The Windsors and Europe


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
:previous: There is an awful lot that goes on between royal houses that we know absolutely nothing about. Many Queens and Consorts have visited privately when they pop over to London to shop, etc.

As to feeling "little upset that Victoria and Daniel made the effort to go to William's wedding", what on earth for. You do not know the relationship between the Swedish and British royal families, nor even that of individual royals.

This attitude of they "shouldn't even invite them" sounds like something a sulky 9 year old in a snit with their current BFF would say. 'I don't want to play with you any more . . .' Really?
 
Neither Edward nor William will be available for Carl Philip's wedding though.


The wedding is set for the 13th June I believe - the same day as Trooping the Colour.


As both Edward and William are colonels of Household Division Regiments they will be expected at the Trooping.


It seems as if the Swedes chose a date on which they knew that the British Royal Family had their own event scheduled.

Edward is not a colonel of the HH division or remaining Guards regiments and does not have an active role in TTC ceremony. He does appear in uniform but that is for The LOndon Regiment. He and Sophie could go the the wedding.
 
The London Regiment of the TA is attached to the Guards Division but he doesn't ride with the other colonels surrounding the Queen so he could still go. So could Andrew or Harry.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
:previous: There is an awful lot that goes on between royal houses that we know absolutely nothing about. Many Queens and Consorts have visited privately when they pop over to London to shop, etc.

As to feeling "little upset that Victoria and Daniel made the effort to go to William's wedding", what on earth for. You do not know the relationship between the Swedish and British royal families, nor even that of individual royals.

This attitude of they "shouldn't even invite them" sounds like something a sulky 9 year old in a snit with their current BFF would say. 'I don't want to play with you any more . . .' Really?

When Charles and Camilla visited Sweden last there was a comment from either Charles or Queen Silvia (i can't remember which) talking about 'when she visited Highgrove earlier this year' - it was clearly a private visit that went unnoticed but shows they have meetings/catch ups without all the attention.
 
The London Regiment of the TA is attached to the Guards Division but he doesn't ride with the other colonels surrounding the Queen so he could still go. So could Andrew or Harry.

It just might be that people had long-standing plans for this date and couldn't or didn't want to break them. It is not like the wedding of a future king they are missing. Victoria was completely different.
 
Edward is not a colonel of the HH division or remaining Guards regiments and does not have an active role in TTC ceremony. He does appear in uniform but that is for The LOndon Regiment. He and Sophie could go the the wedding.


No Windsor will attend Carl Philip's wedding: an important national event like Trooping The Colour won't be skipped to attend a foreign royal wedding.


Follow me on Twitter: @houseoflemon
 
I've not commented on this matter, despite my interest in Fabiola, but I'll say this...

Their whole job (royals) is to represent their country. They live in castles and represent their countries. And, in this light, the BRF did not do their job.
 
It seems as if the Swedes chose a date on which they knew that the British Royal Family had their own event scheduled.

Absurd. Makes it sound as though they're afraid that Sophie will get drunk and puke in the punchbowl, and that Edward will put a whoopee cushion on the King's chair.
 
It would be PATHETIC to imagine the Swedish Royal Court had scheduled the date of a Princely wedding specifically on that basis....
 
Wyevale, you are so right. A wedding date is chosen for the convenience of the bride and groom's immediate family. All others that wish to attend fall in line. If others wish to attend and have other plans, they break them. If not, they don't go and send a gift. The world does not stop because a wedding is missed. Not every royal attended Edward's wedding either. I don't believe there was a great outcry over it and Edward and Carl Philip are on same level, child of monarch but not the next in line. That fact is every important in the future history of the world.
 
Last edited:
When Charles and Camilla visited Sweden last there was a comment from either Charles or Queen Silvia (i can't remember which) talking about 'when she visited Highgrove earlier this year' - it was clearly a private visit that went unnoticed but shows they have meetings/catch ups without all the attention.

Yes, they meet each other. King Harald has said that he feels privileged to meet The Queen, he and Queen Sonja has met her several times both public and private. They have also visited Charles at Highgrove.
Victoria and Daniel got a private meeting with The Queen at Buckingham palace during their visit to the UK last year.
 
I think, in my own opinion, people get too hung up on the British Royals attending public events (same with other Royals IMO but this thread is about the Windsors). At the end of the day it speaks volumes to me that they meet privately away from cameras and press, to me that is a sign of respect and friendship more than just 'turning it on' for the cameras.
Its like when people thing that when royals aren't in public they must be on holiday or partying, because people don't see them working they assume they mustn't be. Some people seem to thing if the Royals don't show up to another royal family's public event that they must 'hate' each other or have some issue with them.
 
In 1914 the view held by the BRF was that they should intermingle with the European monarchies but the war changed that as George V felt that was the best way to preserve the British throne was to separate his family from the Europeans and I suspect that the British people today would still feel the same way.



George V didn´t feel he should seperate himself from "the europeans" in general, but from the russian monarchy who was, in fact, a kind of dictatorship and of course Germany, the war enemy.
There was never a feeling of need to seperate from Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Greece, the other balkan states or Belgium for instance as old photographs show.
The then greek King stayed in Britain in exile before being reinstalled. George V´s son Bertie later had never a problem of having other crowned heads taking exile in Britain during WW 2 (King Peter, Queen Wilhelmina, King Haakon, King George of Greece) - all these had splendid, very personal relationships, also after the war.
Both the King and Prcss Elizabeth became godparents of CP Alexander of Yugoslavia (now Serbia), to Elizabeth and her sister the old norwegian King was "Uncle Charles" and the relationship to the greek royal family was and is traditionally very close!

Actually, Queen Margrethe should have been seated on the most prominent seat. She was the highest ranking guest. Strictly speaking, all reigning Kings and Queens attending should have taken precedence over the Empress, as she is 'only' an Empress Consort.



Well, obviously they do make differences...!
As I mentioned earlier, they also make differences when someone is doing a speech at a banquet and both someone from the imerial family and the other royal guests are present.

Re: Grace and Charlene....maybe because they are not royal by blood they felt they should or maybe they just did it to show respect.


LaRae


Definitely no. It´s only because of which title you hold, not if you were born royal or not! It all depends on the current title you have when you are meeting the other royal/s if you should curtsey or not.

"Neither Edward nor William will be available for Carl Philip's wedding though.
The wedding is set for the 13th June I believe - the same day as Trooping the Colour."



Even IF the Duke of Cambridge was available, he would never go. That´s no kind of event neither he nor his brother is interested in. And their grandmother will hardly force them to go.
But I can imagine things will change a bit when his father succeeds to the throne and William, then the immediate heir apparent, feels obliged to attend (some) foreign royal occasions (when a sovereign gets buried, weddings of Crown Princes or Kings), but hardly weddings of 2nd or 3rd born princes. I guess the Windsors will always send out others, less prominent Royals, to attend events like these.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: There is an awful lot that goes on between royal houses that we know absolutely nothing about. Many Queens and Consorts have visited privately when they pop over to London to shop, etc.

As to feeling "little upset that Victoria and Daniel made the effort to go to William's wedding", what on earth for. You do not know the relationship between the Swedish and British royal families, nor even that of individual royals.

This attitude of they "shouldn't even invite them" sounds like something a sulky 9 year old in a snit with their current BFF would say. 'I don't want to play with you any more . . .' Really?

Well thanks for thr insults when I was mature and adult. This is not what 9yr Olds do, adults do it as well. If you invite someone constantly and they insult u by not showing up, the relationship changes and you stop putting out a hand. The BRFseem snobbish and condescending to the other royals especially on the continent. Being thr most famous and known does not make them better or more worthy of respect. So if the BRF want to be isolationist, I stand by saying to leave them to it and stop show8ng friendship and respect to someone who doesn't give it back.
 
Well thanks for thr insults when I was mature and adult. This is not what 9yr Olds do, adults do it as well. If you invite someone constantly and they insult u by not showing up, the relationship changes and you stop putting out a hand. The BRFseem snobbish and condescending to the other royals especially on the continent. Being thr most famous and known does not make them better or more worthy of respect. So if the BRF want to be isolationist, I stand by saying to leave them to it and stop show8ng friendship and respect to someone who doesn't give it back.

This is not about children or adults, it is about royal families and monarchies. Of-course, if you invite a friend round to dinner and they never show up (or worse still, they show up and never repay the compliment - of which both situations I have had the misfortune to experience), then indeed the relationship changes and you most likely do stop putting out a hand.

However, the situation with royal families is a different matter altogether because the private and professional elements of their lives merge in a very different way from the rest of us. A royal funeral or royal wedding is not simply a family or friend event, it is a state, semi-state or national event of a country and in such circumstances, personal feelings etc are diluted with protocols, conventions, traditions and political/constitutional requirements.
It reminds me work colleagues - you sit next to them all day, chat and gossip around the photocopier, have lunch/coffee together and attend meetings with them and even go on team-building events etc etc. But very rarely would you go to their mother's funeral or invite them round for Sunday lunch.

