British Royal Family Current Events 1: November 2002-November 2005

[GrandDuchess]

Christmas Day Service at Sandringham Church - Part 1:
Pictures from Getty.

 

[GrandDuchess]

Christmas Day Service at Sandringham Church - Part 2:
Pictures from Getty.

 

[Lyonnaise]

Christmas photos from Polfoto

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

The Royal Family Easter 2005

Please post pics of The Royal Family at Easter here.

 

[sara1981]

please post pictures from past and present include before Diana Spencer become Princess of Wales enter into Royal Family in 1981 and Sarah Ferguson becomes Duchess of York,Sophie-Rhys Jones who becomes Countess of Wessex.

Sara Boyce

 

[Elspeth]

QEII, why don't you start this thread off with a few pictures of your own? Then people might start joining in.

 

[micas]

Ok,ok, some pics from several years.

 

[micas]

Some more!

I hope you like and hat came more pics.

 

[micas]

The last two pics...

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

Pics from Easter 2004:

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

More photos of Easter:
1.Queen Elizabeth II at Easter 1989.
2.Queen Mother at Easter 1993 with Prince Philip.
3.Queen Elizabeth II at Easter 2000.
4.Princess Diana at Easter 1992.
5.Queen Mother at Easter 1998.
6.Prince Harry at Easter 1992.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

1.The Queen at Easter 1992.
2.Princes at Easter 1992.
3.Prince Charles and Princess Anne at Easter 1996.
4.Queen Elizabeth II at Easter 1998.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

Some more pics:
1.Prince Edward at Easter 1997.
2.Viscount Linley at Easter 1997.
3.Prince Charles and Harry atteded Easter 1997.
4.The Queen Mother and princes William and Harry at Easter 1992.
5.Her Majesty at Easter 1994.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

1.Royals at Easter 2000 includedrince Edward,Princess Margaret,Prince Philip,Princess Anne,The Queen Mother and The Queen.
2.Zara Philips at Easter 1997.
3+4: Serena Linley at Easter 1995 and 1997.
5.The Queen and The Duke of edinburgh at Easer 1995.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

1.Princess Anne at Easter 1997.
2.Queen Mother at Easter 1994.
3.Princess Anne and her daughter at Easter 1994.
4.Royals men at Easter 1994.
5.The Queen at Easter 1993.
6.Royals at Easter 96.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

Some pics of Countess Sophie at Easter:
1+2: Easter 2001.
3.Easter 2000(Is she using a Louis Vuiton bag?)
4.Easter 2003.
5.Easter 2004.

 

[micas]

Let them coming!!!

 

[Josefine]

is ther any importants dates in February for the royal family
Birthdays, death of past royals , state visits or evenst that are intresting

 

[GrandDuchess]

From BBC News:

No to Royal succession shake-up

A Labour peer has withdrawn proposals to give female members of the Royal Family the same rights as males.

The legislation would have ended the right of male heirs with older sisters to succeed to the Crown.

It would also have torn up ancient legislation banning heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics.

But the government refused to back Lord Dubs' Succession to the Crown Bill, saying it was too complex and raised too many constitutional issues.

'Complex'

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, agreed the 1701 Act of Settlement, which governs the succession, was discriminatory but added that "for all practical purposes its effects are limited".

The changes proposed by Lord Dubs were a "complex and controversial undertaking raising major constitutional issues", he said.

Lord Falconer said there were 22 members of the Royal Family in the line of succession after the Prince of Wales - all of who were eligible to succeed and had been unaffected by the act.

"It is not a simple matter that can be tinkered with lightly. While we wish to remove all forms of discrimination... this isn't the proper form," he added.

Think again

He did not rule out change in the future but said if Lord Dubs' private member's bill was passed by peers, he would urge MPs to oppose it in the Commons.

Lord Dubs agreed to withdraw his bill after its second reading in the House of Lords, but urged the government to think again at a later stage.

"We cannot forever say we don't want to change things because it is too difficult," he told peers.

During the debate, the Labour peer and former minister said: "The monarchy should symbolise the values of this country.

"What we don't want is a situation where the values of the country have moved on and the monarchy is centuries behind the times.

"We are surely all opposed to discrimination on the grounds of gender and we are surely also opposed to discrimination against Catholics."

But opponents of the bill, including Tory Lord Campbell of Alloway and the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, said it would separate the state from both the Church of England and the Christian faith.

Such a "secular" state would be markedly "less tolerant", Rt Rev Scott-Joynt argued.

 

[ElisaR]

is ther any importants dates in February for the royal family
Birthdays, death of past royals , state visits or evenst that are intresting

19 February: Prince Andrew's birthday

6 February: Queen's Accession and death of George VI (1952)

9 February: Princess Margaret's death (2002)

 

[sara1981]

I would forward about Princess Diana's death in August 31st many people would respectfully by famous Princess Diana's death and closed at Althorp for anniversary following death of Princess Diana and will have some flowers at her old home and Althorp maybe more flower this years on Diana's birthday July 1st.

Sara Boyce

 

[Elspeth]

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, agreed the 1701 Act of Settlement, which governs the succession, was discriminatory but added that "for all practical purposes its effects are limited".

Well, one day, sooner or later, it's going to become an immediate problem. The royal family looks bad every time some piece of legislation is rammed through in the face of a crisis; if the government hasn't figured out by now that it's better to be proactive than reactive in some of these cases, it's asking for trouble down the road.

It doesn't matter how complex it is; the law that prohibits a royal from staying in the line of succession after marrying a Catholic is a piece of outdated discrimination that needs dealing with. Requiring the monarch to be a member of the CofE as long as the country has an Established Church is one thing; singling out a particular religion (actually a particular denomination) for discrimination while allowing all the others is quite another thing.

 

[wymanda]

Well, one day, sooner or later, it's going to become an immediate problem. The royal family looks bad every time some piece of legislation is rammed through in the face of a crisis; if the government hasn't figured out by now that it's better to be proactive than reactive in some of these cases, it's asking for trouble down the road.

It doesn't matter how complex it is; the law that prohibits a royal from staying in the line of succession after marrying a Catholic is a piece of outdated discrimination that needs dealing with. Requiring the monarch to be a member of the CofE as long as the country has an Established Church is one thing; singling out a particular religion (actually a particular denomination) for discrimination while allowing all the others is quite another thing.

I agree with you Elspeth but I don't think we can blame the Royal Family for this. The legislation was put into place by a government and should be rescinded by a government. The problem with Mr Blair is he is to busy following his own agenda with a view, IMO, to making himself "President Blair" to be interested in this type of legislation. From what I have read recently he consistantly fails to consult the Queen (and it is her right to be consulted) on any matter of policy & legislation. Even matters like the Crown Solicitor being retitled. Whilst this might be a paltry thing it can only lead to more and more complex matters being done without the monarch even being aware that they are happening. As to the catholic issue it is outdated and needs to be addressed. When you see the good work that Princess Michael (a catholic) carries out despite not receiving any remuneration from Queen or Country it is ridiculous that her husband lost his place in the succession because he chose to marry her. His two nephews, The Earl of St Andrews & Lord Nicholas Windsor have also lost their places - The first because he married a catholic and the second because he became one! It is interesting to note that this is at present only affecting the Kent branch of the Royal Family who are descended from Princess Marina who remained Greek Orthodox throughout her life.

 

[Elspeth]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting blaming the royal family; I'm just saying that this stuff will make them look bad if it appears that laws have to be changed for the convenience of whichever member has decided to do something not covered by present laws. It isn't their fault that the government is refusing to sort this particular law out, but if things have to be done if an heir in the direct line decides to marry a Catholic, there'll be rumblings and mutterings that that bloody royal family expects the government to drop everything and sort out archaic laws for its convenience as though the government had nothing better to do blah blah blah. Rupert Murdoch (if he's still around) will have a field day.

