Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip Current Events 17: 30 July-December 2007

[Elspeth]

Welcome to part 17 of the thread to discuss the current events of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Part 16 is here:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...7-a-12677.html

[selrahc4]

Back in April, ElisaR had wondered about the Duke of Edinburgh's painting of the Queen at breakfast which was mentioned at this link . I knew that one of my books had that painting among the illustrations and I promised to share the name of the book when I could.

Well, ElisaR, here you go: It's in Tim Heald's biography of Prince Philip published in 1991.

[ElisaR]

Thank you very much, Selrahc.
I've seen they have some used copies on Amazon, so I can get one.

[Avalon]

Duke of Edinburgh steams in to ship row

More than three decades after steaming to its rescue, Prince Philip is fighting another nautical battle to save a historic ship from being dumped next to a lap-dancing club.

Britain's only surviving coal steamer, the SS Robin - built in 1890 and, like HMS Victory, part of the National Historic Fleet - is about to be evicted from its present site. It is to be towed from London's West India Quay at Canary Wharf to an insalubrious berth just yards from Majingos, an adult nightclub. A furious Philip, who originally saved the boat from destruction, delayed his holiday in Scotland to summon Canary Wharf chief George Iacobescu and British Waterways London Docklands boss Dennis Fink to a meeting where he told them bluntly what he thought of their plan.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Well, I suppose the Troubling Case of the SS Robin just proves that Prince Philip, as ripely aged as he is, is still a spring chicken. Thinking and moving fast on his toes, isn't he? He ain't going nowhere, and it's nice to see the proof.

I wonder if his engagements this week are still on, as he has one in Cumbria on 6 August, and two in Edinburgh in Thursday.

[Skydragon]

Regent secrets revealed in London

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II has changed the law so that her sister, Princess Margaret, would not become regent if she died, it was revealed Sunday.

United Press International - News. Analysis. Insight.

[HMQueenElizabethII]

Anyone know if Her Majesty has been onto the Balmoral holiday yet?No photos of Her Majesty reviewed the guards at all...?

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Regent secrets revealed in London

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II has changed the law so that her sister, Princess Margaret, would not become regent if she died, it was revealed Sunday.

United Press International - News. Analysis. Insight.

I just don't get why it's being said that this is a "revelation". The regency act of 1953 was public knowledge, and has been for 54 years now.

So many of the articles about these new releases make it sound like people must be saying "Oh no, Philip would have been regent? I thought all this time it would have been Margaret"! Ridiculous.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

I just don't get why it's being said that this is a "revelation". The regency act of 1953 was public knowledge, and has been for 54 years now.

So many of the articles about these new releases make it sound like people must be saying "Oh no, Philip would have been regent? I thought all this time it would have been Margaret"! Ridiculous.

I agree. The news stories also use the misleading lines to the effect of "The Queen changed the law..." as if to imply that she made a secret decree that overruled Parliament.

[sirmax]

Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII

Anyone know if Her Majesty has been onto the Balmoral holiday yet?No photos of Her Majesty reviewed the guards at all...?

Yes The Queen is at Balmoral. The Queen arrived there on the 4 August and was welcomed by the Lord-Lieutenant for Aberdeenshire. According to the Court Curicular she also inspected a Royal Gaurd of Honor at her arrival.

[CasiraghiTrio]

It says, if I reading correctly, and I did read it several times to be sure I was doing so, that the papers of the cabinet secretary from 1947-1962 are now released but the parts about the regency changing won't be released until 2054. It says first that the Queen "changed the law," then it says that the cabinet secretary expressed that "the Queen's wishes" are for the regency to be changed. It's very strange.

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

It says, if I reading correctly, and I did read it several times to be sure I was doing so, that the papers of the cabinet secretary from 1947-1962 are now released but the parts about the regency changing won't be released until 2054. It says first that the Queen "changed the law," then it says that the cabinet secretary expressed that "the Queen's wishes" are for the regency to be changed. It's very strange.

The part about "changing the law" I'm sure is a result of the structure of the 1937 regency act, which was unusual in that it tried to provide for subsequent reigns as well as the one recently begun. Until then, each reign, which required it, had an individual act or bill to specify who would be regent for a minor sovereign. Almost all of these named the surviving parent as the designated regent. Because the 1937 act set up a procedure for future reigns, it wasn't strictly necessary for the present Queen to ask for a new act. It's quite understandable that she did so, of course; her confidence in her husband and a wish to have him as regent for their child, had the situation presented iself, is evident. It certainly wasn't revolutionary or unreasonable.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

The part about "changing the law" I'm sure is a result of the structure of the 1937 regency act, which was unusual in that it tried to provide for subsequent reigns as well as the one recently begun. Until then, each reign, which required it, had an individual act or bill to specify who would be regent for a minor sovereign. Almost all of these named the surviving parent as the designated regent. Because the 1937 act set up a procedure for future reigns, it wasn't strictly necessary for the present Queen to ask for a new act. It's quite understandable that she did so, of course; her confidence in her husband and a wish to have him as regent for their child, had the situation presented iself, is evident. It certainly wasn't revolutionary or unreasonable.

No, indeed, not unreasonable, though given the most unreasonable prejudices about Prince Philip at the time, it's not surprising to me if there was a faction of sorts working to prevent this change. I was just confused by the wording, as it said first that she outright changed the law, then only that she wished for it to be changed!

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

I was just confused by the wording, as it said first that she outright changed the law, then only that she wished for it to be changed!

One way to keep the confusion down re this article, perhaps is to realize that the words she "changed the law" were in the UPI article about the cabinet papers. That is, written by a journalist...we know how careful they are about correct expression and checking facts. Is this a quote from the released papers? No, those only refer to her wishes...actual words from the douments, not coined by the writer of the article.
Lessens the confusion...for me, anyway.

[WindsorIII]

Who is top monarch?

10 August 2007 | 12:38

A poll that asks us to vote for Britain's greatest monarch has Queen Elizabeth ahead. Its interesting when you look at the criteria for voting.

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/f...A38%3A16%3A800

[WindsorIII]

BBC Doc on Queen May be Sunk over Network Gaffe


LONDON (Hollywood Today/AFP) 8/12/07 — A BBC television documentary about Queen Elizabeth II could be dumped after her lawyers wrote to producers threatening a lawsuit after a trailer aired that wrongly made it look like she stormed out of a photo shoot, according to UK media reports.

Hollywood Today | Newsmagazine, with Attitude.

The program was due to be broadcast in September or October. I hope it is not shelved over this. I'd love to see it.

[WindsorIII]

'No flag on Princess Diana's 10th death anniversary'
11 Aug 2007, 1227 hrs IST,PTI

LONDON: Queen Elizabeth II has decided that the Union Jack will not be flown at half-mast above the Buckingham Palace on Princess Diana's tenth death anniversary slated for later this month, according to a daily.

The Queen set aside protocol on the first death anniversary of the Princess of Wales, when the flag was flown, but it was not thought an "appropriate gesture" on this year's occasion, sources reported in London on Saturday.

'No flag on Princess Diana's 10th death anniversary'-UK-World-The Times of India

[gfg02]

Party Princes plan a bash for the Queen - but no Mr Diddy

Party Princes plan a bash for the Queen - but no Mr Diddy | the Daily Mail

[BeatrixFan]

'No flag on Princess Diana's 10th death anniversary'-UK-World-The Times of India
Well, who was really expecting it? Besides, now that the Union Flag flies over Buckingham Palace whenever the Royal Standard isn't flown, it only flies at half mast if all other public buildings are doing the same.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

'No flag on Princess Diana's 10th death anniversary'-UK-World-The Times of India
Well, who was really expecting it? Besides, now that the Union Flag flies over Buckingham Palace whenever the Royal Standard isn't flown, it only flies at half mast if all other public buildings are doing the same.

Yes, indeed, and to put the flag at half-mast would just be weird. Does anyone do that for a memorial service? I think it is customary for flags to be at half-mast only in the period of mourning following the death, but certainly not each time there is a memorial service?!