Royal style & gossip: hairbands and birth plans

[QueenOfTheAndals]

Will Kate emerge from her Norfolk seclusion sporting a bigger than ever Alice band? Will the Mail and Express stories about Meghan get more ludicrous by the day? And will this thread see the arrival of Baby Sussex? All will be revealed in due course...

Link to previous thread

New photos of Prince Oskar and Princess Estelle of Sweden here

and Princess Isabella of Denmark here

I had forgotten about that paradyning. I did think initially L. was only wiping off lipstick but there was another video that really looked terrible.

I don't know - don't they get nominated by elected politicians? And the current Irish president is a former politician.

I rather suspect that in an alternate timeline where we suddenly become a republic, we'd have a race between Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Tony Blair and probably Gary Lineker (and, yes, I do think they'd all be white men!)

I don’t see it surviving past Charles.

noodlenisefraggle
Yes Ireland has an elected non political President/ Head of State- the office holder can refuse to sign legislation in to law.
They have been drawn usually from the ranks of ex politicians and in the past certain politicians assumed they'd be a shoo in for the job. However the electorate can have other ideas and proportional representation voting helps too, so the "shoo ins" are disappointed.

Beatrice's coat dress looked fabulous today, I loved the colour and patterns. Lots of gorgeous clothes to compliment HM, and a great sense of celebration. I hope they were all off to a big knees up after to celebrate HM's birthday.

Nearly all of the presidents of Ireland have been affiliated to a political party. Most have retired from active politics. Mary McAleese was a notable exception (law professor fro NI) but her candidacy was still nominated by Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats as well as herself.

Presidents of Ireland list:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ireland#List_of_presidents_of_Ireland

Most of the presidents have been affiliated with the Fianna Fail party and have had long political careers. Erskine Childers was the son of a notable participant in the 1916 Rising on top of his own political career. Eamon deValera dominated Irish politics from the 1916 Rising on.

Of late, presidents have been affiliated with the Irish Labour party too - Michael D. Higgins had a long, long career in politics before becoming president, football and rugby fan in chief, First ATM User, and all around national treasure.
images.app.goo.gl/HdFN3u3S7MyCfFuT8

images.app.goo.gl/JbVr5gpyrjc2GfQz5

images.app.goo.gl/numMaexzrAW1pCQt7

images.app.goo.gl/FDfgaJWaDFcQvpcr8

The office of president is supposed to be politically neutral. The president is advised by the Council of State.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_State_(Ireland) members and role here, along with history of presidential constitutional role and activity.

While some individuals have run for president in the recent past without any political experience and without a professional background in law or administration, Irish voters tend to view these two elements of a candidate's background as essential for fulfilling the role.

The president has discretionary powers and reserve powers. The only power that is solely the president's is to refuse to grant a dissolution of the Dail if a Taoiseach as lost a vote of no confidence.

If he does indeed become Charles the Last then I think it'll be because people tire of the monarchy as an institution and the privilege they have. Not because of any particular scandals - they've weathered far worse and survived.

Thanks. That's interesting. I didn't know much about the Irish presidency but I always thought it was a much more attractive way of having a head of State that either ours or the US. I suppose there would always be problems one way or the other. I do think either the public will just lose interest in them and they will need to at the very least be very slimmed down. There just wont be the work for them if the Public aren't bothered anymore about having a Royal opening their fete

Oh thanks. That's interesting. I thought they were not affiliated to a party. So they are like the speaker-from a political party but expected to be neutral? I'm not sure why we can't have someone who is elected who is not a member of a political party and is expected to work with everyone as Head of State to act as a check on the HoC

Queen Of course it’s not due to any scandal or such, but I think after Charles, it just becomes pointless. Compared to his Children Charles is actually a hard worker, who achieved a lot by the time he was mid to late 30s , basically H&W age.

But what do the younger generation offer ?

Absolutely nothing significant, just recycled Bland Millennial talk .
They are my age and I can’t see myself being engaged in anything they say or do.
I find prince Charles work more interesting!

My eldest who turns 13 has zero interest in the younger generation too , and is more interested in May’s face off with Junker and Macron! I don’t see the late teens or 20 something that interested in Royals either. I think it will reach a point where people will just lose interest and the whole thing will just die out.

Compared to his Children Charles is actually a hard worker, who achieved a lot by the time he was mid to late 30s

Really? So by the time of his marriage to Diana, ish? He'd been to Cambridge but IIRC got in without the stellar A level results that would usually be demanded. He'd also been in the Navy, but hasn't done active service as Harry has done. Not saying he has done nothing, but what specifically were his great achievements by that age that outshine those of his sons?

Harry has seen active service and set up the Invictus Games and Sentebale. William went to university, worked as an air rescue pilot and established the Royal Foundation. Both brothers seem committed to mental health issues. I don't mean to denigrate anything Charles did, but does any of this particularly pale into comparison with what he had achieved by their age?

When the Queen came to the throne she was young and beautiful. Times were different then, and I think many people felt the RF represented the nation. During her reign, the Queen has been dignified and regal and has rarely set a foot wrong. But Charles, should he come to the throne, will be old and has a reputation of being tetchy and irritable and at times has shown scant regard for the rule of not trying to influence political decisions. I think his coronation will be the crunch point; lots of pomp and money spent on someone who really can’t command the respect that the Queen does.

I’m not sure I’d describe Charles as hard working, queenofarles - I’m the same age as him and I don’t recall significant achievements when he was younger other than royal tours. But maybe I wasn’t really paying attention. I think he’s always sought a role for himself. I think he’s made work for himself, his personal campaigns, and then thrown himself into those, much like many retired people do, but he’s been doing that since he was quite young. Maybe if the Queen had delegated some responsibilities to him it would have been better, but she doesn’t seem to have held him in much regard, neither has Philip.

I’m not sure William would do much better. He doesn’t seem to be engaged with the whole royal thing. I think one possibility of saving the monarchy will be Kate. She seems to have got the hang of what being royal is about – turn up, look smart, smile when appropriate, no scandal.

Charles founded the Prince's Trust when he was still in his twenties. His interest in environmental issues, including climate change before anyone was talking about it much, also dates back to that time.

I think his envolvment in charities, setting up the princes trust, expanding and investing in the Duchy of Cornwall is impressive, these were all done back in a time where not many people had any interest in environmental issues.

Ok fair point, I thought he founded his Trust later than that.

Cross post seneca

I think Charles does quite a lot these days even if it isn't all over the papers. His big achievement has been the Prince's Trust, it's a massive charity that makes a real difference to young people's lives.

And although the media liked to paint him as a tree hugging loon, he has actually been well ahead of the curve on issues such as climate change and organic food production. Less so on architecture but you can't have everything.

A previous poster mentioned Reinventing the Royals on YouTube. Worth a look if you're interested in how Charles' PR team worked to portray him favourably, often at the expense of other family members. The Royals are capable of being ruthless when up against it. That's why they survive.

Another x post Seneca!

But in a way the Royal Family are like Disney hero's & heroines and give people a bit of escapism, magic & glamour.
I don't think anyone would turn down the chance of being called a Princess or Prince. Yes some folk might say not on my nelly it's too elitist, but at the end of the day the human psyche/ego wants to feel special, loved & adored.

I see what you're saying TracyBeaker but honestly, I would hate to be a royal for many, many reasons. And I would be appalled if my dc married one (not that that's remotely likely). It is a ridiculous institution, as much as I like seeing what they wear, and I'm not sure the extreme wealth and privilege would be worth it for all the constraints it comes with. Like pp I think the British monarchy is in its dying days.

icannotremember I agree with you about not wanting to be part of a royal family, I'd run a mile. I like the idea of being a Princess as like some of the Europeans do it, no lands or responsibilities just the title.
Though I think the title of Dr carries more respect in some ways, whether that be a Doctor of Medicine or a Doctor of History.

I thought they were not affiliated to a party. So they are like the speaker-from a political party but expected to be neutral?

The party affiliation is supposed to be completely set aside - they really are supposed to be strictly neutral, and it is assumed the presidency will be the zenith of their careers, with maybe a stint at the UN (like Mary Robinson) or perhaps in academia (Mary McAleese) as their next step in life. Or a pleasant retirement.

They are not really like the Speaker. It is a completely separate branch of the government from the Executive, and the role is to represent the people and protect the constitution (which itself is assumed to fulfill the function of establishing the rights of the people and acting as a reference point if questions arise, rights are threatened, etc). They can refer bills to the Supreme Court to test for constitutionality if there are doubts even after meetings of the Council of State.

www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/the_president/functions_of_the_president.html
Role of the president.

www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/the_president/president_of_ireland_and_legislation.html
The president and legislation.

It’s interesting thinking about the future of the monarchy in the UK because, realistically Charles isn’t going to be king for very long. He’ll be taking on the role after the point most people have retired and even if he’s as hardy as the queen now he’s not going to have many years to really go for it. I think William will have to be quite a big part of his ‘reign’ from early on. And I think that will be a challenge in itself cos I find William to be a peculiarly absent figure in the Family - just sort of... there.
I think they’ll stick around as heads of state for a while though - they serve a purpose.

Also I don’t much like Charles but I will be excited to get new coins - my mum has vague memories of a time when there were men on coins but It’ll be very novel for me!