The Queen, the Royal Family and the Commonwealth

[Mbruno]

The fact that Meghan has a connection to the Commonwealth as "quasi-Canadian" is certainly playing a role here IMHO.

 

[TLLK]

No, fiancees don't usually attend this service. I can't remember whether Sophie attended before her marriage, she did go to several official and semi official events, but Kate didn't go.

I think Meghan is going because it's considered important for her to be introduced to many different aspects of the Royal year and to Commonwealth events which, as a foreign national, she may not have been aware of.

I don't recall the BRF being too involved with the Commonwealth Service when Sophie was a fiancee and Camilla/Kate didn't attend either.
I do agree that since the UK is hosting CHOGM and she's an immigrant, that she should be exposed to as much as possible.

I also feel the family just making it very clear to anyone in denial that she is one of them and they are supporting her 100%. I think it is a clever tactic to be honest. Also no better way for her to learn than to be hands on. She has the background. Use it.

I agree. I hate to be cynical but if things do not work out for this couple, then the BRF can state that they provided her with extensive background knowledge of her new role and nation. Diana and Sarah both stated that they didn't feel well prepared to take on their new roles and I believe that the BRF does not want a repeat of these accusations.

 

[Terri Terri]

Let's not forget that Prince Harry will be formally accepting a prominent role pertaining to the youth in the upcoming Commonwealth meeting in April and Meghan will support him in the role. So, it is a no brainer that they would attend the service.

 

[soapstar]

Glad to see that Meghan will attend the event with the rest of the BRF.

I don't recall the BRF being too involved with the Commonwealth Service when Sophie was a fiancee and Camilla/Kate didn't attend either.
I do agree that since the UK is hosting CHOGM and she's an immigrant, that she should be exposed to as much as possible.

Yeah, I believe the Queen and Prince Philip were the only ones that regularly attended the Commonwealth Day Service at WA. It wasn't until 2010 or 2011 that Prince Charles/Camilla started going regularly and around 2012 for Edward/Sophie. And of course William and Kate didn't start attending until 2015 and Harry 2016. So this explains why other fiancees have never attended.

 

[ACO]

I agree. I hate to be cynical but if things do not work out for this couple, then the BRF can state that they provided her with extensive background knowledge of her new role and nation. Diana and Sarah both stated that they didn't feel well prepared to take on their new roles and I believe that the BRF does not want a repeat of these accusations.

I don't think you are cynical at all. I agree. The know what they are doing. Sophie also had a hard time apparently. We all know Diana and Fergie's issues. Kate wasn't really involved in these official events either, IIRC, but she also had years as the girlfriend to kind of prepare in a different sense. Meghan is coming from a very different place where she not even a citizen. They just making sure that they doing everything possible to support her privately and publicly.

And as pointed out by others, they can use Meghan's background to their advantage. She lived and worked in a Commonwealth country. People in other countries might look at her and somewhat identity a little easier. I am sure that is not lost on HM. Also Harry is rumored to be taking on a much bigger role during the CHOGM so her attendance also makes sense in this case as well.

Overall I am glad so many of the royals are in attendance this year. I think this is the first time in a long time that has happened.

 

[Denville]

ACO I agree that she is really being considered a full family member even before the couple marries. IMO this should send a clear signal that the Queen and the rest of royal family is doing everything that they can to welcome her.?

well they've got no choice have they? She's got to live here to arrange her wedding, and so she's here without her family or friends for support, apart from Harry. So the RF have to welcome her..

 

[Iluvbertie]

No, fiancees don't usually attend this service. I can't remember whether Sophie attended before her marriage, she did go to several official and semi official events, but Kate didn't go.

I think Meghan is going because it's considered important for her to be introduced to many different aspects of the Royal year and to Commonwealth events which, as a foreign national, she may not have been aware of.

Kate didn't go to the Commonwealth service as a fiancee because she was engaged after the Commonwealth service in 2010 and married by the time the service took place in 2011 so she was never a fiancee when it was held.

Sophie didn't attend as a royal fiancee as in 1999 only the Queen and Philip attended - no other members of the family at all, not even Charles or Anne.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, Denville, she is alone here. However, the Cambridges didn't HAVE to invite her to stay at Anmer with them for for Xmas, or walk with her to church. Charles wasn't obliged to smile at her when they were all on the Church steps. The Queen wasn't forced to invite her to the extended family lunch before Christmas, or to invite her to tea. And so on and so on.

Kate didn't go to the Commonwealth service as a fiancee because she was engaged after the Commonwealth service in 2010 and married by the time the service took place in 2011 so she was never a fiancee when it was held.

So the Commonwealth service was held after Kate was married in late April 2011? I thought the Commonwealth service was held annually in March.

 

[ACO]

well they've got no choice have they? She's got to live here to arrange her wedding, and so she's here without her family or friends for support, apart from Harry. So the RF have to welcome her..

Of course they have a choice. Most people wouldn't think twice if the fiancee wasn't as present as Meghan has been. They love to point out how uncommon this is for her. You can be welcoming without her being involved in official engagements representing the family before even being an official royal.

Doesn't the Queen release a message annually as well?

 

[MARG]

True, but as a fiancée rather than a wife, they do not need to involve her in this. They have made two choices, the first is to stand unreservedly, and very positively, behind Harry and Meghan and, surprisingly to me at least, have decided to accept her as an educated woman who is not only going to be a future asset but are accepting and using her as such now.

 

[Dman]

Kate didn't go to the Commonwealth service as a fiancee because she was engaged after the Commonwealth service in 2010 and married by the time the service took place in 2011 so she was never a fiancee when it was held.

Sophie didn't attend as a royal fiancee as in 1999 only the Queen and Philip attended - no other members of the family at all, not even Charles or Anne.

Yes, Anne, Charles and others did attend the Commonwealth Service in the past.

 

[Curryong]

Btw what date was the Commonwealth Day service held on in 2011, and was Kate already married when it was held? I don't believe she was.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Going back in the CC and looking at attendance at the Commonwealth Service:

1997 - The Queen and Charles (Philip was in Mongolia)
1998 - The Queen
1999 - The Queen and Philip
2000 - The Queen and Charles (Philip was in the USA)
2001 - The Queen and Philip
2002 - The Queen and Philip
2003 - The Queen and Philip
2004 - The Queen and Philip
2005 - The Queen and Philip
2006 - The Queen and Philip - in Sydney as they were on a tour Down Under
2006 - Charles and Camilla - in London
2007 - The Queen and Philip
2008 - The Queen and Philip
2009 - The Queen and Philip
2010 - The Queen and Philip
2011 - The Queen and Philip
2012 - The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla and Sophie
2013 - Philip (the Queen attended the reception in the evening but not the service in the afternoon)
2014 - The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, Edward and Sophie
2015 - The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William and Kate
2016 - The Queen, Philip, William, Kate, Harry and Andrew
2017 - The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, Harry, Andrew and Edward

It is therefore clear that Meghan attending is because the Queen has changed who attends from just herself and Philip, with Charles stepping occasionally to include more members of the family and this change took place AFTER Kate and William married so Meghan is the first fiancee to be in this position anyway.

 

[Dman]

Going back in the CC and looking at attendance at the Commonwealth Service:

1997 - The Queen and Charles (Philip was in Mongolia)
1998 - The Queen
1999 - The Queen and Philip
2000 - The Queen and Charles (Philip was in the USA)
2001 - The Queen and Philip
2002 - The Queen and Philip
2003 - The Queen and Philip
2004 - The Queen and Philip
2005 - The Queen and Philip
2006 - The Queen and Philip - in Sydney as they were on a tour Down Under
2006 - Charles and Camilla - in London
2007 - The Queen and Philip
2008 - The Queen and Philip
2009 - The Queen and Philip
2010 - The Queen and Philip
2011 - The Queen and Philip
2012 - The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla and Sophie
2013 - Philip (the Queen attended the reception in the evening but not the service in the afternoon)
2014 - The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, Edward and Sophie
2015 - The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William and Kate
2016 - The Queen, Philip, William, Kate, Harry and Andrew
2017 - The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, Harry, Andrew and Edward

It is therefore clear that Meghan attending is because the Queen has changed who attends from just herself and Philip, with Charles stepping occasionally to include more members of the family and this change took place AFTER Kate and William married so Meghan is the first fiancee to be in this position anyway.

1992- Princess Anne-
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/52103789

 

[soapstar]

So the Commonwealth service was held after Kate was married in late April 2011? I thought the Commonwealth service was held annually in March.

Yes it's held every year in March, but only the Queen and Prince Philip were regular attendees. William didn't go to his first service until 2015, so that's the reason Kate didn't attend in 2011.

As Iluvbertie notes, Meghan is attending as a fiancee because it is now a regular event for the younger royals. Before 2015, it wasn't.

 

[soapstar]

Comments about Meghan's charity work is off-topic and has been deleted. If you wish to discuss her future role in the BRF, please take it to the appropriate thread.

 

[tommy100]

I wonder if on of the reasons we see more royals attend recently is that as the Queen gets older it smooths the way for succession (although of course the Head of Commonwealth isn't hereditary) to the Headship and shows the family's commitment to the Commonwealth.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Or more likely the Queen knows that the Commonwealth probably won't last after her death as it really is a useless organisation with no benefits to anyone. How many people living in the Commonwealth know what it does other than hold Games every four years?

It made sense when it was a trading block and when there were common values and ideas but that isn't the case anymore - hasn't been since the UK deserted the Commonwealth and Empire and joined the EEC. The only thing that has kept it together since as been the Queen but when she goes the one link will go. Charles isn't respected enough and William is too lightweight to have any hope of keeping together such a disparate organisation with so little in common anymore.

 

[Mbruno]

Or more likely the Queen knows that the Commonwealth probably won't last after her death as it really is a useless organisation with no benefits to anyone. How many people living in the Commonwealth know what it does other than hold Games every four years?

The Commonwealth outlived Kings George V and George VI and, more significantly, outlived most of the former colonies of the British Empire becoming republics. I don't see why it would not survive Queen Elizabeth II as well.

In fact, neither the "wealthy" Commonwealth members (Australia, Canada, etc.) nor the African and Asian members have ever shown any intention to leave or break up the organization.

 

[ACO]

I tend to agree. I don't know if it will last or not but I don't think that the passing of HM will end it immediately. I do feel that getting the younger royals like William and Harry more involved is to help that transition be smoother.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Or more likely the Queen (1) knows that the Commonwealth probably won't last after her death as it really is a (2) useless organisation with no benefits to anyone. How many people living in the Commonwealth know what it does other than hold Games every four years?

It made sense when it was a trading block and when there were common values and ideas but that isn't the case anymore - hasn't been since the UK deserted the Commonwealth and Empire and joined the EEC. The only thing that has kept it together since as been the Queen but when she goes the one link will go. Charles isn't respected enough and William is too (3) lightweight to have any hope of keeping together such a disparate organisation with so little in common anymore.

1. Well, she is said to be very proud of it, so I don't think she sees the Commonwealth as you sees it (a useless organisation with no benefits to anyone).

2. I won't go into this, but many commentators/experts disagree with you.

3. William a lightweight?

Today: Couldn't disagree more.

In 20 to 30 years, when he probably have a chance to be head of the Commonwealth: I am 6 years younger than the guy, so I hope to be around when he acceeds to the throne and if someone calls him a lightweight in 2038-2048, then he must really have done a poor job.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I notice no one can actually tell me ONE benefit the Commonwealth provides its members - not just the wealthy members but any member at all.

I would like to add that in Australia we don't even teach any history to do with the Commonwealth - other than the ANZAC invasion of Turkey in 1915. We used to teach that Australia was a member of APEC and the UN but now we only teach that Australia is a member of the UN - no mention of the Commonwealth. Why - because even the Australian government that sets the History syllabus sees no relevance for it in our lives.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

March 14, 2011 was the date of the Commonwealth Observance Service-before William and Kate's wedding.

 

[Curryong]

Thank you, O-H.

 

[Curryong]

I notice no one can actually tell me ONE benefit the Commonwealth provides its members - not just the wealthy members but any member at all.

I would like to add that in Australia we don't even teach any history to do with the Commonwealth - other than the ANZAC invasion of Turkey in 1915. We used to teach that Australia was a member of APEC and the UN but now we only teach that Australia is a member of the UN - no mention of the Commonwealth. Why - because even the Australian government that sets the History syllabus sees no relevance for it in our lives.

Yet the Prime Minister and or senior government ministers attend CHOGM, our athletes participate in the Commonwealth Games, Australia plays its part in various endeavours within the Commonwealth such as Scholarships provision.

 

[royal rob]

I notice no one can actually tell me ONE benefit the Commonwealth provides its members - not just the wealthy members but any member at all.

I would like to add that in Australia we don't even teach any history to do with the Commonwealth - other than the ANZAC invasion of Turkey in 1915. We used to teach that Australia was a member of APEC and the UN but now we only teach that Australia is a member of the UN - no mention of the Commonwealth. Why - because even the Australian government that sets the History syllabus sees no relevance for it in our lives.

I disagree my 10 year old grandson has been learning all things Australia political and knows about the commonwealth. But I am not going to argue with you we all believe what we want

 

[Juliette2]

I would like to add that in Australia we don't even teach any history to do with the Commonwealth - .

Unfortunately, nowadays, if something is or is not taught in schools can hardly be taken as a sign its relevance! This said I don't have a particular opinion on the benefits of the Commonwealth, I'm just saying that your argument is not very strong.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the Australian Government - who approved the national curriculum - thought that British history or the history of the Commonwealth was something they believed was relevant to Australia they would have put it in there.

Our History syllabus is all about Australia and its place in the world - and that really means our place in Asia with virtually no mention of Europe (other than to show how evil Europeans were when they conquered Australia or somewhere else e.g. the Americas).

European history and culture isn't taught at all - nor is American either - not relevant to young Australians according to our state and federal governments of both persuasions who sign off and fund education in this country.

If kids aren't taught it at school most will never learn it at all and so what is left out is as important as what is put in. Of course what is taught is schools is relevant - it is a sign of what the government regards as important for Australian students to know and they don't see the Commonwealth or European History as important for young Aussies.

 

[Juliette2]

If the Australian Government - who approved the national curriculum - thought that British history or the history of the Commonwealth was something they believed was relevant to Australia they would have put it in there.

Our History syllabus is all about Australia and its place in the world - and that really means our place in Asia with virtually no mention of Europe (other than to show how evil Europeans were when they conquered Australia or somewhere else e.g. the Americas).

European history and culture isn't taught at all - nor is American either - not relevant to young Australians according to our state and federal governments of both persuasions who sign off and fund education in this country.

If kids aren't taught it at school most will never learn it at all and so what is left out is as important as what is put in. Of course what is taught is schools is relevant - it is a sign of what the government regards as important for Australian students to know and they don't see the Commonwealth or European History as important for young Aussies.

I'm honestly shocked. Truly, utterly shocked. I think you're proving my point with your own answer...

 

[AlowVera]

well they've got no choice have they? She's got to live here to arrange her wedding, and so she's here without her family or friends for support, apart from Harry. So the RF have to welcome her..

Yes it just seems like common sense to fully welcome her into the fold now rather than later. It seems like a vote of confidence but also strategic.

Also lets not forget that now is the time for the younger royals to fully step up now that Prince Phillip is retired.