The Windsors and Europe


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BeatrixFan said:
I don't want her to go to every event where a Head of State is concerned but she should go to the ones that concern her family. Events seem incomplete sometimes without her.
She does attend things that concern her family. She attends Windsor marriages all the time. The European royals are several generations removed from being close relatives so it's not as though she sees them as family. The Windsors have been marrying Brits for several generations, so the family ties with other royal houses will become even more distant.
 
Re:

She does attend things that concern her family. She attends Windsor marriages all the time. The European royals are several generations removed from being close relatives so it's not as though she sees them as family. The Windsors have been marrying Brits for several generations, so the family ties with other royal houses will become even more distant.

Thats in the future. We're talking about now. Whether only 2nd cousins or nieces - she should go when others make the effort to. She is 79, seemingly in very good health and travel wont exactly be a huge strain on her in her private chartered jet. Queen Margrethe suffers from Arthritis and still manages to make all the family events. I would hope that she does see them all as her family - it's like denying her roots and her history.
 
Do you honestly consider third and fourth cousins to be family? Do you attend all of their events? I certainly don't and I don't see why she should either. She is most closely related by blood to the Norwegians, and marriage to the Greeks and Spaniards (blood ties are slightly more distant). The Danes and Swedes are descendants of Victoria, and the Belgians and Luxembourgers are cousins through Astrid of Sweden (IIRC, otherwise, it must be through the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family). Those aren't close connections at all, and it's not surprising she doesn't attend a lot. Margrethe is 16 years younger than her so that's not a fair comparison. There are no sovereigns her age or Philip's age, so we can't look at them and say they should attend more. At their age, they probably want to rest on their weekends and don't really like the extra travel -- not all elderly people do.
 
Re:

At their age, they probably want to rest on their weekends and don't really like the extra travel -- not all elderly people do.

If she can't do the job then she should abdicate. Simple as that.

Do you honestly consider third and fourth cousins to be family? Do you attend all of their events?

I do indeed. But we're not talking about commoners here - we're talking about foreign royalty. It just looks so awful. Example, Felipe and Letizia's wedding;

Beatrix, Willem Alexander and Maxima
Carl Gustav, Silvia, Victoria, Carl Philip and Madeleine
Charles

It's ridiculous. It makes the Brits look like the poor relation.
 
Beatrix skipped Felipe's wedding to attend her goddaughter's wedding. She attended the dinner the night before.

Just because you want her to attend something doesn't mean she agrees with you. She doesn't want to go -- she's not going to go (unless ordered by her staff or government). She's not going to suddenly start doing things in her sixth decade on the throne that she didn't do in her first decade. It makes the Windsors look like they've got something better to do with their time, and in their minds, they do. That's their opinion and they're entitled to it.

Nowhere in the monarch job description does attending foreign weddings, funerals, christenings, ethronements, etc, get mentioned. Her duty is to the realms, and she does that. She's not going to abdicate, and there's no reason why she should. The idea of Charles taking the throne, with his bad habit of contradicting the government (ex. GM crops) and forthrightness about controversial issues (hunting), should worry monarchists.
 
Re:

The idea of Charles taking the throne, with his bad habit of contradicting the government (ex. GM crops) and forthrightness about controversial issues (hunting), should worry monarchists.

She should abdicate. She has done us a great service but thats it now. It's time to go and enjoy being the Dowager Queen. We need someone like Charles who will argue with the Government and speak his mind. Is nobody allowed to contradict the Government? He doesn't have to support them nor give his approval to everything they do. He has a right to express his opinion and he does it marvellously. The man will be a wonderful King and I shall be glad to have him as my Sovereign.
 
Wow! That's probably the first time I've ever heard anyone say they want to Queen to abdicate in favour on her son!Most people don't want him on the throne at all. Anyway, isn't the monarch supposed to be completley non- political and not get involved in matters of the government?:)
 
BeatrixFan said:
She should abdicate. She has done us a great service but thats it now. It's time to go and enjoy being the Dowager Queen. We need someone like Charles who will argue with the Government and speak his mind. Is nobody allowed to contradict the Government? He doesn't have to support them nor give his approval to everything they do. He has a right to express his opinion and he does it marvellously. The man will be a wonderful King and I shall be glad to have him as my Sovereign.

Since everything is done in the sovereign's name and not the actual person, they have to remail apolitical. It is not for them to express or side with the Tories or Labour, or any other political party.

I thought the monarch is represenational of all people in your country and therefore should not be expressing publicly any political views as that is why you have your parliamentary system of government.

The monarch is not supposed to have politcal power of any kind or rule in any capacity, as he or she only reigns, and there is a difference.
 
Last edited:
The monarch, and the rest of the royal family, maintains the monarchy as a national symbol by staying out of politics. Charles hasn't learned that yet and until he does, he's a danger to the throne if he's on it. Right now, he can be ignored and pushed aside, but if he pulls this stuff while he's on the throne, expect the parliament and government to turn on the monarchy and hem him in.
 
BeatrixFan said:
She should abdicate. She has done us a great service but thats it now. It's time to go and enjoy being the Dowager Queen.

Do you really think she would enjoy it?


We need someone like Charles who will argue with the Government and speak his mind. Is nobody allowed to contradict the Government?

Just about everybody except the monarch is allowed to contradict the government. Charles doesn't have the in-depth knowledge of a lot of issues to be safe arguing complex issues with the government. He'd only undermine himself when leaks started showing up in the papers about how the King had blathered on at length about this or that and the government had ignored him.

He doesn't have to support them nor give his approval to everything they do. He has a right to express his opinion and he does it marvellously.

Sometimes he does. Other times his opinions are based on just enough knowledge to be dangerous and not nearly enough to be useful. For someone who knows so little about science, he doesn't let that ignorance stop him trying to influence the government based on some half-baked gut feeling. A person like that is very susceptible to being influenced by plausible-sounding snake oil salesmen, and the most unworthy causes often have the most plausible salesmen because that's the only way they get noticed.

The man will be a wonderful King and I shall be glad to have him as my Sovereign.

It's entirely possible that he will be a wonderful king, but it won't be because he argues with the government.
 
Oh, I must say that I hope for Her Majesty the Queen to reign for many more years to come yet. The day the Queen abdicates shall be the day hell freezes over! ;)

"MII"
 
Excellent points made, Elspeth and kelly9480, a monarch who reigns and does not have real political power NEVER should be involved, or make any public comments on, anything that has to do with the government operations.
 
Maybe Queen Elizabeth II got so traumatized by her attendance of the silver wedding of Juliana and Bernhard in 1962 that she decided never to attend foreign royal events ever again (except the funeral of Baudouin, for PR reasons). According to a dutch magazine I have (In naam van Oranje) Queen Elizabeth II was angry that not she but the Sjah of Persia was the guest of honour, sitting on the right hand of Queen Juliana. Her mood didn't improve when the royal party entered the hall with photographers and empress Farah got most of the attention of the photographers. Furthermore, she had to be transported (with other royals) in a bus, which (according to the magazine) she entered hesitantly.

Furthermore we must consider her upbringing. Her mother never like the european royals. I think mainly because she feared some looked down on her (like Marina of Kent who once referred to her and Alice of Gloucester as common little scottish girls). Maybe she transferred her dislike to her eldest daughter.

Having this said I wonder about the ease with which some Anglo-Saxon posters in this thread claim that Queen Elizabeth II has the biggest workload and that only her sheduele is planned months in advance. What do they think continental royals do? They wake up, think: 'well, I really don't feel like meeting those people today, lets re-sheduele it' and they go back to sleep again?
 
Marengo said:
Having this said I wonder about the ease with which some Anglo-Saxon posters in this thread claim that Queen Elizabeth II has the biggest workload and that only her sheduele is planned months in advance. What do they think continental royals do? They wake up, think: 'well, I really don't feel like meeting those people today, lets re-sheduele it' and they go back to sleep again?

No, of course not. I see why you made the point and a valid one at that ;)

Actually, in some circumstances the Queen's official programme has been looked over and confirmed a year in advance (eg; the Queen of Australia's official visit to Melbourne for the 2006 Commonwealth Games).

But one must not forget that as Queen of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth dominions and nations (respectively), that Her Majesty's official workload does'nt solely consist of United Kingdom related matters and that the Queen does not retire until each and every doctrine, bill, letter, telegram, envelop & note is read and signed and placed securely back into the red despatch boxes. This has often taken her into the wee hours of the morning.

"MII"
 
Last edited:
Re:

On Abdication

The Queen should abdicate in my opinion. The reason being that when Charles starts his reign, it's going to be very strange. The Queen won't be here and old fears may resurface. If the Queen is alive and well and in the backseat, she can calm people and give advice and help to Charles. It seems that the Crown means more to her than her children's future. She has to secure the throne for her heir and the only way I can see her doing that effectively is by abdicating. As MargretheII rightly said, she won't abdicate based on faith - I respect that but I see it as the wrong way to go about things.

On Charles

He doesn't answer back about everything, but he speaks on the issues that he is knowledgable about - for example, GM Foods and the Environment. Sadly, the Government refuse to listen to anyone else but themselves and so they see Charles as a problem. They could use him as a powerful political tool but because a certain political leader would like to be King Tony, that isn't going to happen and I don't think Gordon Brown will like Charles should he become PM (I don't think he will). Charles will have a choice - shut up or show up. He can stop offering opinions and show that the Monarchy is the puppet of the Government, or he can show up the Government by always offering his opinions.

On The Windsors and Europe

What do they think continental royals do? They wake up, think: 'well, I really don't feel like meeting those people today, lets re-sheduele it' and they go back to sleep again?

Well said. Queen Beatrix seems to always be doing something and yet still manages to attend most events. I still think that QE2 doesn't make the effort she should at all. And if it is because she wasn't the Guest of Honour at a previous wedding then I'd say to her, "Ma'am, Would you mind getting over it?"
 
Elspeth said:
Do you really think she would enjoy it?

Just about everybody except the monarch is allowed to contradict the government. Charles doesn't have the in-depth knowledge of a lot of issues to be safe arguing complex issues with the government. He'd only undermine himself when leaks started showing up in the papers about how the King had blathered on at length about this or that and the government had ignored him.

Sometimes he does. Other times his opinions are based on just enough knowledge to be dangerous and not nearly enough to be useful. For someone who knows so little about science, he doesn't let that ignorance stop him trying to influence the government based on some half-baked gut feeling. A person like that is very susceptible to being influenced by plausible-sounding snake oil salesmen, and the most unworthy causes often have the most plausible salesmen because that's the only way they get noticed.

It's entirely possible that he will be a wonderful king, but it won't be because he argues with the government.
I echo these sentiments!! How many times did Margaret Thatcher have to have words with him for his meddling??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Staying rational

BeatrixFan said:
He can stop offering opinions and show that the Monarchy is the puppet of the Government, or he can show up the Government by always offering his opinions.
Are you unsubtly trying to bring about the end of the Monarchy? We have a Constitutional Monarchy based on the supremacy of the elected Parliament. It is not the role of the Prince of Wales, and certainly not the role of a King (or Queen) to "show up the government". The premise is nonsense, and I am sure you know it.

Stirring the pot is one thing; silly argument quite another.

W
 
Warren said:
Are you unsubtly trying to bring about the end of the Monarchy? We have a Constitutional Monarchy based on the supremacy of the elected Parliament. It is not the role of the Prince of Wales, and certainly not the role of a King (or Queen) to "show up the government". The premise is nonsense, and I am sure you know it.

Stirring the pot is one thing; silly argument quite another.

W


Quite true, Warren, quite true!!
 
Well supposedly the Queen did some meddling herself when Thatcher was taken out of power. I heard she had some hand in it.

I'm not going to blame Charles for speaking out. I never was impressed with the idea of the monarch being a silent figurehead. I just think its unnatural to expect someone to live their whole life that close to the action and never utter a word. The Queen is quite intelligent and is in a position of influence but you never know what she's thinking. That's not necessarily a good thing.
 
ysbel said:
Well supposedly the Queen did some meddling herself when Thatcher was taken out of power. I heard she had some hand in it.
Don't think so, there were a lot of discontents among the leading Tories... It wasn't necessary for the Queen to emulate William IV.

ysbel said:
I'm not going to blame Charles for speaking out. I never was impressed with the idea of the monarch being a silent figurehead. I just think its unnatural to expect someone to live their whole life that close to the action and never utter a word. The Queen is quite intelligent and is in a position of influence but you never know what she's thinking. That's not necessarily a good thing.
George, Prince of Wales (future George V) wa embroiled in some controversy regarding the Royal Navy (he supported one admiral against the other, IIRC); I'm not sure that his son Edward did something like that, but it won't surprise me if he did. Thus, it is nothing new for Princes of Wales to make pronouncements on policy matters. But constitutional monarchs must stay silent, anything else is out of question.
 
ysbel said:
Well supposedly the Queen did some meddling herself when Thatcher was taken out of power. I heard she had some hand in it.
I'm not going to blame Charles for speaking out. I never was impressed with the idea of the monarch being a silent figurehead. I just think its unnatural to expect someone to live their whole life that close to the action and never utter a word. The Queen is quite intelligent and is in a position of influence but you never know what she's thinking. That's not necessarily a good thing.
Power and influence are best exercised behind the scenes. Whatever differences Queen Elizabeth has made to government policy or direction over the past 50 years is not something she is likely to announce in a presss release. Only she and her Prime Ministers know what has been discussed at their regular meetings.
.
 
Re:

How many times did Margaret Thatcher have to have words with him for his meddling??
I'm not aware that she ever did but I'd be interested to know when she did.
Don't think so, there were a lot of discontents among the leading Tories
Very true. Margaret was on her way out without the Sovereign lending the axe.
Are you unsubtly trying to bring about the end of the Monarchy? We have a Constitutional Monarchy based on the supremacy of the elected Parliament. It is not the role of the Prince of Wales, and certainly not the role of a King (or Queen) to "show up the government". The premise is nonsense, and I am sure you know it.
Warren - I am staunch Monarchist. I wouldn't wish it to tumble down at all - I'd rather the Monarch ruled without Parliament but that won't happen. I want a Monarch who will voice his or her opinions like Queen Margrethe does - not a Monarch that behaves like a Clam and just ignores national matters that we'd like to hear the Sovereign's opinion on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He doesn't answer back about everything, but he speaks on the issues that he is knowledgable about - for example, GM Foods and the Environment. Sadly, the Government refuse to listen to anyone else but themselves and so they see Charles as a problem. They could use him as a powerful political tool but because a certain political leader would like to be King Tony, that isn't going to happen and I don't think Gordon Brown will like Charles should he become PM (I don't think he will). Charles will have a choice - shut up or show up. He can stop offering opinions and show that the Monarchy is the puppet of the Government, or he can show up the Government by always offering his opinions.

He may be knowledgeable about the environment, but he isn't particularly knowledgeable about genetics. If he carries on sounding off the way he did in the Reith Lecture, he's going the right way about getting humiliated by people who do have some understanding of the subject. I'm just waiting for him to get on the "let's replace teaching evolution with teaching intelligent-design creationism" bandwagon; it's just the sort of rubbish he'd fall for. And his endorsement would be quite influential.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather the Monarch ruled without Parliament but that won't happen.

Been there, done that, had the civil war to prove it...
 
With regards to abdicating...

When the Queen's uncle, Edward VIII abdicated, the Royal Family was outraged. The "job" of a King/Queen is for life. Period. That is the way the British Royal Family see it. The monarch's country comes first. That is why Edward VIII was essentially exiled to France where he lived as the Duke of Windsor. The Queen's grandmother, Queen Mary, and the Queen's mother were strictly anit-abdication. There is no way that the Queen will abdicate, especially since she has been Queen for over 50 years.

Like others have said, it is known that Her Majesty's schedule is planned at least a year in advance. There is no way she would go to events such as funerals, since obviously you can't plan when you will die. The Queen is only closely (I mean very closely) related to the Norwegian Royal Family. I am sure that the other Royal Families know of the history of the British monarchy, and they respect their ways. Just because you do not understand why she does not attend does not mean that the other Royal Families don't understand. No matter what I say, or what you say, the "unwritten rule" which states that the monarch does not go to events outside of the country will stay.
 
Last edited:
bct88 said:
With regards to abdicating...

When the Queen's uncle, Edward VII abdicated, the Royal Family was outraged. The "job" of a King/Queen is for life. Period. That is the way the British Royal Family see it. The monarch's country comes first. That is why Edward VII was essentially exiled to France where he lived as the Duke of Windsor. The Queen's grandmother, Queen Mary, and the Queen's mother were strictly anit-abdication. There is no way that the Queen will abdicate, especially since she has been Queen for over 50 years.


Please, please, please get your the numbering correct for your Edwards.

Only a small point I know, but Edward VII is my favourite king and he didn't abdicate. He may have considered not doing the job when his mother died (I have read a suggestion to that effect) but he realised exactly wha you are saying his great-granddaughter believes - that the job is for life and to the rightful heir only - and therefore he took up the job aged 59 and did it wonderfully for 9 years - allowing his son and daughter-in-law more time with their own young family.

It was his grandson, who reigned as Edward VIII, who abdicated.

As I said Edward VII is my favourite and it does upset me when people refer to this man as the one who abdicated, even by accident, as I am sure your reference was but please add the extra one to the number so we can have the right king being described.
 
I have switched it to the correct number. I did mean Edward VIII. Sorry for the mistake. :eek:
 
bct88 said:
With regards to abdicating...

When the Queen's uncle, Edward VIII abdicated, the Royal Family was outraged. The "job" of a King/Queen is for life. Period. That is the way the British Royal Family see it. The monarch's country comes first. That is why Edward VIII was essentially exiled to France where he lived as the Duke of Windsor. The Queen's grandmother, Queen Mary, and the Queen's mother were strictly anit-abdication. There is no way that the Queen will abdicate, especially since she has been Queen for over 50 years.

In a documentairy about Queen Elizabeth II golden reign there was an anecdote which shows what the queen thinks of abdication.

Somewhere in 1980 the Queen was called (maybe by Queen Juliana herself) to inform her about the abdication announcement (Jan. 30th 1980) of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands. At the end of the conversation she threw the horn on the telephone and angrily remarked 'typically dutch' and stayed in a bad mood for the entire day.

Indeed, Queen Elizabeth II will never abdicate!
 
Marengo,

I was going to state this the other day, but did'nt want to offend anyone so I am glad that it has come from a Dutch citizen ;)

It is taken from the Queen & Country documentary series hosted by William Shawcross.

"MII"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well, the British-Dutch relationship has always been a bit problematic, hasn't it? Starting with Mary Stuart (dau of James I) who was imensely disliked in The Hague and whose mother-in-law (Princess Amalia) insisted on raising her son, the future Willem III. Later Charles II attacked his nephew William III, William III took the british throne and was one of the most impopular monarchs as he was to austere.
Later the unfortunate Charlotte of Wales broke her engagement to the future King Willem II and married the guy who stole a bride and a part of the kingdom from the dutch: Leopold of Saxe-Coburg. Then Victoria refused another dutch prince, the unfortunate Prince Alexander of The Netherlands (2nd son of Willem II and Queen Anna Pavlovna, who died from an illness after a tree fell on his carriage. Victoria also vetoed the marriages of Alice, Helena and Louise to the last Prince of Orange, Willem, som of King Willem III and the melancholic Queen Sophie.
During the Boerwar the Prince of Wales was boo-ad when he landed in Flushing to visit his dying sister in Germany and Wilhelmina (well, actually Emma) refused any english candidate for marriage, also because of the Boer war. Then after WW1 the german emperor took refuge in The Netherlands and Wilhelmina (who never had contact with him after this refuge) was treated very coldly by the british RF, when Wilhelmina went to Scotland for a holiday she did not even have a private encounter with George V and Mary, but an emberrasing meeting was arranged at a trainstation, George V and Mary were standing on a platform and Wilhelmina talked from a window form the train carriage.

The relations with George VI were much better btw, but then again, he was one of the friendliest kings that ever lived and so hospitable to the exciled dutch royals during WW2.

Queen Mary wrote very disaprovingly about Wilhelmina's decission to abdicate, so I would expect nothing less from her granddaughter. She simply cannot comprehand that some people see the monarchy differently then she does and obviously gets annoyed by it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom