The Windsors and Europe

[Karisma]

Safty and terror

There were 120 polices intended mainly for the Swedish Royal family at King´s sixtieth anniversery celebration, apart from unknown numbers from SÄPO (The Swedish Security Police) and security guards. At an occation when head of states meet, every single nation make requests for their representatives but their demands are not official. I´m sure every head of state who was in Stockholm at Kings anniversery had their own protection based on their individual demands.


It´s so regrettable with the threats of terrorism we have in all nations nowdays, but we can´t sacrifice democratic traditions because of threats. If we do it will serve terrorists an the terrorists wins over democraty.

 

[Daneborn]

Escorting the Queen of England would have been a drop in the ocean for the Swedish police force.

Living in Stockholm I can only say that May 1st must have been like Ceausescu's Romania. There were police everywhere to escort state heads to the airport. There were traffic police along the road to stop people from driving to fast. There were police ensuring the security of the politicians and the crowd for the ordinary social democrat's demonstrations. Plus numerous resources, I saw an unbelievable amount of big vans filled with police officers, to deal with the illegal Reclaim the streets demonstration. On top of that, there were police out looking for an aggressive child molestor on loose from a physiciatric clinic.

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but seeing police everywhere certainly gave me something to think about. I always thought I was living in a peaceful, democratic country.

Back on topic:

At Queen Margrethe's 60 years birthday the Duke of Edinburgh was present.
What representation did England offer at King Harald's 60 years birthday ??

 

[Skydragon]

There were 120 polices intended mainly for the Swedish Royal family at King´s sixtieth anniversery celebration, apart from unknown numbers from SÄPO (The Swedish Security Police) and security guards. At an occation when head of states meet, every single nation make requests for their representatives but their demands are not official. I´m sure every head of state who was in Stockholm at Kings anniversery had their own protection based on their individual demands.
.

With the problems the UK has faced from certain groups, it would still have been difficult for everyone concerned. The British police supply around 200 men for events such as this and with an extra 200 armed forces (excluding the SAS and SPF), it would probably be a large number required. As Daneborn has pointed out, a lot of the Swedish police were caught up in prearranged demonstrations and rightly had other heads of state to guard.

The request for extra protection would I feel have been official from the UK government and you only have to look at the amount of security at the Queens 80th walkabout to see how it would have altered the atmosphere for your King and all his guests.

As most on here have said, lesser royals would have been seen as an insult, Charles already had long term engagements and Camilla was preparing for her daughters wedding. It seems they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[Daneborn]

With the problems the UK has faced from certain groups, it would still have been difficult for everyone concerned. The British police supply around 200 men for events such as this and with an extra 200 armed forces (excluding the SAS and SPF), it would probably be a large number required. As Daneborn has pointed out, a lot of the Swedish police were caught up in prearranged demonstrations and rightly had other heads of state to guard.

The request for extra protection would I feel have been official from the UK government and you only have to look at the amount of security at the Queens 80th walkabout to see how it would have altered the atmosphere for your King and all his guests.

As most on here have said, lesser royals would have been seen as an insult, Charles already had long term engagements and Camilla was preparing for her daughters wedding. It seems they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I was pointing out that half of the Swedish population seems to be employed by the police force and it would be a task as many others, be it police or army, to escort your precious Queen as well.

I see your point but from a security point of view it's better for the Queen to stay behind closed castle walls. Which is letting the terrorists set the agenda

Neither Drottningholm, the chuch, the City Hall or the Royal Castle were open to the public when the King's events took place. Although we don't see pictures of it I can assure you these places, plus the transports in between, were heavily guarded.

At the inner court yard scene (where you can't escape if you try something) only little, harmless children were allowed to greet the King.
At the balcony scene at the Royal Castle there was a 100 metre distance between the crowd and the Lejonbacken balcony.

The horse carriages drove so fast through the City afterwards that people were complaining they could'nt even take a snapshot. I don't know if that was sniper-preventing but it did seem a little odd.

Let's face it, the Queen of England and the King of Sweden aren't close. To me it's no big mystery why she didn't make a note of this anniversary in her calender. I just don't want minor English royals clogging our parties just because they are ordered to do so.

 

[Skydragon]

I was pointing out that half of the Swedish population seems to be employed by the police force and it would be a task as many others, be it police or army, to escort your precious Queen as well.
.

IMO our government clearly thought that security would not be tight enough on this occasion, to guard everyone concerned, whether it was by using the police or your army, (which I believe only has a limited number of regiments and battalions). What a civilian thinks is heavily guarded (even though by your admission, you didn't see that) may not be to the authorities involved.

I am certain that you would back your government and royals, if on security issues, they did not attend some event or other. The dangers to your own royals were much reduced by the absence of any BR, as you are not involved in any conflict.

By not sending any royals to Sweden on this occasion should have made you very happy then, as they were not clogging any party and by all accounts, would not have been welcome anyway.

Problem solved!

 

[Karisma]

Not about security

I´m sure it was not about security when the BRF was absent when we celebrated King Carl Gustaf. Brittish military can´t do anything to protect BRF in times of peace. Royals and all other people are under civil law and order in Brittain as well as in Sweden.

If President Bush can visit Sweden, and King Juan Carlos too (ex.), BRF certainly could have honoured King Carl Gustaf [us, the Swedish people] by attending the party. A monarchy with members behind walls of brick can´t be representative for all kind and friendly Brittish people!

It´s all about a question of etiquette! But nothing would ever surprise me any more about members in BRF. They have been off limits so many times before so I have stopped being surprised over what some of them are able to do - and what they failed to persuade. However: Their behavior this time, as in so many times before, is inexcusable for Royals and a shame for nice and friendly Briton.

 

[Hereditary Mapmaker]

Responsibility

Thanks for the responses to my previous post. I probably wasn't clear enough but I am looking for opinions. Do we think that these events are part of the diplomatic process in developing relations between two countries or are they simply "window-dressing" for the host countries? How involved do we want contemporary monarchies to be in terms of politics and international relations? And are these events more or less important than state visits which usually involve trade relations and royals opening/commemorating places of commerce or historical interest?

 

[Karisma]

Knowingly and willingly

It must be well known for all Royal courts, even the Brittish, when the King of Sweden have his birthday. When BRF "intentionally" don´t participate it must be seen as a question of etiquette and inexcusable bad behavior. (To tell the truth: if the SRF, in the paste or in the future, don´t participate in an official celebration in GB, without finding an excuse, it would be exactly similar - bad behavior)!

 

[Larzen]

The King of swedens Birthday party has been on its way for 60 years, the royals usually always place the celebration in the weekend closes to their big day. No representation from UK just looks bad.

The security reason is lame, King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia attended both the Private party and I could see Juan Carlos looking at the birthday parade as well. The Kings of Spain stayed at Haga Palace, which is in the outskirts of Stockholm i think, where the King grew up. The swedish Police is professionals and has handled many high profile and much bigger terror threats than the british royals, sending Andrew, the Wessexes or the Walses they would be taken care of in a professional way and returned to UK in one piece, just like Juan Carlos and Sofia.

 

[norwegianne]

Back on topic:

At Queen Margrethe's 60 years birthday the Duke of Edinburgh was present.
What representation did England offer at King Harald's 60 years birthday ??

Good idea.

According to a guest-list I've seen, Prince Charles attended King Harald and Queen Sonja's joint birthday party in Trondheim in 1997, on behalf of the royal family.

He and Prince Edward seems to alternate on the assignments to the Norwegian royal family.

 

[kelly9480]

At the inner court yard scene (where you can't escape if you try something) only little, harmless children were allowed to greet the King.

The Vietnamese could tell you something about "harmless little children" who during the war were used to bomb restaurants and coffee shops because no one would think to suspect them. Let's face, in the modern world, no one can be completely discounted as a threat or a victim.

 

[ysbel]

The Vietnamese could tell you something about "harmless little children" who during the war were used to bomb restaurants and coffee shops because no one would think to suspect them. Let's face, in the modern world, no one can be completely discounted as a threat or a victim.

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance in the Vietnam story. Any developed country today whether its Sweden OR Great Britain OR another country faces terrorist threats in today's climate. However all the royals, even the British, still carry on official visits with the public at home and abroad.

 

[Skydragon]

I´m sure it was not about security when the BRF was absent when we celebrated King Carl Gustaf. Brittish military can´t do anything to protect BRF in times of peace. Royals and all other people are under civil law and order in Brittain as well as in Sweden.

As far as I know, the UK is involved in military action on many fronts at the moment, therefore we are not at peace.

In the UK the BRF are mainly under the protection of the military, whether you see them in or out of uniform!

 

[Skydragon]

Thanks for the responses to my previous post. I probably wasn't clear enough but I am looking for opinions. Do we think that these events are part of the diplomatic process in developing relations between two countries or are they simply "window-dressing" for the host countries? How involved do we want contemporary monarchies to be in terms of politics and international relations? And are these events more or less important than state visits which usually involve trade relations and royals opening/commemorating places of commerce or historical interest?

I don't think these events are anything other than window dressing for the host country and going by the upset on this board, certainly do nothing for relations between the countries. It seems all it takes to start WW3 is for an absence from the party or even sending what are seen as minor royals, (which can be seen as an even bigger insult, apparently). Probably even the seating arrangements could have caused a major incident, perhaps Sweden will now ban all British holidaymakers and goods!

The British Queen has no political power or input into government. As far as I can see from the BRF, the senior royals are not involved in opening anything commercial, just charitable and historical places. I don't think it matters one jot to the majority of people who went to which party, which christening, wedding or funeral.

 

[Skydragon]

(To tell the truth: if the SRF, in the paste or in the future, don´t participate in an official celebration in GB, without finding an excuse, it would be exactly similar - bad behavior)!

I have to say, the majority of British people would not even notice who was there or not. If the SRF were invited and declined, most, if they noticed, would presume it was for a reason that none of us were privy too and not get upset! I wouldn't expect them to explain themselves to anyone.
The only 'outcry' over Victoria not coming to C & C wedding, was the one set up by the tabloids, who were being very negative towards C & C.

It seems as if the BRF are the ones that posters from other countries constantly criticise for not being like theirs. Well, why can't your RF be more like ours, why should they have to change to accomodate your modernistic views?

 

[kelly9480]

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance in the Vietnam story. Any developed country today whether its Sweden OR Great Britain OR another country faces terrorist threats in today's climate. However all the royals, even the British, still carry on official visits with the public at home and abroad.

I never said otherwise. I simply said that you can't ever assume that anyone is harmless, not even children.

 

[redfox6]

I have to say, the majority of British people would not even notice who was there or not. If the SRF were invited and declined, most, if they noticed, would presume it was for a reason that none of us were privy too and not get upset! I wouldn't expect them to explain themselves to anyone.
The only 'outcry' over Victoria not coming to C & C wedding, was the one set up by the tabloids, who were being very negative towards C & C.

It seems as if the BRF are the ones that posters from other countries constantly criticise for not being like theirs. Well, why can't your RF be more like ours, why should they have to change to accomodate your modernistic views?

It is true that why the BRF did not send anyone to the King's birthday celebrations is their own business. By choice most of the European Royal Families have chosen to set themselves into the modern world making them warm and accessible. Unfortunately, the BRF see itself in the reflection of the past and only has tried to become more in tune with the times, since Princess Diana's death and the outcry that followed. The world is changing constantly and the European Royals are trying to fit into that world and keep their relevance. The BRF only care when they think it will upset their apple cart.

 

[Elspeth]

Unfortunately, the BRF see itself in the reflection of the past and only has tried to become more in tune with the times, since Princess Diana's death and the outcry that followed.

They've actually been modernising throughout the 20th century; they tend to do it slowly, though. The British royal family tends to have a high profile because the UK was such a major player on the world stage until relatively recently in historical times, but many of the other constitutional monarchies have been every bit as hide-bound by tradition (the Spanish and Japanese ones as obvious examples). It was permitted for British royals to marry commoners and remain royal quite some time before it was allowed in Sweden.

 

[redfox6]

They've actually been modernising throughout the 20th century; they tend to do it slowly, though. The British royal family tends to have a high profile because the UK was such a major player on the world stage until relatively recently in historical times, but many of the other constitutional monarchies have been every bit as hide-bound by tradition (the Spanish and Japanese ones as obvious examples). It was permitted for British royals to marry commoners and remain royal quite some time before it was allowed in Sweden.

You are correct in your statements. Yet, at the same time, when Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, the scales tipped. Now, you have Prince Charles marrying at the same level, so they have changed. I think that the complaints in this forum see the BRF not interacting with the royals from their country on an equal level. That they hold themselves above the others. Whether this is true or not, it is obviously the impression that other European members of this forum feel.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, for the last 100 years or more, the UK has been focused far more on the British Empire than on Europe. While the European monarchs have been closer and have intermarried, the British have tended to marry German royalty, which don't exist any more, or British aristocrats. The fact that we're an island nation, even if the Channel is really quite narrow, has had a significant effect on the British character.

 

[Australian]

Well, for the last 100 years or more, the UK has been focused far more on the British Empire than on Europe. While the European monarchs have been closer and have intermarried, the British have tended to marry German royalty, which don't exist any more, or British aristocrats. The fact that we're an island nation, even if the Channel is really quite narrow, has had a significant effect on the British character.

Is there any reason why the British royal family have tended to marry into German royalty? Also, I have heard somewhere, a long time ago taht Britain doesn't like to consider itself as a part of Europe, is that generally true or is that just complete rubbish?

 

[Elspeth]

The pattern of marrying German royalty really started when the Hanoverians took over the throne from the Stuarts. Since they were German, they tended to look to their own relations and neighbours for marriage prospects. The Hanoverians were Hanoverians first and British kings second for the first couple of kings, and by then the precedent was set. The Act of Settlement was also in place by then, which barred any marriages with French, Italian, or Spanish (or any other) Catholics.

I think on the whole Britain is rather insular, in attitude as well as geography. We spent most of history at war with France and most of the rest of it at war with Germany, so we don't exactly have a lot of precedent for being part of anything - it was sort of a case of conquer or be conquered.

 

[Australian]

Thanks Elspeth for explaining

 

[crisiñaki]

Well, for the last 100 years or more, the UK has been focused far more on the British Empire than on Europe. While the European monarchs have been closer and have intermarried, the British have tended to marry German royalty, which don't exist any more, or British aristocrats

The infamous Hannoverian inbreeding, the source of haemophilia in the BRF

 

[Skydragon]

the source of haemophilia in the BRF

As far as I know, none of the present Royal Family suffer from haemophilia.

Some of Queen Victoria's children and grand children were haemophiliacs because European royalty became too-closely related; they married off their children to cousins or second cousins over several centuries. The German Kaiser was Victoria's cousin as was the Tsar Nicholas; So haemophilia originally affected the children of the British, Russian and German royal families.

A very good reason, it would seem, not to get too close to other European royalty.

 

[Skydragon]

Yet, at the same time, when Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, the scales tipped. Now, you have Prince Charles marrying at the same level, so they have changed. I think that the complaints in this forum see the BRF not interacting with the royals from their country on an equal level. That they hold themselves above the others. Whether this is true or not, it is obviously the impression that other European members of this forum feel.

Times and attitudes were very different at the time of Wallis & Edward and it wasn't just in this country that royals were not allowed to marry divorcee's or commoners. Divorce and remarriage has been generally accepted in most countries for some time now.

The BRF are no different from you or I, they have acquaintances, friends, close friends and relatives, some they choose to associate with, some they do not.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As far as I know, none of the present Royal Family suffer from haemophilia.

Some of Queen Victoria's children and grand children were haemophiliacs because European royalty became too-closely related; they married off their children to cousins or second cousins over several centuries. The German Kaiser was Victoria's cousin as was the Tsar Nicholas; So haemophilia originally affected the children of the British, Russian and German royal families.

A very good reason, it would seem, not to get too close to other European royalty.

Please let me be picky.

Victoria was the last Kaiser's grandmother not cousin.

She was also Nicholas' grandmother-in-law as her granddaughter, Alexandra married Nicholas.

George V was a first cousin to the Kaiser (Wilhelm's mother was Edward VII older sister), a first cousin to the Tsar (Nicholas' mother was Queen Alexandra's sister) and a first cousin to Tsarina Alexandra (her mother was the younger sister of the Kaiser's mother and Edward VII).

One of Queen Victoria's sons - Leopold, the youngest one, was a haemophiliac.

Of her daughters two were confirmed carriers - Alice (son had it and two daughters were carriers taking it into the German and Russian royal families - it was Alice's daughter who married one of Vicky's sons that took haemophilia into the German family not Vicky I believe and of course Alice's youngest daughter was the infamous Alicky, last Tsarina of all the Russias) and Beatrice - (her daughter took the disease into the Spanish Royal Family when she married the king - I believe that people blamed her conversion from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism for the sicknesses among her sons rather than an heriditary disease!!).

The other six of Victoria's children do not seem to have been affected although we can't be sure with Louise as she had no children.

 

[Lizy]

I may be being too simplistic but so what if the BRF didn't send anyone to the birthday celebrations. If they couldn't make it then so be it. None of us will ever know the whys at what nots. I'm sure King Carl Gustav isn't lying in bed at night worrying about the fact and I'm sure each royal family will still invite the other to various events and occassions. I think it has been blown out of all proprtion.

 

[Duc de Chatres]

Exactly!This has been blown out of proportion. Was it a state event? NO! Was it crucial to British-Swedish realtions to have them there-NO! The Royal Family had a busy week with the Queen's 80th birthday, so it's quite understandable that they didn't attend the Swedish affair. Why weren't tehre this many complaints when the royal bunch didn't turn up for the Prince of Wales' wedding? This is such a petty discussion!

 

[Skydragon]

Please let me be picky.

Victoria was the last Kaiser's grandmother not cousin.

She was also Nicholas' grandmother-in-law as her granddaughter, Alexandra married Nicholas.

George V was a first cousin to the Kaiser (Wilhelm's mother was Edward VII older sister), a first cousin to the Tsar (Nicholas' mother was Queen Alexandra's sister) and a first cousin to Tsarina Alexandra (her mother was the younger sister of the Kaiser's mother and Edward VII).

One of Queen Victoria's sons - Leopold, the youngest one, was a haemophiliac.

Of her daughters two were confirmed carriers - Alice (son had it and two daughters were carriers taking it into the German and Russian royal families - it was Alice's daughter who married one of Vicky's sons that took haemophilia into the German family not Vicky I believe and of course Alice's youngest daughter was the infamous Alicky, last Tsarina of all the Russias) and Beatrice - (her daughter took the disease into the Spanish Royal Family when she married the king - I believe that people blamed her conversion from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism for the sicknesses among her sons rather than an heriditary disease!!).

The other six of Victoria's children do not seem to have been affected although we can't be sure with Louise as she had no children.

The information was taken from a site on haemophiliacs which I should have mentioned (and now can't find), so thank you very much for the facts you have given!