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!

What's the Difference Between Stuffing and Dressing?

iStock
iStock

For carbohydrate lovers, nothing completes a Thanksgiving meal quite like stuffing—shovelfuls of bread, celery, mushrooms, and other ingredients that complement all of that turkey protein.

Some people don’t say stuffing, though. They say dressing. In these calamitous times, knowing how to properly refer to the giant glob of insulin-spiking bread seems necessary. So what's the difference?

Let’s dismiss one theory off the bat: Dressing and stuffing do not correlate with how the side dish is prepared. A turkey can be stuffed with dressing, and stuffing can be served in a casserole dish. Whether it’s ever seen the inside of a bird is irrelevant, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong and should be met with suspicion, if not outright derision.

The terms are actually separated due to regional dialects. Dressing seems to be the favored descriptor for southern states like Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia, while stuffing is preferred by Maine, New York, and other northern areas. (Some parts of Pennsylvania call it filling, which is a bit too on the nose, but to each their own.)

If stuffing stemmed from the common practice of filling a turkey with carbs, why the division? According to HuffPost, it may have been because Southerners considered the word stuffing impolite, and therefore never embraced it.

While you should experience no material difference in asking for stuffing or dressing, when visiting relatives it might be helpful to keep to their regionally-preferred word to avoid confusion. Enjoy stuffing yourselves.

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

Why Do Tires Have to Be Filled With Air?

BookyBuggy/iStock via Getty Images
BookyBuggy/iStock via Getty Images

Paul Misencik:

This is an issue that has perplexed me for most of my life, because pneumatic tires filled with air seem like the last anachronistic, 19th-century component of a modern automobile, and an idea which should have disappeared many decades ago. In an era where even the internal combustion engine itself is giving way to electric motors, and where a new economy hatchback has exponentially more computing power than the Space Shuttle, pneumatic tires don’t seem to make sense any longer.

(And before I get flamed, I know modern tires are vastly more advanced and reliable and capable than their 1930s counterparts. Blowouts, which were a common occurrence when I was a kid, are pretty much unheard of today. Modern tires are great, but they are still vulnerable and maintenance-intensive in a way that doesn’t make any sense to me.)

Companies have experimented with non-pneumatic passenger vehicle tires in the modern age—one of the primary drivers was Michelin. But the tires weren’t filled with solid rubber. In fact, they didn’t even have sidewalls. They were open on the sides, and they had a support lattice of structural polyester ribs, with a ton of air space between the contact patch and the (now deformable) wheel.

One of the big problems with switching from pneumatic tires to non-pneumatic tires is the fact that the current air-filled tire is an important component of the suspension of a vehicle. The flex in the sidewall is a critical part of the compliance of the suspension and substantially affects a vehicle's ride and handling. (Which is why race car drivers sweat tire pressures at each corner of the vehicle so much, as even a small change in tire pressure can have a big effect on the handling and grip of a vehicle.)

If a company like Michelin wants to make a non-pneumatic tire, they'll improve their chances of finding success with it if the new design mimics the compliance and flex characteristics of the outgoing, air-filled models as closely as possible. That way, Michelin would be able to sell the new, non-pneumatic design as a retrofit to older vehicles whose suspensions were originally designed with pneumatic tires in mind. And that is hugely important because if they can’t, it becomes much more difficult to convince manufacturers to change over to the new design—particularly after the mild debacle of Michelin’s failed “TRX” metric tire idea of the 1980s, which required the use of a special wheel and which, despite being by most accounts a superior design in almost every way, never really took off. (Owners of 1980s Ferrari 512 Berlinetta Boxers and some Saab 900 turbos will know what I’m talking about here.)

Non-pneumatic Michelin tires are also rather weird looking, and it’s not clear which manufacturers, if any, would take the risk of being the first to offer them on a new car.

So that is the real issue: Any non-pneumatic tire design must be not only clearly superior to the pneumatic designs of the past, but it must be functionally identical to the outgoing models they would replace, and they must be visually acceptable to consumers.

I hope it happens, though. I hope someone cracks the nut. Pneumatic tires are a 19th-century application still being used on 21st-century vehicles, and at some point that needs to change.

This post originally appeared on Quora. Click here to view.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER