The Windsors and Europe

[btsnyder]

Yes, it's always seemed strange to me, as well. For many times, they are not only fellow heads of state, but relatives (King Olav, for example).

 

[qui mal y pense]

The Queen doesn't seem all that close to the other Royal families, who seem to socialize with each other quite frequently. The British royal family has always been very aware of the factions who would like to do away with the Monarchy. Perhaps they want to remain a bit aloof from the other Royal houses whose powers have been diminished and whose members are a bit more "casual". Though she was very close to King Olav, who was also a close cousin- his mother was Maude, daughter of Edward VII.

 

[sara1981]

i would agree with posts and also elspeth too

HM Queen Elizabeth II cant going to state funeral and wedding but she send her 4 kids to funeral and wedding i would understand why for her more reasons.

 

[hofburg]

The peculiar thing is that all the other monarchs keep on attending event such as these in the UK. Maybe, the British Monarch has always considered herself superior to her colleagues, and they've acknowledged it...

 

[Marengo]

well, I think as an institution the british monarchy is the most elaborate of europe, with the most traditions, prestige etc.

I do not think it is a matter of closeness/(dis)like or not. The Queens personal feelings to the person do not seem to matter in her track record of attendance: the Queen was close to King Olav V f Norway, and I think relatively close to Grand Duchess Josephine-Charlotte of Luxembourg but she didn't attend their funerals. Probably it is more a matter of sticking to tradition, thus not going?

 

[iannis]

I do not think that it is a matter of schedule, rather than a matter of not attending these types of ocial events abroad.
I mean, she attended both weddings of greek royal family members which took place in London in 1995 and 1998. Is that coincidence?
I don't think that was due to the fact that she's closer to the ex greek royalties than other royal families, cause she is not, neither due to her husband having been a greek royal family member; i doubt that he remembers it himself

 

[Jackswife]

I think in the case of Pavlos' wedding, it was a case of proximity to the event itself that the Queen attended. I tend to think (and this is strictly my own opinion) that the Queen prefers to delegate funeral attendance to more "junior" members of the RF, and keeps to her own schedule of functions.

 

[HRH Kerry]

Okay, I'm thinking of something. Uhhhh...Does anyone think that it is due to her getting along in years? Maybe its her aging self that keeps her from these engagements????

 

[btsnyder]

No, the queen has never really attended these things, even in her younger days. And she still has a hectic schedule travelling at home and throughout the Commonwealth, so I don't think her age has anything to do with it.

 

[HRH Kerry]

No, the queen has never really attended these things, even in her younger days. And she still has a hectic schedule travelling at home and throughout the Commonwealth, so I don't think her age has anything to do with it.

Thanks for clearing that up then. Well, I just don't know!

 

[Alexandria]

I wonder if the other royal houses ever feel "slighted" that the Queen doesn't attend their family's events if they attend the events of her family?

Many royals attended Charles and Diana's wedding yet the Queen didn't bother to attend any of the other Crown Princely weddings in the rest of Europe.

For some reason I find it more disappointing that she hasn't attended the funerals of some of her generation's counterparts in recent years, such as Grand Duchess Josephine-Charlotte or Queen Juliana. I think it's one thing not to attend weddings, which can be a long and tiring day for someone you may not know very well, but funerals are a way to honour a person's life and I think that attending those events are important.

 

[Saragli]

I have wondered this too. Maybe she just doesnt like these public social gatherings. She seems like the person who would keep to herself including her grief. I think its eaisier for her to just keep going on and doing what she does rather than celebrating or mourning royals of another nation. I think she prefers to do it in private. Or maybe the men in grey suits dont want her to go and she doesnt have a choice.

 

[branchg]

The British Sovereign has traditionally not attended funerals of other heads of states, preferring to be represented by the Government or another member of the royal family. A funeral is a political event, generally speaking, which is within the realm of Parliament to represent the UK.

It's just part of the tradition of the Crown remaining above politics and mundane matters like weddings in order to preserve its prestige.

 

[Saragli]

But royals are not political so that still doesnt make sense. I would understand her not going to a royal funeral in the middle east or Tonga but in Europe where they are not political that doesnt make sense to me.

 

[branchg]

The peculiar thing is that all the other monarchs keep on attending event such as these in the UK. Maybe, the British Monarch has always considered herself superior to her colleagues, and they've acknowledged it...

Not really. It's like the Pope. He never attends funerals either as Head of the Roman Catholic Church and Supreme Pontiff of the Western Church. The Queen is both a secular and spiritual symbol of the UK and must retain her own counsel on the use of the Crown.

 

[Von Schlesian]

I sincerely doubt that it's a case of Her Majesty 'bothering' to attend such events. It would most definately be a decision as opposed to a whim. Now being the most senior of European Monarchs, personal modesty seems a very real factor in this decision. Whether justified or not, the discomfort which may be caused for Her Majesty by detracting attention from the purpose of the occasion, would be quite potent.

 

[iannis]

The British Sovereign has traditionally not attended funerals of other heads of states, preferring to be represented by the Government or another member of the royal family. A funeral is a political event, generally speaking, which is within the realm of Parliament to represent the UK.

It's just part of the tradition of the Crown remaining above politics and mundane matters like weddings in order to preserve its prestige.

Yes, but does that mean that weddings are not political events? I thought it was the opposite, since in a wedding we have the state recognising a union of two people. There is no official reason for the state to be present in a funeral, except if it is to pay tribute to the deceased.
I would therefore expect the royals to be present in both occasions

 

[hofburg]

Not really. It's like the Pope. He never attends funerals either as Head of the Roman Catholic Church and Supreme Pontiff of the Western Church. The Queen is both a secular and spiritual symbol of the UK and must retain her own counsel on the use of the Crown.

Not really. There's no similarity in their respective positions. The fact is, she had no 'spiritual' problem of any sort to attend the funeral of the late Belgian King and Silver wedding celebrations of Queen Juliana. The only two events abroad she has attended during her reign.

 

[Warren]

This subject has been discussed extensively before, and is contained in the thread "The Windsors and Europe".

I will merge the two threads.

 

[Iain]

Now being the most senior of European Monarchs, personal modesty seems a very real factor in this decision. Whether justified or not, the discomfort which may be caused for Her Majesty by detracting attention from the purpose of the occasion, would be quite potent.

She has only recently become Europe's senior monarch following the death of Prince Rainier but she has always stayed away from other royal occasions much to the embarrassment of many in Britain. Someone once said that they have convinced themselves that they are superior to other royal to hide the fact that they actually have an inferiority complex because thay know that unlike the other royal families there are people who have a much stronger claim to the throne than they do.

 

[branchg]

She has only recently become Europe's senior monarch following the death of Prince Rainier but she has always stayed away from other royal occasions much to the embarrassment of many in Britain. Someone once said that they have convinced themselves that they are superior to other royal to hide the fact that they actually have an inferiority complex because thay know that unlike the other royal families there are people who have a much stronger claim to the throne than they do.

No one has a stronger claim to the British throne than the current Sovereign and her descendants. Under the Act of Settlement, Elizabeth II is Queen. It is automatic and straightforward.

 

[Warren]

Someone once said that they have convinced themselves that they are superior to other royal to hide the fact that they actually have an inferiority complex because thay know that unlike the other royal families there are people who have a much stronger claim to the throne than they do.

I doubt very much that the House of Windsor is troubled by the supposed claims of those dispossesed by the Act of Settlement of 1701... over 300 years ago!
Nor am I aware of any campaign to place the senior Stuart representative, Duke Franz of Bavaria, on the Throne of Great Britain. Pure fantasy.

 

[Skydragon]

No one has a stronger claim to the British throne than the current Sovereign and her descendants. Under the Act of Settlement, Elizabeth II is Queen. It is automatic and straightforward.

Apart from anything else, 'to the winner the spoils'!

 

[Iain]

No one has a stronger claim to the British throne than the current Sovereign and her descendants. .

That is just not so. Apart from the fact that the Stuarts have a stronger claim to the Scottish and British thrones, there is a gentleman in Australia who has a stronger claim to the English throne than the Windsors. There was a programme about him on British t.v. last year.

 

[hofburg]

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.

It has absolutely nothing to do with her age. She didn't used to travel when she was younger, as well.

 

[hofburg]

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.

Rather unconvincing points, actually. Everything is political. All the European Monarchs have had 'argument' with their respective governments. They only have to avoid party politics.
​

 

[hofburg]

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?

Excellent points! I think some of the posters here believe that Queen Elizabeth II is the only one with such obligation. It's quite hilarious, actually ​

 

[hofburg]

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.
.

This is not an axiom, just your opinion. Although, you've phrased it as such. It's not like there are only two options: doing things behind the scenes or having a fearsome fight. Expressing a view, by a royal, even criticism on his respective government is totally reasonable. It has been done so by several other monarchs. Guess what? Their monarchies stayed intact.​

intact.

 

[hofburg]

People can make all he excuses they like as to why Elizabeth doesn’t attend other royal events but in reality there is no excuse. Lets look at some of those excuses:

She is an old woman: Yes, but she hasn’t always been old and even on her younger days never went to anything.

It’s protocol: What kind of protocol is it that stops a monarch attending events outside her country? Granted at one time the English were the most hated people on earth and their monarch was likely to be assassinated if they left the country, but those days are gone and it’s part of the job description to attend.

She is Queen of more than one country and has a heavy work load: Most of those countries have Governor Generals who do the work. Even in Scotland, the oldest kingdom of which she is queen only gets a week of her time. And consider this, Elizabeth has a month break over Christmas and New Year. She has another month break at Easter and a two-month break in the summer when she goes to Balmoral. During those four months she carries out no royal duties. During the rest of the year she stays at Windsor from Friday to Monday and again, carries out no duties over her four-day weekend. That leaves three days in the week for royal engagements. That means that there are only around 96 days in the year when royal engagements are carried out, and this has been her schedule throughout her reign.

One of the reasons I heard as to why she didn’t go to anything was because the British government would only allow her to go if she was given place of honour. Of course there was no way that was going to happen as the monarchs take their place according to how long they have reigned and throughout the years Elizabeth was well down the line. It’s true she attended King Baudioun’s funeral but I have heard that that was a mistake. The British government thought that with Baudioun out of the picture Elizabeth was now Europe’s longest reigning monarch and would have place of honour after the Belgian royal family but they forgot about Prince Rainier who had not only reigned longer than Elizabeth but had also reigned longer than Baudioun .

This all has to do with the belief held by the British government and by many English people that the Windsors are somehow superior to other royals. I have heard English people claim that the other royals are not “real royalty” and I have even heard it claimed that the other monarchs had their titles given to them by the British monarchy. This week the Norwegian royals visited Britain. Some of the newspapers reporting the visit used capital letters when referring to the British Queen, Prince or Duchess but lower case when referring to the Norwegian royals ie, king, queen and crown prince instead of King, Queen and Crown Prince. This is because in British eyes they are inferior to the Windsors.

Why they should regard them as superior is a mystery and I think the Windsors do regard themselves as being better. I did read one reason for this. It was suggested that they have to convince themselves they are better because, unlike the other royal families, they are not the rightful royal family. They also know that they are no way near as popular as the other royals. In Scotland Elizabeth has never enjoyed great popularity. This goes back to the day she was proclaimed as “Elizabeth the second”

She is only the second in England but the first in Scotland and all the other countries in which she is queen. There was a great outcry in Scotland when this happened and post boxes with EIIR on it were blown up, (today the monogram is never used in Scotland.) People would have forgiven this putting it down to bad advice but things were to get worse. On the day of her inauguration as Queen of Scots in the High Kirk of St. Giles in Edinburgh thousands lined the streets waiting to see her. I was told by a lady who was there that as the carriage came along the cheers sounded “strange” they rose up and then seemed to die in mid air changing to an “ohhh.” When the carriage passed by she saw what the reason was, Elizabeth was wearing an ordinary dress and a hat and coat. She hadn’t made any attempt to dress for the occasion. During the service the Honours of Scotland, the crown jewels, were presented to her. She was to touch the crown (she couldn’t wear it as only the Stuarts are entitled to wear the Scottish crown) but she didn’t even put her handbag down to do so. The next day the newspapers had only one headline “THAT BLOODY HANDBAG.” As she left the kirk it was noticeable that most of the crowd had disappeared in disgust. My great grandfather who had proudly placed her photo on the wall took it down and burnt it and as long as he lived he forbad the mention of her name in the house. From that day there has been a love/hate relationship with her in Scotland.

I’m sure the other monarchs must talk among themselves about Elizabeth’s absence but I’m sure they are better off without her. She would probably be a party pooper.

Thank you Iain, for this mos excellent post!

 

[hofburg]

There was that wonderful quote from the Queen ;

"It's my son, it's my yacht and it's my territory"

One of her finer moments.

I wouldn't consider it as a fine moment at all. Just another example of the 'mightier than thou' attitude mentioned earlier.