Royal Gossip
December 13, 2017, 01:04:02 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Remembrance Sunday 2017  (Read 1632 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2383



« on: October 11, 2017, 06:57:04 pm »

BREAKING NEWS: Queen asks Prince Charles to step in and lay her wreath at Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday

    Prince Charles to take on Queen's role at Remembrance Sunday service this year
    Will be the first time Her Majesty has been at the service but has not taken part
    Palace gives no reason for change in protocol but Queen has been sharing duties
    Follows speculation in August the monarch was set to abdicate by the age of 95


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4970776/Queen-asks-Prince-Charles-step-lay-wreath.html

Liz & Phil will watch from the balcony.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Online Online

Posts: 7018


« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2017, 07:37:12 pm »

BREAKING NEWS: Queen asks Prince Charles to step in and lay her wreath at Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday

    Prince Charles to take on Queen's role at Remembrance Sunday service this year
    Will be the first time Her Majesty has been at the service but has not taken part
    Palace gives no reason for change in protocol but Queen has been sharing duties
    Follows speculation in August the monarch was set to abdicate by the age of 95


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4970776/Queen-asks-Prince-Charles-step-lay-wreath.html

Liz & Phil will watch from the balcony.

Speculation for four years ahead of time?! I don't think she will abdicate.
Logged
Little light
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 981



« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2017, 08:30:20 pm »

Hi MODS  hello

I inadvertently replied to a post about the Queen's flight (I was thanking Rosella for her information) and it seems to have ended up in this thread. Quite how, I've no idea as I didn't read this thread until now.

Is there any chance you can move it please? I'm sure it was just under a general HM and DoE thread.

Thank you.  thankyou
Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14202



« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2017, 08:53:37 pm »

I'm sorry it's my fault  Embarrassed now it's fixed.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2289



« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2017, 09:06:03 pm »

I thought the speculation was that she would 'retire' with Charles becoming Regent while she remained The Queen rather than she would abdicate which would mean Charles became King and she went back to being a Princess and Duchess - HRH The Princess Elizabeth, The Duchess of Edinburgh.

As for why this change - I suspect it is related to the age of the Queen. Last year she reduced the weight of her wreath and this year she probably feels that she can't cope with the length of the ceremony and the strain as well as she wants to be with Philip for the ceremony.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2383



« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2017, 09:27:28 pm »

^ Yes, that's exactly the speculation, no abdication at all. If she were to abdicate, then that would be really big.
If she were to retire, she'd stay queen and Charles would assume most (or all) duties of a monarch. An abdication is so unlikely, that it's hardly worth discussing imo.

This isn't that surprising though, she's old, the weather's terrible and Phil got really ill when he was on the flotilla for her diamond jubilee. Even if she's fit and feeling good now, it's likely for the best she doesn't exert herself with things that are unnecessary. She'll be there, along with Phil, she just won't have to perform the whole thing and lay the wreath.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Online Online

Posts: 7018


« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2017, 01:09:24 am »

I thought the speculation was that she would 'retire' with Charles becoming Regent while she remained The Queen rather than she would abdicate which would mean Charles became King and she went back to being a Princess and Duchess - HRH The Princess Elizabeth, The Duchess of Edinburgh.

As for why this change - I suspect it is related to the age of the Queen. Last year she reduced the weight of her wreath and this year she probably feels that she can't cope with the length of the ceremony and the strain as well as she wants to be with Philip for the ceremony.

Why would Charles become Regent now? The Queen is of sound mind and is spry for her age. Why would she regress to Princess Elizabeth? After all her years of service as Queen would be rather insulting to her. I did not know there was such a rule.  She stopped being Princess in early 1952.  When George IV was Prince Regent his father did not regress to Prince George instead of King George.

These little blurbs about Charles taking over have been going on for years now even when the Queen was only in her fifties. I doubt Charles would like it if the little blurbs came to haunt him after he became King and HE could regress to Prince Charles again.
Logged
Fernanda Nunes
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 593



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2017, 01:14:45 am »

I believe it would be interesting for her to do this to make the transition smoother, Diana's story shook much the image of Charles ...
Logged

Motto for the year 2017: "Saying with a loud voice, Have fear of God and give him glory; because the hour of his judging is come; and give worship to him who made heaven and earth and the sea and the fountains of water." (AP 14:7).
http://icmaranata.pt/index.php - Portugal www.igrejacristamaranata.org.br, www.icm.org.br, http://radiomaanaim.com.br/v1/ - Brazil
sandy
Princess
*******
Online Online

Posts: 7018


« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2017, 01:17:09 am »

I think she's doing this because her husband retired and she is keeping him company during the ceremony.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3174


« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2017, 02:14:03 am »

I don't think there's any idea of a formal regency, and IMHO I don't think anything more should be read into this development than that a very old lady has decided that standing about in the cold and carrying and bending down laying quite heavy wreaths is something she'd rather pass on.

We will probably see more of this in the future, especially at ceremonies which require large physical effort for a person in their 90s. Elizabeth no longer goes up the narrow stairs at the Garter ceremony at St George's, for example.
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2289



« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2017, 03:24:10 am »


Why would Charles become Regent now? The Queen is of sound mind and is spry for her age.

The speculation over the summer was that the Queen was going to retire when she turned 95.

Someone would then have to do her job and that would mean Charles becoming Regent while she remained as HM The Queen.


Quote
Why would she regress to Princess Elizabeth? After all her years of service as Queen would be rather insulting to her. I did not know there was such a rule.  She stopped being Princess in early 1952.  When George IV was Prince Regent his father did not regress to Prince George instead of King George.

George III didn't abdicate so of course he remained as King when mentally incapable of carrying out his duties while there was a Regency.

Edward VIII did abdicate and immediately reverted by being a Prince. That is the examples we have from the last two hundred plus years.

If the Queen were to retire and allow a Regency - then she stays as The Queen.

If she were to abdicate and so we would have a new monarch then she would stop being The Queen and revert to being a Princess.

Quote
These little blurbs about Charles taking over have been going on for years now even when the Queen was only in her fifties. I doubt Charles would like it if the little blurbs came to haunt him after he became King and HE could regress to Prince Charles again.


The blurbs about Charles taking over started in his 20s with calls for the Queen to abdicate due to being middle aged. I also remember the calls in the 1980s after Charles married Diana so that there was a young family on the throne again (had that happened no doubt we would now have King William with his young family).

These stories are the press beat up to cause dissension and to get people to read their output usually with no basis in fact.

The palace even went so far as to deny the summer stories (interestingly most of these stories come out when the BRF are on their summer holidays and so there is no real royal events taking place to actually write about so they make them up knowing that there are many gullible people out there who will believe them even when presented with evidence to the contrary.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2383



« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2017, 12:03:30 pm »

^^ I was thinking exactly the same.

Her Majesty's historic but painful decision: ROBERT HARDMAN reveals why the Queen will now watch from the balcony after 65 years of laying a wreath at the Cenotaph

    Buckingham Palace announced the Queen will watch service from the Foreign Office balcony
    Decision is part of a gradual process of delegating regal responsibilities as she gets older
    The 91-year-old monarch has been laying a wreath at the Cenotaph for 65 years


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4972010/Her-Majesty-s-painful-decision-hand-duties-over.html

Seems like it's a split between easing it on Liz due to age and easing Charles in for the public, a double benefit for them.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Online Online

Posts: 7018


« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2017, 03:13:29 pm »


Why would Charles become Regent now? The Queen is of sound mind and is spry for her age.

The speculation over the summer was that the Queen was going to retire when she turned 95.

Someone would then have to do her job and that would mean Charles becoming Regent while she remained as HM The Queen.


Quote
Why would she regress to Princess Elizabeth? After all her years of service as Queen would be rather insulting to her. I did not know there was such a rule.  She stopped being Princess in early 1952.  When George IV was Prince Regent his father did not regress to Prince George instead of King George.

George III didn't abdicate so of course he remained as King when mentally incapable of carrying out his duties while there was a Regency.

Edward VIII did abdicate and immediately reverted by being a Prince. That is the examples we have from the last two hundred plus years.

If the Queen were to retire and allow a Regency - then she stays as The Queen.

If she were to abdicate and so we would have a new monarch then she would stop being The Queen and revert to being a Princess.

Quote
These little blurbs about Charles taking over have been going on for years now even when the Queen was only in her fifties. I doubt Charles would like it if the little blurbs came to haunt him after he became King and HE could regress to Prince Charles again.


The blurbs about Charles taking over started in his 20s with calls for the Queen to abdicate due to being middle aged. I also remember the calls in the 1980s after Charles married Diana so that there was a young family on the throne again (had that happened no doubt we would now have King William with his young family).

These stories are the press beat up to cause dissension and to get people to read their output usually with no basis in fact.

The palace even went so far as to deny the summer stories (interestingly most of these stories come out when the BRF are on their summer holidays and so there is no real royal events taking place to actually write about so they make them up knowing that there are many gullible people out there who will believe them even when presented with evidence to the contrary.

After all the years as Queen, I very much doubt, she will start referring to herself as Princess Elizabeth if she abdicates. Some special title with the word "Queen" will be given to her. IMO.
Logged
Little light
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 981



« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2017, 04:59:12 pm »

Thanks for moving my post MODs.

And also when the Queen Mum, or Queen Elizabeth as she was known when she was married to King George VI, was widowed, she was informally known as the Queen Mum. By her actual title went along the lines of HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. So she had two Queens in her title. Albeit she was supposedly the author of that title.
 

It probably suited her alleged ego.

So I don't really see HM being "demoted" to Princess.

And I'm not being quite accurate with the titles as I am just going out. So feel free to correct me I feel I'm wrong.

Thank you.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2383



« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2017, 05:16:10 pm »

^The difference between the two Elizabeths is though that one was queen consort and a widowed queen consort. Had her husband, the king regnant, abdicated beforehand, she'd have gone by the title appropriate, possibly being back to being the duchess of York, and after Fergie came along, she'd have been the dowager duchess of York.

If Liz were to abdicate, she'd cease to be queen. Though it depends how countries handle it.. In Spain Juan Carlos abdicated, but he and Sofia are still referred to / titled "king" and "queen" (curtesy titles they are allowed to keep), in contrast to the Netherlands, where Beatrix went from "queen" to "princess". No clue which way Britain handles this scenario tbh.

Meememe knows better I'm sure, or maybe Rosella, they are a great deal better educated on the technicalities than I am easter-egg-basket
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3174


« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2017, 05:29:39 pm »

The only person in modern British history to abdicate was of course Edward VIII, who as we all know, immediately following the signing of his abdication document, reverted to Prince Edward but then became a Royal duke. I really can't see the Queen abdicating under any circumstances. If it all became too much for her physically and mentally I think Parliament would opt for a regency. I can see a regency happening much more clearly than I can any abdication, but if by some aberration she did abdicate because of infirmities, my guess is she would remain Queen Elizabeth for her remaining years.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2383



« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2017, 05:37:43 pm »

^ My exact sentiments.

On paper Liz would likely then be "princess Liz, duchess of Edinburgh", same as before she became queen,  going by the example of Ed VIII, but people and literally everyone would keep calling her "queen Liz" or simply "the queen". She's been "the queen" all people's lives, or most of some people's lives. It's become her name in a way..
Maybe even LPs would be issued and she'd, imo too, remain the "queen" as curtesy title.
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2289



« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2017, 08:58:43 pm »

A couple of points:

The Queen Mum's title of HM Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother was not her creation but the correct full title of the mother of the monarch who was also the consort of the previous monarch. The fact that neither Queen Alexandra or Queen Mary used the term 'The Queen Mother' is because the didn't need to do so to distinguish themselves from the new monarch but the Queen Mum did need to keep that distinction and so used 'The Queen Mother' officially.

IF the Queen did abdicate (and she won't so this is a purely theoretical discussion) she would know that having two 'monarch's would mean the public would be divided over who is the actual monarch and say would give up the Queen title - following the precedent of Edward VIII. His post-abdication titles were discussed - could he continue to be called King Edward or did he have to revert and the answer from the government was he had to revert because there couldn't be two monarchs. Precedent determines a lot of practices in the UK and that sets the precedence for an abdicated monarch.

People could continue informally to call her the Queen or Queen Elizabeth but the formal titles would revert to what she was before she became Queen.

However she will never abdicate having had it drilled into her that abdication is a dirty word and that only God can remove her from her position. She promised to serve her entire life and as long as she is alive she believes she has to remain as Queen in order to serve the people - even if abdicating or retiring may be a better way to serve at this point in time.
Logged
Little light
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 981



« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2017, 12:05:37 am »

Thank you for correcting me.  flower

A lot of "information" is talked about the the masses, myself included, most of which is incorrect. Like I was. So I am right when I always say I love this forum as so much can be learned from it from my fellow posters.

You see, as far as the Queen Mother was concerned, it must have been an urban myth that she herself wanted that title. When in fat it had nothing to do with that at all.

So again, thank you for your replies.  thankyou
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Online Online

Posts: 7018


« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2017, 12:15:02 am »

A couple of points:

The Queen Mum's title of HM Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother was not her creation but the correct full title of the mother of the monarch who was also the consort of the previous monarch. The fact that neither Queen Alexandra or Queen Mary used the term 'The Queen Mother' is because the didn't need to do so to distinguish themselves from the new monarch but the Queen Mum did need to keep that distinction and so used 'The Queen Mother' officially.

IF the Queen did abdicate (and she won't so this is a purely theoretical discussion) she would know that having two 'monarch's would mean the public would be divided over who is the actual monarch and say would give up the Queen title - following the precedent of Edward VIII. His post-abdication titles were discussed - could he continue to be called King Edward or did he have to revert and the answer from the government was he had to revert because there couldn't be two monarchs. Precedent determines a lot of practices in the UK and that sets the precedence for an abdicated monarch.

People could continue informally to call her the Queen or Queen Elizabeth but the formal titles would revert to what she was before she became Queen.

However she will never abdicate having had it drilled into her that abdication is a dirty word and that only God can remove her from her position. She promised to serve her entire life and as long as she is alive she believes she has to remain as Queen in order to serve the people - even if abdicating or retiring may be a better way to serve at this point in time.

If she does the same pressure would be put on Prince Charles to step down when he becomes King. The same could be said that it would be "better" if he stepped down. I don't think he'd like that.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!