House of Windsor Representation at Royal Weddings


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

neillondon

Newbie
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
4
City
London
Country
United Kingdom
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?
 
I've been asking myself these same questions for years.
 
Because most of the time they have engagements elsewhere. :flowers:
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
:previous:
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.
 
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
 
^^^^
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".
 
:previous: 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 :p) did help a lot
 
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.
 
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).
 
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
 
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 :p)
 
Last edited:
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 :p)

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.
 
Last edited:
:previous: 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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

I state my opinion and you don't have to like it' I'm not 'bringing down' other royal families by affirming my opinion that the British royals are a class above all the rest.
The OP asked a question and thats my answer.

PM for the discussion on the bloodlines of 'practically every other royal grandchild'
I'll take that one on any day
 
This is just my opinion. Say for some odd (impossible) reason, I get engaged to a European royal. I am being very cheeky -and I hope I make at least a couple of you smile at some of this. These would be my thoughts on my British Royal Family attendee.

Am I at all upset that the Queen will not come to the wedding? Heck no - she's in her 80s and does not need the travel, nor does Philip. Almost everyone at the wedding will be a generation younger than her! She will send a great gift/donation in any case.

Am I thrilled that Sophie and Edward are coming to the wedding? Yes I am. They are great guests, have many friends among the European attendees, are sparkling conversationalists, don't complain about the menu and wine list or the hotel and will bring a good gift/donation. They always look great, but don't upstage the wedding families.

Am I despondent that Charles and Camilla are not coming in person? No I am not. He loathes weddings and I know that. Were he there, I'd feel like I had to duck his conversation because he would lecture me about not serving organic partridge - sorry, Charles, I could not find certified organic partridge, but I did find free range partridge! Then he would fuss because the hotel we arranged had too large a carbon footprint. Camilla would be great conversationally, but make everyone look at snaps of the grandchild! Plus, mums-in-law would get in a snit because the Boucheron Honeycomb put the rest of the headgear into the dust in photographs.

As for Wills not coming, we think Kate is a bit nouveau and she does have that tummy thing. Enough said.

And as Harry, well, he does tend to chase the female herd a bit. Plus, with the open bar, I'd just as soon not.

Hope you enjoyed this look from the other side of the question. :lol:
 
I think it's true that the British royals are more recognized and highly regarded but at the sametime the other European royals probably are happy with that. They don't have the spotlight on them as much so they are allowed to relax alittle. They are too dedicated to their people and country but they are more able to enjoy life in public as well as in private.

I see nothing wrong with the young British royals establishing a relationship with their other royal counterparts. I never thought The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge would meet up with The Crown Prince & Princess of Denmark but they did and did something beautiful and helpful for UNICEF. Even Queen Margreth was happy to see the Cambridges working with Frederick & Mary. I think they should get together more often with them and Victoria & Daniel, Guillaume & Stephanie and do some more amazing things.
 
Duke-of-Earl - I think I very much like your answers :)

Everybody here have long since recognized that with regard to the members of the British royal family, you are way beyond what is normally considered mere obsession.
For me your views of the British versus other royal families have crossed the boundaries of general discussions and have reached the realm of entertainment.
Here's to hoping you'll keep it up :)
 
For me, a large part of this is that we British generally see ourselves as, in Sir Winston Churchill's phrase, 'in Europe, but not of Europe'. One need only look at recent opinion polls on the hostility of the majority of British citizens to the European Union and closer European integration (which, given what an unmitigated disaster the whole EU project has turned out, is entirely justified). Only 12% of Britons self-identify as 'European'. We are much more instinctively close to the other English-speaking nations.

There is little knowledge of or interest in the continental royal families in the UK. Their weddings, funerals, christenings etc. receive next to no press coverage. There's a reason that many of them come to London to do their shopping - because no-one recognises them. I have yet to come across anyone in this country, apart from on sites such as this, who is dissatisfied that our royals don't go to enough continental royal events. Actually, I think if there were pictures in the press of half a dozen of the BRF heading off to some European royal wedding, where the MO seems to be trying to outdo one another in the jewellery and order stakes, it would be a bit of a PR misstep for the BRF. Why should the British taxpayer pay to transport, accommodate and protect a load of our royals in some foreign city just so they can go to the wedding of some distant cousin of theirs whom 99% of us have never heard of?

People generally overstate the family connections between the BRF and other royals. There's no doubt that they exist, but I personally don't know any of my 5th cousins twice removed or whatever. Charles paid lip-service to the family connection on his Scandinavian tour, but that's fairly standard practice on official and state visits. People seem to want them to act as if they're close family members and spend lots of time together, but that simply is not the case. There's nothing wrong with that. The BRF have close friends and family of their own, without having to fashion some super close bond with other royals.

I'm happy for the Queen to send a representative to such events. The BRF's policy seems to satisfy the other royal families, given that they're happy to attend royal events on this side of the Channel. If it doesn't bother any of the royals, why should it bother anyone else?
 
:previous: It's a question of signals.

Each and every single time there is a major event in another monarchy and the European, Arabic, Thai and Japanese families send high ranking representatives the lower ranking BRF representatives are noted and commented on and the result as that the BRF is seen as snobbish, as living in the age of the empire etcetera, etcetera.

The argument about the European monarchs happily going to say W&K's wedding: Yes, they probably were, - because most CP couples were not invited anyway. For that reason there were few lower ranking representatives, even though Sweden had to send their CP couple.

There's the argument about the world wars and the BRF distancing themselves, yes, but that was 60 years ago, isn't it time to move on?

Then there is the argument about the Commonwealth and the BRF's obligations. Fair enough, but for how long? Australia may go republic within a generation, especially as the demografic landscape slowly changes. - Even Scotland may be heading for genuine autonomy.

The taxpayer argument don't hold water either. It's bad PR work from the BRF, if the British public believe the BRF members are going to weddings just to amuse themselves. It's also about promoting Britain in a positive way.

Then there is the EU argument. Good heavens, EU is hardly popular anywhere in Europe these days! And even worse the nationalism is on the rise, now really is the time to cement the connections between the countries.

Then there is the argument that the average Briton doesn't know about other royals and don't care either. Isn't it pretty embarrassing to realise that say the average German is more well informed about who's who in Europe than the average Briton?

For me all of the above doesn't mean much, why should I care? If the high ranking BRF members for whatever reason don't want to attend such events, by all means stay away.
But, and I've said that before, I believe it's the BRF who lose. The other royal families do fine without the BRF, they mingle and form personal friendships and it's no secret that they also discuss topics of common interest in their after all exclusive club and exchange experiences and advise each other. The members of the BRF get no such healthy inputs. Inputs which Kate in particular, being a commoner who has married into a royal family, might benefit from. But certainly William as well, because they are the ones who will define the role of the BRF in the future, once QEII is gone. Not Prince Charles, whom I have absolutely nothing against, - but I see him as an interrim figure. W&K is the future and they need all the help and advise they can get.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how going to a foreign wedding is promoting Britain in a positive way. That what foreign tours are for imo.

I don't see how Edward and Sophie are low ranking members of the royal family, they are more senior than Will and Kate right now.

People complain about the BRF not sending their Crown Prince and Princess or even the Queen herself like the other family do than ask for Will and Kate to go, which base on the complaint above are still lowly rank
 
The impression I get from this thread and many like it , is the continental royals are like a little 'club' and have their monthly member's only meetings and the BRF doesn't attend and it gets their noses out of joint. EIIR is much much more articulate than I and she has said it best.
The dynamic is different in Britain and with the British.

Until I joined the TRF 3 months ago, I had no idea who Mary Donaldson is. None at at all.
She receives zero press attention in the UK or North America.

EIIR said "There is little knowledge of or interest in the continental royal families in the UK. Their weddings, funerals, christenings etc. receive next to no press coverage. There's a reason that many of them come to London to do their shopping - because no-one recognises them" and its the truth, A truth that seemingly irks a lot of the followers of foreign royal families
 
Last edited:
People tend to be more royalist than the Queen...
The BRF is a practical, down to earth family. The Queen seems to see the Wessexes as the ideal representatives because of the relatively young age of the couple and their close links with their european counterparts. She did the same in the 50's and 60's with princess Marina, relatively a "minor" royal but the exclusive representative of the BRF for some major european events.
As pointed out the continental monarchies don't seem to bother at all. We know that some monarchs are entertained privately by senior british royals like the Prince of Wales and judjing by the last visits to Norway, Sweden, Spain and Danemark, the relations seem to be quite cordial.
There is a world behind the official screen. If we don't see some public interactions btw senior British and european royals, it doesn't mean that they don't exist in private, quite the contrary i should say...
 
Last edited:
To Miche:

Because no matter how their correct position is, W&K are percieved as belonging to the next generation.
Charles & Camilla are percieved as belonging to the old generation.

It's also a question of curtesy between families.
If we are to illustrate this on a lower level:
A family down the street is having a wedding and they send out an invitation to me personally. I show up to the reception to show my respect and good will and to reaffirm our good relations.
The next month my son is getting married and I naturally repay by sending out a general invitation to the family to come to the reception. All the other families on the street show up in force - but this family sends a postcard. Fair enough, they may have other obligations.
The month after there is a baptism at that family, they send out an invitation to me, not my son, only me. Fair enough there can be all sorts of reasons for that, so I show up.
The month after my daughter is getting married. I send out general invitations, all the other families show up in force - but this family again only send a postcard.
Okay, I'm beginning to feel snubbed and also a bit disrespected and I'm not particular keen on having a close relationship with that family. - I think you get my meaning by now. :) That's how it's seen by the common people in other monarchies.
 
Back
Top Bottom