Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh Current Events 25: April 2013-December 2014


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
They are bound to, its what they do ! You're right, i agree that the non-Brits {Particularly the types from 'the colonies' } seem unable to 'get' the esteem in which the Queen is held here.

There's nothing offensive about what Victorian-Dandy said, but I do find the statement that "They are bound to, it's what they do!" a bit offensive because it implies that those who "take offence" are doing it merely for the sake of it.

I might be a mere colonial but my blood is British. My grandparents on one side and great-grandparents on the other were English and all my ancestors before that lived and died in the UK and fought for that country and they lie in British soil, and when I was young England was spoken of as "home" by some of the older relatives. Of course at that time Britain still regarded us and treated us as though we were part of the family, and we had much closer legal and social ties. Those have weakened over the years, partly at the instigation of the UK and partly by us. However I have a jolly good idea of the esteem in which the Queen is held there. She used to be held in very high esteem here, too, though the numbers who can say they "love" her are rapidly dwindling as the years pass. She still is held in high regard. She is also Queen of Australia, you know, quite independently of being Queen of the UK. I hold her in high esteem, too, though I confess I can't say I love her or that I ever have.

Actually, is it correct to say that the Queen is loved by the majority of the UK populace? Loved by more than 50% across the whole of the UK? Maybe it is.

Do people, regardless of the extent of the esteem in which they hold HM, really get the same buzz from handing flowers to a Lady in Waiting as they do to HM?
 
Last edited:
I dont think the Queen is loved by the majority of the UK populace - I think she is greatly respected in the UK and abroad.
 
^^^ I'll be the bunny. I'm betting it's, "Don't bother buying flowers and arming your kids with them in the hope they'll have the chance to thrust them at the Queen as she leaves church, because she's not going to be accepting them anymore."
 
Do people, regardless of the extent of the esteem in which they hold HM, really get the same buzz from handing flowers to a Lady in Waiting as they do to HM?

The same could be said of when you write a letter/send a gift to someone famous or important, how many of those actually read your missive or receive the gift instead of them being intercepted by a PA or similar.

All this being said I hope it's just a case of the rest of the royal family have gone back to London etc so the Queen isn't wanting to hang around due to the cold weather/age and this not the start of a new trend of her growing increasingly distant.

I remember reading somewhere (if only I could recall the site) not that long ago that the popularity of her Majesty and the monarchy as a whole as never dipped below 70% in the UK over the past few decades, which is why I said what I did.
 
The same could be said of when you write a letter/send a gift to someone famous or important, how many of those actually read your missive or receive the gift instead of them being intercepted by a PA or similar.

Fair point. I wrote a letter to Elvis Presley when I was 12, and a few months later I received a Christmas Card with a printed greeting and printed "Elvis Presley and Family", not even signed by anyone at all. I'm darn sure Elvis didn't read my letter, but the card is one of my treasures. I'd probably feel the same way about a letter from BP signed by a Lady in Waiting on behalf of HM.

But I don't think it's quite the same thing. It's the personal contact between subject and monarch and the tendering of a personal token of goodwill that's been in play on those flower-giving occasions and I expect fewer flowers will be offered if HM has indeed now established a pattern of not taking them personally.

All this being said I hope it's just a case of the rest of the royal family have gone back to London etc so the Queen isn't wanting to hang around due to the cold weather/age and this not the start of a new trend of her growing increasingly distant.
I think we have to face the fact that the lady is now 87 years old and that it is inevitable that she will grow increasingly distant.
 
All this discussion over flowers goodness me.

The flowers have been a catalyst for some interesting discussion and in turn have brought forth many points to consider.

In a way we have been spoiled for so long because her Majesty has always been approachable, not to mention she has always been there.

She has continued the tradition started by her grandfather of being seen as a more "down to earth" monarch whose only difference between himself and the rest of the populace of the UK was the fact that he was born into the family firm, with the intent that at some point he would take over the running of the firm.

But I digress...
 
One error though - she says that there isn't a precedent for The Queen to receive flowers at Sandringham other than at Christmas and that is wrong - she has done so every Sunday that she is at Sandringham for the last 20 years - had she not done so this wouldn't be an issue this year when she stopped doing something she has done for 20 years.
 
They are bound to, its what they do ! You're right, i agree that the non-Brits {Particularly the types from 'the colonies' } seem unable to 'get' the esteem in which the Queen is held here.

Does Britain still has the 'colonies'? My ignorance.. Can you name some for me?
I thought Britain itself has long become a political/ideological colony of the US..
 
