Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Do you think it will be extremely uncomfortable the next time Prince Charles meets with his mother

and they inevitably discuss Queen Beatrix's abdication?

After all, one or both of them will be expected at the investiture this spring for the new King Willem-Alexander. So it's got to come up when they next see each other.

by Anonymousreply 2401/28/2013

I would imagine that Charles speaks when he spoken to.

by Anonymousreply 101/28/2013

R1 Yes, I've trained him well.

by Anonymousreply 201/28/2013

She will never abdicate. This might be a common occurrence in The Netherlands but it won't happen in Britain.

by Anonymousreply 301/28/2013

Lillibet is NOT Beatrix. Chuckie knows that very well.

by Anonymousreply 401/28/2013

The UK was too scarred by the Abdication Crisis in the 30's, it won't happen again. There seems to be an unofficial tradition of the BeNeLux monarchs to abdicate, Bea's mother and grandmother both abdicated, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg succeeded after his father abdicated and his father's mother abdicated as well. They take civil oaths, by the way. The British monarch takes a religious oath in church and is the head of the church as well. So, it's pretty serious. Not that Beatrix didn't take her job seriously, quite the opposite. She was very regal. I think she wanted her son to be the first king of the Netherlands in 100+ years sooner and to have a long reign, ending a century of sovereign queens- unprecedented in any monarchy.

by Anonymousreply 501/28/2013

Queen Elizabeth won't be attending the inauguration of King Willem-Alexander, she never attends these things. Prince Charles probably will not either, I suspect the Earl and Countess of Wessex will represent HM.

by Anonymousreply 601/28/2013

Kings, even Kings the result of abdication, have coronations. Not investitures.

Americans.

by Anonymousreply 701/28/2013

Inauguration? Of a King?!

Martha Levinson, please go and play a hand of bridge.

Really.

by Anonymousreply 801/28/2013

Not an issue. No one expects Queen Elizabeth to abdicate. Everyone expects her to die on the throne.

by Anonymousreply 901/28/2013

Willem-Alexander will indeed have an investiture as king, r8. That is the actual term the royal family themselves are using.

From the official website of the royal family of the Netherlands:

[quote]The official programme for the abdication and investiture will take place on 30 April 2013. Her Majesty the Queen will sign the Instrument of Abdication at the Royal Palace, Amsterdam. The investiture of His Majesty the King will then take place at the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam.

You owe me an apology, don't you?

by Anonymousreply 1001/28/2013

Just like Momma!

by Anonymousreply 1101/28/2013

It is right that crowned heads don't attend one another's coronations but they do usually send the heir, so look for Charles and Seabiscuit to attend.

They usually send the Wessexes off to royal weddings on the continent.

by Anonymousreply 1201/28/2013

You must have misheard me.

That's as good as it's gonna get. ;)

by Anonymousreply 1301/28/2013

[quote]No one expects Queen Elizabeth to abdicate. Everyone expects her to die on the throne.

But won't that be another 10 or 15 years from now?

Her mother lived until 101.

by Anonymousreply 1401/28/2013

The abdication of Beatrix was expected so why would anyone think Charles would be uncomfortable around his mother? It's not unusual for the Queens in the Netherlands to abdicate to let the next in line take over. Some thought she would abdicate sooner.

by Anonymousreply 1501/28/2013

R3 is correct, of course. The tradition of heir-favored abdication that is entrenched in The Netherlands, with only a recent monarchy (starting in 1815 for Christ's sake), has NOTHING to do with the U.K.'s thousand-year-old monarchical system.

No British monarch has ever left office except by death or duress.

There would be no discomfort other than the usual in any conversation between the queen and Prince of Wales. He knows she is committed to her divine role as Queen and Protector of the Faith and will never let God and Country down by abandoning her fated responsibilities. And she knows he is an unfortunate case.

The only way Her Majesty would step down would be in the face of an extended and eventually fatal condition that would deprive her of visibility, communicative skills and movement. And even in that case one would expect a regency rather than an outright abdication.

In fact, a regency when she turns 100 would be a gracious act on her part. Charles will be 78 at that time.

by Anonymousreply 1601/28/2013

No discomfort at all. The dutch and and english systems are very different.

Dutch monarchs haven't been crowned for generations. These days they're merely inaugurated as an office holder like a mayor or president. The inauguration is very dignified but a civil ceremony, and completely different from a coronation, which which is a sacred rite like a marriage - except it is a marriage to the nation. A binding of soul.

That's why the idea of abdication is anathema for any crowned monarch. And why the idea that Elizabeth II would ever abdicate would never come up. If at any time she becomes incapacitated, she would still reign, but a regency would be established with Charles as regent until she dies.

by Anonymousreply 1701/28/2013

The funny thing is the Prince Willem has 3 daughters. So when he dies or abdicates, they will have another Queen Catherina who is 9 years old.

by Anonymousreply 1801/28/2013

Just a little more about the dutch ceremony: "In The Netherlands, the monarchs are not crowned but invested as heads of state. The present ceremony dates from 1815, when William I was invested as King of The Netherlands in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam, the site of every subsequent ceremony. Although, it takes place in a church, the ceremony is purely secular, conducted in accordance with constitutional law."

But still very grand. British monarchs are the only European monarchs who have retained the coronation ceremony, and physically wear the crown.

The Duke of Windsor, as Edward VIII, abdicated before his coronation, so shocking as it was, it was less shocking than if he had broken his vows taken at the coronation before the anointing (considered the most sacred moment of the ceremony - even more so than the moment of crowning itself.) The anointing was considered so sacred it filming of it was prohibited at Elizabeth II's coronation, but you can see the moment preceding it when wearing a white overgown she ascends the coronation chair and a cloth of gold canopy is held over her.

by Anonymousreply 1901/28/2013

[quote]The Duke of Windsor, as Edward VIII, abdicated before his coronation, so shocking as it was, it was less shocking than if he had broken his vows taken at the coronation before the anointing

But it was wrong!... [italic]Shockingly[/italic] wrong!

by Anonymousreply 2001/28/2013

[quote]completely different from a coronation, which which is a sacred rite like a marriage - except it is a marriage to the nation. A binding of soul.

Mary!

by Anonymousreply 2101/28/2013

After watching what her parents went through after her Uncle David abdicated - no way QE2 ever gives up the throne.

Charles knows, everyone knows, she'll never do it.

by Anonymousreply 2201/28/2013

"A binding of soul."

That's a pretty friggin sacred, serious, solemn ceremony.

Say that three times fast Your Majesty!

by Anonymousreply 2301/28/2013

Edward abdicated only after he was forced by the Government to choose between that whore he was going to marry or his job. In effect, he was deposed more than he abdicated. Queen Batrix's abdication was her own choice.

by Anonymousreply 2401/28/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.