What Does Prince Charles Do All Day?

Getty Images
Getty Images

With the Queen recently surpassing Queen Victoria as Britain’s longest reigning monarch, it’s become evident that she’s probably never going to die. Which means that her heir apparent, Charles, Prince of Wales, needs to find some other things to fill his time. So what does he do all day?

Before we get started, some background: Though Charles is Queen Elizabeth II’s son and heir, he isn’t entirely supported by the state; he earns his income from the hereditary estate of the Duchy of Cornwall, which has been given to successive Princes of Wales since 1337. Currently, it encompasses some 53,408 hectares of land in 23 counties, as well as major venues like the Oval cricket ground and a host of other solid investments. This June, it was reported that the Duchy of Cornwall earned Charles a record almost £20 million that fiscal year alone. The Duchy (and by extension, Charles) does, however, receive some funding from the government and from the Sovereign Grant (government aid to the royals, totaling £36 million), to the tune of £2.2 million a year. 

So that’s how he makes his not inconsiderable money. But what’s his job description? In a constitutional monarchy, as Britain has been since the end of the 17th century, the monarch is the Head of State in name only—the ability to pass legislation is in the hands of Parliament. According to the official website of the British Monarchy, “The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognizes success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.” The same basically goes for the heir apparent. And that means…

1. A LOT OF CHARITY WORK

The Prince’s Charities is an umbrella group of 14 charitable organizations of which HRH is president (read: mostly a figurehead, but a well meaning one); according to his press materials, he founded 13 of them himself. These charities range in character from the Royal Drawing School, an educational initiative he co-founded with artist Catherine Goodman that offers free, high quality drawing instruction to worthy students; to the Prince’s Regeneration Trust, which works to preserve historic buildings; to the British Asian Trust, which helps funnel donation money to local charities in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the UK. Also according to his press materials, The Prince’s Charities is the largest multi-cause charitable enterprise in the UK and brings in more than £100 million annually. But that’s not all—the Prince is patron or president of some 400 other charities. Sound like he’s bitten off more than he can chew? Maybe—but again, it’s mostly a figurehead thing. The Prince’s projects that appear to be nearest and dearest to his heart involve sustainable agriculture and environmental preservation, so look for him to be more hands-on there. 

2. REPRESENTING THE QUEEN—AND ACCEPTING GIFTS

If the Queen is busy and can’t meet some foreign dignitary or another, Prince Charles is your man. Last year, he and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, hosted almost 6000 guests at events at their royal residences, and attended 99 seminars, luncheons, and dinners in the name of duty. He’s also frequently called on for overseas travel; last year, for example, he travelled more than 64,380 miles on official business (think shaking hands with important people in other nations, or rallying troops serving abroad). In a nod to these strained economic times, Charles agreed to foot the bill for his overseas travel; according to The Guardian, his cost to taxpayers fell 50 percent in fiscal year 2013.

On the upside, all this travel and visiting foreign nations means that he, like the Queen, has been the recipient of some rather odd but welcome gifts. Each year, the royal family releases a list of gifts they’ve received during their overseas visits; in 2013, Prince Charles received a silk tie, a portable water filtration kit, and a bag of dried organic apple rings (among other things). The royal family doesn’t usually disclose what happens to the individual gifts; sometimes they’re used—especially in the case of perishable items—but other times, they’re simply packed off into storage.

3. MORE VISITING THINGS

A big part of the royal life is visiting. Just visiting. Showing up and waving. Last year, Charles and Camilla made appearances in more than 75 British and Northern Irish towns and cities. The week after the royal prince was born, Charles and Camilla were back at it, first putting in an appearance at the Royal Welsh Show, a massive agricultural fair, before opening the new garden at Kemble Railway Station in Windmill Hill, Kemble, Gloucestershire on Thursday. Such is the life of a royal—official duties often consist of visiting schools, opening new business ventures, christening railway stations, and touring the studios where Doctor Who is filmed. Which is actually pretty exciting.

4. SUPPORTING HIS SONS

All parents support their children, but Charles really puts his money where his mouth is. According to recent reports, Prince Charles pays out £1 million a year to support his two adult sons, Princes William and Harry, as well as their dependents and staff. Neither makes enough to support the kinds of travel and living that royalty requires. 

5. NOT PAYING ENOUGH IN TAXES

So, the Duchy of Cornwall is a bit of a money-spinner—good for crown and country? Not exactly. According to recent reports in the British media, Prince Charles pays less tax on the massive £19 million annual income from his Duchy of Cornwall estate than his servants do. The Prince came under fire in 2013 for paying just under 24 percent in direct and indirect tax on his earnings from the estate, as well as for legitimately writing off much of his expenses incurred from official duty as business expenses. Labour MPs put the Prince in the same camp as “tax dodgers” Google and Starbucks, with now-former MP Austin Mitchell claiming that not classifying the Duchy of Cornwall as a corporation—a “medieval anomaly”—was just an opportunity for the Prince not to pay corporation tax.

6. WRITING BOOKS

Prince Charles is, as we’ve mentioned, legitimately passionate about matters of ecological concern. He’s even written two books about the subject: Harmony: A New Way of Looking At The World, which describes itself as in the same vein as An Inconvenient Truth, and On the Future of Food, taken from his keynote speech at the Future of Food conference at Georgetown University in 2011. But that’s not all! In 1980, he wrote a children’s book based on a story he used to tell his younger brothers Andrew and Edward; The Old Man of Lochnagar is the tale of a gruff old man in a desperate search for peace and quiet and a hot bath. The book was made into a BBC animated film, with the Prince narrating, and later, with the Prince’s permission, a ballet.

7. PAINTING

Charles is a keen watercolor artist, with a good eye for scene, coloring, and, of course, making money; limited edition lithographs of his paintings can be bought from his Highgrove shop for around £2500. In 2013, 130 of his works were published in an online gallery; one critic denounced the Prince’s artistic efforts as “torpor-inducingly conventional,” and “so pedestrian to be almost laughable,” though he did admit that they weren’t all bad, by any means, and that the Prince was indeed tapping into a longstanding British royal tradition—Queen Victoria herself was a watercolor artist.

8. LOBBYING

The British monarch has been more of a figurehead since the Georges, when the power of Parliament demonstrably outstripped that of the crown; accordingly, members of the royal family aren’t traditionally meant to use their position to influence politics. But in May of this year, evidence that Prince Charles may have been using his title to push his own agenda came to light. The “black spider memos,” so-called after the Prince’s idiosyncratic scrawled handwriting and released by The Guardian after a freedom of information request and years-long legal battle, are a series of letters written by the Prince to sitting British government ministers and politicians. In them, he’s self-deprecating and empathetic—and always clear about what he’s asking for. 

So what was he asking for? Well, nothing that the public didn’t already know: The Prince’s concerns for the kingdom have always been a bit random. From then-prime minister Tony Blair, he demanded better equipment for troops serving in Iraq, but also lobbied against the outlawing of certain herbal remedies; from other ministers, he asked for action on the common weed ragwort, greater protection for the Patagonian toothfish (also known as Chilean sea bass) and the albatross, help for small farmers, and more funding for the preservation of historic buildings and sites.  

The reaction of the British public and press was less outraged and stunned than The Guardian could have hoped; some even defended the Prince for having opinions about the nation he will someday rule. It’s also clear that though ministers were obliged to write back long and vaguely sycophantic responses—signed, in some cases, “your Royal Highness’s most humble and obedient servant,” per custom—few actually acted on his suggestions. Perhaps all the memos really did was to underscore how limited his influence actually is.

9. FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE

Prince Charles’s commitment to protecting the environment is long-standing and, judging from the “black spider memos,” clearly heartfelt. One area that he’s particularly concerned about is climate change. This March, he told an audience in Kentucky, during his quick visit, that “If we wish to maintain our civilization, then we must look after the Earth … In failing Earth, we are failing humanity.” And on the subject of those grandchildren, Charles added, “As a grandpa, I have no intention of failing mine or anyone else's grandchildren.” More recently, Charles made headlines when he gave a speech at a University of Cambridge Institute For Sustainability Leadership event calling for a “rewiring” of the global economy to ameliorate climate change: “The need to join up disparate efforts on finance, sustainable development, climate change and a whole range of related challenges has been apparent for decades. But the irresistible power of ‘business as usual’ has so far defeated every attempt to ‘rewire’ our economic system in ways that will deliver what we so urgently need.”

10. WAITING, WAITING, WAITING

On September 9, 2015, Queen Elizabeth II became the longest reigning British monarch, beating the record held by Queen Victoria. But Prince Charles, now 67, made his own record back in April 2011, when he became the longest serving heir to the throne in British history (according to media reports, he's getting impatient). And when—or if—he does take the throne, he will be the oldest person to do so.

So why wouldn’t he become king? Well, the problem, several commentators have pointed out, is that Charles isn’t very well liked. According to a survey of 2000 Britons conducted right before the birth of Charlotte, the most popular members of the royal family are the Princes William and Harry, liked by 79 percent of respondents, with the Queen hot on their heels at 77 percent. But respondents were much more equivocal when it came to Charles: 40 percent think that when his time comes, he should abdicate in favor of William, and 43 percent think he shouldn’t.

11. PRACTICING MAGIC

OK, probably not so much anymore. But this is one of my absolute favorite Prince Charles facts: In 1975, Prince Charles became a member of the Magic Circle, a society of stage magicians founded in London in 1905, after passing his audition with a “cup and balls” trick. The actual cup and balls are on display at the Magic Circle’s museum in London. Here’s hoping that Grandpa Charles brushes up on his magic tricks for his grandchildren!

How Much Is Game of Thrones Author George RR Martin Worth?

Kevin Winter, Getty Images
Kevin Winter, Getty Images

by Dana Samuel

Unsurprisingly, Game of Thrones took home another Emmy Award earlier this week for Outstanding Drama Series, which marked the series' third time winning the title. Of course, George RR Martin—the author who wrote the books that inspired the TV show, and the series' executive producer—celebrated the victory alongside ​the GoT cast.

For anyone who may be unfamiliar with Martin's work, he is the author of the A Song of Ice and Fire series, which is the epic fantasy series that led to the Game of Thrones adaptation. Basically, we really we have him to thank for this seven-year roller coaster we've been on.

At 70 years old (his birthday was yesterday, September 20th), Martin has had a fairly lengthy career as an author, consisting of a number of screenplays and TV pilots before A Song of Ice and Fire, which, ​according to Daily Mail he wrote in the spirit of The Lord of the Rings.

 Cast and crew of Outstanding Drama Series winner 'Game of Thrones' pose in the press room during the 70th Emmy Awards at Microsoft Theater on September 17, 2018 in Los Angeles, California
Frazer Harrison, Getty Images

Martin sold the rights to his A Song of Ice and Fire series in 2007, and he truly owes the vast majority of his net worth to the success of his novels and the Game of Thrones TV series. So how much exactly is this acclaimed author worth? According to Daily Mail, Martin makes about $15 million annually from the TV show, and another $10 million from his successful literary works.

According to Celebrity Net Worth, that makes Martin's net worth about $65 million.

Regardless of his millions, Martin still lives a fairly modest life, and it's clear he does everything for his love of writing.

We'd like to extend a personal thank you to Martin for creating one of the most exciting and emotionally jarring storylines we've ever experienced.
We wish Game of Thrones could go ​on for 13 seasons, too!

Why Do Supreme Court Justices Serve for Life?

Alex Wong, Getty Images
Alex Wong, Getty Images

There are few political appointments quite as important as a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike a cabinet secretary or an ambassador, justices serve for life. In the modern era, that often means more than three decades on the court—thanks to increased lifespans, justices appointed in the next century are expected to sit on the Supreme Court for an average of 35 years, compared to the average of around 16 years that judges served in the past. Because of this shift, some scholars have begun to question whether lifetime appointments are still appropriate, as the definition of “for life” has changed so much since the constitution was written. But why do justices serve for life, anyway?

Well, for one thing, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t exactly specify that justices and the court are in a “’til death do us part” relationship. Article III says that judges (of both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts) “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” So technically, a judge could be removed if they no longer meet the “good behavior” part of the clause, but there are otherwise no limits on their term. In practice, this means they have their seat for life, unless they are impeached and removed by Congress. Only 15 federal judges in U.S. history have ever been impeached by Congress—all lower court judges—and only eight have been removed from office, though some have resigned before their inevitable removal.

The only Supreme Court justice Congress has tried to impeach was Samuel Chase, who was appointed by George Washington in 1796. Chase was an openly partisan Federalist vehemently opposed to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican policies, and he wasn’t afraid to say so, either in his role as a lower court judge or once he was appointed to the Supreme Court. In 1804, the House of Representatives, at then-president Jefferson’s urging, voted to impeach Chase, accusing him, among other things, of promoting his political views from the bench instead of ruling as a non-partisan judge. However, he was acquitted of all counts in the Senate, and went on to serve as a Supreme Court justice until his death in 1811.

The point of giving justices a seat on the bench for the rest of their lives (or, more commonly nowadays, until they decide to retire) is to shield the nation’s highest court from the kind of partisan fighting the Chase impeachment exemplified. The Supreme Court acts as a check against the power of Congress and the president. The lifetime appointment is designed to ensure that the justices are insulated from political pressure and that the court can serve as a truly independent branch of government.

Justices can’t be fired if they make unpopular decisions, in theory allowing them to focus on the law rather than politics. Justices might be nominated because a president sees them as a political or ideological ally, but once they’re on the bench, they can’t be recalled, even if their ideology shifts. Some data, for instance, suggests that many justices actually drift leftward as they age, no doubt infuriating the conservative presidents that appointed them.

The lack of term limits “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 78. The judiciary, he believed, “is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its coordinate branches,” and “nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence, as permanency in office.” Without lifetime job security, he argued, judges might feel obligated to bow to the wishes of the president, Congress, or the public, rather than confining their work strictly to questions of the Constitution.

While lifetime appointments may be a longstanding tradition in the U.S., this approach isn’t the norm in other countries. Most other democracies in the world have mandatory retirement ages if not hard-and-fast term limits for high court judges. UK Supreme Court justices face mandatory retirement at age 70 (or 75 if they were appointed before 1995), as do judges on Australia’s High Court. Canadian Supreme Court justices have a mandatory retirement age of 75, while the 31 justices of India’s Supreme Court must retire by the age of 65. Meanwhile, the oldest justice now on the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is currently 85 and kicking. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the oldest justice in U.S. history, retired in 1932 at age 90.

Though the U.S. Supreme Court has never had term limits before, there have recently been serious proposals to implement them. Term limits, advocates argue, could combat partisan imbalances on the court. Presidents wouldn’t get to appoint justices purely based on whether someone died while they were in office, and the stakes for political parties nominating a justice would be slightly lower, possibly leading presidents and Congress to compromise more on appointments. One popular suggestion among political analysts and scholars is to impose an 18-year term limit, though critics note that that particular plan does bring up the potential that at some point, a single president could end up appointing the majority of the justices on the court.

In any case, considering such a change would likely require a constitutional amendment, which means it’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. For the foreseeable future, being on the Supreme Court will continue to be a lifetime commitment.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER