The Windsors and Europe


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
But the EU isn't a state. There isn't an EU president, countries take turns to hold the EU presidency. We're talking about the President of the Council of Europe which isn't a Head of State position. It's confusing but thats how I read it.
 
For now yes, but with the EU Constitution there will be an elected President of The European Council that will hold the position for a two and a half year term. The President would not replace the Head of State of any country but at official functions would take precedence over them. As far as the EU not being a state, I have been told many times that if it is not a state then what exactly are we citizens off? Honestly who know what they are really up!
 
Well, we're citizens of Europe the continent but not the state. Or at least thats how I understand it. The Treaty of Lisbon doesn't give the President of the Council of Europe precedence over reigning Heads of State though.
 
No we are citizens of The European Union, not the continent of Europe. While the President of The European Council will not replace the Head of State in any country and while the Queen/King of Great Britain will be the Head of State till she/he passes or the people decide it is time for a republic, the Queen is a citizen of The European Union and as a citizen the Head of the European Union would technically take precedence over her at official European Union functions. It’s like you’re a citizen of the UK and as she is the Head of State, she therefore, of course, takes precedence over you in official functions. I don’t think I am explaining what I mean very well.
 
But the European Union is an organisation, we can't be citizens of an organisation surely? I mean, we're not UN citizens.
 
The UN is a completely different thing from the EU. The EU is an economic and political union, it has a central bank, a common currency (well almost), a foreign policy, a security policy, courts of justice. A barrier-free market for products and the free movement between member states for its citizens. It represents its member states at the WTO, The UN and at G8 summits. It has its own parliament, to which we elect members. Soon it will have its own constitution. We are most definitely citizens of The EU. People from Norway and Switzerland, for example, are not citizens of the EU are they are not member states.
 
Last edited:
I've always thought a Queen outranks a President. I don't think she's subordinate to the President of the European Council because it's a legislative body within an organisation. Surely he's of a similar rank as the UN Secretary General?
I would agree, if not rank that way, but fawning. When any RH comes over to America, we immediately let them take precedence, not only because they are our guests, but because we are in awe of them.
 
The UN is a completely different thing from the EU. The EU is an economic and political union, it has a central bank, a common currency (well almost), a foreign policy, a security policy, courts of justice. A barrier-free market for products and the free movement between member states for its citizens. It represents its member states at the WTO, The UN and at G8 summits. It has its own parliament, to which we elect members. Soon it will have its own constitution. We are most definitely citizens of The EU. People from Norway and Switzerland, for example, are not citizens of the EU are they are not member states.

I always thought I was a citizen of Europe with representation at the EU via the parliament?
 
I always thought I was a citizen of Europe with representation at the EU via the parliament?
No, you are European in the sense that you are a citizen of a country in Europe, but along with the citizens of the 27 member states of the European Union you are also an EU citizen. There are over 700 million Europeans and approximately 500 million of those are citizens of the EU.
 
I always thought I was a citizen of Europe with representation at the EU via the parliament?

Yes, you are. But I don't agree with what Amelia said that soon E.U. will have a constitution, because that legally is impossible, since E.U. is not a country or a federal state and not even an international organization, if you want to is a 'sui generis' international organization, but we will see what people choose, if the E.U. countries give us the oppurtunity to vote a Constituition, as it was already voted and failed by the people in France and Netherlands.
 
Well, an organisation can have a constitution. The latest treaty to be signed was the Treaty of Lisbon which alot of people claim is the EU constitution that was rejected. Thats not quite true. What's happening at the moment is each national parliament is ratifying the treaty which their representative signed in Portugal.
 
The Treaty of Lisbon contains mainly the same things as the proposed constitution, they did drop certain things but many of the main points remain the same. There are certain opt-out options for some states that weren’t in the proposed constitution but really there is very little difference between the two and unlike the constitution the only country holding a referendum regarding it, as far as I’m aware, is Ireland so it will more than likely have no problems like the constitution did.
 
Well, a referendum isn't needed in most countries. For example, in Britain it will go through the House of Commons, Lords and then recieve Royal Assent. We won't have a referendum because we voted our representatives into the Commons so that they vote for us. It's interesting that, though it was the Prime Minister who signed the Treaty, it's the Queen who effectively enacts it for Britain.
 
It will have to go through the Senate and the Dail in Ireland as well as the referendum but I don’t think that they foresee any major problem. As regards the Queen, I have seen a lot of calls from people for her to refuse to do so, can she? Or is it just a matter of procedure that she does so?
 
Technically, she can refuse but if the Commons pass it by any means (including the parliament act) then she has to. If she didn't, she'd be going against her parliament and that'd mean parliament would have to be dissolved and a referendum/election held.
 
The Queen and Greece

Excuse me for this question but why it seems to have still a major problem btw the British Royals and eventual visits from or to Greek officials. I understand that links btw British and Greek royals are particulary close but Constantine and Anne-Marie are now allowed to stay in Greece, Queen Sofia made several visits too and even Queen Margrethe made a state visit some years ago and received the Greek president this year.
Why the Queen, and of course the DOE, seem to be so reluctant about a visit to Greece: the 1967 (or 1974) events aren't forgotten? (or maybe they didn't forgive to have been booed during the 1963 greek state visit ;) )

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=43390
 
She hasn't made another state visit to Greece because the Foreign Office hasn't deemed it necessary.
 
What interest would she have in visiting Greece? It's not a part of the Commonwealth. I think at her age she'll be very selective as to what other countries she visits.
 
She hasn't made another state visit to Greece

Well the fact is she hasn't pay a state visit to greece at all in 50 years (as the Republic of Ireland and Israël but for other reasons...)

What interest would she have in visiting Greece? It's not a part of the Commonwealth

Well thankfully the Queen visits sometimes some countries outside the Commonwealth ;);) .
 
This EU stuff is very confusing, even coming from an Australia point of view where we have 3 tiers of government - sometimes all three are responsible for certain projects and areas of responsibility.

So at the end of the day, is the Queen or any other European royal HoS's position threatened by the EU/Council of Minister etc etc?
 
At Victoria's wedding,I did'nt get why all those monarchs took time to go to that wedding and Elizabeth did'nt.The same thing goes with othe weddings in the past.
 
Since the name change in 1917, the British royals have maintained an arms length relationship with their relatives on the continent. This, and, the gradual stop in all the inbreeding that was one of the halmarks of the Victorian/Edwardian royalty. If there has been any sort of inbreeding of late it was with the Queen and Prince Philip and King Constantine and Queen Anne Marie.

I am sure the Queen cares about her fellow sovereigns, but I have always noticed the difference between the more liberal, low key Scandinavian monarchies and the conservative high- profile British monarchy. The Spanish monarchy is just as conservative but is as low key as their Scandinavian neighbors.

When I say low key I mean not as well known on the world stage as the British monarchy. I like that they are low key and largely drama free unlike the British monarchy in the past few decades.
 
At Victoria's wedding,I did'nt get why all those monarchs took time to go to that wedding and Elizabeth did'nt.The same thing goes with othe weddings in the past.

It's always been maintained that the Monarch never goes to weddings or funerals outside her own close family. This is why, when QE2 attended the funeral of King Baudouin, it was such a surprise.
 
Well George V and Queen Mary attended the wedding of the Kaiser's daughter Viktoria Luise in 1913. Prior to that the Duke and Duchess of York and the Prince of Wales (in the tradition of the Wessexes) did a lot of the continental weddings.
 
At Victoria's wedding,I did'nt get why all those monarchs took time to go to that wedding and Elizabeth did'nt.The same thing goes with othe weddings in the past.

Like others have said, it's not tradition for the Queen to attend European Royal weddings; this role has gone to Edward and Sophie since their marriage, however I think Edward and Sophie go because they realistically have more in common with those who are marrying, and other wedding guests. They are the youngest of the Queen's "clan" who could go, as well as having small children, they can relate to a lot of the other guests, as many of the other Royal guests have young children. I also think because they have attended the majority of the European weddings over the years, they know the couple getting married and are genuine friends with them. (For example, in the case of Prince Albert and Charlene's wedding, Edward and Sophie had met Prince Albert and Charlene several times before their wedding, developing a friendship with them.)

Also, perhaps Edward and Sophie actually enjoy going to these state occasions.
 
And before Edward and Sophie...the Queen had Charles and Phillip represent her. Prince Phillip was just in Jordan for the wedding of Prince Rashid bin Hassan. Charles represented the Queen at the wedding of the now Grand Duke and Duchess of Luexmbourg months before his wedding to Diana. And in the 60's and 70's, Princess Alexandra of Kent, Princess Marina of Kent as well as the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester had the honor.
 
Is a very English thing. The Sachsen-Coburg und Gothas (aka Windsors) and the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgs (aka Mountbattens) suffer from germanophobia.
The Queen dared to marry a Glücksburg!, but I bet that today no more than 5% of the British public really know who Prince Philip is. Before that Queen Mary had to prove her 'Englishness' even when the poor woman was born and bread in the UK.
Even the venerable Queen Victoria sometimes complained about those German pincelings marrying into the family, she was probably too old and feeble to remember her own Albert.

My point is that even today after Diana, Sarah, Kate, etc.. there is some suspition of not being British enough, plus a genetic snobbery not only in the RF but in the British people, you get an undeniable contempt towards the euro trash royals across the channel.

Meanwhile they keep marrying happily with trees in the abbey and a quick snack for the old and boring people that we-do-not-want-to-invite to the super cool party that make us look more and more bourgeois. Cheers mates!
 
Last edited:
Well family ties between the BFR and their continental counterparts are becoming more remote with each generation, so they are becoming more like professional collegues than family. . Certainly having the Queen not trot all over Europe for every wedding or birthday party has not hurt the throne, and does not seem to have damaged cordial relations with other royal families since they still come to London when invited to and still accept the Queens chosen representatives at their family celebrations.
 
Well family ties between the BFR and their continental counterparts are becoming more remote with each generation, so they are becoming more like professional collegues than family.

I noticed this when I watched an interview of King Constantine II and Queen Anne-Marie of Greece prior to William and Catherine's wedding.

Queen Anne-Marie pointed out that going to these weddings is really like going to family weddings for them, since her sister is Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and her sister-in-law is Queen Sofia of Spain. She's also a 1st cousin of King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. I may be wrong, but I believe the closest relation that Queen Elizabeth II has to another European monarch is King Harald V of Norway, and they're 2nd cousins.

All of the monarchs are related to some degree, but I would imagine that many of the continental royals are closer to each other than to the BRF due to their close family ties.
 
Back
Top Bottom