The Windsors and Europe


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I wouldn't expect the Queen or DoE to go, at their ages. As for the rest of them, well it does seem shocking.
 
If the rumour is true about the Foreign Office not wanting the EU President & a member of the BrRF at the same event is true, then that should have been said & the furor over all this would not be as vocal or intense as it is right now.// quote

Quite right Tiggersk8. IF this is indeed a EU political issue.. and IF the DoE or someone else from the BRF was blocked because of it, then that is a whole different matter. I'd still think it was unfortunate but no one would lay the blame at the feet of the Royal Family. But as it stands, this incredibly lame excuse of "long standing engagements" and the idea every single solitary working member of the largest Royal family being too busy is simply insulting.:bang:

Ironically, on the DM site the biggest uproar is from British subjects themselves. About 80% of them are expressing outrage and embarrassment that at such a large, prestigious gathering of Royals from around the world, the Windsors were conspicuously absent.
 
The Daily Mail comments section is always full of people whinging about something.
 
Tiggersk8 said:
However, that reason for his absence is understandable. Out of all the Members of the BrRF, only 3 or 4 had Engagements today, so AFAIC that statement from the BP Press Office there were long standing Engagements keeping someone from the BrRF from attending?
Click to expand...

Do you have a copy of the CC for the 12th December?

It isn't up on the British monarchy website yet (won't be until Monday in England/Tuesday for me here in Australia).

Until I see that I will have no idea about how busy the BRF was on the 12th.

The FE doesn't tell everything. In fact, from reading it for the last 12 years or so it is very poor in saying when and where royals will be and never mentions things like meetings, receptions etc in advance. For instance Edward may have had three or four receptions for the DoE Awards but they won't be in the FE section - only in the CC AFTER the events.
 
These actions are arrogant but I think this is what we can expect of the BRF It appears as if the BRF view themselves as true royals and have the audacity to pick and choose which events are worthy of which level of representation. It is also arrogant to brush it aside as not important or worth people showing their dislike of this. The mere fact that there is talk about the lack of royal representation means that it matters to some.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Eden said:
These actions are arrogant but I think this is what we can expect of the BRF It appears as if the BRF view themselves as true royals and have the audacity to pick and choose which events are worthy of which level of representation. It is also arrogant to brush it aside as not important or worth people showing their dislike of this. The mere fact that there is talk about the lack of royal representation means that it matters to some.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Click to expand...

I was also surprised and disappointed when I found out that no members of the British royal family would be present at the funeral, especially since they have taken part in all the other major royal funerals the past 30 years, but it does not change the way I look at the British royal family.
 
I've seen the explanation that the Foreign Office should have "advised" against the BRF attending the funeral in order not to antagonize UKIP. If that is correct, and with politicians you never know, then it would be a major blunder by the UK government.
UKIP may be against the EU but as far as I am aware they are not against foreign relations.
If this should be correct then the British government has a duty to take the responsibillity and be exposed as bungling incompetents.
However if the government lets the BRF take the heat it will surface eventually who was behind the "advise" and then the government will be exposed as bungling incompetents and cowardly.

This smells more to me like a "Friday-afternoon-decision" by QEII. We all make mistakes and so does QEII, she's only human.
That the PR office appears to have handled this very badly afterwards is another matter. The excuse that all working members of the BRF were otherwise engaged is indeed a very lame explanation. Especially if it turns out that several members of the BRF were not on the job Friday - and you can rest assured that there will be some digging into that!
IMO the best way to handle this would have been to say the truth: That it was decided to let the British ambassador to Belgium represent Britain. Nothing else - but that's too late now.

Security is not a valid excuse either, since several heads of states did go to the funeral.

The problem is of course that each time there is a royal gettogether we sit here discussing why the BRF were again underrepresentated, if represented at all. It may not be meant as a snub, but in some cases it feels like a snub. Be that as it may, the BRF have their way of dividing the jobs between the various members.
And as I understand it, when there is a major royal event, the Continental royals extend a general invitation, while the BRF send out specific invitations. (Example: It was questioned here in DK why M&F didn't go to W&K's wedding, it was revealed that they simply had not been invited. otherwise it's more than likely they would have gone instead of QMII). We can debate whether that approach is a good idea from now until the cows come home.
But not attending the funeral of a very treasured member of the international royal club, that was a mistake and I'm sure the BRF is well aware of it.

I don't believe the BRF intend to snub anyone, I don't even believe they feel superiour. What I suspect is that there is a misconception ingrained in QEII that the British think the BRF is superiour and that the BRF has to act the role so to speak.
Reinforced by another misconception that the British consider themselves an island race preferring to keep a healthy distance to the Continent in particular and that includes the BRF rubbing shoulders with other royals. So the BRF obliges.
However, the world has changed. This is no longer 1955. The British have changed, Britain has changed. I don't think the British mind the BRF joining the royal gettogethers nowadays. (On the contrary. I think it's a wet dream of many royal watchers to see W&K in full gear at major international royal events.) It is after all not the first time the BRF got the public opinion wrong.
Perhaps Charles will change that once he becomes king? I hope so.

There is no way in this world the other royal families will retaliate with boycuts or excuses. Their advisors and the foreign ministries would be up in arms at the mere hint of anything so childish.
 
Last edited:
Cris M said:
The Queen sent her Ambassador - who represents the British State, whose Her Majesty is the Head. And Buckingham Palace gave an explanation to why no one from the British Royal Family attended.

But some people here just want to be right about their imaginary truth and have a reason to bash the Windsors. This whole thread is ridiculous and very unnecessary.
Click to expand...

You live in one of the biggest countries in the world. Do you realize that flying from London to Brussels takes only 27 minutes by a commercial airliner? Do you realize that the distance between Dover in the UK and Calais (close to the Belgian border) is only 35 kms? Driving from the North of São Paulo to the South of São Paulo takes more time than crossing the Channel by boat...

Thát, my friend, is the amazement. The King of the Belgians is -geographically- the closest sovereign neighbour for Queen Elizabeth II. From her large family, with at least 20 HRH's and even more side-folks (like the Earl of St Andrews or the Earl of Ulster, etc.) no one showed up to say farewell to a Grande Dame, to a Queen. No one.

:flowers:
 
Last edited:
Since the First World War, it has been a policy of the British Royal Family not to be seen to be closely involved with foreign royal families. This intensified after the Second World War. It was partly political and partly the way the Monarch (and those close to him/her) felt.

There are some RFs and individual members of RFs who are known to be close to the BRF. The Luxembourgs are, the Greeks are, the Jordanians are, Queens Margarethe of Denmark and Beatrix of the Netherlands are - as I believe is King Harald of Norway. For most of the Scandinavian countries recently, Pr Edward, Earl of Wessex, and his wife, Sophie, have attended such countries' weddings, etc.

However, there is also the question of religion - The Queen is head of the Church of England. It has not in the past been thought right that she attend Catholic ceremonies. In this context, too, I believe that Queen Fabiola was a very strongly believing Catholic and may not have, herself, built a relationship with the Queen or Prince Philip. Yes, the Belgian and British Royal Families have an ancestor in common - a Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha who lived at the turn of the 19th Centuary (the father of King Leopold of the Belgians, and the grandfather of Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria) but this is a very long time ago. There is also the fact that King Baudouin's mother was a Scandivian Princess, but that is still a very round-about way of a connection.

Sometimes this thorny problem is resolved by sending Prince and Princess Michael of Kent (as Princess Michael is Catholic), but maybe there is some reason why this is not possible at this time. Once also has to remember that the Queen and Prince Philip are very elderly now, and the Duchess of Cambridge is still somewhat pulled down healthwise due to her pregnancy. Also Prince Harry is a serving Army Officer and not always able to turn out at short notice.
 
Princess Sirindhorn of Thailand is a Buddhist, the Empress of Japan is Shintoist, the former Empress of Persia is Islamist, no problem for all them to attend the Catholic funeral. And then for a Christian at the other side of the Channel it would be a problem to attend the funeral of a fellow Christian....???

There is also something as manners, class, dignity. A lady who was Queen of the Belgians for such a long time has died. It is a way of paying last respects. Note that when Doña Maria de las Mercedes de Borbón, the mother of Don Juan Carlos died, also for her royals assembled in El Escorial, despite the fact that the deceased was never a Queen of Spain.
 
Last edited:
[This smells more to me like a "Friday-afternoon-decision" by QEII. We all make mistakes and so does QEII, she's only human]// quote-Muhler

This is what I suspected the second I learned about this faux pas. QEII's manners and diplomacy skills are normally superb. But she is human and she goofed here. And any attempt to justify it is going to fall short. Is it an international emergency on the level of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis? Of course not.:lol: But HM didn't get this one right, and if anyone imagines she hasn't realized it by now, he/she is dreaming.

And sorry. Don't count on Prince Charles to strengthen the ties to his Royal peers once he becomes king. Unfortunately he seems to have become more insular as he has aged, and even more unfortunately his attitude seems to have rubbed off on his sons. This insular, bordering on provincial outlook by the current batch of Windsors is about 50% of the reason I have gradually lost interest in this family since the death of Diana Princess of Wales.

Ah well. It's over and done now. Queen Fabiola has been sealed in her marble crypt beside her adored Baudouin now for almost 24 hours. I still can't quite believe it all started a week ago today. I will miss that quirky, elegant, brave old lady more than I imagined I would.


And what a sad Christmas the Belgian Royals are in for.
 
Last edited:
Muhler said:
I've seen the explanation that the Foreign Office should have "advised" against the BRF attending the funeral in order not to antagonize UKIP. If that is correct, and with politicians you never know, then it would be a major blunder by the UK government.
UKIP may be against the EU but as far as I am aware they are not against foreign relations.
If this should be correct then the British government has a duty to take the responsibillity and be exposed as bungling incompetents.
However if the government lets the BRF take the heat it will surface eventually who was behind the "advise" and then the government will be exposed as bungling incompetents and cowardly.

This smells more to me like a "Friday-afternoon-decision" by QEII. We all make mistakes and so does QEII, she's only human.
That the PR office appears to have handled this very badly afterwards is another matter. The excuse that all working members of the BRF were otherwise engaged is indeed a very lame explanation. Especially if it turns out that several members of the BRF were not on the job Friday - and you can rest assured that there will be some digging into that!
IMO the best way to handle this would have been to say the truth: That it was decided to let the British ambassador to Belgium represent Britain. Nothing else - but that's too late now.

Security is not a valid excuse either, since several heads of states did go to the funeral.

The problem is of course that each time there is a royal gettogether we sit here discussing why the BRF were again underrepresentated, if represented at all. It may not be meant as a snub, but in some cases it feels like a snub. Be that as it may, the BRF have their way of dividing the jobs between the various members.
And as I understand it, when there is a major royal event, the Continental royals extend a general invitation, while the BRF send out specific invitations. (Example: It was questioned here in DK why M&F didn't go to W&K's wedding, it was revealed that they simply had not been invited. otherwise it's more than likely they would have gone instead of QMII). We can debate whether that approach is a good idea from now until the cows come home.
But not attending the funeral of a very treasured member of the international royal club, that was a mistake and I'm sure the BRF is well aware of it.

I don't believe the BRF intend to snub anyone, I don't even believe they feel superiour. What I suspect is that there is a misconception ingrained in QEII that the British think the BRF is superiour and that the BRF has to act the role so to speak.
Reinforced by another misconception that the British consider themselves an island race preferring to keep a healthy distance to the Continent in particular and that includes the BRF rubbing shoulders with other royals. So the BRF obliges.
However, the world has changed. This is no longer 1955. The British have changed, Britain has changed. I don't think the British mind the BRF joining the royal gettogethers nowadays. (On the contrary. I think it's a wet dream of many royal watchers to see W&K in full gear at major international royal events.) It is after all not the first time the BRF got the public opinion wrong.
Perhaps Charles will change that once he becomes king? I hope so.

There is no way in this world the other royal families will retaliate with boycuts or excuses. Their advisors and the foreign ministries would be up in arms at the mere hint of anything so childish.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you follow the British royal family. It works differently than the Danish. In the Danish royal family it is Queen Margrethe who make the decisions.

In the British royal family they do so in a more democratic manner.

The Queen is known to listen to all her advisors, maybe a little too much. And she is not the type of person that tells people what they should or should not do. This is one of her few weaknesses.

The Queen is not the type of person that forces family members to go to a funeral, if they do not want or have time to attend.
I am sure The Queen intended to send someone.
 
Last edited:
ROYAL NORWAY said:
The Queen is known to listen to all her advisors, maybe a little too much. And she is not the type of person that tells people what they should or should not do. This is one of her few weaknesses.

The Queen is not the type of person that forces family members to go to a funeral, if they do not want or have time to attend.
I am sure The Queen intended to send someone.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I have seen a "The Queen is the boss. She is the one deciding who does what and goes where" repeated countless times in some of the BRF threads...;)
 
Nordic said:
I'm sure I have seen a "The Queen is the boss. She is the one deciding who does what and goes where" repeated countless times in some of the BRF threads...;)
Click to expand...

They are wrong. Have you seen her family talk about her. They say the same. As I've said before my mother is British and I have family members who have worked for the royal family, I have heard it from them. I can't talk about it.
 
Well, Royal Norway, I admittedly don't follow the BRF that closely.

However, I cannot imagine QEII accepting more than one, perhaps two "I don't wanna go" from other members of the BRF before a request turns into an order.
I'll be more willing to accept a reasoning along these lines: Well, we haven't got someone appropriately senior enough available to attend this funeral, so better to send the ambassador than being represented by a secondary member of the BRF. - To be honest I don't really believe that one either.

But, as you seem to suggest, I believe QEII's advisors let her down on this occasion. Knowing (at least a few days later) that there would be senior representation from all other European monarchies, let alone Japan, they ought to have advised QEII to send a member of the BRF
In hindsight this was a mistake that could and should have easily been avoided.
 
Last edited:
I think some people are being overly critical of the Queen and the BRF.

In addition to all the excellent points others have posted.

There could be numerous reasons why no members of the BRF attended.

Everyone could have other commitments. Some may have royal engagements or private visits to their charities or have personal obligations or be unwell.


Or this might be a case of not knowing who to send because the status of Queen Fabiola.

She was not a monarch nor a former monarch. She was not the consort of a reigning monarch, nor was she a consort of the previous monarch. She was not the mother nor grandmother of the monarch. She was the aunt of the monarch and the consort of a former monarch.

Was the 'appropriate' BRF representative/s unavailable?

Her status is not the same as QEII nor as Prince Philip.
Her status is somewhere between Queen Mary & The Duchess of Windsor. She was a dowager Queen but never a Queen Mother. She was an aunt through marriage to the current monarch.

IMO, it is not a case of arrogance. The continental royals are connected through religion & marriage. The BRF has predominately married from within its family or other British people. The continental royals marry internationally.
 
I also don't think it's a question of arrogance or even bad manners. Personally, I don't think anything wrong has happened given that the UK was represented. And that isn't arrogance on my part - it's called a difference of opinion and a discussion. People disagree - fair enough. I don't suppose we will find out whether the Belgian Royal Family feel snubbed. Anyway, I think I shall retire from this thread now as it seems to be going in circles - we are all firmly entrenched in our positions! ?
 
In Belgian newspapers, they wrote it was not only offending for the Belgian RF, but also the Belgian citizens felt offended. I think they made a point there. The fact that I'm maybe overreacting is probably because, as a Belgian, I feel offended that the BRF doesn't consider our country and our Queen important enough...
 
According to the CC, this is what the BRF was doing on Friday, 12th December 2014:

Buckingham Palace
12th December, 2014
The Queen was represented by the Lady Susan Hussey (Lady in Waiting) at a Service to Celebrate the Life of Mr Peter Knight which was held in Christ Church, Esher, Surrey, this afternoon.
Clarence House
12th December, 2014
The Prince of Wales this morning visited the Newbridge Institute and Memorial Hall, High Street, Newbridge, and was received by Her Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Gwent (Mr Simon Boyle).
His Royal Highness, Colonel-in-Chief, 1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards, this afternoon took the salute at the Freedom of the City of Swansea Parade followed by a Reception at Brangwyn Hall, the Guildhall, Swansea, and was received by Her Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of West Glamorgan (Mr Byron Lewis).
The Prince of Wales later received the Rt Hon Edwina Hart MP (Minister for Economy, Science and Transport, National Assembly for Wales).
Kensington Palace
12th December, 2014
The Duke of Cambridge, President, the Football Association, this morning unveiled the Christmas Truce Memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum, Alrewas, and was received by Her Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Staffordshire (Mr Ian Dudson).
His Royal Highness this afternoon visited St Basils, John Austin Court, 45 Sutherland Street, Aston, Birmingham, and was received by Her Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of West Midlands (Mr Paul Sabapathy).
The Duke of Cambridge afterwards opened Holford Drive Community Sports Hub, 101 Holford Drive, Perry Barr, Birmingham.
His Royal Highness subsequently visited representatives of the Feast at Holford Drive Community Sports Hub.
Buckingham Palace
12th December, 2014
The Princess Royal, President, the City and Guilds of London Institute, this morning visited the Help 4 Heroes Recovery Centre, Tedworth House, Tidworth, and was received by Her Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Wiltshire (Mrs Peter Troughton).


So Prince Charles, Prince William, and Princess Anne were performing official duties. What were the rest of them doing that prevented them from attending the funeral?
 
And to those of you who call the British royal family, arrogant, a busload of freeloaders, and other stupid things, don't know what you're talking about.

The British royal family has been represented by either the Duke of Edinburgh, Charles or Andrew in all the major royal funerals in the past 30 years, what is arrogant with this?
 
It seems to be an accepted fact amongst most of us interested in this subject that a major blunder has happened here. Whether the Queen herself or others are to blame it looks very bad that no one from the BRF came and I am actually quite shocked that this happened. This was a Queen Consort. No offense to Madeleine of Sweden, who I am just using as an example, but to send representation to her wedding and not to this funeral is a baffling decision. I don't think it's up for debate that the British don't care about establishing ties withe the European royals as it's obvious. Even when Edward and Sophie go to things they are usually among the most junior ranking sitting among Monarchs and Crown Princes as the senior family members rarely bother themselves to attend. I'm sure that Buckingham Palace will now realise how insulting this has been to the Belgians but it's too late now, I can only assume that lessons have been learnt and nothing similar will be allowed to happen again.

BTW, if one more person mentions how close or not certain Royal families are I will scream. When a national figure in any country dies, gets married etc attendance by representatives of other countries isn't based on how chummy people are with each other. As an example, if that was the case there would have been no foreign royals at Prince Williams wedding at all.
 
Last edited:
I´m starting to become tired....
There is nothing but speculation around here. Nobody knows anything for sure. One speculation is refuted by the next one!
What if they simply didn´t feel the need, the obligation, whatever, to go?
What the heck could we do about it?! Demonstrate in front of Buckingham Palace?
Things are what they are and I´m sure at the next major royal event in Britain, all those closer and distant cousins from the continent and "colleagues" from Asia will be there again! And no one will consider the BRF hadn´t been attended Fabiola´s funeral!

Do you remember when Pr. and Princess Michael of Kent were present at this year´s exhibition opening at the Marienburg near Hannover? Ernst August jr. (heir apparent of a dynasty whose monarchy was abolished about 150 years ago...) invited them to come and they went - Prince Michael even holding a speech. And this was just an exhibition opening! (this is even speaking against some of your´s theories that the Windsors wouldn´t want people to be reminded about their german origin!).

Isn´t this single example telling you something? I firmly believe the Windsors just collect what events they wanna take part in and in which they don´t. And there´s no offence, snub or arrogance intended. They just do what they think is right to do. I think at this point they aren´t any different like most Britains, who feel very strongly to be "Islanders" (We here, they on the continent. Or like George V put it "Abroad is awful!")!
 
Last edited:
I'm not surprised. There is a serious disconnect between the BRF and their counterparts in Europe that's going to increase once Elizabeth dies.

The younger british royal generation seems more interested in meeting celebrities than meeting other royals in Europe. When William and Kate can meet celebrities in NY but the BRF can't spare a "family member" 12 hours to attend a royal funeral, people will criticise.

There is a fundamental lack of manners not to send a royal representative to a royal funeral. The ambassador represented the UK government, NOT the royal house.
 
wartenberg7 said:
Isn´t this single example telling you something? I firmly believe the Windsors just collect what events they wanna take part in and in which they don´t. And there´s no offence, snub or arrogance intended. They just do what they think is right to do. I think at this point they aren´t any different like most Britains, who feel very strongly to be "Islanders" (We here, they on the continent. Or like George V put it "Abroad is awful!")!
Click to expand...

It's an example of the misguided but stereotypical English "Fog in Channel - Continent Isolated" mentality, methinks.

I see it as arrogant. Was it QEII's decision? Could have been. She has been known to misjudge things before now, and she's 17 years older than her last major blunder.

Even if the EU thing was an issue, doesn't showing respect for a deceased Queen, especially one whose husband's funeral the currently reigning British Monarch had attended in person, transcend mere politics? I think it should, and I think Elizabeth should have sent a member of her family. Especially so soon after the WWI Flanders, etc., stuff. An ambassador might be a bigwig in the diplomatic corp, but an ambassador is still, essentially, a servant, and is no substitute for a member of the Monarch's family. The CC indicates a lot of the family members were available, so why didn't one of them make the short trip over the Channel? If Japan and Thailand could manage to attend, there's no excuse for Britain, IMO.

Poor form, Elizabeth.
 
Last edited:
Alondra said:
I'm not surprisis a serious disconnect between the BRF and their counterparts in Europe that's going to increase once Elizabeth dies.

The younger british royal generation seems more interested in meeting celebrities than meeting other royals in Europe. When William and Kate can meet celebrities in NY but the BRF can't spare a "family member" 12 hours to attend a royal funeral, people will criticise.

There is a fundamental lack of manners not to send a royal representative to a royal funeral. The ambassador represented the UK government, NOT the royal house.
Click to expand...

12 hours? The whole thing could have been been done and dusted in about 5, it takes barely over an hour to fly from London to Brussels.
 
Last edited:
angela said:
12 hours? The whole thing could have been been done and dusted in about 5 as it only takes around an hour and a half to fly from London to Brussels.
Click to expand...

I was being generous. There is no excuse for BRF non attendance.
 
angela said:
12 hours? The whole thing could have been been done and dusted in about 5 as it only takes around an hour and a half to fly from London to Brussels.
Click to expand...

One hour and a half is the absolute max for a commercial airliner depending on the airport (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, etc.). You can fly to Brussels in 27 minutes with a VIP-jet.
 
Top story from the Belgian VRT1 news:

Absence of British royals triggers controversy

There was not a single member of the British monarchy to be seen at Queen Fabiola's funeral on Friday morning. The absence contrasted sharply with the presence of many other members of royal families from across the globe. This triggered angry and disappointed reactions on social media in the UK.
Click to expand...

Read more here: Absence of British royals triggers controversy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
God Save the Queen anthem
Replies
0
Views
54
jf161
J
T
Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story
2 3
Replies
76
Views
11K
shady lady
shady lady
Blog Real
King Lodovico I, King Lodovico II and Kingdom of Etruria
Replies
3
Views
600
Blog Real
Blog Real
Somebody
The Princess of Orange's preparation for her role as queen
Replies
20
Views
3K
kalnel
K
Blog Real
Kings Ferdinand I, Francis I, Ferdinand II, Francis II & Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
Replies
2
Views
503
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom