The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Weddings General Discussion (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f95/)
-   -   House of Windsor Representation at Royal Weddings (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f95/house-of-windsor-representation-at-royal-weddings-34163.html)

neillondon 12-14-2012 10:46 AM

House of Windsor Representation at Royal Weddings
 
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 12-14-2012 10:57 AM

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

royalistbert 12-14-2012 11:50 AM

Because most of the time they have engagements elsewhere. :flowers:

NGalitzine 12-14-2012 12:10 PM

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 12-14-2012 12:17 PM

Didn't Prince Charles go to Spanish Royal Wedding? ;)

NGalitzine 12-14-2012 12:21 PM

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 12-14-2012 12:31 PM

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 12-14-2012 12:35 PM

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 12-14-2012 01:01 PM

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 12-14-2012 01:14 PM

: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.

snowflower 12-14-2012 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl (Post 1493851)
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 12-14-2012 04:22 PM

^^^^
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 12-14-2012 04:26 PM

: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 :tongue:) did help a lot

Lumutqueen 12-14-2012 04:55 PM

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 12-14-2012 05:50 PM

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 12-14-2012 06:40 PM

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 12-14-2012 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl (Post 1494013)
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 :tongue:)

Duke-of-Earl 12-14-2012 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowflower (Post 1494029)
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 :tongue:)

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 12-14-2012 07:32 PM

: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

Artemisia 12-14-2012 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl (Post 1494032)
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.

Duke-of-Earl 12-14-2012 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemisia (Post 1494038)
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

AdmirerUS 12-14-2012 07:55 PM

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:

Dman 12-14-2012 07:56 PM

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.

UserDane 12-15-2012 04:13 AM

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 :-)

EIIR 12-15-2012 07:26 AM

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?

Muhler 12-15-2012 09:03 AM

: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.

miche 12-15-2012 09:17 AM

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

Duke-of-Earl 12-15-2012 09:28 AM

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

Nico 12-15-2012 09:36 AM

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...

Muhler 12-15-2012 09:37 AM

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. :smile: That's how it's seen by the common people in other monarchies.

Queen Penelope 12-15-2012 09:42 AM

I think people might not realize that when all these marriages were taking place years ago, Sophie was the second lady of the land after The Queen, so that's not for nothing. True, Charles is now married, but I still think Edward and Sophie are the most logical choice. They've been the representatives of HM for years and (we can only guess) are friendly with the members of the other royal houses. Why change things up now?

EIIR 12-15-2012 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muhler (Post 1494216)
: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.

What on earth does empire have to do with anything? We in the UK have a different set of relationships to most continental European countries. The links with the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Ireland etc. etc. are so much deeper and more highly valued than those with other nations. The Spanish RF have a similar type of relationship with many South American nations. It's simply a result of our history.

Quote:

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?
Equally, one could say the so-called 'family' connections between the BRF and the other royal families are now so distant as to be of little relevance. Those close relationships with the Kaiser and the Tsar didn't exactly bring much in the way of benefits to the British people. Those who wish to denigrate the BRF in the UK refer to them as German, even to this day, and the Windsors have been working to prove their Britishness for decades.

Quote:

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.
There are lots of ifs, buts and maybes here. The Queen is monarch of 16 sovereign states and her children support her duties in that capacity. There would be something seriously wrong if the BRF didn't value those relationships more than any others. What might possibly happen at some vague date in the future is irrelevant.

Quote:

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.
Why does it not hold water? Why on earth should I have to pay for a whole crew of police protection officers, ladies-in-waiting, equerries, valets, and whatever else to go to Copenhagen or Stockholm for the wedding of some royals I'd never heard of until I joined this forum? What possible benefit or advantage would the British people enjoy by sending the most senior royals to every royal event in the other European monarchies? We already have friendly relations with these countries.

Do you really not see how jetting off to the continent to hobnob with other royals as part of a super-exclusive club could be negative PR for the royals?

Quote:

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?
We can argue about whether it's embarrassing or not, but that doesn't mean that it's not fact. I can't see how knowing that Sweden has a constitutional monarchy would be of any particular benefit to the average man on the street.

Quote:

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.
But the British people have shown in poll after poll over many years (not only during the current crisis) that they want looser ties with Europe, they certainly don't want to 'cement' further connections. Rightly or wrongly, the British are and have always been a Eurosceptic people.

Quote:

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.
All this may have been true in the days when royals had actual executive power and relationships between royal houses were all important as regards war and peace. The reality is that these people have no ability to shape or control foreign policy and so the relationships are of limited importance to anyone.

As much as Kate is like other commoner women marrying into royal families, there are also enormous differences. Unfortunately for the BRF, the press scrutiny in the UK is way beyond anything any other royal family is subjected to. As we've seen with the pregnancy announcement, William and Kate face a lifetime of media coverage (deserved or otherwise) on a scale that's pretty much unique among RFs in the world. They are going to have to learn to live with the fact that they'll be recognised just about anywhere on the planet, which is not a problem for most other royals. Kate has the best adviser and support in taking on her royal role - her husband, who had a front row seat during his parents' difficulties. I seriously doubt that there's much Mary, Maxima or Mathilde can offer Kate that's better than that.

Archduchess Zelia 12-15-2012 12:54 PM

I don't see the big problem in this, Edward and Sophie are much closer in age to most of the couples whose weddings they've attended, it seems much more logical to me for Her Majesty to send them rather than Charles. I suspect, like other previous posters, that William, Catherine and Harry are going to take over once Charles is King.

Duke-of-Earl 12-15-2012 01:15 PM

I'm in the process of having EIIR's last comment lamenated so I can carry it around in my wallet hahahha
Seriously folks, does it get any better than this ?
Excellent comment and I agree completely!

camelot23ca 12-15-2012 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miche (Post 1494220)
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

I agree with your points here. Edward and Sophie aren't glamorous or high profile, but they're not junior members of the royal family and they seem to be genuinely well liked and appreciated by members of other royal families.

Also, while I'm sure William and Kate would be made feel very welcome if they did start going to these weddings, christenings, etc, I can't help but feel that members of the other European royal families understand quite well that there would be drawbacks to hosting this couple while the attention surrounding them is so intense.

Andolini 12-15-2012 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neillondon (Post 1493794)
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?

Now I could be wrong, but I can't recall ever or rarely seeing King Juan Carlos at any weddings.

Muhler 12-15-2012 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EIIR (Post 1494288)
What on earth does empire have to do with anything? We in the UK have a different set of relationships to most continental European countries. The links with the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Ireland etc. etc. are so much deeper and more highly valued than those with other nations. The Spanish RF have a similar type of relationship with many South American nations. It's simply a result of our history.

I was merely quoting what is said at the coffee tables in other monarchies.
This isn't about logic this is about feelings.
I have the priviledge to know about the reasons you have presented as to why the BRF do as they do, because I read about them here on TRF and I can, admittedly with a little difficulty, understand them. The gossip magazines and the TV commentators don't say a word about this.
So when an event takes place in monarchy X, people hear the commentators say: "There is the King of Spain, followed by the Queen of the Netherlands and there is Prince Edward of the UK the third son of QEII, followed by the king of Sweden...".
And because people are proud of their monarchy, their country and their royal family, they feel snubbed on behalf of their royal family. Even though their royal family may not have any problems at all with Edward coming.
That's why this comes up again and again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EIIR (Post 1494288)
Equally, one could say the so-called 'family' connections between the BRF and the other royal families are now so distant as to be of little relevance. Those close relationships with the Kaiser and the Tsar didn't exactly bring much in the way of benefits to the British people. Those who wish to denigrate the BRF in the UK refer to them as German, even to this day, and the Windsors have been working to prove their Britishness for decades.

If anyone to this day is in doubt that the Windsors are British, they are hopeless cases and shouldn't be allowed outside without a guidedog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EIIR (Post 1494288)
There are lots of ifs, buts and maybes here. The Queen is monarch of 16 sovereign states and her children support her duties in that capacity. There would be something seriously wrong if the BRF didn't value those relationships more than any others. What might possibly happen at some vague date in the future is irrelevant.

Fair enough, but it was worth a try...:smile:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EIIR (Post 1494288)
Why does it not hold water? Why on earth should I have to pay for a whole crew of police protection officers, ladies-in-waiting, equerries, valets, and whatever else to go to Copenhagen or Stockholm for the wedding of some royals I'd never heard of until I joined this forum? What possible benefit or advantage would the British people enjoy by sending the most senior royals to every royal event in the other European monarchies? We already have friendly relations with these countries.

Do you really not see how jetting off to the continent to hobnob with other royals as part of a super-exclusive club could be negative PR for the royals?

Honestly? No, I don't. Perhaps because I'm used to see the other royal families having gettogethers at regular intervals.
Those who complain about the cost will, no matter what.

As for security and housing, that's up to the host country. The BRF needs protection and service no matter what anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EIIR (Post 1494288)
We can argue about whether it's embarrassing or not, but that doesn't mean that it's not fact. I can't see how knowing that Sweden has a constitutional monarchy would be of any particular benefit to the average man on the street.

Well, it would be embarrassing for you. If you go on a holiday to say Portugal and you chat with some French, german and Swedish tourists and you show that you don't know the most basic things about other European countries you will not be considered the sharpest knife in the drawer.
And if you have the audacity to add you don't care, well, enjoy your drink - alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EIIR (Post 1494288)
But the British people have shown in poll after poll over many years (not only during the current crisis) that they want looser ties with Europe, they certainly don't want to 'cement' further connections. Rightly or wrongly, the British are and have always been a Eurosceptic people.

To that I can retort: No man is an island and that goes for countries too in this globalized world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EIIR (Post 1494288)
All this may have been true in the days when royals had actual executive power and relationships between royal houses were all important as regards war and peace. The reality is that these people have no ability to shape or control foreign policy and so the relationships are of limited importance to anyone.

As much as Kate is like other commoner women marrying into royal families, there are also enormous differences. Unfortunately for the BRF, the press scrutiny in the UK is way beyond anything any other royal family is subjected to. As we've seen with the pregnancy announcement, William and Kate face a lifetime of media coverage (deserved or otherwise) on a scale that's pretty much unique among RFs in the world. They are going to have to learn to live with the fact that they'll be recognised just about anywhere on the planet, which is not a problem for most other royals. Kate has the best adviser and support in taking on her royal role - her husband, who had a front row seat during his parents' difficulties. I seriously doubt that there's much Mary, Maxima or Mathilde can offer Kate that's better than that.

I disagree with you. Royals may not have much political influence, but as living role models they certainly have a lot of influence. Why else follow the royals and discuss and imitate what they say and do?

You are basically saying that other royals cannot teach W&K anything. I believe you are very much wrong. You can always learn something new.
Before I began to do what I do now, I instructed new people for a number of years. And even though I was damned good at my job, I learned something in return from every single one I trained. Even the most thick headed.

NGalitzine 12-15-2012 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muhler (Post 1494368)
So when an event takes place in monarchy X, people hear the commentators say: "There is the King of Spain, followed by the Queen of the Netherlands and there is Prince Edward of the UK the third son of QEII, followed by the king of Sweden...".
.

Presumably they were all sitting around discussing a funeral because Juan Carlos does not do weddings but seems to prefer funerals.

Andolini 12-15-2012 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1494370)
Presumably they were all sitting around discussing a funeral because Juan Carlos does not do weddings but seems to prefer funerals.

Yes, that is what I thought also!!!! I never see him at weddings

cepe 12-15-2012 04:55 PM

I think all the royals are as royal as each other.

I think that there are 2 reasons about the BRF attending royal events abroad. 1stly the Queen doesn't (generally) go to weddings, funerals, christenings other than those of her direct family. Good example was the wedding of Richard of Gloucester - didn't go. Go to one, go to them all and I just dont think on the scale of the family, that is possible - and her official duties, rather than family events, always takes priority.

Other reasons
The Queen limits her travelling abroad and I think that has been the case for about 20 years. And I think Charles for quite a while was on his own officially - the BRF only take spouses on royal events. And once he did get married - there is an age gap with the other CP couples. But Edward and Sophie are a tad younger and hve more in common (ie young children) and he is the Queen's son - so suitable I think. I don't think any slight was ever intended and I'm pretty sure that none was taken.

AnnEliza 12-17-2012 12:05 PM

This discussion seems weird to me. I hardly think having the Queen's son and daughter-in-law attend Continental royal weddings, etc. is comparable to merely sending a post card. People's noses are really out of joint because the 86 year old Queen herself, along with her 91 year old husband, doesn't attend every wedding and christening in Europe? And really, are the Earl and Countess of Wessex MINOR royals? He is a Prince of the realm and the Queen's son! If she were sending her second cousin, that would be a minor royal!

Andolini 12-17-2012 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnnEliza (Post 1495016)
This discussion seems weird to me. I hardly think having the Queen's son and daughter-in-law attend Continental royal weddings, etc. is comparable to merely sending a post card. People's noses are really out of joint because the 86 year old Queen herself, along with her 91 year old husband, doesn't attend every wedding and christening in Europe? And really, are the Earl and Countess of Wessex MINOR royals? He is a Prince of the realm and the Queen's son! If she were sending her second cousin, that would be a minor royal!

Heck, I admire Queen Elizabeth, she is twice as old as me and ten times more active than I am!!!!!

An Ard Ri 12-17-2012 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andolini (Post 1494366)
Now I could be wrong, but I can't recall ever or rarely seeing King Juan Carlos at any weddings.

It is indeed very rare unless its a member of the extended Spanish Royal Family.The King normally sends the Queen or one of his children and their spouses.

vkrish 12-17-2012 01:00 PM

Hi all.Wow, during my few days away there was such an extensive discussion on this topic. I am glad to see this.
Actually I raised this topic in 'Windsors and Europe' a couple of weaks ago, hoping for a great discussion.But as usual,for all my posts, hardly anyone responded then.
Ok now I would like to make a few points regarding the discussion held till now.

1.Edward is as much a representative of Queen as Charles
People naturally seem to feel that sending Edward and Sophie is like belittling the hosts. Quite normal, given our over-obsession with the huge queue they are making forever outside the Palace for the throne, waiting for someone to pop off. But I feel Edward and Sophie as much represent the Queen as C&C, and they do so, more directly than W&K.
You can feel sending the last kid is odd, but it is not like only the last kid is doing things forever.
Charles has attended weddings, funerals, enthronements for almost 2 decades. Anne has been the BRF's rep in Norway since her youth. She was Haakon's godmother, received the King in '05 State Visit, attended their b'day parties and all.Andrew takes care of the Middle East and Arab nations. So they are all actually diving their duties properly.
William and Kate have not yet come to age. Come on, many European CPs didnt even have any clue about their life-partners or even lives at 30..
2.Attending royal weddings hardly has anything with bilateral relations
The relations between two countries are almost always, hell always political.A helluva things go behind the scenes between the two governments at several levels, which have absolutely nothing to do with Ohh Our Queen gets along so well with yours..I bet if we TRF people were in Spanish government, we would have thought..To hell with Gibralter, send Queen Sophia to Windsor banquet, wanna see how she kisses and hugs QE and DoE.And does the common man, not interested in royalty, really care which royal from which country attended his country's royal wedding, and measure his regard for that nation in terms of that, no way..
3.No one is gaining or losing anything by attending these events
These people are not real reigning royals who need some retreat for secret consultations over alliances and all. It is not all correct to assume Will and Kate are 'losing' something by not going to weddings.Each RF has an army of advisors and elders with helluve experience to guide them. It is not that these events are the only things where they can meet.
4.Everything need not be shown in front of the media
I have been banging my head on this point since the time I joined TRF. We are all madly hell-bent on making impressions based a very few moments captured on TV/cam. We sometimes even go to an extent to say that a particular mother doesnt care that much for her kids cos we never saw a pic of her giving them a kiss.Just bcos QEII doesnt attend any events does not at all mean she is aloof or distant from other RFs.Just think, which self-respecting King/Queen/CP will come running for William's wedding, if QEII is aloof/distant/egoistic? She probably maintains good relations privately with all of them, and they reciprocate it.
5.BRF is not proud or megalomaniac or something
Again, their good relations with all RFs are purely reflected in the fact that how much other regard the other RFs hold them in. Assuming William need not atten bcos his blood is bluer, is just one's own chauvinism nothing else.
6.BRF always try to keep 'royal' thing away from public focus
You compare any Jubilees/Wedding of BRF and other RF, you will definitely notice this. BRF always wants to involve their own public in their celebrations. Other royals are just a sort of more private thing, though public appearance is there. See for the Jubilee, mainstream public were involved on all 4 days. The banquet for foreign royals was a very low-key.On contrast, see QM's jubilee, there were all Galas, concerts, dinners for all foreign royals, and on final day there was procession and balcony appearance. And there too they brought foreign royals on balcony.At their every event, there is so much, literally so much focus on gowns of foreign royals attending. Common people cannot get connected with that.They just give the impression of celebrating monarchy or royalty, whereas BRF gives the impression of celebrating the nation. PSPSPS:NO OFFENCE MY Opinion. Each one have their own ways of celebrating, though.
So for foreign events, it sends the impression that the Queen sent someone, just because someone has to go.And I believe British public just wants that impression. That must be behind the 'custom' of not attending.
7.'Commoner' royals hardly had anything to do with the practice of monarchs not attending
Someone said that commoners married into BRF like QM, Alice, etc had no interest in foreign events and so monarchs stopped attending. This is not right. The practice was intiated by George V himself. Moreover, the 'commoners' would be more excited to show off their royal status and mingle with royals. In retrospect, the QM who was from lesser well-to-do among the 3 D-I-Ls of George V (Alice's family was way way way more richer than QM's), turned out to be more extravagant then her royal and rich-aristocrat S-I-Ls.

Huh, OK guys these are my opinions on various(almost all) points expressed till now.If anyone by any chance managed to read all this, please put forth ur views.
And again PS: No offence. I dont mean at all to criticise any other RFs or their celebrations. Was just analysing from my point of view.

AdmirerUS 12-17-2012 07:55 PM

Muhler - I guess I do agree with you that the British Royals will do as they please. I also believe they can deal with it if it ruffles a few feathers on the continent. Queen Elizabeth does things her way for her country and it seems to have worked out fairly well with her constituency. I think that is her overarching concern.

You can't please all the people all of the time and she chooses to manage relationships in her own country with more apparent fervor than relationships with relatives and acquaintances on the continent. I also think that works for her.

Moonmaiden23 12-17-2012 11:51 PM

I have no problem with the Wessexes attending Continental weddings. For the most part they are friends with the Royals their own age in the other RF's. They represent the BRF with great dignity and they seem to enjoy themselves in the bargain.

But the idea that the senior Royals of the BRF don't attend these things because they are somehow superior to their Continental counterparts is simply absurd and laughable. The Continentals are the PEERS and not in any way subordinate to the House of Windsor.

And for the record, if/when Prince William and his generation come to their respective Thrones only three current Heirs will have married Royal/aristocratic spouses and will therefore have children with this so-called "truly blue blood".

William will not be among that small and very elite group. :ermm:

Muhler 12-18-2012 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS (Post 1495156)
Muhler - I guess I do agree with you that the British Royals will do as they please. I also believe they can deal with it if it ruffles a few feathers on the continent. Queen Elizabeth does things her way for her country and it seems to have worked out fairly well with her constituency. I think that is her overarching concern.

You can't please all the people all of the time and she chooses to manage relationships in her own country with more apparent fervor than relationships with relatives and acquaintances on the continent. I also think that works for her.

Oh, the BRF will be fine contuinuing their current line.

If there is anythng I have learned from this and previous debates, it is that the BRF will face little critisism in Britain.
If the British press coverage of other royals is very limited, then the public isn't made aware of the feeling of being snubbed people in mainland Europe have. And if they were made aware I think it would actually heighten the BRF's popularity among many on the street. In spite, because so many feel Britain stands out from mainland Europe or simply because they instinctively from ranks around the BRF - the latter also being evident here.

However I still believe the BRF will lose from not being active members of the social club of royals.
I hear your arguments the royals seeing each other privately, i.e. QEII and Prince Charles and that's true and they are so experienced in their roles that they'll do fine anyway.
It's the next generation that matters.

The era of QEII is ending. That era where royals had a more distant role will end with the current monarchs.
The new generation of royals will face entirely new challenges and have very different roles and I don't think it will be any easier to be a royal, on the contrary!
Within the past one or two generations commoners have begun to marry into the royal families. Harry's wife is also much more likely to be a commoner than a noble or a royal or even from a very wealthy background. They at least had some initial training in the role of being a royal.

The new ones, the commoners, have to start from scratch. It's not a question of using which fork when eating. It's a question of having someone in a similar situation you can confide in, get feedback from, advise and who can understand you. Advisors are not in the same situation as the new commoner-spouses, they can only offer some advise. The royal husbands and wives, will no doubt do their very best but they were born into their role and grew up in their role. They cannot fully comprehend how it is to marry into a royal family.
That's why I believe it would be so beneficial for W&K and Harry to mingle more with other royals. I don't see them doing that now.
One start, and a good start I think, would be to attend events.
There is nothing in the rulebook saying that say Harry can't accompany Edward and Sophie.

Queen Penelope 12-19-2012 11:35 AM

Muhler...Totally get what you're saying, but if the common thread between the wives and Kate is that they are commoners marrying into royalty, IMO you kinda need "a little more". The current CP couples are all around the same ages, place in life, ect. They've all been married around a few years of each other, started families about the same time and have closer family ties. This is where Edward and Sophie fit in (and in a way William, Kate and Harry never will). No doubt their stories would be invaluable, but when you are at different places in life like the BRF is in general in relation to other RFs, it's hard for them (aside from Edward and Sophie) to form the kind of frienships that the continentals clearly enjoy.

Nice Nofret 12-19-2012 11:45 AM

Well, I could see Harry mingling gladly with i.g. that Swedish youngster (what's his name? the one with the nude model-girlfriend) But would he profit by that ? I doubt it ;)

Lumutqueen 12-19-2012 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nice Nofret (Post 1495695)
Well, I could see Harry mingling gladly with i.g. that Swedish youngster (what's his name? the one with the nude model-girlfriend) But would he profit by that ? I doubt it ;)

Carl-Philip, he's not the youngest his sister Madeleine is.

Muhler 12-19-2012 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nice Nofret (Post 1495695)
Well, I could see Harry mingling gladly with i.g. that Swedish youngster (what's his name? the one with the nude model-girlfriend) But would he profit by that ? I doubt it ;)

There is the chance he could meet a sweet Swedish girl of a good family and marry and become a devoted father and husband, which I think he will once he's genuinely committed.
Or he could meet another appropriate and sweet girl at one of the parties. One who could hold him by the ears. :tongue:
And the BRF would get an injection of foreign blood - and perhaps that would be healthy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Penelope (Post 1495693)
Muhler...Totally get what you're saying, but if the common thread between the wives and Kate is that they are commoners marrying into royalty, IMO you kinda need "a little more". The current CP couples are all around the same ages, place in life, ect. They've all been married around a few years of each other, started families about the same time and have closer family ties. This is where Edward and Sophie fit in (and in a way William, Kate and Harry never will). No doubt their stories would be invaluable, but when you are at different places in life like the BRF is in general in relation to other RFs, it's hard for them (aside from Edward and Sophie) to form the kind of frienships that the continentals clearly enjoy.

You mean the age argument? W&K are around thirty. Victoria and Daniel are a little older, the rest of the current CP's are ten-fifteen years older on avearge.
Ten fifteen years is a big difference when you are twenty, when you are thirty, not so much.
As another poster pointed out, it isn't uncommon (or weird) to have people who are older than you among your frends.

I hope and believe Edward and Sophie have a great time in the Royal Social Club and perhaps when QEII asks for volunteers to attend a wedding somewhere, their hands are up right away, barely concealing their eagerness.
However, with all due respect for Edward and Sophie, they will increasingly become secondary royals, as Harry in particular and probably Andrew's girls as well will take over more and more (the girls will certainly get ever more attention).
Or let me put the issue in another way: will it harm the BRF more than it would benefit, if the younger members in particular joined the Royal Social Club?

NGalitzine 12-19-2012 12:14 PM

Well Muhler, I don't think going to weddings/anniversary parties/birthday parties/jubilees would earn the BRF any extra points with the British public and in William and Catherines position would likely earn more than a few detractors at home.
This really seems to be more of an issue for posters on these forums and especially people on the continent than it does in the UK or to the people actually directly involved in these events. It certainly does not seem to bother the continental royals who still extend invitations to the Windsors and accept whomever QEII decides to send as her representatives. If it truly bothered them they would not come to London when ever an invite is received. They stayed away from Princess Margarets wedding so they could do so again. It would not gather much attention from the British public if they decided to stay away.

Duke-of-Earl 12-19-2012 12:15 PM

Question: When the continental royals send out their invites to different events, do they actually invite William and Catherine specifically?
I don't think they do, if Europe is clamouring to see the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, maybe try and send them a personal invitation sometime, otherwise its the Queen's call

Andolini 12-19-2012 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS (Post 1494041)
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 ADORE your cheekiness!!!!!:flowers::flowers:

AristoCat 12-19-2012 01:00 PM

to be frank, I wish the BRF would be a little less snooty about things like this. After all, the day might come when the BRF will need the help of the Continental royals and then where will they (BRF) be if the Continentals turn their backs? No monarchy is infalliable and the Russian and French dynasties proved and so really, the BRF is supposedly so infallible, but can one day end up on the end of a stick begging for help.

The Continentals might not be bicycle monarchies, but go figure, thy are far more educated and experienced in a professional work environment, along with being far more cultured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl (Post 1495711)
Question: When the continental royals send out their invites to different events, do they actually invite William and Catherine specifically?
I don't think they do, if Europe is clamouring to see the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, maybe try and send them a personal invitation sometime, otherwise its the Queen's call

It was initially announced that WK would be sent ot the CP wedding in Luxembourg, but when the guest list was officially announced, it was Sophie and Edward.

Artemisia 12-19-2012 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AristoCat (Post 1495739)
The Continentals might not be bicycle monarchies, but go figure, thy are far more educated and experienced in a professional work environment, along with being far more cultured.

That's a matter of opinion and debate. Personally, I wouldn't say any of the senior British royals are in any way less cultured or educated than their continental counterparts.

Quote:

It was initially announced that WK would be sent ot the CP wedding in Luxembourg, but when the guest list was officially announced, it was Sophie and Edward.
Nothing of the kind was announced, certainly not officially. Before the official guest list was released, it was merely speculated that William or Kate (or Charles and Camilla) might be the British representatives.

NGalitzine 12-19-2012 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AristoCat (Post 1495739)
to be frank, I wish the BRF would be a little less snooty about things like this. After all, the day might come when the BRF will need the help of the Continental royals and then where will they (BRF) be if the Continentals turn their backs? No monarchy is infalliable and the Russian and French dynasties proved and so really, the BRF is supposedly so infallible, but can one day end up on the end of a stick begging for help.

The Continentals might not be bicycle monarchies, but go figure, thy are far more educated and experienced in a professional work environment, along with being far more cultured.



It was initially announced that WK would be sent ot the CP wedding in Luxembourg, but when the guest list was officially announced, it was Sophie and Edward.

Its almost 2013. Just what sort of help do you imagine a continental royal family might possibly render the BRF? They are all constitutional monarchies without political power.
It was never announced from Buckingham Palace that William & Catherine would travel to Luxembourg. That "new item" came from the Luxembourg press which was purely wishful thinking on their part.

Archduchess Zelia 12-19-2012 01:17 PM

I think it's good they don't send William and Catherine to everything, they're the most talked about royals right now afterall. It could be that they're not sending them to a wedding as Guillaume and Stéphanie's because they'd take all focus away from the bride and groom.

Lumutqueen 12-19-2012 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia (Post 1495747)
I think it's good they don't send William and Catherine to everything, they're the most talked about royals right now afterall. It could be that they're not sending them to a wedding as Guillaume and Stéphanie's because they'd take all focus away from the bride and groom.

I think they're the talk in the UK and the USA but in countries where they have their own glamorous royal families, I don't think they're discussed at great lengths. The recent Luxembourg wedding, nobody could have out shined the Bride on that day not even Catherine.

Invites come from Monarch to Monarch, and The Queen presumably 'asks' who wants to go. Unless it was a friends wedding, I doubt an invite would ever come to William and Catherine personally until they are King and Queen.

AristoCat 12-19-2012 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1495745)
Its almost 2013. Just what sort of help do you imagine a continental royal family might possibly render the BRF? They are all constitutional monarchies without political power.
.

You never know though what might happen. After all few can see the future and that day might come. Technically the BRF was a constitutional monarchy during WWI, but it didn't prevent George VI from interfering in regards to the Romanovs. The King of England pursuaded the Prime Minister to reject the initial offer of asylum.

NGalitzine 12-19-2012 09:14 PM

^^^^
Not that we go in much for revolutions, at least not for a few hundred years, but the UK is a member of the EU and there is free movement of citizens within the EU so if they were to decide to pack up and leave they have many options open to them in Europe.

Moonmaiden23 12-19-2012 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1495745)
Its almost 2013. Just what sort of help do you imagine a continental royal family might possibly render the BRF? They are all constitutional monarchies without political power.
It was never announced from Buckingham Palace that William & Catherine would travel to Luxembourg. That "new item" came from the Luxembourg press which was purely wishful thinking on their part.

The chances of it ever happening are nil but imagine that not one Continental Royal house ever sends a representative to any other wedding, funeral or Jubilee event in London?? Imagine if no foreign Royals had shown up to the Will/Kate wedding-not even the Greeks??

All that would have been left outside of the couples' families and friends would have been a bunch of socialites wearing "the ugliest hats and fascinators ever seen" as Karl Lagerfeld correctly stated, in addition to the usual footballers and TV starlets. How suitable, how prestigious an event for a couple who will hopefully be King and Queen if all goes according to plan! :ohmy:

ALL of modern day Royalty is virtually in the same boat. They all need one another to some extent and that includes the Brits.

Despite what some in the Luxembourg media might have thought in the beginning the Cambridges were not needed or missed at the Guillaume/Stephanie wedding in October. It was magnificent and glamourous on every level.

And Lumutqueen is 100% correct..nobody could have stolen the bride's thunder even if they'd tried.

NGalitzine 12-19-2012 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 (Post 1495951)
The chances of it ever happening are nil but imagine that not one Continental Royal house ever sends a representative to any other wedding, funeral or Jubilee event in London?? Imagine if no foreign Royals had shown up to the Will/Kate wedding-not even the Greeks??

All that would have been left outside of the couples' families and friends would have been a bunch of socialites wearing "the ugliest hats and fascinators ever seen" as Karl Lagerfeld correctly stated, in addition to the usual footballers and TV starlets. How suitable, how prestigious an event for a couple who will hopefully be King and Queen if all goes according to plan! :ohmy:

ALL of modern day Royalty is virtually in the same boat. They all need one another to some extent and that includes the Brits.

Well with the exception of Queen Ingrid of Denmark, her godmother, that was pretty much what happened at Princess Margarets wedding but the Abbey was still full and I don't think the British public were overly upset or really cared. What foreigners don't really get is that the British don't get too worked up about European royals and are rather thankful that the channel separates us from the continent.
You will recall perhaps that there was very little coverage of the foreign royals at William & Catherines wedding. They filled a few seats in the Abbey but the public (other than royal forum types) really didnt notice or care about them.

NGalitzine 12-19-2012 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 (Post 1495951)
.

Despite what some in the Luxembourg media might have thought in the beginning the Cambridges were not needed or missed at the Guillaume/Stephanie wedding in October. It was magnificent and glamourous on every level.

Gee their absence was certainly noticed on this forum as posters filled pages bemoaning their absence.

Moonmaiden23 12-20-2012 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1495953)
Well with the exception of Queen Ingrid of Denmark, her godmother, that was pretty much what happened at Princess Margarets wedding but the Abbey was still full and I don't think the British public were overly upset or really cared. What foreigners don't really get is that the British don't get too worked up about European royals and are rather thankful that the channel separates us from the continent.
You will recall perhaps that there was very little coverage of the foreign royals at William & Catherines wedding. They filled a few seats in the Abbey but the public (other than royal forum types) really didnt notice or care about them.

True. They were more interested in Elton John and his husband, and the Beckhams. That cannot be denied. ;)

Still, my question is how would it have gone over at Clarence House or at Buckingham Palace behind closed doors if every Continental house had completely snubbed William's wedding? I know the public would not have given a hoot but nobody can convince me it would have gone unnoticed and that Charles and the Queen would not have cared a jot. And the ceremony itself would have looked decidedly THIRD RATE for someone as high in the line of Succession as William is.

Princess Margaret was not in line for the Throne when she married commoner Armstrong-Jones in 1960. Nobody really expected a big Royal turnout for that one anyway.

Iluvbertie 12-20-2012 02:04 AM

When Margaret married Tony she was 4th in the line of succession behind Charles, Andrew and Anne - definitely she was in the line for the Throne - as she was till the day she died.

I really don't think the BRF cares that much about the foreign royals at all.

It is also clear that the general public don't care about them - except in their own small spheres.

I have probably said this before but I remember the tour I did to Russia and Scandinavia some years ago. My Tour Director was Danish and the make up of the group were Americans, Canadians, a Spanish couple, two couples from Indonesia, one from Malaysia, some Aussies, some Kiwis, a Japanese gentleman and a family from South Africa. As we were travelling I noticed that the TD always referred to the 'King of xxx' or the 'Empress of yyyy' except when referring to The Queen when he always meant Elizabeth, never The Queen of Denmark. Even when in Denmark the local guide referred to The Queen of Denmark and her relationship to The Queen. That says a lot - The Queen is a term universally understood to mean The Queen of the UK' while other Queens need their name and/or country - even when in that Queen's domain amongst an international group such as outs. I did ask the TD about that and he said that from his experience of over 30 years as a Tour Guide around Europe everyone knows The Queen as Elizabeth but no one, outside of Denmark would use the term The Queen and mean Margrette. Most of the people on the tour didn't even know that the Scandinavians had a monarchy. This was before Mary married Fred but after the Sydney games and the Aussies were surprised to be told that the Crown Prince of Denmark was dating an Aussie girl as they didn't know Denmark had a CP.

Sometimes I think that people on these boards think that everyone else is as interested in the royals as we are here when in fact most people couldn't care less about them and don't care who turns up to events.

Nice Nofret 12-20-2012 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1495966)
When Margaret married Tony she was 4th in the line of succession behind Charles, Andrew and Anne - definitely she was in the line for the Throne - as she was till the day she died.

Yes TECHNICALLY she was 4th - but in reality she was by then a sidekick - as the Queen had allready 3 Children - so it was already then highly unlikely that the throne would revert to her line - ever...

Same thing with the sisters of the Swedish King - and not far in the future same will happen to Victoria siblings ... even in Sweden they won't be important any longer - now Victoria started having kids; I quite sure she won't stop with one.

Iluvbertie 12-20-2012 03:24 AM

Whatever number she was she was still in the line of succession. To say otherwise is simply wrong and that was why I posted the information that I did.

vkrish 12-20-2012 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 (Post 1495951)
The chances of it ever happening are nil but imagine that not one Continental Royal house ever sends a representative to any other wedding, funeral or Jubilee event in London?? Imagine if no foreign Royals had shown up to the Will/Kate wedding-not even the Greeks??

All that would have been left outside of the couples' families and friends would have been a bunch of socialites wearing "the ugliest hats and fascinators ever seen" as Karl Lagerfeld correctly stated, in addition to the usual footballers and TV starlets. How suitable, how prestigious an event for a couple who will hopefully be King and Queen if all goes according to plan! :ohmy:

ALL of modern day Royalty is virtually in the same boat. They all need one another to some extent and that includes the Brits.

Despite what some in the Luxembourg media might have thought in the beginning the Cambridges were not needed or missed at the Guillaume/Stephanie wedding in October. It was magnificent and glamourous on every level.

And Lumutqueen is 100% correct..nobody could have stolen the bride's thunder even if they'd tried.

Let me tell you, the common people in Britain, and even all over the world dont give a damn if any of the foreign royals attended William's wedding or not.They would have celebrated and enjoyed it the way.Its only us royal watchers. They hardly focussed on the royals. But still no one made a big deal. This is not to undermine them or the grace they brought to the wedding, and the affection they showed for Queen and PoW by attending..

AristoCat 12-20-2012 05:46 AM

I wonder why Sophie looked so tacky at the Luxembourg wedding; she looked like she belonged at a daytime engagement, not a formal royal wedding. She was probably the only one who wasn't wearing a suit. She was wearing a white and black dress and a black fascinator.

hkittybaby 12-20-2012 05:59 AM

It would be great to see William and Kate attending these events, and I believe they will in the near future

Marengo 12-20-2012 06:27 AM

Well, when the Queen of Spain did not attend the diamond jubilee this was certainly noticed by the UK press. In fact she received far more attention than when she DID attend parts of the Cambridge wedding.

hkittybaby 12-20-2012 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo (Post 1496004)
Well, when the Queen of Spain did not attend the diamond jubilee this was certainly noticed by the UK press. In fact she received far more attention than when she DID attend parts of the Cambridge wedding.

you are right:flowers:

Lumutqueen 12-20-2012 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AristoCat (Post 1495997)
I wonder why Sophie looked so tacky at the Luxembourg wedding; she looked like she belonged at a daytime engagement, not a formal royal wedding. She was probably the only one who wasn't wearing a suit. She was wearing a white and black dress and a black fascinator.

What's that got to do with this thread?

NGalitzine 12-20-2012 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo (Post 1496004)
Well, when the Queen of Spain did not attend the diamond jubilee this was certainly noticed by the UK press. In fact she received far more attention than when she DID attend parts of the Cambridge wedding.

Yes but the reason her absence was noted at all was because it was at the instruction of the Spanish government due to a fishing dispute at Gibraltar and the upcoming visit of the Earl and Countess of Wessex to the Rock. Spanish-Gibraltar disputes always make the news in the UK, rather like the Argentinians and their claims to the Falklands. Had Sofia stayed home of her own choice it would have just been a minor note barely commented on outside of these forums where people likely would have attributed it to her own marital problems.

miche 12-20-2012 04:39 PM

I don't remember any of the continental royals going to Charles and Camilla's wedding

The only reason the British press notice Queen Sofia absense was because of Argentina calling the UK the conquistador of the Falkans and Spain not waiting Sofia to go. If Sofia didn't go for without these events surrounding it, the British press wouldn't have remember her name or what she looks like

Artemisia 12-20-2012 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miche (Post 1496254)
I don't remember any of the continental royals going to Charles and Camilla's wedding.
...

The wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla was a very small, non-state event and a relatively small number of people were present.
Nevertheless, some foreign royals did attend, including Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marit, Prince Constantijn and Princess Laurentien, Crown Prince Alexander II and Crown Princess Katharine, King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie, Crown Princess Margarita and Prince Radu, and others.

Quote:

The only reason the British press notice Queen Sofia absense was because of Argentina calling the UK the conquistador of the Falkans and Spain not waiting Sofia to go. If Sofia didn't go for without these events surrounding it, the British press wouldn't have remember her name or what she looks like
Queen Sofia's decision not to go had little to do with Falklands (that dispute is with Argentine, not Spain); her absence was reportedly a protest over an upcoming tour to Gibraltar (which is a British Overseas Territory that Spain has dubious claims on) by the Earl and Countess of Wessex.

cepe 12-20-2012 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1495966)
............ I really don't think the BRF cares that much about the foreign royals at all.

It is also clear that the general public don't care about them - except in their own small spheres.....................

I think the priority for the BRF regarding foreign royalty is the same priority it gives to itself.

All Monarchs take priority and I think generally the public know that there is a King of Norway and a Queen of the Netherlands - that harks back to WWII. This priority is given by HMQ, and when she invites to attend a function and they come, she literally puts out the red carpet.

Next comes the heirs to the throne - and HMQ gives this responsibility to Charles and Camilla. The public probably assume there are heirs but thats it. Until there is a newscast that says XXX monarch has died and XXX has succeeded to the throne, then they wont think about it.

Unless of course there is a political issue such as the sovereignty of Gibraltar. But its the politicans who get the blame, not the Spanish royal family.

After that, I dont think HMQ worries. And neither, IMO, do the other royal families. Its only on sites like this that an issue is created.

William is the heir to the heir - so in Sweden that's Estelle: interesting conversation there - gaaa-goo-goo:baby:!

miche 12-20-2012 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemisia (Post 1496257)

Queen Sofia's decision not to go had little to do with Falklands (that dispute is with Argentine, not Spain); her absence was reportedly a protest over an upcoming tour to Gibraltar (which is a British Overseas Territory that Spain has dubious claims on) by the Earl and Countess of Wessex.

You're right

miche 12-20-2012 05:22 PM

Have the continental royals gone to Middle Eastern and Asian royals weddings?

American Dane 12-20-2012 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miche (Post 1496276)
Have the continental royals gone to Middle Eastern and Asian royals weddings?

Yes. Felipe and Letizia of Spain attended Hamzah of Jordan's wedding in 2004 a week after they celebrated their own wedding...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises