House of Windsor Representation at Royal Weddings

[neillondon]

Can anyone explain to me why at foreign Royal Wedding's the British Royal family tend to send less senior Royal's to represent the family, but also the nation. To me it shows a bit of lack of respect to other coutries when those countries send their senior members to UK Royal weddings.

All other Royal houses are always represented by the head of the houses, or at least the Crown Prince/Princess.

I have no issue with the Wessex's, however as much as i respect the Queen & Duke Of Edinburgh, i've never understood why unlike Queen Beatrix or Queen Margrethe they have never attended these events. I respect that they are older now, and therefore may not be able to. But why on earth Charles and Camilla, or William and Catherine cannot go still puzzles me. Especially William and Catherine; they are young and vibrant, and i believe need to become better acquainted with their Royal counterparts.

Does anyone else agree?

[Dman]

I've been asking myself these same questions for years.

[royalistbert]

Because most of the time they have engagements elsewhere.

[NGalitzine]

Because the British public/government do not expect it of them and probably would not be too keen on QEII and Philip flying off to the continent everytime a continental royal family had a wedding, birthday, anniversary party or jubilee. It has been that way since the end of WWI, a separation of the British monarch from continental royal families although the monarch is always represented by other family members. QEII did attend Juliana's silver wedding party and Baudouins funeral but that is it (and they had come to the throne before her). It doesn't seem to bother the continental cousins since they seem to flock to London whenever invited so I don't see why it should bother anyone else.

[royalistbert]

Didn't Prince Charles go to Spanish Royal Wedding?

[NGalitzine]

Yes Charles went to 2 Spanish weddings, the weddings in Oslo, Amsterdam and Brussels as well. All the Queens children have at one time or another represented her at continental events as have other family members.

[neillondon]

I don't think it is about bothering, i think it is about respect. I don't expect a more senior Royal to go to ALL weddings; but i think it is important for weddings for the up coming heads of the Royal Houses; Frederick, Victoria, etc. Yes, I am aware Charles attended Spanish wedding's; and believe this should happen more. I do feel these inter relations could be nourished to bring about stronger ties. Just my view.

[Dman]

It would be nice to see the younger royals like The Cambridges and Prince Henry get involved in representing The Queen and UK at these kind of events and establishing a relationship with their royal counterparts but they always seem to be busy with other things.

[Duke-of-Earl]

You wont like my answer but I think the British relationship with our Monarchy is different from the other countries relationships with their royal families.
This is going to be very snobbish of me but I think the Queen or the Prince of Wales should attend foreign royal events only under the most extraordinary of circumstances.
For me the BRF is the 'big leagues' and I don't want my Queen travelling to some tiny European country for a baptismal or wedding . That's why we have minor royals in Britain, to fulfil these duties.

[Artemisia]

You are right, it does sound very snobbish to me.

British Royals appear to have warm relationships with their continental cousins on an unofficial level (we have heard quite a few stories how foreign royals, such as Queen Sonja, spent weekends at Highrove, for instance) but on an official level, there is a very distinct separation.

I am inclined to agree with NGalitzine's reasoning for that. Before World War I, British Royals had extremely close relations with foreign royals (well, they would, being very closely related to them) but the Great War changed it all. The British Royal Family distanced itself from the other royal families, especially those who were "enemies"; George V hardly needed reminding that the German Empire or the oppressive Russian regime were headed by his close cousins. Over the years, the policy of isolation just strengthened and it was no longer expected of British Royals to maintain close official links to their continental counterparts.

There may also be another reason why the Wessex couple is the one most often representing the Royal Family at royal functions abroad; they are closer in age to continental Crown Princely couples and probably have more in common with them than, say, Charles, Anne or Andrew. Once William becomes the Duke of Cornwall, I expect that to change and we'll probably get to see him and Kate represent British Royals more often abroad.

[snowflower]

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

You wont like my answer but I think the British relationship with our Monarchy is different from the other countries relationships with their royal families.
This is going to be very snobbish of me but I think the Queen or the Prince of Wales should attend foreign royal events only under the most extraordinary of circumstances.
For me the BRF is the 'big leagues' and I don't want my Queen travelling to some tiny European country for a baptismal or wedding . That's why we have minor royals in Britain, to fulfil these duties.

But they don't even assist to funerals who are very extraordinary circumstances -the last goodbye to a Fellow sovereign. Actually to be fair I believe that the Duke of Endimburgh did attend most funerals of the past but the Queen only appeared at Baudouin's funeral.
Any way I believe that appart from the two WW the new spouses who entered the spouses changed things. The late Princess Royal , King George VI and the late Duke of Gloucester didn't marry foreing royals, but local aristocrats who (and I am sorry if this sounds as a stereotype or offence, I really don;t mean it this way) were probably raised in very "British" way, didn't wish to be seen as cosmopolitans and thought of the rest of Europe vaguely as "the Constinent", so there was a general shift the Royal Family's attitude towards the rest of the Royal families. Marina was of course a Princess and attended many glamorous events in Europe but that's one among four - the rest most likely didn't care. Not to mention that their mother Mary might have been a foreign royal, but her whole family practically resided in Britain and their line was morganatic - so the connections were already thin

[NGalitzine]

^^^^
Actually is was the very royal George V who pretty much discontinued contact with European royals and decided it was better for the BRF to marrying into British nobility than continental royals. As GV said "abroad in bloody".

[snowflower]

Yes of course but the fact that only one of his daughters - in-law really cared about big royal celebrations (because lets face it ,you might want to enjoy continental royal "partying" and still be a native aristocrat ) did help a lot

[Lumutqueen]

The British Royal Family is no different to any other royal house, it has no reason to be different than any other family. You can call it tradition, but it's just thinking they're better than everyone else when they aren't. They don't bother to make the effort simply because of the water between us and Europe. Some people use the age thing as an excuse, Prince Charles the UK heir being 64? and the Danish heir for example being 44? Or William's counterparts not being in double figures yet if you understand me. But you can be friends with people younger than you, it isn't a crime.

I can understand why Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip have not attended weddings, their age, this doesn't hold for Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine or Henry. You can't use the 'other engagements' excuse either as these weddings are planned months in advanced. It seems to be the case, that when a wedding comes a long Sophie and Edward go. They do a fantastic job and have made many friends among European royalty which is probably why we see them on the continent more than other royals. I can't imagine royals particularly care who turns up and they'd probably rather it be someone they know. But William and Catherine should start making an effort.

[Molly2101]

I think a lot of it is to do with Edward and Sophie being closest in age to the other Royals, and they have young children; they are going through similar life stages as the others. The Wessex's have now built up friendships with the Royals, being invited to non official events (WA's 40th and Martha Louise's 40th).

[Duke-of-Earl]

I personally do think the BRF are better than everyone else and certainly their bloodlines back it up. There are not many 30 year old grandchildren of a current sovereign who has William's Blue Blood. Most European Kings and Queens are married to commoners and their children in turn are married to commoners, while William's blood, as a grandchild remains true-blue.

The continental royals or minor royals as my mum calls them have no problem coming to Britain and jump at the chance to be photographed at a BRF function but it doesn't work the other way around. The BRF are the rock stars of the royal world (Wasn't there a pregnancy announcement last week....?)and they can afford to be very selective to what events they attend.
Its a snobbish attitude but it is the British way

[snowflower]

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

I personally do think the BRF are better than everyone else and certainly their bloodlines back it up. There are not many 30 year old grandchildren of a current sovereign who has William's Blue Blood. Most European Kings and Queens are married to commoners and their children in turn are married to commoners, while William's blood, as a grandchild remains true-blue.

Well in terms of lineage I can't see how the British are better. Strictly from an old fashioned, Almanach de Gotha point of view, QEII has a less distinguised royal lineage than practically every other current sovereign, since they all had two royal parents, except in the case of Liechtenstein. In terms of marriage, some married plain commoners, some aristocrats or royals And there are still aristocrats marrying into reigning families - honestly I don't see why Diana Spencer's blood is more distinguised that than of Mathilde d'Udekem D Acoz or Stephanie De Lannoy (Sophie In Bavaria's of course wins this race )

[Duke-of-Earl]

Originally Posted by snowflower

Well in terms of lineage I can't see how the British are better. Strictly from an old fashioned, Almanach de Gotha point of view, QEII has a less distinguised royal lineage than practically every other current sovereign, since they all had two royal parents, except in the case of Liechtenstein. In terms of marriage, some married plain commoners, some aristocrats or royals And there are still aristocrats marrying into reigning families - honestly I don't see why Diana Spencer's blood is more distinguised that than of Mathilde d'Udekem D Acoz or Stephanie De Lannoy (Sophie In Bavaria's of course wins this race )

Simply do a head count of all the grandchildren of current monarchs and then tell me William is not bluest of them all
My main point is the British are British and that means having pride of place in the world of royals. Its just a fact.
I don't recall Victoria or Mary or Maxima having the covers of the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times dedicated to them within 30 mins of a pregnancy announcement.

The original question was why do senior British Royals avoid attending events on the continent and my answer is because they are simply above other royal families.
Thats my opinion.

[snowflower]

I don't really disagree with your opinion - they are the most recognisable outside their countries and they are held (or appear to be held) on a high pedestal, that's very true . I simply don't think it has anything to do with their lineage

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

Simply do a head count of all the grandchildren of current monarchs and then tell me William is not bluest of them all

How is William's blood any bluer than, say, that of Princess Elizabeth of Belgium? Or Prince Joseph of Liechtenstein? Or practically every single other royal grandchild?
As blue-blooded as them perhaps, but more so? The Queen Mother and Diana were both commoners so the blue blood in the British Royal Family is seriously watered down.

I understand that, as a citizen of one of the Realms, you are understandably attached and proud of your royal family; however, there is no need to try to bring down every single other one to prove whatever point you are trying to make. The British Royals aren't necessarily the grandest, fairest, nicest, wealthiest or just the best of them all, you know. Certainly not from the point of view of those who happen to live in other Monarchies.