CyrilVladisla
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 12,824
- City
- Conneaut
- Country
- United States
The procession of Royal carriages during the Qatar State Visit
As Anne is a princess of the blood, it is only fitting that she should take precedence after the Queen and the Princess of Wales.If the Duchess of Edinburgh was in attendance with her husband, why was the Princess Royal given higher precedence in the seating?
EDIT: The correct precedence was observed in the procession before they entered the banquet hall, but then it looks like Anne and Sophie switched places, which is very odd.
Victoria Beckham was there, but she'd dressed as if she was going to a funeral!Most of the women at the banquet seemed so elderly. I wish some younger royals (perhaps Princess Beatrice?) were included to add some glamour to the event.
But that's not how it works, brothers wives take precedence when their husbands are present.As Anne is a princess of the blood, it is only fitting that she should take precedence after the Queen and the Princess of Wales.
I think the post refers to royal women.Victoria Beckham was there, but she'd dressed as if she was going to a funeral!
Here's a video,the Emir attended alone and the Duke of Gloucester was present.When is the banquet tonight hosted by the mayor of London?
Charles and William don't want the younger royals at these events. The late Queen liked to include all her cousins - including the Michael's of Kent - but Charles has a different vision. More than likely as the older ladies retire there willl be even fewer royals attending. I can see the start of William's reign with just four - William, Catherine, Edward and Sophie.Most of the women at the banquet seemed so elderly. I wish some younger royals (perhaps Princess Beatrice?) were included to add some glamour to the event.
And that’s how you get a republic in all but name!Charles and William don't want the younger royals at these events. The late Queen liked to include all her cousins - including the Michael's of Kent - but Charles has a different vision. More than likely as the older ladies retire there willl be even fewer royals attending. I can see the start of William's reign with just four - William, Catherine, Edward and Sophie.
The problem the BRF is is that there are no working royals under 40 and only 3 now under 60 (and that will drop to 2 under 60 next month when Sophie turns 60.)
That is the idea going forward - two or maybe four in each generation but not cousins.
Really? Are you actually suggesting that by not having cousins, who are not working royals, at state events representing the UK, Charles & William are harming the monarchy?And that’s how you get a republic in all but name!
I stated it again and again if a monarchy is going to be streamlined to only be the monarch, his consort, heir and heir’s consort and the rest of the royal family is disposable then this is a republic in all but name!Really? Are you actually suggesting that by not having cousins, who are not working royals, at state events representing the UK, Charles & William are harming the monarchy?
Like Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain?I stated it again and again if a monarchy is going to be streamlined to only be the monarch, his consort, heir and heir’s consort and the rest of the royal family is disposable then this is a republic in all but name!
Actually Norway is a great example of how a streamlined monarchy can be bad as currently both the king and queen are incapable more and more to do engagements with health issues and being 80+ with the crown princess having to be on a sick leave most days due to her illness it is now up to the crown prince to be the sole representative of the monarchy!Like Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain?
Not sure I understand the point that you are trying to make. Are you suggesting it is good to have lots of younger royals at state banquets / younger working royals in general? Or is your point that it is good to have a much larger royal family, as was the case c15 years ago in the UK?Actually Norway is a great example of how a streamlined monarchy can be bad as currently both the king and queen are incapable more and more to do engagements with health issues and being 80+ with the crown princess having to be on a sick leave most days due to her illness it is now up to the crown prince to be the sole representative of the monarchy!
The other examples wouldn’t really negate the point of younger representatives as all the monarch in those countries and their consorts are under the age of 60 with the exception of the king of Belgium who is 64 and was 53 when he become a king!
Actually both, as having a large Royal family with the focus on the older generations only and trying to cut the number by not adding younger generations into the mix gives us the UK with about 10-12 working members which is a considerable number, but of them all save two are on average 70+ years old, even the youngest two one of them is under medication for a serious illness and the other is notorious for being work shy, who is almost taking a 10+ year paternity leave making him work less than his aunt who is in her 70’s!Not sure I understand the point that you are trying to make. Are you suggesting it is good to have lots of younger royals at state banquets / younger working royals in general? Or is your point that it is good to have a much larger royal family, as was the case c15 years ago in the UK?
Exactly! Some of the younger royals could be included occasionally without being added to the roster of working royals. It has happened in the past (Princess Michael?)But you don’t have to be a working royal to be invited to attend a state banquet. I took Mirabel’s initial comment to be a general observation about the apparent elderly contingent of women at the banquet ( I would say that this applied to the men as well). It would be welcome to see a wider age range at state banquets.