young wife and pre-teen children by his side. Perhaps the queen thinks the monarchy will gain popular support if the commonwealth can ooh and ah over a postcard perfect, airbrushed family instead of the rigid Charles and his problematic consort. Charles’ competency isn’t in question but the courtiers may have an end game and just maybe they’ve gotten Liz to go along with it. I think Charles will go along with this until the queen dies and then say “jokes on you” and reign until he’s 120 years old. For this he will have William’s eternal gratitude ha ha.
Now you’ve lost me, Enough Already. If the monarchy doesn’t run in a constant line there isn’t much point to it.
I disagree; no way Charles will abdicate early just so people can fawn over a young-ish King and Queen. Nope, not going to happen. William will become King when Charles dies and so on and so forth. Just like Frederik of Denmark will become King when his mother passes. No abdication for the BRF and DRF.
Bluhare
Oh it definitely will, I was just being silly by surmising that the queen will give Charles the throne if he promises to let William have it in return when he turns 50. Charles will outsmart them all and never die lol.
Jessica
I think there is a 97% chance Liz would not even consider abdicating but the fact that we’re even discussing it as a slight possibility makes me think there may be something to the rumors. Even if this were to happen I think Charles would eat the crown jewels before he, himself, abdicated.
Shoot. I hate it when I miss silly. I love silly!!
I prefer to respect people who have earned it. I don’t call living in the lap of luxury your entire life and attending occasional functions where people grovel at your feet earning anything.
I am also familiar with the term kicking the bucket, widely used down under too.
I figured this would happen when Phil announced his retirement – that TQ would take a step back. Its been happening since 2012. If either of them think that the younger generation *cough*the dolittles*cough* are going to step up then they are in for surprise. William might do more and he has been but Waity won’t., she has had ample opportunity to do so but has failed at every step.
Yeah, Kate seems “keen” with regard to releasing videos from the comfort of her homes instead of getting out there in person with the general public.
Hmm I don’t think there will be a regency but there may be a quasi one. I believe HM is more relaxed but she is traditional about the crown hence, no passing of the crown until she passes. Anyway I think passing more things to Charles and his team just makes sense. They are an establishment and establishments need continuity of business. The more people get on board, the better and easier on HM health. It’s not avout being morbid or disrespectful. Being disrespectful is an heir openly challenging HM to step off. They are royals. They are keenly aware death is one way the crown is passed on.
Aside from drafty and cold re- BUCKINGHAM PALACE, there are also increased security concerns involving terrorism. I would prefer to not live in BP either if my country Reduced the terrorism threat to Severe but at the same time the royals are there to serve. They must put bravery ahead of fear.
There are some brave people in UK who ride the tube, LONDON (subway) every day.
I read somewhere that when the Queen passes, Charles will donate BP to the British people.
Any truth in that?
I saw that they would consider opening it up to the public for tours to raise money, they would all have offices there, state dinners there. But that Charles and Camilla would continue to live at Clarence House.
@ Maria – Would be a cunning plan, as then he wouldn’t have to justify the cost of upkeep! 🙂
a
@CynicalAnn – they already do to a limited extent.
There’s nothing particularly brave about it. I take the tube in London every day and am happy to do so. Statistically speaking, you’re much more likely to be shot or die in a car crash in the US than you are to be killed by a terrorist in the UK. And there’s nothing risky about living in Buckingham Palace at all. The royals are much safer than the rest of us.
There is a British astrologer on Youtube I follow, Steve Judd. He promised a video soon about some aspects that will be hitting the royal house’s chart, maybe in 6 months time? Seems like something is changing, even if not on the surface to us, but is imminent.
Charles becoming Regent shouldn’t be a big deal or seen as a power move. His mother is 90. His father retired from public life. It’s a natural succession plan being put into place. As for Buckingham Palace, it’s more practical for it to be turned over to the government. Allow it to become a tourist attraction.
and it doesn’t even have to be an official regency as long as she can still give the Royal Assent to Bills of Parliament I guess.
Have these people ever heard of blown-in insulation and weatherstripping?
The Queen will never, ever abdicate. After the disaster of her uncle abdicating and that event making her father king (when he did not want to be), she would never do that. That event profoundly changed the course of her own life as well as her parents’, and she won’t have forgotten. She would see abdication as the shirking of duty, and if there’s one thing you can say about QEII, it’s that she is an unfailingly dutiful person. There will not be a Regency of any kind, not while the Queen lives.
And Charles will not abdicate either to make way for his son. Charles, for all his faults, has always put in the work, and has actually been pretty forward-thinking with his promotion of organic farming and concerns about conservation and climate change. He would make a good monarch. William would throw it all away, probably, to be ‘normal,’ which is why he is a ridiculous person.
@Amber – I think you’ve gotten the Queen’s intentions right, but what if her memory and abilities fail? Isn’t it shirking duty to continue to do the job poorly rather than handing it on to someone more able to do it? I cannot imagine people would hold it against her if she stepped down because illness or mental decline made her do less than the job she always has done.
The Queen will not abdicate. However unlike George VI, Prince Charles does want to be king.
@Merritt – if she is diagnosed with something like Alzheimer’s dementia, she can be removed, I think. Minimum 50% of seniors over 85 are so afflicted, so far she has been fortunate – my dear father went down with it in his 80s and it is a horrible thing to watch. I do agree Charles wants his inheritance, finally. Also agree re George VI – so self-effacing and with that stammer, and what does fate do? Make him King.