Queen Margarethe gave an interview a year or two ago in which she was asked how she thought the Duchess of Cambridge was coping with the media. HM initial response was that she would never comment on a colleagues professionalism (or words to that effect).

When I invite a friend round to dinner, they either come or they don't and if they don't come, they don't send someone else instead. When you are royal and invite another royal from a foreign country to an event, royal convention allows someone else to go instead - either a lower ranking royal or an ambassador for instance and frankly, it is not for us to question that because it is as it has always been.

Believe me, it would be great if members of the BRF spent more time with other royals, Queen Elizabeth out shopping in Copenhagen with Queen Margarethe - I'd be happier than ever to see that!

Now, whether or not the British Royal Family seem too snobbish to attend foreign events is a matter of differing opinions and not a matter of general fact - indeed, members of the BRF may have no inkling at all that some people may think they are snobs, they may also have no idea that they are the most "famous" royal family in the world because once you are "known" through out the world, (which they will be aware of), how much or well-known you are becomes insignificant. WE see them as the most famous royals in the world, but ask for instance a Dane to name someone who is royal, they will no doubt say Queen Margarethe or CP Frederik!

It is not a case of the BRF wanting to be isolationist if it is an inherent trait in themselves to be isolationist. Being perceived as being isolationist does not make one a snob. Whether they are or not is neither here to there, because the closeness, the friendliness and the bonds they have with other royal families is as it always has been.
 
The Windsors have met with the Obamas.


Thus the Windsors are willing to meet with people who are not royalty, and who do not have high-ranking lineages.
 
The Obamas are the current Head of State and his spouse - so equal in rank. The Queen meets many Heads of State and their spouses every year. It is part of her job.


Would she socialise with them outside the formal visits - that is a different question. With the Reagan's I think that most people would say yes - we know they rode together for instance. But with other presidents or Heads of State maybe she would socialise with them in less formal settings and actually become friends with them and some she wouldn't.
 
The Obamas are the current Head of State and his spouse - so equal in rank. The Queen meets many Heads of State and their spouses every year. It is part of her job.


Would she socialise with them outside the formal visits - that is a different question. With the Reagan's I think that most people would say yes - we know they rode together for instance. But with other presidents or Heads of State maybe she would socialise with them in less formal settings and actually become friends with them and some she wouldn't.

She did that at Windsor when he was there on a state visit. That doesnt mean they were friends. She is always polite - that's it. No known further personal engagement.

What I have seen on this thread is the lingering animosity over the Fabiola debacle and and whole bunch of assumptions on the relationship between European royals/Heads of State and the BRF.

Frankly we can assume all we like but we KNOW very little.

I have assumed (no stronger) that relationships between BRF and NRF are strong because the K&Q of Norway spent time with Charles and Camilla at Sandringham (cant remember when but last 18 mths, reported on this Forum).

As for the rest of the speculation and surmise - we will never know. The monarchs concerned will ALWAYS give respect to other monarchs.
 
"The BRFseem snobbish and condescending to the other royals especially on the continent. Being thr most famous and known does not make them better or more worthy of respect. So if the BRF want to be isolationist, I stand by saying to leave them to it and stop show8ng friendship and respect to someone who doesn't give it back."

Sorry but I disagree - it's some people's perception and I don't see it that way. I don't think they worry if they are the most famous as if there is some sort of "royalty top twenty hit parade" - they are well known because of how they are covered by the media.

I also don't think they are actively isolationist . They didn't send someone to Queen Fabiola's funeral which was clearly a mistake given the comments it has evoked but they are pretty much represented at other events. The Earl and Countess of Wessex often go and seem friendly with many of the other royals. On other occasions the Prince of Wales has attended. The Queen never attends and never has done (don't know why but I don't think it's snobbery) with the notable exception of King Baudouin's funeral.
Just my twopennorth. ��
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: Great post Florestane.... I don't know why but to me the fact they are "isolated" and snobbish is pretty obvious :whistling:
 
Like I said before, Marty91charmed, it's all perception - not fact. We perceive things differently. ?
 
Ah well, the British Royal family have a long history of not offering an explanation/justification - the old never explain, never complain... I guess we will never really know why they do the things they do.
 
The Windsors have met with the Obamas.


Thus the Windsors are willing to meet with people who are not royalty, and who do not have high-ranking lineages.
Are you implying what I think you are implying? :ermm:
 
Although there was no one from the House of Windsor that attended the funeral, the British Ambassador to Belgium did attend as a representative of the British Crown. To me, that meant that the UK and the Commonwealth were well represented to pay their respects.

It did surprise me though that none of the royal family attended but its not an international crisis.
 
Mr. Obama is President of the United States. His linage is of no import. He outranks the rest of them, as do all Presidents. High ranking linage is a farce and has long died out in normal circumstances. The queen is a head of state, and does her part of the job, but it is mostly ceremonial. She doesn't run the government. She doesn't make the big decisions. Todays royalty are all show pieces. Their presidents, prime ministers etc. are the real workers.
 
The label of being "isolationist" is not justified in my opinion. The British royal family has been represented at almost all major European royal events. The non-attendance of the Windsors at the funeral of a Queen from a neighbouring monarchy belonging to the same royal dynasty (House of Saxen-Coburg and Gotha), not even sending a wreath of flowers, was a painful gaffe.


It tells a lot about the workings of the biggest and most epensive royal household in the world: not efficient, amateurish, cloggy. When King Charles III assumes the throne, I hope a fresh swipe goes to the congested court organization.
 
The label of being "isolationist" is not justified in my opinion. The British royal family has been represented at almost all major European royal events. The non-attendance of the Windsors at the funeral of a Queen from a neighbouring monarchy belonging to the same royal dynasty (House of Saxen-Coburg and Gotha), not even sending a wreath of flowers, was a painful gaffe.


It tells a lot about the workings of the biggest and most epensive royal household in the world: not efficient, amateurish, cloggy. When King Charles III assumes the throne, I hope a fresh swipe goes to the congested court organization.

To me their lack of attendance has been turned into a massive thing (its now being discussed in about 3 different threads on here for example) when to me at the worst it was a mistake and not indicative of their usually good relationships with the other Royal Houses in Europe. I mean its amazing how suddenly as they didn't attend they must hate the Belgian Royal Family or have some agenda against them of sorts as some suggested. This year King Philippe and Queen Mathilde have meet so many members of the British Royal Family - the Queen, Prince Philip, William, Harry, Kate.
I think IMO that judging them on not attending a sudden event with only 7 days notice at a busy time of year is unfair.
 
She did that at Windsor when he was there on a state visit. That doesnt mean they were friends. She is always polite - that's it. No known further personal engagement.

What I have seen on this thread is the lingering animosity over the Fabiola debacle and and whole bunch of assumptions on the relationship between European royals/Heads of State and the BRF.

Frankly we can assume all we like but we KNOW very little.

I have assumed (no stronger) that relationships between BRF and NRF are strong because the K&Q of Norway spent time with Charles and Camilla at Sandringham (cant remember when but last 18 mths, reported on this Forum).

As for the rest of the speculation and surmise - we will never know. The monarchs concerned will ALWAYS give respect to other monarchs.

Thank you cepe, for pointing that out about HM riding with Reagan on his ranch. That took place within the context of a State visit.There is a persistent belief among some people here in the US, perhaps elsewhere-that there was a personal friendship between the two that went beyond their natural affinity for one another as heads-of-State of two nations with a "special relationship". Not true.

An example of a personal relationship between royals and a US leader would be the close friendship of the Norwegian RF with Franklin Roosevelt. During WWII he offered them personal asylum not only at the WH, but at his private Hyde Park estate in upstate NY. Former president Bill Clinton is quite friendly with Juan Carlos of Spain and the two former heads-of-state frequently socialize privately according to VF writer Ed Klein.

To my knowledge no private socializing/joint holidays took place between the Windsors and the Reagans.


Osipi
The British ambassador represented the GOVERNMENT of the UK at the funeral of Queen Fabiola, not the Windsors themselves. Most of the other European RF's and dynasties sent representatives of their families. That's what I-along with many others-find unacceptable. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the fact that they didn't even bother to send a wreath comes painfully close to a personal insult. Even Monaco managed at least that.

My personal opinion is that the BRF sent no one because they assumed it would be a "minor" event for a woman who was consort so long ago. They probably never dreamed that it would draw the elite and impressive international representation that it did.

And to everyone who believes that they(the British RF) have taken no notice of the uproar-I am willing to bet my house that they won't make the same gaffe when GD Jean of Luxembourg passes on.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Obama is President of the United States. His linage is of no import. He outranks the rest of them, as do all Presidents. High ranking linage is a farce and has long died out in normal circumstances. The queen is a head of state, and does her part of the job, but it is mostly ceremonial. She doesn't run the government. She doesn't make the big decisions. Todays royalty are all show pieces. Their presidents, prime ministers etc. are the real workers.


Thank you COUNTESS, for pointing out the obvious.:cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom