Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London: April 16-20, 2018

[The Royal Watcher]

a nice gallery
Nerdy question here, I see Charles and Harry with a collar medal but not William. Does he not have one yet?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2...0000578-5635235-image-a-172_1524171556234.jpg

Prince Charles is wearing the Neck Badge of the Order of Merit and Prince Harry is wearing the Neck Badge of the Royal Victoria Order, bot of which Prince William does not have! More here- http://royalwatcherblog.com/2018/04/19/queens-commonwealth-dinner-at-buckingham-palace/

 

[ACO]

Eugenie is getting married in the fall. I don't blame her if the first tiara she is seen in is on that day. Beatrice probably of the same mindset.

 

[Mbruno]

Now that's strange, the only princesses in the room without tiara...
The vaults are not empty as far i know ...

Maybe they are sticking to the "no tiara before you are married" rule, although that rule is not observed in other royal courts (both the Spanish and Swedish princesses for example wore tiaras while they were still single).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes! I hope it’s the RFO

It isn't. It is a piece of jewellery.

The RFO is on a ribbon with the Queen's image.

Beatrice isn't wearing anything and nor is Sophie.

 

[JR76]

There are other pictures where it's clear she's not wearing any orders.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Princess Eugenie has something on the breast/side of her dress at 1:29:07-8?!

On further inspection, I have come to the conclusion that it is either the Diamond or Golden Jubilee Medal, but I may be wrong.

 

[Somebody]

Maybe they are sticking to the "no tiara before you are married" rule, although that rule is not observed in other royal courts (both the Spanish and Swedish princesses for example wore tiaras while they were still single).

Especially the Swedish princesses had and have far more tiara events than the York princesses. If you have only one opportunity before your wedding day it makes more sense to wait for the big day compared to having multiple events a year for over a decade before your wedding (especially if you are given a tiara on your 18th birthday). I wouldn't be surprised if they will be invited at more events in the distant future (when all the cousins are no longer active) to increase the number of royals on important royal events - which is easy to combine with a 'normal working life' as these events are relatively scarce and in the evening.

 

[Rudolph]

“I very much agree with the wishes of Her Majesty that the Prince of Wales be the next Head of the Commonwealth.” - Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau #cdnpoli #cdncrown #CHOGM18

Via Canadian Crown Twitter

 

[tihkon2]

Maybe they are sticking to the "no tiara before you are married" rule, although that rule is not observed in other royal courts (both the Spanish and Swedish princesses for example wore tiaras while they were still single).

It's not even a rule in the British court. Princesses Anne and Margaret and Alexandra all wore tiaras before they were married or engaged.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It was the rule but it seems that in more recent decades the Queen has become a bit more of a 'no tiara before marriage' person for some reason.

 

[Lady Nimue]

It was the rule but it seems that in more recent decades the Queen has become a bit more of a 'no tiara before marriage' person for some reason.

How do we know? Just wondering how we know. Has she stated such or is it assumed via the fact that no one wears a tiara before marriage?

 

[Pranter]

We really can't know because Beatrice and Eugenie have been the only ones (Zara not being raised with a title) who really would be likely to wear one but they have really never been working royals. Tiaras are rarely worn now days so they wouldn't of had much opportunity to wear them unless they were going to these big events.




LaRae

 

[Osipi]

Tiaras and bling are losing appearances more and more over time. It used to be common for events and opera appearances and grand dinners where a woman needed to wear formal wear and jewels and tiaras and that's just not really done too much anymore. Other than white tie events which are few and far between.

Its more the norm now that the events like the CHOGM banquet and receptions and such are more for what their purpose is than for displays of diamonds, rubies and emeralds and family heirloom tiaras.

Perhaps that's because its not something special anymore to dress to the nines for a special event. Its not even special anymore to think that its only the upper crust and royalty that has the ability to display these things.

Beatrice and Eugenie have been princesses of the royal blood for going on 30 years now and have never been seen in a tiara. Many teenage girls wear their first tiara to a prom. Its just changing times IMO.

 

[Iluvbertie]

We didn't see Lady Gabrielle in a tiara at last year's Spanish State Banquet when the rest of the BRF did do so.

I seem to remember that Sophie attended a similar event before marrying Edward and didn't have a tiara and it was explained then that as an unmarried woman she wasn't allowed to wear one.

We also have Sarah Ferguson covering her tiara as she entered the church but having it uncovered when she left.

This is the first occasion we have seen Beatrice and/or Eugenie at a BRF tiara event so it isn't surprising we haven't seen them in one before now.

As they only have three events a year - at most - there isn't a lot of chance to see tiaras and with the Queen not doing overseas visits it is possible there will be even fewer occasions within the UK in the years ahead. The three events are: the usual two incoming State Visits and the Diplomatic Reception. This event is in place of an incoming State Visit and no other such visit has been announced for this year so maybe no more tiaras until the diplomatic reception when we may get a picture of Kate, Meghan and Camilla arriving and that will be all.

 

[Lady Nimue]

We didn't see Lady Gabrielle in a tiara at last year's Spanish State Banquet when the rest of the BRF did do so.

I seem to remember that Sophie attended a similar event before marrying Edward and didn't have a tiara and it was explained then that as an unmarried woman she wasn't allowed to wear one.

We also have Sarah Ferguson covering her tiara as she entered the church but having it uncovered when she left.

I don't understand: 'it was explained'. By who? Curious. Kate entered the church with a tiara, as did Sophie, not so?

 

[Pranter]

I think Sarah was just making the statement that she entered the Church as a commoner and left as a Princess. They had a lot of symbolic detail at their wedding.


LaRae

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think Sarah was just making the statement that she entered the Church as a commoner and left as a Princess. They had a lot of symbolic detail at their wedding. LaRae

So with Sarah it was a personal choice. Maybe she also was keen to have flowers in her hair and that was one way to do it. Just a thought.

Still wondering where this idea comes from that the Queen has ordered/ordained the no tiara for singles. Anyone?

 

[Dman]

I still believe - the only place we would see Beatrice and Eugenie in tiaras would be at their weddings - If they decide to wear one for their wedding. Them not being senior working royals may have something to do with it.

Nevertheless, they looked great last night. Everyone did!!

 

[Missy-]

Live coverage of the dinner:

I really enjoyed this video, it was good to see Princess Alexandra and Birgitte looking well. I think all the royal ladies (even Anne ?) looked lovely, with the possible exception of Princess [...[Michael]]. Fun to see all the tiaras, the Iveagh is one of my favorites.

I have a question, why didn't everyone stand up when HM took her seat, or did I see it incorrectly? The whole thing looked a little confused, but again may be just me.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I have a question, why didn't everyone stand up when HM took her seat, or did I see it incorrectly? The whole thing looked a little confused, but again may be just me.

I don't think the people on the other side of the table were aware the Queen was sitting down. Just a hunch. I noted the lack of universal standing, too, and it seemed to me the two or three people who did not rise were furthest from her and seemed turned towards each other in conversation. Maybe others saw something different?

 

[Kronprinz]

The Queen's giggle!

 

[iceflower]

.

Photos of day 5 today, April 20:


** gettyimages/zimbio gallery: CHOGM London 2018 - Day 5 **


The Earl of Wessex as Patron of the Commonwealth Games Federation attended the Commonwealth Games Federation Sports Breakfast Meeting this morning:


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 ** Pic 3 ** Pic 4 **


And the Countess of Wessex was involved as well:


** dailymail: Digging the sunshine! Green-fingered Sophie Wessex keeps cool in a summery dress as she plants a tree at Kew Gardens..**

 

[ACO]

It is official: Charles will take over as Head of the Commonwealth

 

[Nico]

It is official: Charles will take over as Head of the Commonwealth

And now it's done !
So much for all the pettiness, the wishful thinkings, the vengeful feelings, all the fantasies and theories about the Queen, Charles, his abilities to be King and the line of succession...
It's the clearer message that Charles, with God's will, WILL BE KING. Period.
A great day, really.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This was never about Charles being King. Only his death before the Queen can stop that.

This was about whether the Head of the Commonwealth should also be the British monarch.

Two separate positions - one with clear laws to ensure succession and the other with no laws or rules in place.

Now they have made a decision that will apply for the next generation and then they may have to do it all again. Saying Charles will be the next Head of the Commonwealth is one thing - but will then then want William or will they decide to do something different next time.

If they have only said 'Charles will succeed his mother' have they covered the possibility that he won't outlive his mother? Have they made this an hereditary position?

Once the Queen interferred on behalf of her son it was a done deal but should she have even said anything?

 

[Nico]

But you would agree that refusing Charles the role of Head of the Commonwealth would have been seen as a clear and unprecedented snub toward his abilities as a next sovereign.
So the contrary is perfectly valid, and the message, indeed, crystal clear ...

 

[wyevale]

have been seen as a clear and unprecedented snub toward his abilities

I think more of an insult to HMQ, and the efforts she and the wider Windsor Family have made , to nurture and build the Commonwealth since its inception in 1949.
Without their collective efforts it is unlikely to have survived in ANY form whatsoever today...

Anyway, i'm delighted at the decision they have made..

 

[Nico]

I think more of an insult to HMQ, and the efforts she and the wider Windsor Family have made , to nurture and build the Commonwealth since its inception in 1949.
Without their collective efforts it is unlikely to have survived in ANY form whatsoever today...

Anyway, i'm delighted at the decision they have made..

You're so right !
The team in place is working, this decision acknowledges that.

 

[Dman]

The DM mentioned that the formal announcement, of Charles’s future role, will come around 5pm.

 

[Dman]

CHOGM2018 Press Conference with the Prime Minister and Secretary-General Live-