The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   The Windsors and Europe (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-windsors-and-europe-2060.html)

TODOI 04-20-2004 08:03 PM

The Windsors and Europe
 
why is it that the Windsors seem to keep to themselves and don't interact with their Europeon Royal Cousins that much?.... I would have thought William and Harry would have met other Royals or even attended Royal events in Europe by now

and Why doesn't Queen Elizabeth attend Royal functions in Europe if she can go on State visits all over the world how come she can't go to events on the continent?....

ulik 04-21-2004 07:17 AM

they are the windsors. so why should they interact with other royals?

Fashionista100 04-21-2004 09:45 AM

They are not close cousins. Not like Spain, Denmark and Greece. The Queen usually sends royals who are close in age it seems to the events particpants (ie at weddings). I think the reason you haven't seen William and Harry is that the family wants them to complete their educations first. After everything that has happened between the family and the press it is understandable. Plus there are plenty of royals to appear on behalf of the family. William and Harry aren't needed yet.

sara1981 04-21-2004 11:12 AM

right!

William and Harry never going state trip since Princess Diana's death in 1997 but the brothers went Canada in 1998 with his dad the Prince of Wales you know that!

when the brothers was little boys his parents took him to Spain and Italy, Canada and lots more when Princess Diana been vacation lots than his dad you would believe me!

Sara Boyce

Alexandria 04-21-2004 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fashionista100@Apr 21st, 2004 - 8:45 am
They are not close cousins. Not like Spain, Denmark and Greece.
Aren't the Queen and King Harald of Norway cousins?

Lots of other royals aren't close cousins such as the Danish/Greek/Spanish royals but they still seem to spend time together. For example, Queen Beatrix and Queen Noor are both close to the Spanish royals and there is no close relationship there.

Splodger 04-21-2004 08:45 PM

There are usualy two out-bound State Visits made by the Queen a year under the advisement of her Government, therefore recently because of International Governmental politics the Queen has been obliged to entertain Russia and America. The State Visits are made exclusivly as part of her Job as Queen. Attending European Public Wedding's and Funerals are made as courtesy invitations and whilst Heads of State are invited to such functions, it is not required they must attend in person and in some cases due to international politcs it is not always apropriate for a King/Queen to attend... such as when Queen Margareth of Denmark married, her sister and brother-in-law the King and Queen of Greece did not attend due to the political instability in Greece at the time. For similer reasons the British Government didnt think it was apropriate for the Queen to attend the 2500 aniversary celibrations in Iran in 1971 and sent Princess Anne to acompany Philip. Oh and then they were not invited at all to Prince Laurent of Beligum's wedding beacuse of Iraq.

Just when nearly everything the Windsor's do appears in the newspapers, sometimes its suprising to learn there are alot of private trips made my members of the family, that the public do not hear about. The Queen certainly receives private visits from other European Royals when they are "in town." Recently the Queen has sent other "junior" members of the family to other European Gatherings for reasons already mentioned over age, but also she is very busy within the UK. A look at the Court Program show's how busy she is and when she takes bookings sometimes 5 years in advance, she often places British Public apperences above the European Jolly's with the Family. However it does seem that she doesn't venture out that often on public outings to Europe - perhaps she just doesnt like them :o or that whilst she is away Charles will run away with her throne

Splodger 04-21-2004 09:22 PM

Im not sure how close Queen Lizzie is to other Royals, but Prince Charles is very good friends with King Constantine and he and Diana used to Holiday with Juan Carlos and Sofie... although the gossip was Sofie banned them comming to stay because she was convinced Diana and Juan were having an affair :o .

Queen Noor made some subtle comments about the Queen in her book, I don't think they got on very well. The Romanian's were frequent visitors to Buckingham Palace. Princess Margareta commented on “tea at the palace” in a TV Interview and Prince Phillip and King Michael grew up together as close cousins. Prince Philip's sisters used to visit and stay with them, however beacuse they were all married to German Duke's they always kept a low profile beacuse of the War. Philip's mother lived at the Palace at the end of her life but that wasn't made high profile.

The Queen Mother was good friends with King Olav and there was some reason which I forget now, that much to her sorrow she was unable to attend his funeral.

Of course with Philips amusing but quite random “bloopers” they probably try to keep the Windsors at home :blink: . Then there was the time the Queen was kept waiting on a State Visit once… I think it was to Morocco… any one remember??? Eitherway she knocked them off her Christmas Card List :lol:

CathyEarnshaw 04-21-2004 09:23 PM

I don't think the Queen was obliged to entertain "America," as the two countries have a special relationship and she is friends with the American Ambassador Will Farish (having stayed at his home in Versailles, KY.) Moreover, she is also contact with former President Bush and his wife ...

As for funerals, weddings, etc ... I recently did a bit of research and checked the news coverage for weddings and funerals for the entire 20Century. It has been customary for the British sovereign to send a rep to a wedding or a funeral. Queen Elizabeth II's presence at the funeral of King Baudouin was most unusual and rare. British sovereigns appear not to attend such events. I went as far back as Frederik VIII's funeral (Denmark).

The sovereign has sent children, siblings, cousins, uncles, even, relatives by marriage, to represent him or her at royal weddings and funerals. In 1947, KIng George VI sent the Duke of Beaufort, who was married to a cousin, to represent him at the funerals of Christian X of Greece and George II of the Hellenes (who died a few weeks apart.)

Iraq had nothing to do with the British not attending Laurent's wedding ... it was unlikely that the sovereign would send a rep to the wedding of a younger son - as they barely know Laurent's generation.

Splodger 04-21-2004 09:57 PM

The Queen is obliged to do things as Head of State meaning she is required to do them as obligations of the "job" whether she personaly wants to or not... I didnt say she didnt want to entertain Russia or USA just that she had too...

I think the last wedding she attended was Crown Prince Pavlos's but that was in London

Alexandria 04-21-2004 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Splodger@Apr 21st, 2004 - 8:57 pm
The Queen is obliged to do things as Head of State meaning she is required to do them as obligations of the "job" whether she personaly wants to or not... I didnt say she didnt want to entertain Russia or USA just that she had too...

I think the last wedding she attended was Crown Prince Pavlos's but that was in London

Pavlos' sister Alexia married after him, and was married at the same Greek Orthodox church in London. So the last foreign royal's wedding the Queen attended was Princess Alexia's.

CathyEarnshaw 04-21-2004 10:28 PM

Alexandria,

THe queen attended the weddings because they were in LOndon ...had the weddings been in Greece, she would not have attended ...

Alexandria 04-21-2004 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marlene@Apr 21st, 2004 - 9:28 pm
Alexandria,

THe queen attended the weddings because they were in LOndon ...had the weddings been in Greece, she would not have attended ...

Yes, Marlene, I realize that. The post I quoted said that the last wedding the Queen attended (outside of her own family's) was Pavlos of Greece's, when in fact it was his sister Alexia's. And I stated very clearly that both took place in London.

Splodger 04-22-2004 02:57 PM

I had forgotten the Queen was at Alexia's wedding. Who from the Windsor's went to Juliana's funeral the other week? And does anyone know whos off to Frederick and Felip's weddings next month? I can only assume my invite was lost in the post :wacko:

CathyEarnshaw 04-22-2004 02:59 PM

The Duke of Edinburgh represented the Queen at Juliana's funeral. The Palace has not announced who will be going to the two weddings, but it is assumed that Charles will be attending the Danish wedding (report in Danish newspaper.)

Duke 04-24-2004 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marlene@Apr 22nd, 2004 - 12:59 pm
The Duke of Edinburgh represented the Queen at Juliana's funeral. The Palace has not announced who will be going to the two weddings, but it is assumed that Charles will be attending the Danish wedding (report in Danish newspaper.)
Then Does anyone know who is going for the spainish wedding? Anyway are these two weddings considered to be high profile event as they are both of crown prince and princess.

Alexandria 04-24-2004 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duke@Apr 23rd, 2004 - 11:01 pm
Then Does anyone know who is going for the spainish wedding? Anyway are these two weddings considered to be high profile event as they are both of crown prince and princess.
Likely Charles will attend on the Queen's behalf, and perhaps Edward and Sophie will attend, too. But I doubt anyone else from the British royal family would attend either the Spanish or Danish wedding.

lashinka2002 12-13-2004 12:26 PM

The Queen no doubt attended Alexia & Pavols' weddings not only because they were in London but Prince Philip is decended from the house of Greece through his father.
It's probable that even if the weddings were out of the UK the Queen still may have attended. If not her Prince Philip would. It's always been a sore spot with him that the Greek family is in exile!

Iain 12-13-2004 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TODOI
why is it that the Windsors seem to keep to themselves and don't interact with their Europeon Royal Cousins that much?.... I would have thought William and Harry would have met other Royals or even attended Royal events in Europe by now

and Why doesn't Queen Elizabeth attend Royal functions in Europe if she can go on State visits all over the world how come she can't go to events on the continent?....

I'm afraid that the Windors seem to think that they are somehow better than other royals and that belief is held by many British royalist. I once hear somebody comment that the British royals were the only "real" royalty in the world. She claimed that other Kings and Queens were not real royalty and only held their titles because the British monarch allowed them to use them. Sadly, I think Elizabeth believes that also.

Vicomtesse 12-13-2004 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain
I'm afraid that the Windors seem to think that they are somehow better than other royals and that belief is held by many British royalist. I once hear somebody comment that the British royals were the only "real" royalty in the world. She claimed that other Kings and Queens were not real royalty and only held their titles because the British monarch allowed them to use them. Sadly, I think Elizabeth believes that also.

That's a snooty attitude for the Queen to have isn't? Some of the other royals are just as royal as her like Sofia, Beatrix, Margrethe. If they can all mix and mingle with each other so can Queen Elizabeth.
Or maybe she doesn't because she is of a different generation than the other queens even if it is only by a decade?
At least Charles and the Wessexes mix and mingle with the other royals. But how come never Andrew or Anne? Do they think they are above everyone else too?

wymanda 12-13-2004 10:27 PM

I doubt this is the way the Queen thinks. I very much feel that unless the bride or groom is one of her godchildren she would rather send someone of their generation. At the moment that appears to be the Wessex's but in future years it will probably be William, Harry, Beatrice & Eugenie and, eventually, Louise. It wouldn't surprise me to see William make his first overseas appearance at CP Victoria's wedding in Sweden.

Remember that HM is nearly 80 years old. With the heavy workload she has it's a wonder she has any energy left and I, for one, don't blame her for curtailing unneccessary "gadding about".

HMQueenElizabethII 12-13-2004 10:34 PM

Yes, i also agree with you.We should not balme The Queen so much.Although anything she has tried a lot to do anything she can do.We should respect her.
Also, The Queen is busy with engagements than other Royals.So she can not attend.

sandee 12-14-2004 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain
I'm afraid that the Windors seem to think that they are somehow better than other royals and that belief is held by many British royalist. I once hear somebody comment that the British royals were the only "real" royalty in the world. She claimed that other Kings and Queens were not real royalty and only held their titles because the British monarch allowed them to use them. Sadly, I think Elizabeth believes that also.

Wow I can't believe that! Whoever said that the windsors were the only "real royalty" obviously didn't know what they were talking about. That's nonsense.

HMQueenElizabethII 12-14-2004 01:12 AM

I do not think so.It is not true.Why should we always complain/claim The British Royals especially The Queen.Everyone is human,and no one can be perfect!So if you were her,can you do better or as she has done?Do not sit there and claim a lot!

sara1981 12-14-2004 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII
Yes, i also agree with you.We should not balme The Queen so much.Although anything she has tried a lot to do anything she can do.We should respect her.
Also, The Queen is busy with engagements than other Royals.So she can not attend.

yeah i agree with you too!

i respectively with HM Queen because she really busy woman and she cant leave the London for state wedding her youngest son/daughter-in-law Earl and Countess of Wessex can attend it because his mum really busy to do! because the Queen really nearly 80 years old she is 77 years old im sure! but HM Queen can go for state trips but she cant attend for state weddings i understand! when she attend for soceity royal wedding with her 2 Royals grandson Prince William and Prince Harry.

Sara Boyce

kelly9480 12-14-2004 01:21 AM

There's absolutely no evidence that suggests that she thinks she's better than any of the monarchs (except perhaps Monaco, but everyone looks down on them). She doesn't go because it doesn't interest her. It's better for her to stay home rather than go and be miserable, like Charles was accused of being at the 2001 Norway wedding.

HMQueenElizabethII 12-14-2004 01:25 AM

Yes, i do not like them to complain about The Queen, she is not free. Other Royals they rarely have visit but The Queen not.She is not only have visit but also do some works more.She has to read Government documents,reports,sign papers....Do not let her do a lot of things!She is 79 years old next year already.

HMQueenElizabethII 12-14-2004 01:31 AM

Yes,i also think that.Maybe Her Majesty does not like to attend there because of these reasons.Firstly, at Weddings it usually very noisy and how old is Her Majesty?She is nearly 80.The old they do not like noisy.Secondly, nearly all other European Royals are younger than her so it is not easy in talking.It's true.

Iain 12-14-2004 05:43 AM

[QUOTE=Vicomtesse]That's a snooty attitude for the Queen to have isn't? Some of the other royals are just as royal as her like Sofia, Beatrix, Margrethe. If they can all mix and mingle with each other so can Queen Elizabeth.

The truth is that the other royals are thr rightful monarchs of their countries but the Windsors are not the rightful royal family of Britain, that should be the Stuarts and the Windors know this. Somebody once said that the reason Elizabeth doesn't mix with the other monarchs is that she doesn't approve of their down to earth approach and their very human, "common" touch.

ElisaR 12-14-2004 07:00 PM

I think that the real "reason" is simply that she follows a kind of tradition.

In fact, she didn't attend funerals and weddings abroad even when she was younger, so the reason is not her age.
But she did attend royal (and NON-royal: remember Grovesnor-Van Custem) weddings when they took place in the UK, so the reason is not that she dislikes other royals.

Vicomtesse 12-17-2004 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII
Yes, i do not like them to complain about The Queen, she is not free. Other Royals they rarely have visit but The Queen not.She is not only have visit but also do some works more.She has to read Government documents,reports,sign papers....Do not let her do a lot of things!She is 79 years old next year already.

You don't think the other kings and queens don't do the same thing Queen Elizabeth does???
You don't think Margrethe, Albert, Harald, Henri, Carl Gustav, Juan Carlos and the others don't work as hard as Queen Elizabeth???
What kind of government documents, reports and papers does Queen Elizabeth sign??? Her monarchy is mostly SYMBOLIC. She signs papers just as a formality. She doesn't actually decide if those things should be law or not. TONY BLAIR decides those things.

Claire 12-18-2004 10:45 AM

Possible solutions
 
I asked this question a few months ago when Edward and Sophie attended the Danish Royal Wedding and this is what we came up with.

The choice of whom attends the wedding is noramally made by couriers and often depends on the rank of the person getting married. Normally Prince Charles attends the weddings of crown princes and princesses. The Earl and Countess of Wessex attend the rest and this included extended family members within Britain eg, Lady Sarah Catto, Helen Taylor, Ivar Mountbatten, ect.

The first been whom the invitation is made up to. Royal wedding invitations are normally addressed to the Queen as the head of the family, she can than sent out whom she wishes. It once happened at William Alexander's wedding where Edward was invited separately, so we got the unually occurarance that Charles, Edward and Sophie attended. It is possible that Edward and Sophie might just have more in common with the current generation of European royals than his siblings. It must be remembered there are post-parties, yacht rides and a whole range of wedding things that I not certain Charles or the Queen will be comfortable at.

When Prince Charles attends, it is an official engagement. He'll arrive before the wedding and leave shortly afterwards. Edward and Sophie often do all the pre-wedding festivites and the post parties. The problem is if Charles or Andrew do the whole wedding party thing, the press will concerntrate on that and not on the bride or groom. The headline will be "Charles and Camilla watch Royal Wedding in longing for their own" or "Randy and Girl-Friend of the week party at Royal Bash." Edward and Sophie are low key the press don't care. They also don't like sending Charles to orthodox Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox weddings. They have to find out if the Royal Family is okay with divorcees.

The Queen doesn't attend weddings due to the problem created due to her security demands. There is also a dillema regarding protocol. The Queen is the longest reigning monarch among the current monarchs and thus is the highest ranked royal in protocal. You can understand the problem that the parents of the bride and groom should be given that honour. Or that political close royals normally will give the precedent to each other, eg. the Scandinavian royals. There is also a problem that the Queen's engagements are finalised a year and a bit in advanced.

kelly9480 12-18-2004 01:32 PM

Carl Gustav doesn't work as hard as the rest. He's informed in meetings what's going on in the government, he doesn't get daily documents like the others. And you can look at the Norwegian's official schedule and see that they don't carry out half as many engagements as some of the other royals houses. The workload in the UK is greater than in any other monarchy.

ElisaR 12-18-2004 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire
I asked this question a few months ago when Edward and Sophie attended the Danish Royal Wedding and this is what we came up with.

The choice of whom attends the wedding is noramally made by couriers and often depends on the rank of the person getting married. Normally Prince Charles attends the weddings of crown princes and princesses. The Earl and Countess of Wessex attend the rest and this included extended family members within Britain eg, Lady Sarah Catto, Helen Taylor, Ivar Mountbatten, ect.

The first been whom the invitation is made up to. Royal wedding invitations are normally addressed to the Queen as the head of the family, she can than sent out whom she wishes. It once happened at William Alexander's wedding where Edward was invited separately, so we got the unually occurarance that Charles, Edward and Sophie attended. It is possible that Edward and Sophie might just have more in common with the current generation of European royals than his siblings. It must be remembered there are post-parties, yacht rides and a whole range of wedding things that I not certain Charles or the Queen will be comfortable at.

When Prince Charles attends, it is an official engagement. He'll arrive before the wedding and leave shortly afterwards. Edward and Sophie often do all the pre-wedding festivites and the post parties. The problem is if Charles or Andrew do the whole wedding party thing, the press will concerntrate on that and not on the bride or groom. The headline will be "Charles and Camilla watch Royal Wedding in longing for their own" or "Randy and Girl-Friend of the week party at Royal Bash." Edward and Sophie are low key the press don't care. They also don't like sending Charles to orthodox Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox weddings. They have to find out if the Royal Family is okay with divorcees.

The Queen doesn't attend weddings due to the problem created due to her security demands. There is also a dillema regarding protocol. The Queen is the longest reigning monarch among the current monarchs and thus is the highest ranked royal in protocal. You can understand the problem that the parents of the bride and groom should be given that honour. Or that political close royals normally will give the precedent to each other, eg. the Scandinavian royals. There is also a problem that the Queen's engagements are finalised a year and a bit in advanced.

I think these are the most likely reasons, especially protocol.
Now I remember that I watched Prince Felipe of Spain's wedding on TV and, while I was seeing all the Royals arriving to church, I thought: "Now I understand why the Queen never attends weddings: she would have precedence over them all, even Juan Carlos and Sophia, but this would be very odd."
When she goes abroad, she is regarded as the most important person and she takes precedence, but a wedding is half-way between public and private, the bride and groom must be at the centre of the scene, so the Queen's presence would be embarassing for them all, and also for herself.
If she stays at home, no one will have any problem (and taxpayers will be more happy).

Vicomtesse 12-18-2004 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire
The Queen doesn't attend weddings due to the problem created due to her security demands. There is also a dillema regarding protocol. The Queen is the longest reigning monarch among the current monarchs and thus is the highest ranked royal in protocal. You can understand the problem that the parents of the bride and groom should be given that honour. Or that political close royals normally will give the precedent to each other, eg. the Scandinavian royals.

When a couple gets married their parents sit separately from the royal guests. So there would be no problem if Queen Elizabeth attended that she would be deemed more important than even the parents of the bride and groom and about where to sit her even BEFORE the parents.
What happens then when the Queen attends a wedding in London??? Doe she sit before the parents right behind the bride and groom??? NO. She sits as the first guest on one side.
This isn't a valid reason for explaining why the Queen goes to weddings in the country but not in other countries.
If security is such a problem how do you explain the security problems when she visits other countries??? Only at weddings in other countries is there a security problem right???

Ennyllorac 12-18-2004 06:55 PM

Why does she take precedence over other royals? Isn't the monarchy in Denmark the oldest monarchy?

kelly9480 12-18-2004 08:23 PM

There are security provisions in place when she visits other countries, same as there are for when other monarchs visit the UK. Juan Carlos doesn't attend events because of ETA factor and because he doesn't want to. EIIR may not attend due to the security factor and the fact that she isn't interested. Several times, she has had to cancel at the last minute due to problems in the government.

Monarchs take precedence according to length of reign (and sometimes rank, meaning Rainier, even though the longest-reigning monarch in Europe, would rank only before Hans-Adam).

sandee 12-19-2004 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ennyllorac
Why does she take precedence over other royals? Isn't the monarchy in Denmark the oldest monarchy?

Yeah, thats what I was thinking too..

H.M. Margrethe 12-19-2004 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandee
Yeah, thats what I was thinking too..

I think it is becaus she has been queen for the longest time her in Europe

wymanda 12-19-2004 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ennyllorac
Why does she take precedence over other royals? Isn't the monarchy in Denmark the oldest monarchy?

Because she is the oldest reigning monarch titled "Majesty" and has been monarch the longest. Prince Rainer is older but he is only a Serene Highness.

HMQueenElizabethII 12-19-2004 10:58 AM

Yes,i also think so.The Queen is the longest reigning monarch in Europe now.Why should you always want The Queen to appear at the Weddings?How old is she now?We should not let someone do things they do not like!She has worked a lot,she is so hard-working.I know that Queen Margrethe,Queen Beatrix,King Carl Gustav,King Juan Carlos,...also work hard but you must remember first Queen Elizabeth II is already 52 years on the throne!How long are the others?

H.M. Margrethe 12-20-2004 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII
Yes,i also think so.The Queen is the longest reigning monarch in Europe now.Why should you always want The Queen to appear at the Weddings?How old is she now?We should not let someone do things they do not like!She has worked a lot,she is so hard-working.I know that Queen Margrethe,Queen Beatrix,King Carl Gustav,King Juan Carlos,...also work hard but you must remember first Queen Elizabeth II is already 52 years on the throne!How long are the others?

Queen Margrethe of Denmark has been monarch of Denmark for almost 33 years.
She became Queen January 1972 and she is still Queen in 2004 :)

Iain 12-20-2004 09:20 AM

[QUOTE=Claire] The Queen is the longest reigning monarch among the current monarchs and thus is the highest ranked royal in protocal.

The longest reigning monarch in Europe is Prince Rainier of Monaco. The British media claim that Elizabeth is the world's longest reinging monarch (she's the third longest reingning) but they have been claiming that since her silver jublilee when she was tenth longest reinging.

Feberin 12-21-2004 02:59 AM

I think the British are quite close to the Greek royals because of Prince Phillip being Greek. And I don't know of any foreign princes or princesses that are still living who have married into the British royal family. I think with a lot of the other royals its because they are attending the weddings of nieces, nephews and cousins. Although the Queen is related to many houses of Europe those connections go way back and are getting pretty distant now. So she sends a representative instead of attending the events herself.

ElisaR 12-21-2004 06:51 PM

1 Attachment(s)
There have been some exeptions.

I found this picture on Corbis (The Queen is in the first row).

Caption:
Portrait of Royal Gathering
Original caption: Royal Gathering. Amsterdam: The biggest mass gathering of royalty in recent years convenes to help the Netherlands' Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard celebrate their silver wedding anniversary. In front row (left to right) are: Prince Philip of England; Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg; Queen Elizabeth of England; the Shah of Iran; Queen Juliana; Prince Bernhard; Princess Armagard, Bernhard's mother; Prince Jean, heir to Luxembourg throne; Empress Far ah of Iran, and Prince Felix of Luxembourg. Second row, left to right: Princess Margaretha of Sweden; Princess Josphine-Charlotte of Luxembourg; Princess Margriet (Juliana's third daughter); Prince Bertil of Sweden; Crown Princess Beatrix; Princess Marijke (youngest daughter, just visible between heads of Juliana and Bernhard); King Olav VI of Norway; Prince Aschwin von Lippe-Biesterfeld, Bernhard's brother; an http://pro.corbis.com/images/1clearpx.gif© Bettmann/CORBIS http://pro.corbis.com/images/1clearpx.gifDate Photographed: May 1, 1962 Location Information: Amsterdam, Netherlands

Vicomtesse 12-28-2004 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElisaR
There have been some exeptions.

I found this picture on Corbis (The Queen is in the first row).

Caption:
Portrait of Royal Gathering
Original caption: Royal Gathering. Amsterdam: The biggest mass gathering of royalty in recent years convenes to help the Netherlands' Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard celebrate their silver wedding anniversary. In front row (left to right) are: Prince Philip of England; Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg; Queen Elizabeth of England; the Shah of Iran; Queen Juliana; Prince Bernhard; Princess Armagard, Bernhard's mother; Prince Jean, heir to Luxembourg throne; Empress Far ah of Iran, and Prince Felix of Luxembourg. Second row, left to right: Princess Margaretha of Sweden; Princess Josphine-Charlotte of Luxembourg; Princess Margriet (Juliana's third daughter); Prince Bertil of Sweden; Crown Princess Beatrix; Princess Marijke (youngest daughter, just visible between heads of Juliana and Bernhard); King Olav VI of Norway; Prince Aschwin von Lippe-Biesterfeld, Bernhard's brother; an http://pro.corbis.com/images/1clearpx.gif© Bettmann/CORBIS http://pro.corbis.com/images/1clearpx.gifDate Photographed: May 1, 1962 Location Information: Amsterdam, Netherlands

This is PROOF then that the Queen of England HAS travelled to other royal celebrations in the past so it is NOT a breech of security for her NOW. But just that the Queen chooses NOT to attend royal celebrations NOW.
It all comes down to a choice and obviously the Queen chooses NOT to gather with the other royals.

kelly9480 12-28-2004 07:50 PM

You, of course, realise that the IRA threat existed from 1969 to 1998, don't you? This photo was in 1962. The security threat was much higher in those three decades than before, though, according to some in the UK, the threat from Islamic fundamentalists is greater towards her now than the IRA ever was.

RoseMary 12-28-2004 08:30 PM

The Queen can not possibly travel to every royal wedding there is. She is foremost a servant of the British people and on more than one ocassion she has to chose between events.

When she doesn't attend an event with other royals there is probably good reasons such as previously scheduled events or something she and her office feel is a priority. She should strive to have good relations with the other royal families but She is first and foremost a servant of the British people.

james 01-20-2005 06:11 PM

The IRA excuse is hilarious.The Queen has visited NORTHERN IRELAND (You know, IRA territory) numerous times throughout her reign. She is also thee most INTERNATIONALLY travelled Monarch in British history even visiting rather risky places like Jordan and the Arabian Gulf over the years. So there really is no good reason why she has mainly ignored European weddings, funerals etc over the years.

I do think her behaviour is rude as every major European Royal has travelled to Britain without exception over the years to attend our big Royal events including the Queens jubilee in 2002. Yet Josephine Charlotte of Luxemburg (an attendee at the recent jubilee celebrations as well as numerous other events in the U.K. over the years ) dies this month; the sovereigns of Europe attend her funeral and who represents Britain, Prince Andrew.

Then again, if Europe's Royals are going to allow themselves to be treated this way then they really only have themselves to blame. Perhaps the next time Queen Elizabeth holds a major event they should absent themselves and send a Prince or Princess in their place. I wonder what Her Majesty would make of that.

grecka 01-20-2005 06:49 PM

I think james and vicomtesse are going a bit overboard on the whole situation. The Queen has many obligations in Britain and she performs probably more royal engagements than any other reigning monarch in Europe. Also, I think it's quite apparent she doesn't enjoy great royal weddings and things like that. She seems to me to be a thoroughly unpretentious and rather middle-class woman and I don't think she likes to parade around in tiaras with other royals any more than she has too. And, aside from that, she's nearly 80 years old. The only other European monarch who's that old is Rainier, and he most certainly doesn't attend royal events (albeit for the reason of his health rather than just age). I don't fault Queen Elizabeth at all for this, and I indentify with her feelings of reticence over attending such events with her life the way it is right now.

james 01-20-2005 06:58 PM

Yes the Queen is almost eighty but her absence from European events has been ongoing on for almost forty years.

I am not making a big deal about anything. The fact is that Europe's Heads of State have been attending British Royal events for decades whilst the British Head of State, for no obvious reason, has chosen to absent herself from similar events in Europe.

That is simply the way things are and continue to be.

Iain 02-03-2005 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grecka
I think james and vicomtesse are going a bit overboard on the whole situation. The Queen has many obligations in Britain and she performs probably more royal engagements than any other reigning monarch in Europe.

I don't think she does have any more royal engagements than other monarchs, in fact, she probably does a lot less. I've said the following in the Luxembourg forum but will repeat it here, Consider this. Elizabeth has a months break over Christmas and new year. She has another months 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. Once a year in July she comes to Edinburgh to take up residence At Holyrood Palace for a week. Yes, A whole week! During this week she performs her duties as Queen of Scots. Scotland and England are supposed to be equal partners in a union but Scotland, the more ancient of the two kingdoms and the country that gave the so called "United" Kingdom it's royal family, has all it's royal engagements crammed into that one week. A couple of weeks ago Scotland was hit by a hurricane in which eight people died, including five members of the same family. Elizabeth has never paid a visit to any of the worst hit areas. Had this happened in the Netherlands Beatrix would have visited in a matter of hours. It's little wonder that the Windsors are so unpopular in Scotland and are ragarded as being too out of touch and far too English. A few years ago I was on a bus in Edinburgh travelling into the city centre. The traffic was almost at a standstill and people were becoming very impatient. The driver radioed to his control to find out what was going on and was told it was a royal visit. This really annoyed the passengers and the air was begining to turn blue. Just then a police officer arrived on the scene and spoke to the driver. The next thing he announced "It's the queen of the Netherlands." At that, everyone calmed down and one lady said "Oh that's alright, I thought it was one of those buggers from London." That incedent summed up the feeling of the Scots towards the Windsors.

Regina 02-03-2005 01:05 PM

In my opinion, Queen Elizabeth II is too shy to socialize with other Royals. She is not and never was like Princess Máxima, for exemple.

She is too shy to go to weddings and have small talk with other guests...

Reina 02-03-2005 02:08 PM

To me one of the great things about QEII is that she does not attend European ROyal events yet other Euro. royals love to go to her events! I think that this is the mark of greatness. ANd also cuz she is the one of the longest reigning monarchs ahead of all other Euro monarchs with the exception of Ranier. ANd hse is much older than the others. MOst of them are 69 or so, but she is 80. And I think that she just does not have that much in common with the others. WHy blame her. Get over it and except that she and the institution are the greatest.:)

H.M. Margrethe 02-03-2005 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reina
To me one of the great things about QEII is that she does not attend European ROyal events yet other Euro. royals love to go to her events! I think that this is the mark of greatness. ANd also cuz she is the one of the longest reigning monarchs ahead of all other Euro monarchs with the exception of Ranier. ANd hse is much older than the others. MOst of them are 69 or so, but she is 80. And I think that she just does not have that much in common with the others. WHy blame her. Get over it and except that she and the institution are the greatest.:)

I don´t tink that she,her family or her instituion are the greatest her in europa.

aninhas 02-03-2005 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reina
To me one of the great things about QEII is that she does not attend European ROyal events yet other Euro. royals love to go to her events! I think that this is the mark of greatness. ANd also cuz she is the one of the longest reigning monarchs ahead of all other Euro monarchs with the exception of Ranier. ANd hse is much older than the others. MOst of them are 69 or so, but she is 80. And I think that she just does not have that much in common with the others. WHy blame her. Get over it and except that she and the institution are the greatest.:)


I agree with you Reina. I respect the other Monarchs very much, but in my opinion the Real and the Greatest Royal Institutions in Europe are the British and the French Royal Family.
Why should Queen Elizabeth II assist to weddings in Luxemburg or Monaco if these countries are residuals monarchies?...

kelly9480 02-03-2005 03:52 PM

To say that she carries out fewer engagements than the other monarchs is nonsense. Carl Gustaf doesn't meet regularly with his PM. The Norwegian royals combined carry out fewer engagements than she does, though Harald meets with his government weekly. Beatrix spends most of her time behind a desk and in meetings, whereas EIIR spends time at the desk and with her ppl. Rainier is basically an absolute monarch, but a lot of duties are being passed to Albert. Hans-Adam basically retired. Margrethe spends 6 weeks in France, and devotes a lot of her time to her artistic endeavours. Henri has no where near the number of duties EIIR has, his country's too small for that. Albert has a lot of duties, but spends a lot more of his time behind a desk. Regardless of how many duties the other monarchs carry out, however, we have to keep in mind that of them, only Rainier is of her same generation -- and he is noticibly slowing down.

She does carry out official engagements even when she's not in London. Someone from Canada was at Sandringham within the last week or so. She also makes visits around Norfolk. At Balmoral she hosts the PM for a weekend. She doesn't have a month off for Easter, only a weekend, from Good Friday to Easter Monday. She does the red boxes pretty much everyday.

You cannot expect a foreign country to protect EIIR from the IRA. Juan Carlos doesn't ask other countries to protect him from ETA and that terrorist threat has been listed as one of the main reasons he doesn't go to many events. Same thing with EIIR.

She leaves for Windsor Friday afternoons and returns to London Monday around lunchtime, so it's not like she has four-day weekends. She also has dine-and-sleeps where she hosts the government and some important guests at Windsor some weekends, so even there she is working.

There's not really a lot for her to do in Scotland. Anne's in Scotland a lot, so a lot of visits are covered by her. Charles is also there a lot. There's not really anything in Scotland that requires EIIR to be there anymore, so she's not there as often.

We also have to acknowledge that she may not enjoy weddings and funerals. Some ppl, myself included, don't. It's better that she not attend at all than attend in a bad mood, as Charles has been accused of doing several times.

timtonruben359 02-03-2005 04:26 PM

It is actually not the Queen's decision. It is the Royal Household that decides which member(s) of the Royal Family will attend Royal events abroad. It is an unwritten tradition at Buckingham Palace that the Queen does not attend royal weddings or funeral abroad. Therefore, they actually rarely ask her if she wants to go.

It also has to do with a few other factors. The Queen's engagements are book around 2 years in advanced. It has been noted by people that have worked with her that the Queen does not like to cancel her engagements unless she is physically unable to attend. She feels that it's her duty, as well she knows people are looking forward to seeing her and does not want to disappoint them.
Then there is security. When the QUeen travels aboard it is the responsiblity of the host country to meet her security needs. If she was the only monarch to attend a royal wedding or funeral, that's fine, but when you have the Kings/Queens of many countries, security would be streched tight.

I don't think Europe's royals are offended that she doesn't attend. Infact, they usually don't expect her to attend.

It is interesting to note, there is plenty of private visits between royals throughout the year. We never hear about them though because they are not annouced.

Iain 02-04-2005 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly9480
EIIR spends time at the desk and with her ppl.

There's not really a lot for her to do in Scotland. Anne's in Scotland a lot, so a lot of visits are covered by her. Charles is also there a lot. There's not really anything in Scotland that requires EIIR to be there anymore, so she's not there as often.

First of all, she doesn't spend a lot of time with her people. Most other monarchs are far more accessible to their people than Elizabeth is. As for there not being anything for her to do in Scotland, I've never heard such a load of rubbish in my life. Scotland is a country and a kingdom, and like all monarchies has duties for it's monarch to perform. It's monarch not a prince or princess. If she wants to be regarded as queen of Scots then its about time she started acting like one. I am a monarchist, but in all honesty I'd rather have republic than have the Windsors on the throne.

And to those who claim that Elizabeth and the British monarchy are "the greatest", It's well seen that you don't live in Britain or you wouldn't claim that.

kelly9480 02-04-2005 04:10 PM

There is nothing in Scotland that absolutely requires the monarch's presence. There's not a State Opening of Parliament. She's not likely to be asked to address Holyrood every year, or anything like that. She's not asked to open the General Synod in person, but is allowed to delegate that. Other than a garden party, and the Thistle ceremony, she isn't desperately required there. If something in Scotland absolutely had to be done by her, she'd be there. But she doesn't feel that she is absolutely required. And perhaps that's simply her perception of things, but it's not like Scots are in the streets demanding to see their Queen. Would it be nice if she were there more often? Yes, of course. But approval ratings seem to indicate they are perfectly happy with the job Anne is doing, and perhaps also Charles. They may like to see EIIR, but they may not be making that clear enough to her, her staff or the press.

Scotland is not a kindgom. It's part of a kingdom, but in no way can it be considered on par with Canada or Belize, independent kingdoms who also happen to share a monarch with the UK. She isn't Queen of Scots. She isn't even Queen of Scotland. She's Queen of the UK, which includes Scotland. She has never officially called herself Queen of Scots. To hold her to some standard as Queen of Scots, when she doesn't consider herself that is to ask for disappointment time and again.

In terms of workload, the Windsors are easily the greatest. They carry out more engagements than any of the others, though I would suspect Belgium and Spain compete for number 2. In terms of grandeur, they are the greatest, easily. No other monarchy in Europe can claim something like Windsor castle or the Coronation ceremony. In terms of being one of the ppl, they fall into the middle of the pack, depending on the family member. It depends on what a person is basing "greatest" on to say whether or not the Windsors are first.

Reina 02-04-2005 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain
And to those who claim that Elizabeth and the British monarchy are "the greatest", It's well seen that you don't live in Britain or you wouldn't claim that.


I don't live in the other kingdoms either. I think that the other monarchies are nice, but they are mediocre esp. compared to the institution of the British monarchy. Also I think that they like to copy what the British monarchy does.

Reina 02-06-2005 12:41 AM

Does this not show precedence? http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...chmentid=83154

kelly9480 02-06-2005 12:47 AM

Considering it's Denmark, where the Greeks are seated as though they still reign, it's hard to say. If Rainier or his representative was not present, then EIIR or her representative would be first, so Philip, who was standing in for EIIR who had to stay home with Blair problems, would take precedence before all the other non-Danish royals.

Australian 02-06-2005 02:03 AM

doesnt it make you wonder that if the Queen is not required to do anything in Scotland and other countries under the monarchy, that the monarchy is not needed in this day and age, lets face it, they have no real power or anything.

Reina 02-06-2005 02:32 AM

I kind of don't agree-they bring tourists (money) and make the UK and other countries interesting.

Australian 02-06-2005 02:42 AM

Maybe they make England and the rest of the UK interesting but they certaintly dont have any bearing on other countries of the commonwealth, Australia hasnt been made interesting because of the monarchy or Canada i assume, i think what makes other countries interesting is their own particular characterstics, not the British monarchy.

kelly9480 02-06-2005 10:15 PM

But it's not the British monarchy in Australia. It's the Australian monarchy and has been since Australia moved from being a colony. The actual head of state may not be present very much, but her representative, in the form of Governor-General, is. The Australian GG probably has a very different way of going about things than the Canadian GG, as a result of Australians being different from Canadians. In that, the GG, and by extension the monarchy the GG represents, highlights each country's characteristics.

Iain 02-11-2005 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly9480
There is nothing in Scotland that absolutely requires the monarch's presence. There's not a State Opening of Parliament. She's not likely to be asked to address Holyrood every year, or anything like that. She's not asked to open the General Synod in person, but is allowed to delegate that. Other than a garden party, and the Thistle ceremony, she isn't desperately required there. If something in Scotland absolutely had to be done by her, she'd be there. But she doesn't feel that she is absolutely required. And perhaps that's simply her perception of things, but it's not like Scots are in the streets demanding to see their Queen. Would it be nice if she were there more often? Yes, of course. But approval ratings seem to indicate they are perfectly happy with the job Anne is doing, and perhaps also Charles. They may like to see EIIR, but they may not be making that clear enough to her, her staff or the press.

Scotland is not a kindgom. It's part of a kingdom, but in no way can it be considered on par with Canada or Belize, independent kingdoms who also happen to share a monarch with the UK. She isn't Queen of Scots. She isn't even Queen of Scotland. She's Queen of the UK, which includes Scotland. She has never officially called herself Queen of Scots. To hold her to some standard as Queen of Scots, when she doesn't consider herself that is to ask for disappointment time and again.

In terms of workload, the Windsors are easily the greatest. They carry out more engagements than any of the others, though I would suspect Belgium and Spain compete for number 2. In terms of grandeur, they are the greatest, easily. No other monarchy in Europe can claim something like Windsor castle or the Coronation ceremony. In terms of being one of the ppl, they fall into the middle of the pack, depending on the family member. It depends on what a person is basing "greatest" on to say whether or not the Windsors are first.

I don't mean to be rude but it is really annoying that a foreigner should presume to know that there is nothing in Scotland that requires the monarch's presence. Scotland is a kingdom and the oldest in Europe at that. The Queen (she is not EIIR in Scotland) does open the Scottish parliament and when she did so last year was welcomed as Queen of Scots just as she was in 1953 when she came to Edinburgh for the first time as Queen to recieve the Honours of Scotland. I haven't a clue what you mean by the General Synod. There is no such thing. Anne does carry out some duties in Scotland but not that many. Any person or body wanting the Queen to carry out some sort of duty must arrange for it to take place in the first week of July as that is her "Scottish week" but when it comes to England it can be at almost any time apart from during her four months holiday. Many monarchies have buildings on a par, or even more beautiful than Windsor and as for the Coronation, that is on it's way out.

james 06-16-2005 08:16 PM

She attended the King of Belgium's funeral a few years ago so to say she dosn't attend foriegn funerals as a matter of course is wrong.

ElisaR 06-17-2005 05:17 PM

This is true. But he was a king. No reigning monarch has died since then (Rainier was a prince). Perhaps she would attend the funeral of a reigning king or queen.

kelly9480 06-17-2005 05:18 PM

She attended Badouin's funeral because she was told it would look bad for her not to go because she couldn't claim she had royal engagements (she was on holiday). Otherwise, she probably wouldn't have gone because she and Badouin reportedly had issues in the 1950s and 1960s

Sean.~ 06-17-2005 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElisaR
This is true. But he was a king. No reigning monarch has died since then (Rainier was a prince). Perhaps she would attend the funeral of a reigning king or queen.

I wouldn't bet on it. King Olav was also a reigning monarch at the time of his death, as was Furst Franz of Lichtenstein, but HM did not attend their funerals either. Nor did she attend those of King Frederick, King Gustav Adolf, King Paul, Emperor Hirohito etc. (to name a few).

Additionally, despite being 'only a Prince', Ranier was a reigning monarch, since a monarch is one who reigns or rules over a territory, usually by hereditary right. He was the longest reigning monarch in Europe at the time of his death.

Also, I know this thread is about the Windsors relations with European royals, there have been non-European reigning monarchs who have died since Boudioun (I can never spell it ;-)), The Kings of Nepal and Lesotho immediately come to mind.

As Kelly pointed out, she attended King B's funeral because she was told to.
She has also been prevented from attending royal events abroad because they could turn out to be 'undignified', (for lack of a better term) and not befitting her. An example of this is the Shah's rather tasteless (IMHO) party at Persopolis in the 1970s. Her Majesty was prevented from attending by the foreign office.

I get impression, actually, that the powers that be & Her Majesty want to avoid an image of her jetsetting across Europe attending weddings, parties, etc. with her entourage. Apparently she also doesn't want to upstage.

Besides, from what I know she isn't much for going out and to stay home when she can. Hence she often sends a rep who will be more 'into it' than she.


Sean

Sean.~ 06-17-2005 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reina
I kind of don't agree-they bring tourists (money) and make the UK and make the UK and other countries interesting.

However, one could argue (and I don't necessarily subscribe to this position) that the tourists will still come & even more so if the RF wasn't there. They would most likely have access to all the palaces, historical sites, works of art, etc. Look at France and Russia. How many travel to those countries to Versailles, the Winter Palace, etc. ?

But I do agree that they do make things more interesting. At least for those of us who are interested in such things.

EmpressRouge 06-17-2005 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean.~
However, one could argue (and I don't necessarily subscribe to this position) that the tourists will still come & even more so if the RF wasn't there. They would most likely have access to all the palaces, historical sites, works of art, etc. Look at France and Russia. How many travel to those countries to Versailles, the Winter Palace, etc. ?

But I do agree that they do make things more interesting. At least for those of us who are interested in such things.

I can see some random girl just going to Britain thinking that she will meet Prince William or Harry (somehow :rolleyes: ), and it will be love at first sight, and they'll get married, and she'll become a Princess. Ok that's a little far fetched, but I was reading a biography about Grace Kelly and the author mentioned girls going to Monaco thinking they'll just pick up Prince Albert at a bar, and they'll all end up as the next Princess Grace. :p

Sean.~ 06-18-2005 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge
I can see some random girl just going to Britain thinking that she will meet Prince William or Harry (somehow :rolleyes: ), and it will be love at first sight, and they'll get married, and she'll become a Princess. Ok that's a little far fetched, but I was reading a biography about Grace Kelly and the author mentioned girls going to Monaco thinking they'll just pick up Prince Albert at a bar, and they'll all end up as the next Princess Grace. :p

Hey, it worked for Mary. ;-)

Warren 06-18-2005 03:32 AM

Issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly9480
she and Badouin reportedly had issues in the 1950s and 1960s

More info please.

EmpressRouge 06-19-2005 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean.~
Hey, it worked for Mary. ;-)

Well, Frederick actually went to Mary's homeland, but I see your point...Guess you really can pick up random princes at bars.

kelly9480 06-19-2005 01:11 PM

Badouin wouldn't attend her dad's funeral because Belgian protocol said he shouldn't go to a country until he'd been on a state visit in the country beforehand, but he'd just come to the throne months before her dad died. EIIR reportedly took umbrage at Belgium's lack of an (appropriate) representative (they send Albert) and it simmered. Then he refused (like most other royals) to attend Margaret's wedding because of who she was marrying and EIIR got her own back by sending Margaret (and Tony) to his wedding.

Alexandria 06-19-2005 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly9480
Badouin wouldn't attend her dad's funeral because Belgian protocol said he shouldn't go to a country until he'd been on a state visit in the country beforehand, but he'd just come to the throne months before her dad died. EIIR reportedly took umbrage at Belgium's lack of a representative and it simmered. Then he refused (like most other royals) to attend Margaret's wedding because of who she was marrying and EIIR got her own back by sending Margaret (and Tony) to his wedding.

Thanks for this bit of information kelly9480. I never thought of Queen Elizabeth II as being "spiteful" in this way -- to send Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon to King Baudoin's wedding when he had refused to attend their wedding as a bit of "revenge."

kelly9480 06-19-2005 03:33 PM

Well, Margaret, and EIIR, had been insulted by the refusal to attend Margaret's wedding, so I'm not going to fault EIIR for sending Margaret to Badouin's marriage. Tony wasn't titled until October 1961, so he went as a commoner. Since she herself wasn't going to attend the wedding (they hadn't sent anyone to Albert's wedding the previous year), who else could she have sent that was of the proper standing? Only the Queen Mum, Philip, or Margaret would have been good enough for the wedding of a King.

Warren 06-19-2005 03:42 PM

HM making a point
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly9480
EIIR got her own back by sending Margaret (and Tony) to his wedding.

Queen Elizabeth was just making a point.
(something like "don't mess with me!").

Great story kelly9480, thanks.

BeatrixFan 10-23-2005 01:55 PM

I Vant to Be Alone
 
This may have been discussed before, but I can't find a topic along these lines so here goes.

Why oh Why, does QE2 insist on sending her children to big international events. With the exception of King Baudoin's funeral, she never goes to the family weddings, wedding anniversaries, funerals or Jubilees. And yet, everyone attends hers. It really gets on my nerves because an important part of her job is to represent Britain. How does it make us seem? Snooty and snobbish?

I understand she's 79. But come on, she's never really made an effort has she? I mean, would it have hurt her to attend Crown Prince Frederik's wedding? Why couldn't she go to the Grand Duchess Josephine-Charlotte's Funeral? Or Queen Ingrid's? Beatrix, Carl Gustav et al went to the Queen Mother's Funeral - but Elizabeth just wont.

Is there a reason for this that I've missed? I respect HM greatly and of course, as my Sovereign, she's got my love and loyalty - but as I'm learning more about the other Monarchs, I just see her as being a tad above herself and generally a little starchy. (Sorry Ma'am)

Elspeth 10-23-2005 02:32 PM

Im not sure how relevant it is, but there was some discussion of the topic in this thread:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ead.php?t=2060

BeatrixFan 10-23-2005 02:33 PM

Re;
 
Ah! Just ignore this one as my little rant! ;)

Elspeth 10-23-2005 02:34 PM

Well, it's an interesting topic, considering how many European monarchs show up to British events and how the Queen doesn't return the favour.

BeatrixFan 10-23-2005 02:36 PM

Re:
 
It just makes her look like a grumpy old lady. Why can't I be Lord Chamberlain?! ;)

Maxie 10-23-2005 02:39 PM

Well, it is interesting indeed. It's something I noticed too, since we recently had so many royal weddings and funerals here in Holland and it was always prince Charles who showed up...

Mapple 10-23-2005 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean.~
I wouldn't bet on it. King Olav was also a reigning monarch at the time of his death, as was Furst Franz of Lichtenstein, but HM did not attend their funerals either. Nor did she attend those of King Frederick, King Gustav Adolf, King Paul, Emperor Hirohito etc. (to name a few).

...

I understand why the Queen did not attend the funeral of Hirohito, but why she stayed away from the funerals of uncontroversial Scandinavian kings?

BeatrixFan 10-23-2005 02:40 PM

Re:
 
I wonder how she decides who goes in her place? Anne hardly every goes does she?

pollyemma 10-23-2005 02:45 PM

personally, I think she gets depressed at how much happier the family lives of most other royal families are....

BeatrixFan 10-23-2005 02:47 PM

Re:
 
Quite possibly PollyEmma. I can't imagine it, but Queen Margrethe must sometimes think, "Another wedding - I need a hat, I don't really like the two who are marrying and the parents are all wrong - but I'll go".

tiaraprin 10-23-2005 02:48 PM

In the case of funerals, it is protocol that states Her Majesty does not attend funerals of others unless it is a member of her family. She has only made one exception and that is Winston Churchill.

BeatrixFan 10-23-2005 02:49 PM

Re:
 
Well, foreign royalty are her family, albeit extended. I think that this rule of "I only go to the Funerals of my own" is a bit stand-offish.

tiaraprin 10-23-2005 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Well, foreign royalty are her family, albeit extended. I think that this rule of "I only go to the Funerals of my own" is a bit stand-offish.

That is the stated protocol. Perhaps you should write to Her Majesty about this issue?

BeatrixFan 10-23-2005 02:53 PM

Re:
 
Lol. I don't think I'll waste the stamp. I just find it so archaic. I know that Prince Charles wants to bring the Monarchy into the Scandinavian style and I would support him totally. I love the tradition and the pomp, but things like this are just so silly. It makes it seem as if the Windsors consider themselves higher than the Bernadottes, the Glucksburgs, the Nassaus etc.

Mapple 10-23-2005 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin
That is the stated protocol. Perhaps you should write to Her Majesty about this issue?

Nevertheless, she attended the funeral of the King of Belgians in 1993.

Princejohnny25 10-23-2005 02:54 PM

The Queen has a very busy schedule. One must remember that the Queen of the UK is much much more busy than any other soverign in Europe. She has so much to do and many many people and orginizations depend on her. She is always there for her country and repersents her nation to perfection when she does go abroad, which is a lot. She also understands that it does not matter if she goes or not. She is secured and respected and has done a good job as soveriegn. She will try to send the glamourous royals abroad when she can and she will send Charles abroad so people can pay attention to him and how he represent so he can build up more respect for himself. She is trying to secure the royal family.

Princejohnny25 10-23-2005 02:57 PM

I think King Baudin was an exeption. Wasnt she good friends with the late King or something. Or maybe she respected him much more than any other soverign. I think she went to that funeral for personal reasons and broke protocal.

pollyemma 10-23-2005 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Lol. I don't think I'll waste the stamp. I just find it so archaic. I know that Prince Charles wants to bring the Monarchy into the Scandinavian style and I would support him totally. I love the tradition and the pomp, but things like this are just so silly. It makes it seem as if the Windsors consider themselves higher than the Bernadottes, the Glucksburgs, the Nassaus etc.

i think Q2 considers the windsors above the other royal families. I agree with you that charles will increase the contacts with his continental colleagues and i'm glad of it.

personally, i really like the pomp and circumstance. in norway and denmark they don't have coronations. what fun is that!

BeatrixFan 10-23-2005 02:59 PM

Quote:

The Queen has a very busy schedule. One must remember that the Queen of the UK is much much more busy than any other soverign in Europe. She has so much to do and many many people and orginizations depend on her. She is always there for her country and repersents her nation to perfection when she does go abroad, which is a lot. She also understands that it does not matter if she goes or not. She is secured and respected and has done a good job as soveriegn. She will try to send the glamourous royals abroad when she can and she will send Charles abroad so people can pay attention to him and how he represent so he can build up more respect for himself. She is trying to secure the royal family.
I can understand that but Weddings and Funerals are unique events. Crown Prince Frederik will only marry once (we hope!) - she can open a fountain or unveil a statue at any time of the year. I would argue that her schedule isn't as hectic as any other sovereign, but for her age, she does do alot. I think it does matter if she goes abroad to a family wedding etc.

I think that by sending Charles and Edward, Andrew or Philip, she is basically sending a message of, "I'm not going - send someone else". Charles can do his own PR, and there's nothing to say he couldn't go as well. When Felipe and Letizia married, Beatrix took Willem-Alexandra and Maxima with her , Carl Gustav and Silvia took all three children. Why can't Elizabeth take Charles and Camilla or Edward and Sophie. It would present a family front. I imagine that the Royals must think, "We'll only get Charles - Lillibet won't come". That cant be good for family relations. Just my opinion.

Mapple 10-23-2005 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain
I don't mean to be rude but it is really annoying that a foreigner should presume to know that there is nothing in Scotland that requires the monarch's presence. Scotland is a kingdom and the oldest in Europe at that. The Queen (she is not EIIR in Scotland) does open the Scottish parliament and when she did so last year was welcomed as Queen of Scots just as she was in 1953 when she came to Edinburgh for the first time as Queen to recieve the Honours of Scotland. ...

Actually she is Elizabeth II in Scotland, the case MacCormick v Lord Advocate having been lost by the protesters. And to style her as 'Queen of Scots' is still technically incorrect.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises