Exactly MargreteI! If I should vote in this one I would have to vote for the only one I would really know anything about - which is my own queen, Margrethe II (***which would of course also be an excellent choice...****)MargreteI said:That is an impossible question, because you would have to know how well each of them fill out their role in their society.
I think that depends which media make the reference; in the monarchy where I live, the queen is always our own queen, Margrethe II. I would expect the same goes for the Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians etc. While I don't want to underestimate the significance of QEII, there are three queens in Scandinavia alone, and I think the Scandinavian queens have a more prominent place in the media in this region than QEII so where I live, she is always referred to as QMII of England in the same way that reference is made to queen Silvia of Sweden, queen Sonja of Norway, etc.lisamaria said:But when I hear or read the word "Queen" the person I automatically think of is QEII. Also, I have noticed that the media most often refers to her with the simple word Queen, while with all the others, including Margarethe and Beatrix, the first name is added as an examplatory bit of sorts.
Henri, she was on a CNN discussion programme with other famous guests including Bill Clinton just recently and she was amazing- so articulate; no problems with her speech- no mumbling, poor syntax or grammar even in her second language and her opinions were very valid and intelligent too. Hence I can see why some would want to vote for herHenri M. said:Queen Rania al Abdallah of Jordan, by some posters labelled as 'the most professional Queen' (unfortunately without valid and backing arguments to state it) has made by far the poorest performance I have ever seen on a state visit, no matter it was by a Queen or a First Lady.
These days we can see a lot of pictures and images in the media on the Jordanian royal couple. It is that the reporter says that the skinny long-haired lady with the trousers and the shopping bag really was The Queen of Jordan. I would not have believed it otherwise.
![]()
juliana said:Henri, she was on a CNN discussion programme with other famous guests including Bill Clinton just recently and she was amazing- so articulate; no problems with her speech- no mumbling, poor syntax or grammar even in her second language and her opinions were very valid and intelligent too. Hence I can see why some would want to vote for her
Henri M. said:Then we need a definition of 'a professional Queen'.
I see people nominating her 'because she is always so gentle and sweet' or 'because she is always so well-dressed'. In my option a professional Queen manages the businesses and the properties of the House, gives outlines to the Household (in Queen Beatrix' case some 800 persons, in Queen Elizabeth's case probably more), is sharp on an impeccable and smooth functioning of state occasions, enforces all her (political) privileges to be respected to the maximum.
Queen Rania. No. I'm sorry.
Nice puppet. Good figure for the catwalk.
No Queen.
shrifia said:I have to agree with Henri M I always think that she Behaves like Celebrity not a queen.
Henri M. said:Then we need a definition of 'a professional Queen'.
I see people nominating her 'because she is always so gentle and sweet' or 'because she is always so well-dressed'. In my option a professional Queen manages the businesses and the properties of the House, gives outlines to the Household (in Queen Beatrix' case some 800 persons, in Queen Elizabeth's case probably more), is sharp on an impeccable and smooth functioning of state occasions, enforces all her (political) privileges to be respected to the maximum.
Queen Rania. No. I'm sorry.
Nice puppet. Good figure for the catwalk.
No Queen.
Exactly! It's easy to criticise her wardobe/appearance on this trip and personally I don't think she looks half as bad as some people are making out but at least she turned up.Veram98 said:Her showing up for the state visit in the Netherlands despite her pains by her broken ankle indicates professionalism.
Lady Bluffton said:I'm sorry, but a lady in a tiara should not be dragging on a cigarette or let it dangle from her expensively lipsticked mouth...I won't mention names...
juliana said:Every country has citizens that obviously admire their own monarchs but I can't see any comparision between being a queen of a small country and that of the largest monarchy in the world.
The Commonwealth has 53 member states of which 16 are sovereign nations and their Queen is Elizabeth. The combined population of the sovereign states is about the same as Japan- both just under 130 million. So, I don't understand your point. Elizabeth deals with her 16 sovereign nations and still has plenty of contact with the other 37 states. Japan has er, Japan- oops only one countryIain said:Japan is the largest monarchy in the world with over 130million people. As you say the Commonwealth is 16 monarchies but at least 4 of those have their own monarch and some member countries are republics so you can't count it as one monarchy.
juliana said:The Commonwealth has 53 member states of which 16 are sovereign nations and their Queen is Elizabeth. The combined population of the sovereign states is about the same as Japan- both just under 130 million. So, I don't understand your point. Elizabeth deals with her 16 sovereign nations and still has plenty of contact with the other 37 states. Japan has er, Japan- oops only one country.The British Monarch is the hardest working and a fine example for all royals everywhere.
The point I was making is that the commonwealth is not one monarchy. Of the commonwealth countries that are monarchies some have their own monarch and the remainder share the same monarch but are seperate countries and cannot be regarded as one monarchy. As for Japan, what difference does it make if it is only one country?
QueenMaharet said:Has my post made sense or is it excruciatingly confusing?![]()
~QM
I think your post is confusing.Iain said:The point I was making is that the commonwealth is not one monarchy. Of the commonwealth countries that are monarchies some have their own monarch and the remainder share the same monarch but are seperate countries and cannot be regarded as one monarchy. As for Japan, what difference does it make if it is only one country?