BTW, did you know that Lord Downpatrick (the Earl of St Andrews's son) has also converted to Catholicism? I think it was sometime last year that I read about it.

 

[grecka]

I think eventually the Act of Settlement will be removed as a tenet of the British constitution. It's a relic of a divided and wartorn age and it really does brand the British government with the enduring archaic spirit of institutional discrimination.

 

[susan alicia]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting blaming the royal family; I'm just saying that this stuff will make them look bad if it appears that laws have to be changed for the convenience of whichever member has decided to do something not covered by present laws. It isn't their fault that the government is refusing to sort this particular law out, but if things have to be done if an heir in the direct line decides to marry a Catholic, there'll be rumblings and mutterings that that bloody royal family expects the government to drop everything and sort out archaic laws for its convenience as though the government had nothing better to do blah blah blah. Rupert Murdoch (if he's still around) will have a field day.

BTW, did you know that Lord Downpatrick (the Earl of St Andrews's son) has also converted to Catholicism? I think it was sometime last year that I read about it.

if william falls in LOVE and wants to marry a catholic girl I think the english will be ecstatic, not about the catholic bit, but the romanticism of it. So a law will not be changed for their convenience but for a oersonallly life changing reason.

In Holland the idea of a catholic and a protestant was in 25 years ago unusual, now maxima is catholic, so is Marilene and it is no big deal.

 

[Dennism]

A Tory MP is to propose that future monarchs retire at the age of 75 and be replaced by a royal selected by the House of Commons.The 10-minute rule bill being introduced by Jonathan Sayeed, the 56-year-old Conservative MP for Mid Bedforshire, is not so rash as to want the present Queen, who is 78, to step down.

But it would allow elected representatives to choose who should occupy Buckingham Palace. That would address the issue - unsuccessfully raised by Labour's Lord (Alf) Dubs last week -of giving male heirs preference over female.

The Queen has three sons and two grandsons barring the route to the throne for Princess Anne - though her no-nonsense style might well appeal to MPs in all parties.

Neither proposal will happen. Bills such as Mr Sayeed's never become law. Nonetheless they do test the political temperature, allowing royalists and republicans to air their grievances. Last week the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, dissuaded Lord Dubs from further pot stirring.

The Guardian

Anne would be a good choice or an Anne-like future Windsor. Hard-working and no-nonsense indeed. She would be a great choice! Anne for Queen!

 

[Josefine]

is ther any importants dates in February for the royal family
Birthdays, death of past royals , state visits or evenst that are intresting

could anyone help me with this one

and are there any yearly events where we can see the royals if so can you give me some dates
also are there any state visits soon?
when is ascot

 

[Elspeth]

A Tory MP is to propose that future monarchs retire at the age of 75 and be replaced by a royal selected by the House of Commons.The 10-minute rule bill being introduced by Jonathan Sayeed, the 56-year-old Conservative MP for Mid Bedforshire, is not so rash as to want the present Queen, who is 78, to step down.

Well, if you're going to have the monarch selected by the House of Commons, you might as well get rid of the monarchy altogether.

 

[Elspeth]

could anyone help me with this one

and are there any yearly events where we can see the royals if so can you give me some dates
also are there any state visits soon?
when is ascot

Hi Josefine.

Far as I know, February isn't a month where there's much in the way of big royal events. Prince Andrew's birthday is in February, but that's about all I can think of.

The royal engagements for February 2004 are listed at the royal family website here:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/SiteSearch.asp?section=**Engagements&month=2&year=2004

If you feel brave enough to trawl through that lot, you might find something that's a high-profile engagement and likely to be repeated.

Royal Ascot is being disrupted this year because they're renovating the course; the races will be happening at York racecourse in June. I have no idea whether there'll be the usual carriage processions with the royal family or what will happen.

http://www.ascot.co.uk/