Canuck I have to agree with you regarding cultural differences between royal families. The Japanese Imperial family requires their emperor/heir to participate in religious ceremonies that are intertwined with the monarchy. Jordan's CP Hussein,Morroco's Moulay Hassan, Liechtenstein's Alois and Albert's future heir will wield greater political power than most of their peers and will have to have the necessary instruction in their duties that will not apply to other heirs. Europe's constitutional monarchies differ in how much involvement by the monarch is permitted ie: Monarchs in the NL and UK read a government prepared speech from the throne at the opening of their respective parliaments. On the other hand the Danes observe from a gallery.
I believe that observing a parent/grandparent going about their royal duties is also beneficial. Former King Juan Carlos kept then Prince Felipe at his side all during the coup attempt even though he was barely a teenager. HM believed that was a teachable moment for his heir. AFAIK all of the constitutional monarchies permit their heirs to ascend to the throne at age 18 so I do believe that some preparation does begin with dialogue, observation and participation.
As an educator I believe that each monarchy has to find the best fit for their individual heirs so he/she can meet the unique challenges of their future role.
Double post auto-merged: November 11, 2014, 09:03:32 PM
BTW thought that preparation for heirs deserved its own thread and I've started one in the Royalty Today section.
Having considered
@Lady Adams summary of CP Victoria's education/preparation for her future role as Queen Regent of Sweden, I thought this would deserve its own thread. This is your opportunity to design the perfect preparation program for an heir to the throne. If the heir is not yet 18 and will need a regency then you can still fashion a bespoke program for them. :)
EXTRA POINTS awarded if you can design one for the future heir of Monaco who should make his/her debut very soon!!!!
SC, why not move the discussion from the Cambridge section to here? I think this is a good idea, since it can encompass all royal families, not just the BRF.
Cindy
My question was specifically related to Wills, so I'd like that portion to stay in the original thread.
However, if people want to discuss other heirs here, I'm fine with that.
Thank you Lady A and I agree that the part of regarding William should stay there. However I felt that since it was in the "William and Harry Attend Rehab Reception" that it would be difficult for others to find if it wasn't in the Royalty Today forum.
Double post auto-merged: November 11, 2014, 10:25:26 PM
1. Start with attendance at royal events at an early age if appropriate. Start with the simple balcony appearance, parade or brief religious service to get acquainted with the behavior expected at these events. (However allow for a departure if under the age of 8.)
2. Begin to learn the national symbols and their significance to the nation: flag, national anthem, coat of arms, when age appropriate.
3. Consider beginning to learn a second language in elementary school.
Thank you!!! Ugh just lost my "plan."
Double post auto-merged: November 11, 2014, 10:57:51 PM
As they move from childhood into teen years: Consider an opportunity to travel and do volunteer work within the realm ie: Make a difference day-NL. Have a chance to attend school/long school break outside the realm to broaden horizons if culturally acceptable. (This may not be an option in nations with a conservative culture.)ie:QEII's decision to send her sons to schools in Australia, New Zealand and Canada for a term and HGD Guillaume attending Beau Soliel in Switzerland.
[mod]Just to let you all know I have split the "William & Harry to Attend Armed Forces Rehabilitation Reception" thread to create this thread : Prince William - Preparation For His Future Role (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=72690.0)
to continue the discussion regarding William. I hope your posts are where you want them to be. If not, please let me know. :flower:[/mod]
Thanks, SophieChloe!
It's been traditional for royal males to go the prep school followed by public school route. It was also a good idea to send the Queen's sons for a term at a school in a Commonwealth country. Charles loved his time at Timbertop in Australia and I think it would be good for George to do that. I believe William missed out on that because it would have been too soon after his mother's death and Charles didn't want to send him away.
However, having said that, I rank the ability to speak two or more foreign languages highly. If they are spoken fluently even better. So I think a year at a top French or Swiss boarding school, learning, at the least, French and German, would be excellent. This could happen in the heir's early teens.
Unless they are from the British royal family and their first language is English ,chances are they already speak 2 other languages at home .
The preparation should start at university level , subjects like business ,international relations ,tourism etc should be taught /chosen compared to Williams art history / geography course and Harrys lack of university education whoch leaves them completely ill prepared .
I agree languages are helpful, though I think those can be learned in their home country as easily as at a boarding school abroad. The idea of spending some time overseas in a country linked to their own seems to me a good one, though I wouldn't limit that to a semester abroad in school (spending a few months overseas working/learning about something, as Victoria did in Asia and Will in Africa, seems just as valuable to me).
Something I don't think has been mentioned yet is building ties between monarchies. We're past the age when that happened naturally because they all married people from one another's families, so it would be nice to see the heirs getting to know one another when they are teenagers or young adults through joint activities or short visits to one another's countries. There's not much point in the heirs building ties with government officials from their or other countries as they won't be in office by the time they take the throne; by contrast, the other heirs in their generation are the people they'll be seeing for the rest of their lives at ceremonial events and foreign visits.
I agree Canuck that it is an excellent idea because as you pointed out most of these men and women will be occupying their roles for decades. I do know that the Scandinavian heirs have done events together to promote the region. The European CP couples who married in the late 1990's through 2012 were invited to a weekend at Het Loo in the NL about a month before Willem-Alexander ascended to the throne. (I do believe that Charles and Camilla were invited but declined.)
So for the future I do believe that organizing events or even informal gatherings so the heirs of a similar age/stage can meet would be an excellent idea.
Oh! An interesting topic! Which thread can the initial quote from Canuck be found?
I think we've kind of grazed upon this in a previous thread, but at face-value, I've always regarded the continental monarchies more progressive and egalitarian. I've wondered if it was the societal influence, being that Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands are all top-notch in regards to real GDP, social programs and education. I think the pairings of this current generation speak to and are representative of their respective societies' priorities and progressiveness.
I remember someone referencing elitism still being upheld as the UKs societal default and it astounded me, in regards to the conversation at hand in that thread. Way to shoot yourself in the foot there, buddy-rina! :no: I still find it down-right ludicrous that veneration of anachronisms are applauded on that island when the continentals obviously have their finger on which way the wind is blowing.
Adapt and overcome.
I may have to mull this over, but.....Liberal Arts are becoming a coin flip, unless you plan on teaching. One of the reasons that I can agree with others that William didn't make the most pragmatic choice.
The British monarchy has adapted. The way it operates now is vastly different to they way it was even thirty years ago. The monarchy in Britain still exists after others have failed and it's popular with its population. I don't see that respect for some traditions makes Britain inferior or less progressive than others.
Of the monarchies that you've mentioned Crown Prince Frederik does less in a socially progressive sense than Charles and his wife is regularly criticised for her extravagance. Crown Princess Mette Marit of Norway performs relatively few engagements in her native country. She is often overseas.
French and German are nice and all that - but do not be so eurocentric! Think globally - cause the world is a global community. Arabic perhaps - certainly Chinese - Spanish is spoken by many people on this planet.
Internship at the UN.
And language instruction should begin as a very young child - get a tutor who speaks another language. If you learn two languages simultaneously as a child it affects the synapses in your brain so you have the ability even as an adult to learn more languages with relative ease. The older you get - the harder it becomes to be multilingual.
Quote from: Curryong on November 13, 2014, 01:15:47 AM
The British monarchy has adapted. The way it operates now is vastly different to they way it was even thirty years ago. The monarchy in Britain still exists after others have failed and it's popular with its population. I don't see that respect for some traditions makes Britain inferior or less progressive than others.
Of the monarchies that you've mentioned Crown Prince Frederik does less in a socially progressive sense than Charles and his wife is regularly criticised for her extravagance. Crown Princess Mette Marit of Norway performs relatively few engagements in her native country. She is often overseas.
Though I was speaking in terms of progressing at the will of progressing with regards to their respective societies, yes, I have to extend credit where credit is due, but it has been behind the curb in comparison.
Take primogeniture laws for example: Sweden and the Netherlands in the early 1980's. Belgium and Norway in the 1990's. Last I read, the UK is still in a limbo period until the addenda takes effect. Not that the following hiccup is relevant now that W&K's first-born is a boy, and nor is it indicative of Britain as the head of The Commonwealth, but this did pose an interesting question not too long ago.
Some Commonwealth countries still without royal assent on primogeniture law change - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10193444/Some-Commonwealth-countries-still-without-royal-assent-on-primogeniture-law-change.html)
Then we have the differences in the constitutional roles of the monarch as Head of State. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), we could compare and contrast the executive roles in terms of Parliament/Riksdag (sp?) of the monarchs from the UK, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
Sweden: Because of The Compromise of Torekov in the early 1970's, the reigning monarch cannot stick its nose in formation of government or any parliamentary proceedings. The speaker of their parliament is the one who nominates/appoints PMs.
The Netherlands: As far as I know, execution of executive power of the standing monarch in terms of dissolving their parliament (which is the voice of the electorate), is usually contingent on the resignation of an entire party cabinet.
Which, the precedent in the lack of transparency with Charles's meddlings, what does the future bode?
Prince Charles's letters to ministers to remain private, court rules | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/09/prince-charles-letters-mps-private-court)
Anyway, fun stuff! Just thinking about TLLK's ideas. To extracurricular clubs and scholastic achievement societies at the teen-age level require community service hours in the UK? Lifetime philanthropy is foundational.
Sorry. This is now slap-dashed response. My chatterbox has been chatterboxing at me. :wacko: I lost the original post to the log-out timer. I should really adjust that.
Well look who rolled in? Hi Daisy!!!!
I don't think promigeniture was really a burning issue in the BRF until William's marriage, Daisy. After all, unlike some other monarchies there were to be two kings in succession on the throne for the next fifty years or so. (That should see me out!)
Because 16 realms in the Commonwealth have the Queen as Head of State that presents the Parliaments of those countries and the UK with a legal issue which other monarchies in the world don't have to face. It's unique.
As with all such legislation it's going to be a drawn out process. However, surely that is better than the knee-jerk reaction which occurred in Sweden for example, where Carl Gustaf was presented with a fait-accompli without consultation, in the matter of promigeniture in his family.
I have already expressed my anxieties about King Charles The Meddler. I am trusting to his discretion when he gets to the throne as well as his mother's example. She has been meticulous in her constitutional duty.
Quote from: Curryong on November 13, 2014, 01:15:47 AM
The British monarchy has adapted. The way it operates now is vastly different to they way it was even thirty years ago. The monarchy in Britain still exists after others have failed and it's popular with its population. I don't see that respect for some traditions makes Britain inferior or less progressive than others.
Of the monarchies that you've mentioned Crown Prince Frederik does less in a socially progressive sense than Charles and his wife is regularly criticised for her extravagance. Crown Princess Mette Marit of Norway performs relatively few engagements in her native country. She is often overseas.
But in those countries, the press isn't under threat of being left out of royal engagements if they dare criticise, the UK government/Monarchy is quite feudal in ita treatment of the press, thus the media is quite careful to avoir criticism, except for a select few, the rest tread with kid gloves
^ :thumbsup: :nod:
Quote from: Limabeany on November 13, 2014, 09:52:31 AM
Quote from: Curryong on November 13, 2014, 01:15:47 AM
The British monarchy has adapted. The way it operates now is vastly different to they way it was even thirty years ago. The monarchy in Britain still exists after others have failed and it's popular with its population. I don't see that respect for some traditions makes Britain inferior or less progressive than others.
Of the monarchies that you've mentioned Crown Prince Frederik does less in a socially progressive sense than Charles and his wife is regularly criticised for her extravagance. Crown Princess Mette Marit of Norway performs relatively few engagements in her native country. She is often overseas.
But in those countries, the press isn't under threat of being left out of royal engagements if they dare criticise, the UK government/Monarchy is quite feudal in ita treatment of the press, thus the media is quite careful to avoir criticism, except for a select few, the rest tread with kid gloves
If the media didn't know that the BRF sells newspapers/documentaries then they wouldn't play the game, would they? The media knows the royals are popular.
I have Danish friends. The Royals are barely criticised in Denmark. I think they are all terrific, but you could hardly say the Crown Prince and Princess (the equivalent rank of Charles and Camilla) or Prince Joachim and wife are over-worked.
The BRF doesn't work any more than any other royal house, some work even less than their counterparts. They also support some good causes as opposed to some BRF royals only wanting to do Art and Sports.
Quote from: Curryong on November 13, 2014, 10:41:56 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on November 13, 2014, 09:52:31 AM
Quote from: Curryong on November 13, 2014, 01:15:47 AM
The British monarchy has adapted. The way it operates now is vastly different to they way it was even thirty years ago. The monarchy in Britain still exists after others have failed and it's popular with its population. I don't see that respect for some traditions makes Britain inferior or less progressive than others.
Of the monarchies that you've mentioned Crown Prince Frederik does less in a socially progressive sense than Charles and his wife is regularly criticised for her extravagance. Crown Princess Mette Marit of Norway performs relatively few engagements in her native country. She is often overseas.
But in those countries, the press isn't under threat of being left out of royal engagements if they dare criticise, the UK government/Monarchy is quite feudal in ita treatment of the press, thus the media is quite careful to avoir criticism, except for a select few, the rest tread with kid gloves
If the media didn't know that the BRF sells newspapers/documentaries then they wouldn't play the game, would they? The media knows the royals are popular.
I have Danish friends. The Royals are barely criticised in Denmark. I think they are all terrific, but you could hardly say the Crown Prince and Princess (the equivalent rank of Charles and Camilla) or Prince Joachim and wife are over-worked.
I have to agree that Queen Margrethe and her family are very, very popular. Their days worked during the 2013 year were significantly less than their counterparts in the UK though especially when compared to Charles, QEII, DoE and DoC. Joachim and Marie were equal with Kate, but less than William. The CP Pair both had tallied ninety days of work each. Henrik was less than Margrethe, Frederik and Mary with 63 days. :) There have been two recent books by Trine Villemann that are critical of the DRF and their role.
As far as I can tell, the Spanish and British lead with the most days worked with the other European courts following. The Jordanians are good at keeping the media informed about their engagements, but it is harder to tell with the Gulf States, Morocco, and Asian monarchies IMO.
Double post auto-merged: November 14, 2014, 12:02:32 AM
One question that I would have for the Danish monarchy applies to the future heir Christian. Will he be required to find a non-Danish future spouse like his grandmother, father, uncle etc..had to do?
They didn't 'have' to marry a foreigner - they just happened to fall in love with a person born abroad. No law in Denmark requires members of the Royal Family to marry people from abroad.
No law requires it, but I've read that the current Queen strongly encouraged it because she thought it was helpful in building ties with other countries. She married a man from France, and her two sons have had three marriages between them, all of them to women from other countries.
That is just pure gossip and utter nonsense in my opinion! Queen Margrethe II is the most liberal of Royals, and she would have insisted on her sons marrying for love. She played no part whatsoever in the selection of Royal Brides nor encouraged them for the purpose of international diplomacy.
France, Australia, nor Hong Kong for that matter play any significant role in Danish Foreign Policy.
I'm sure she wanted her sons to marry for love, but she does seem to have encouraged them to look for love with women outside of Denmark. I don't think it's a power play or anything, just a desire for Denmark to build ties with other countries. Australia certainly knows more about the Danish monarchy, and probably Denmark generally, than it would have had Mary not married Frederik.
Quote from: Windsor on November 14, 2014, 11:01:30 AM
They didn't 'have' to marry a foreigner - they just happened to fall in love with a person born abroad. No law in Denmark requires members of the Royal Family to marry people from abroad.
I have to disagree Windsor. None of the Danish royals in the line of succession have married a fellow Dane for generations. While there is no law that requires that they marry a foreigner they've been "encouraged" to marry outside the country so there would be no impression of favoritism to a native family.
Double post auto-merged: November 14, 2014, 03:29:25 PM
Quote from: Canuck on November 14, 2014, 12:56:11 PM
No law requires it, but I've read that the current Queen strongly encouraged it because she thought it was helpful in building ties with other countries. She married a man from France, and her two sons have had three marriages between them, all of them to women from other countries.
As did their father as Ingrid was Swedish, and her sisters. While I understand that it was more customary for royals to marry royals in past decades all have chosen partners who are not Danish.
I agree with
@Windsor I don't see why they would be encouraged to do that, it is a big enough country
@TLLK I think those are just the people they have wanted to marry...
And even if that were true, how marrying a nobody from Australia/France/Hong Kong improved Danish relations/trade/etc with those countries?
I know in the case of CP Mary, she and Fred have done several Australian tours and draw pretty big crowds and a fair amount of press attention (especially when they're in Australia, but also press coverage in Australia even when they're in Denmark). By contrast, they were in Canada a few months ago and got very little press attention or crowds. So I would say in that case it's been helpful just in keeping Denmark in the consciousness of a country that otherwise probably wouldn't think of that random northern European country much at all, and has more specifically created greater attention when they visit Australia and e.g. visit Danish stores, discuss Danish business, etc.
I find it odd that every person who remained in the current line of succession including Knud's descendents didn't marry a Dane. Those who married Danish commoners were "demoted" and were removed. IMO there is a strong encouragement to not marry a fellow Dane. Now the rule regarding marriage to a commoner has been removed but I'm curious to see if a future King Frederik will continue it as it would affect his nephews/niece and obviously his own children.
Have to agree with both Lima and Windsor. I don't see it more than coincidence as far as the contemporary Danish royals. Previous generations were married off to Germanic, Lutheran monarchies, but I don't see what benefit would be there for actively encouraging marriages outside of Danish citizens.
Still thinking it is more a case of not showing favoritism to a specific Danish family over older economic or political ties.
The Swedish monarchy has been much the same, however. Marriage to German noblewomen for the most part, through the generations, with a sprinkling of English royalty. Those who married commoners of any nationality were demoted. Carl Gustav married a German-born commoner when his grandfather died. As far as the current crop is concerned Crown Princess Victoria is married to a Swede, her brother Carl Philip is engaged to one, but Princess Madeleine is married to an English-born American and lives in New York.
And don't forget that Prince Bertil had to wait decades before he and Lillian could marry. I understand that they waited until Silvia was expecting Victoria before they wed.
Double post auto-merged: November 15, 2014, 01:57:13 AM
Quote from: TLLK on November 15, 2014, 12:47:45 AM
Still thinking it is more a case of not showing favoritism to a specific Danish family over older economic or political ties.
Will wager a pint of Hagen Das on this matter!!! Have the question posed at two other sites with Danish posters. :P
How about an ice cream cake
@TLLK :xmas21:
Actually might hold up a little better than regular ice cream for trans-Atlantic shipping. :thumbsup:
On another site (which has Danish posters) the subject is under discussion, and it was said (claimed) by a poster that Queen Margrethe (Daisy) gave an interview at the time of Fred and Mary's engagement. In this she stated that having fresh faces (blood) from other nations had been good for the Royal Family and for Denmark. So, sounds like her preference. (She apparently fell head over heels for Henri at first sight!)
Bertil of Sweden had to be there as a possible Regent for the present King Carl Gustav, who lost his father in babyhood. The King, Gustav (Bertil's father) was elderly and didn't approve of commoners in the family. Therefore it wasn't until the succession was assured that Bertil, who remained Carl Gustav's heir until then, was able to marry. (Carl Gustav was on the throne by then.
^ That sounds to me like Queen Margrethe was just saying that she approved of her new Daughter in law.
It doesn't sound like forcing someone to be unable to marry a Dane. :shrug:
I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything, least of all, Daisy. However, she has expressed that she likes diversity and obviously her children have followed suit.
[mod]Please do not quote the entire post directly above your own. [/mod]
And it wasn't only her children but her sister Benedikte's family also chose partners who were not Danish. (I'm not going to include Anne Marie's children who would not be in line for the Danish throne.)
[mod]Please do not quote the entire post directly above your own. [/mod]
Quote from: TLLK on November 15, 2014, 03:07:05 AM
Actually :xmas1: might hold up a little better than regular ice cream for trans-Atlantic shipping. :thumbsup:
Would require a larger refrigerated container. No one can say we are not willing to go the extra mile for ice cream! :xmas1:
:hehe: Oh yeah!!! LOL BTW my Danish sources have found an interview with Henrik also sharing that he and Margrethe did not want their sons marrying Danes. I'll see if I can find it.
GET READY TO PAY UP!!! YES I AM GREEDY!!!! :xmas1:
I recall reading on another site where there were a few Danes who made the claim that marriage outside Denmark was encouraged because there had been some hereditary diseases floating around in the family and so "new" genes were seen as a benefit. I forget the details of who had what - but that was the assertion made. Seems among the Danish aristocrats everyone was related. There is some sense in that as every royal house in Europe is descended from Christian IX including a relationship to the BRF.
I doubt they deliberately go looking for a foreign bride. Fred had a Danish GF before Mary so obviously it was not a requirement.
But a spouse from another country is almost universal among the continental royals now - except of course the BRF where I suspect if Harry had a foreign GF there would be some gnashing of teeth rendering of garments and general woe.
There certainly would among the local female population! Anyway, I think Princess Michael was a bit much for some people, in and out of the BRF.
Quote from: cate1949 on November 18, 2014, 06:28:16 AM
But a spouse from another country is almost universal among the continental royals now - except of course the BRF where I suspect if Harry had a foreign GF there would be some gnashing of teeth rendering of garments and general woe.
Is that true outside of Denmark? A generation or two ago, sure, but these days I don't think so. In Sweden Victoria and Carl Philip both married/are marrying Swedish partners. Mathilde is Belgian. Felipe and both of his sisters married people from Spain. Maxima was not Dutch, but both of Willem-Alexander's brothers married Dutch women. Monaco is an outlier, but given how tiny it is and how much time the Royals spend elsewhere, that's not really surprising.
As for Harry, I suspect there will be some gnashing of teeth and rending of garments regardless who he marries. :wink: But I think if it was a woman from a Commonwealth country -- Canada, Australia, etc. -- that no one would be too put out by her nationality. It didn't seem to be an issue with Chelsy, after all.
^As long as she is white (caucasian) a PoC would not be welcome into his circle with open arms considering his racist grandfather :notamused:
After reading Philips comments My opinion is that the BRF is racist (subtly) how can they respect a man who has made such offensive remarks ?
^ :nod: ITA
Quote from: Curryong on November 18, 2014, 07:58:02 AM
There certainly would among the local female population! Anyway, I think Princess Michael was a bit much for some people, in and out of the BRF.
:hehe: I agree with both of your points.
Quote from: Canuck on November 14, 2014, 12:56:11 PM
No law requires it, but I've read that the current Queen strongly encouraged it because she thought it was helpful in building ties with other countries. She married a man from France, and her two sons have had three marriages between them, all of them to women from other countries.
I read some book recnelty, not sure who by, but it said that the queen of Denmark encouraged dating and marrying outside the country because it was better not to have one's old girlfriends/boyfriends popping up. I don't know much about Danish royalty so no way of knowing if this is true.
There was also some speculation that it was going to be more troublesome for the press to find "dirt" on someone from outside of Denmark.
I think that it said something that if you had an affair with someone in Denmark, I suppose (long time since I've been there so I don't remember) it is a smallish place and possibly parochial so your "old friend" or indiscretion would be too close to home. It sounds a bit odd IMO... and may not be true, but then both Danish princes have married foreign women?