Does Britain still has the 'colonies'? My ignorance.. Can you name some for me?
I thought Britain itself has long become a political/ideological colony of the US..

Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan du Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands

They aren't called 'colonies' anymore but British Overseas Territories. They have either not been given independence or have voted to remain British. They mostly have local administration but also laws from Westminster. Some are in fact not occupied for various reason and also except the first come under the direction of the FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) while Akrotiri and Dhekalia comes under the Ministry of Defence. There is a Minister in the FCO for the Overseas Territories currently Mark Simmonds.

The Queen is Head of State but as Queen of the UK and not separately as say Queen of Bermuda as she is Queen of Canada or Queen of Australia.
 
Princess Margarita of Baden died a year ago on January 15, 2013. She was the daughter of Princess Theodora of Greece, a sister of Prince Philip. Prince Philip attended her service. Who else from the British Royal Family attended the service?
 
The Court Circular only listed Philip as attending and that was probably all who did attend. There was no mention of any of the other family members attending at the time. HRH Princess Margarita of Baden Memorial Service - The Royal Family of Serbia This site confirms Philip's attendance but no mention of anyone else.

Royal Musings: Princess Margarita's funeral This site says the Earl of St Andrew's also attended.

There was a second service in Germany but it appears none of the BRF attended that service - certainly from my research.
 
Iluvbertie. Thank you for the sites. The Royal Musings about Margarita's service was very informative. I like the fact that the relationship of the people was also included (for example, nephew/ sister-in-law).:badenflag:
 
This is a heads up - tomorrow's Sunday Times (19th January) has a front page story on Queen and Prince Charles "Job Share" I cant say more at the moment because only a preview front page is available.

http://t.co/K9cxrq40Tp

Other papers are bound to pick it up. I'll try and do a synopsis of the Times article and post it - unlikely that all of you can access as it is subscription but sometimes they allow a preview.

This might not be the right thread but I can'y think where else to put it.
 
Interesting Charles is taking more of the Monarch role and William is taking on more of the Heir role.
 
Interesting Charles is taking more of the Monarch role and William is taking on more of the Heir role.

I think that's the way its supposed to be. Its more of a gradual transition between roles and each learning from their elder what is involved and expected in the role. Much better to transition gradually rather than instantaneously I think.
 
The article from the Sunday Times as previously mentioned. It does focus on the Press Relations merger which is being discussed in another thread (The Royal Household, Courtiers and Advisers) so I'll highlight other points in case you have problems accessing the article

Queen and Charles start to

Key Points:

PRINCE CHARLES will accompany the Queen on the beaches of Normandy this summer to mark the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings — as the monarchy moves towards what is in effect a job-share. The heir to the throne will stand in for the Queen at some of the day’s key engagements.

The news that Charles will accompany the Queen to Normandy,
comes amid suggestions that this could be the monarch’s final official foreign trip.

A French government adviser involved in planning the D-Day commemorations said: “We have been told this will probably be the Queen’s last official foreign visit.”

The French government is understood to have been fully briefed on the potential significance of the D-Day commemorations for the Queen.

Palace sources confirmed this weekend that the Queen’s diary contains no more official foreign trips. Her last foreign state visit was to Ireland three years ago.

However, they are also saying "business as usual" and that she is still "in charge"

END

No real surprises but it is stark to see the inevitable process of handover in writing. But the headline promises more than the article delivers IMO
 
Last edited:
succession planning

I am not surprised at the idea of "job share", you would think that the Queen might want her heir to be relieved of the enormous learning curve having been unexpectedly dropped into her reign on her Father's sudden death. I would imagine QEII might have been sharing briefing sessions with Charles for many of the past 10 years at least.
 
I am not surprised at the idea of "job share", you would think that the Queen might want her heir to be relieved of the enormous learning curve having been unexpectedly dropped into her reign on her Father's sudden death. I would imagine QEII might have been sharing briefing sessions with Charles for many of the past 10 years at least.

I totally agree - to me it feels as though we are slowly starting to edge towards an unofficial regency so if one is needed it will not be as big a shock to everyone.
 
Charles has been seeing the Red Boxes for more than a decade now to my knowledge - how far back that goes I don't know but I was told that the boxes were sent to him daily, just as they are The Queen in 2002. He has regularly meet with MPs over that time as well, if not longer, so the training process of him sharing briefing sessions has been going on for a long time. The Queen started training Charles when he was in his teens so has been doing it for about 50 years now, just as her father started to prepare her during the war years from when she was 15 or 16.

This is just the next step. Even Queen Victoria relented and allowed her son and heir to see the boxes in the last couple of years of her reign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom