The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 10-25-2005, 08:29 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
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.
.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 10-25-2005, 08:39 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Re:

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 10-25-2005, 11:50 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 10-25-2005, 12:09 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
I'd rather the Monarch ruled without Parliament but that won't happen.
Been there, done that, had the civil war to prove it...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 10-25-2005, 03:54 PM
bct88's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 181
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 10-25-2005, 04:31 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by bct88
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 10-25-2005, 04:55 PM
bct88's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 181
I have switched it to the correct number. I did mean Edward VIII. Sorry for the mistake. :o
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 10-26-2005, 05:42 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 14,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by bct88
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!
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 10-26-2005, 06:14 AM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
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"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 10-26-2005, 06:52 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 14,833
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.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 10-26-2005, 04:11 PM
pollyemma's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Washington,DC, United States
Posts: 2,013
wow! it would be absolutely wonderful if QE2 refused to visit Holland for those reasons.

historical grudges are awesome.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 10-26-2005, 05:20 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 14,833
But seriously, I do not think the british queen holds any grudge, just an annoyance that things are done differently maybe. She was last here in 1988, for the William & Mary celebrations I believe.There was a nice banquet at Palace Het Loo and it all ended with firewoks and queen Elizabeth seemed in a very good mood.
The british court is very thoughtfull btw, an aquintance of mine played the british national anthem on his violin in the palace (he must have been 8 at that time) and received a portrait of Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh afterwards, I believe with their signatures on it.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 10-27-2005, 04:36 PM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 315
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 10-27-2005, 04:44 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Re;

Brilliantly put Iain and I was interested to read about her reception in Scotland. I think it is this 'mightier than thou' attitude that the Queen seems to wield over her cousins. On LBC radio today a woman said, "The Queen of Norway seems cheerful and always smiling - she looks lovely and she's not stuck up like our one" - the voice of the mob?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:40 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 853
Sonja isn't universally loved in Norway, though. She's considered to be rather grand herself. So while she might be less "glacial" than EIIR, that doesn't mean Norwegians consider her the same way Brits do.
__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:43 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Re:

I think it's a matter of personalities. Personally I expect Royalty to behave in a grand and majestic manner - but that doesn't mean being frosty-faced and awkward as QE2 sometimes appears to be.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:50 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 16
I quite like my frosty faced Queen actually.
But I cannot stand the liberalism of Queen Beatrix.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:53 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Re:

Quote:
But I cannot stand the liberalism of Queen Beatrix.
Do you think she is liberal? I see her as a good Monarch. She's serious when she needs to be and the rest of the time, she isn't afraid to beam from ear to ear in her outrageous hats, waving, smiling and generally interacting with the people. I'm sure she can be very regal when she wants to be. Much like Queen Margrethe, Beatrix doesn't seem as stuffy as Elizabeth and she actually seems to enjoy herself not like Elizabeth who sometimes comes across as 'I'm so miserable. Why do I have to do this?'
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:59 PM
Maxie's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The great city of N., Netherlands
Posts: 1,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Do you think she is liberal? I see her as a good Monarch. She's serious when she needs to be and the rest of the time, she isn't afraid to beam from ear to ear in her outrageous hats, waving, smiling and generally interacting with the people. I'm sure she can be very regal when she wants to be. Much like Queen Margrethe, Beatrix doesn't seem as stuffy as Elizabeth and she actually seems to enjoy herself not like Elizabeth who sometimes comes across as 'I'm so miserable. Why do I have to do this?'
Beatrix liberal? I would not dare to call her that way. I think that you're right when you say that she can be very regal when she wants to be, BeatrixFan. She is a lovely woman and I think she has a way better act with the people in our country than Queen Elizabeth has. But she always stays 'the Majesty' as my mother and I use to call it. :)

This turns out to be a great thread. I've always been asking myself what it was with Queen Elizabeth that she never showed up at weddings etc. It's a bit clarified now...
__________________
Toute royale
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 10-27-2005, 06:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
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.
And this is the key reason why the Queen cannot always "attend" different royal occasions in other European countries. She may only attend if the British Government decides it is "politically correct" for her to do so. If, for whatever reason, the Government is in a snit with, say, Spain, the Queen would be advised not to go.

The British Sovereign reigns, not does not rule. The Prime Minister exercises the royal perogative as the appointed representative of the party holding a majority (or coalition) in the House of Commons. Parliament is ultimately sovereign and the monarch must accept the advice of the Government at all times.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, elizabeth ii, european royalty, european union, queen elizabeth ii


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:59 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]