Princess Mako Marries & Loses Royal Status

[SnottyLottie]

Princess Mako of Japan had married Kei Komuro. As Kei is considered a commoner, Mako has now lost her royal status due to the Imperial Household law. She is the current Emperor’s niece but will be the sister of the next Emperor (despite the Emperor already having a daughter, as females are not allowed to inherit the throne). She has also turned down an offer of money that is usually paid to royal females on their departure from the royal family to help them in their new life.

It has been reported that Princess Mako has been suffering from mental health problems and PTSD due to the negative attention she has received from the press over her engagement to Kei (whose mother is involved in a financial dispute scandal).

What a sad story and it sounds very similar to issues going on in the British royal family.

[quote madisonbridges]@SageRosemary. Its great that you're happy with your electoral system. But no disrespect to your president, Michael, but not many people outside Ireland knows who he is. Ireland might unanimously love him but the rest of the world would go...who? Everyone knows who the Queen is. Leaders come to the UK specifically to meet the Queen and they get excited about it. In fact, the Queen not going to COP26 left reporters wondering if all leaders will show up. Such is the status of the Queen.[/quote]
Is that you, Camilla?

People love Michael D, he has many admirers worldwide, we've had a fair few international leaders here to meet him. Lizzie even came to meet his predecessor, and the Irish people gave her a right Irish welcome, we recognise that she is a hard working individual.

Reporters make their living from speculation, this is a non-story about COP26, the rest of them will show up.

Point is, Michael D. does a great job at representing us, but none of us have to worry about his nieces, nephews, grand-nieces, grand-nephews, mother's cousins or grandfather's sisters-in law. He is almost a complete package in himself and his wife completes the package beautifully, no airs or graces about either of them and though he is elderly now we hope that he will have a happy and healthy retirement when that time comes. Would you not wish that for Queen Elizabeth, that she gets to put her feet up and reflect on a life of service to her country and not have to have her family business under constant scrutiny?

[quote madisonbridges]@SageRosemary. Its great that you're happy with your electoral system. But no disrespect to your president, Michael, but not many people outside Ireland knows who he is. Ireland might unanimously love him but the rest of the world would go...who? Everyone knows who the Queen is. Leaders come to the UK specifically to meet the Queen and they get excited about it. In fact, the Queen not going to COP26 left reporters wondering if all leaders will show up. Such is the status of the Queen.[/quote]
I’m highly amused by your penetrating insight into the personal feelings of other countries’ leaders. Do you suppose Robert Mugabe, Nicolai Ceausescu, Vladimir Putin and Bashar al Assad were all excited to meet the Queen?

Do you suppose Robert Mugabe, Nicolai Ceausescu, Vladimir Putin and Bashar al Assad were all excited to meet the Queen?

The Queen famously hid in a bush to avoid talking to the Ceausescus when she had to put them up at Buckingham Palace during their State Visit (organised by the FO, not the Queen). And Prince Charles had to deal with Mugabe launching himself at him from a distance to shake his hand during Pope John Paul II’s funeral. So yes, I think in those cases the leaders were keen to be associated with the royal family members.

Robert Mugabe is hardly the best example of leaders to want to meet the RF.

@Roussette

Yes agree Pics. The only difference is now we allow female heirs to the throne but that was relatively recent.

Not that recent.

Mary Tudor 1500s
Lady Jane Grey 1500s
Elizabeth I 1500s
Mary II 1600s
Anne 1600s
Victoria 1800s

@Serenster

Do you suppose Robert Mugabe, Nicolai Ceausescu, Vladimir Putin and Bashar al Assad were all excited to meet the Queen?

The Queen famously hid in a bush to avoid talking to the Ceausescus when she had to put them up at Buckingham Palace during their State Visit (organised by the FO, not the Queen). And Prince Charles had to deal with Mugabe launching himself at him from a distance to shake his hand during Pope John Paul II’s funeral. So yes, I think in those cases the leaders were keen to be associated with the royal family members.

Yes. I was being ironic. Do you think it is a good thing that dictators, mass murderers and despots not to mention the Queen's racing chum, Sheikh Mohammed of Dubai are regularly welcomed to BP?

Do you think it is a good thing that dictators, mass murderers and despots not to mention the Queen's racing chum, Sheikh Mohammed of Dubai are regularly welcomed to BP

Is it up to the Queen? I don’t suppose she was thrilled to have Robert Mugabe or the Ceaucescus

Exactly, Andante57. The Queen gets no say whatsoever in which Heads of State she has to meet, entertain and literally roll out the red carpet for. That is the choice of the UK Government, and she just has to make nice, smile and follow the prescribed formalities no matter her personal feelings on the matter.

Robert Mugabe was so determined to have a photo taken in proximity to Prince Charles at the pope’s funeral that he leant over people during the part of the service where people are exhorted to “share the peace of Christ” and shake hands with those around them to stick his hand in front of Charles.

Charles was faced with two equally unwelcome options - ignore the hand and be unchristian at the pope’s funeral, or take it and be criticised for acknowledging Mugabe.

I wish Mako and her husband a long and happy life together. From their public statements, they seem very much in love. I hope that, with time, Mako regains her equilibrium.

Exactly, Andante57. The Queen gets no say whatsoever in which Heads of State she has to meet, entertain and literally roll out the red carpet for. That is the choice of the UK Government, and she just has to make nice, smile and follow the prescribed formalities no matter her personal feelings on the matter

It was Harold Wilson the then PM who invited Ceausescu but Callaghan was PM at the time of the visit and was equally enthusiastic about its They both evidently thought Ceaucescu was a throughly good egg and a wonderful leader for Romania.
I wonder if Wilson & Callaghan quite enjoyed making the Queen have them to stay knowing she probably wasn’t that keen on a communist leader.
The Queen also received a call from French President Giscard d’Estaing warning her with an account of the Ceaucescus recent stay in Paris, during which the Romanians had looted their living quarters and had even hacked holes in the walls while searching for bugging devices.

I guess it would have been 'unchristian' like if Andrew - as the son of a god chose monarch, and therefore himself chose, to have not met Epstein at that park, despite him knowing what he does.

Honestly rubicscubicle, I think that post takes the award for “most blatantly obvious desperate attempt to shoehorn Andrew into a discussion”

Absolutely not and you know it.

Just shows how ridiculous your 'christian' excuse is.

Ever been to a Protestant or Catholic Church service? It sounds like a no, from your posts.

@SageRosemary

Living in Ireland, in a republic, I find the notion of royalty completely and utterly outdated.

We have a President, who is elected by a democratic majority of the people to represent all of the people, who will serve a single term of 7 years or a maximum of 14 years if re-elected for a second term. The current President (Michael) has followed in the lead of his two immediate predecessors (fantastic women, both called Mary and both former Reid Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin) and taken on a more public role - as in more accessibility to the general public and not just rolled out for for formal state occasions. They have the option for retirement from public eye afterwards, though the 2 Marys remain active in international roles. Previous presidents have retired into relative obscurity, which is their absolute right.

Despite coming from different political backgrounds these presidents have earned the universal love of the public. Their spouses have played significant roles but this is not implied. Their families have largely been almost anonymous. Unless you know him personally, I doubt you could name any of the current incumbent's children, or grandchildren, or siblings/nieces/nephews/parents/aunts/uncles and rightly so, these people can live like any normal citizen of the state, earning their own living, going to a normal school/university. We do, however, know about his Bernese Mountain Dogs. He is a poet and we love his words of wisdom and comfort and inspiration. We respect that he did not come from a privileged background himself.

One house is provided, it's pretty grand and the setting is magnificent, but he works from home and entertains for work there, including garden parties for those who never dreamed they'd be invited. No-one is bothered that the President, or his or her spouse, may have worn the same outfit previously. There are no Crown Jewels either. No title to pass father to son or daughter. No concept of a "golden family" to be bowed and scraped to, no barmy idea that the eldest son/daughter or any other child would inherit a title ad infinitum.

It really is a much better system in Ireland

@Serenster

Exactly, Andante57. The Queen gets no say whatsoever in which Heads of State she has to meet, entertain and literally roll out the red carpet for. That is the choice of the UK Government, and she just has to make nice, smile and follow the prescribed formalities no matter her personal feelings on the matter.

Robert Mugabe was so determined to have a photo taken in proximity to Prince Charles at the pope’s funeral that he leant over people during the part of the service where people are exhorted to “share the peace of Christ” and shake hands with those around them to stick his hand in front of Charles.

Charles was faced with two equally unwelcome options - ignore the hand and be unchristian at the pope’s funeral, or take it and be criticised for acknowledging Mugabe.

So why not scrap the ‘anointed by God and special royal bloodline’ stuff, which comes with the unpleasant necessity to accept whoever is next in line, be they Nazi sympathiser, associate of known paedophile, or dutiful drone, and just hire a functionary with a record of public service who cuts ribbons and does what the government tells him/her? And replace every number of years?

@SageRosemary
"Would you not wish that for Queen Elizabeth, that she gets to put her feet up and reflect on a life of service to her country and not have to have her family business under constant scrutiny?"

I respect other's decisions so I leave it up to the Queen to decide what she wants to do. She's seen other monarachs abdicate so I guess she doesn't want to. Good on her. I think she's great.
Of course Michael Higgins has had international Heads of State visit. But he doesn't hold the cachet of the Queen. If I went to Sweden, would I rather meet a here today, gone tomorrow PM (I apologise that I don't know his name) or would I want to meet King Carl? (Once got invited into his Palace to dance!) It's going to be the king, obviously. And loads more people know the Queen Elizabeth than King Carl. Again, though, I'm glad you like and prefer your constitution.

You’re confusing the Swedish PM with the Irish president, though — not the same role at all. You’d presumably meet both HoS (whether elected or unelected) and elected head of government on a state visit.

And why is the fact that ‘loads more people know Queen Elizabeth than King Carl/Michael D Higgins’ in any way important? Someone up the thread has said the Queen is told by government who to meet, and there seems no way of quantifying what ‘value’ to apportion to these state visits, in any case. Do they make any significant difference to foreign policy? Do they allow the UK to punch above its weight globally? I suppose a lot will be made clearer as the impact of Brexit emerges more fully, particular as regards relations with the US (which has made its position on NI snd the border very clear, because only a political idiot would alienate the Irish-American vote ) and when Charles ascends the throne for a much shorter reign than his mother will have had.

@Cranncat. No I'm not confusing them so maybe I expressed myself badly. Would I prefer to meet a monarch of a country or an elected politician, which essentially is what Mr Higgins is? Queen Maxima of the Netherlands or president of Germany? I don't know who he is. Queen Daisy of Denmark or President Macron? Tough one. Monarchs are just more appealing. And longer-lasting.

I think the queens International status does help the country but I don't how to prove that. The fact that they do know her and want to meet her, puts uk as a place leaders want to go and then business can be done. Certainly having a commonwealth with a monarch at the head who keeps personal contact with the leaders of those countries and who they respect and want to be around can only be beneficial. Leaving aside countries' leaders, you often see commonwealth citizens who are excited at being invited to receptions, garden parties etc. If we had an elected head, knowing the uk, we'd chose Ant&Dec or Christopher Biggins. Why would an foreign leader, body, or individual be excited about meeting them? Indeed if we follow the Irish example and elect the Minister for the Arts as a president, it would be Nigel Huddleston. Is anyone excited to meet Nigel Huddleston?

The US will do whatever is in their own political and financial interest regardless of Brexit.

Would I prefer to meet a monarch of a country or an elected politician, which essentially is what Mr Higgins is? Queen Maxima of the Netherlands or president of Germany? I don't know who he is. Queen Daisy of Denmark or President Macron? Tough one. Monarchs are just more appealing. And longer-lasting

I would choose the democratically elected representative every single time. I find nothing appealing about monarchs and the fact that they are longer lasting is nothing positive, in my view.

[quote madisonbridges]@Cranncat. No I'm not confusing them so maybe I expressed myself badly. Would I prefer to meet a monarch of a country or an elected politician, which essentially is what Mr Higgins is? Queen Maxima of the Netherlands or president of Germany? I don't know who he is. Queen Daisy of Denmark or President Macron? Tough one. Monarchs are just more appealing. And longer-lasting.

I think the queens International status does help the country but I don't how to prove that. The fact that they do know her and want to meet her, puts uk as a place leaders want to go and then business can be done. Certainly having a commonwealth with a monarch at the head who keeps personal contact with the leaders of those countries and who they respect and want to be around can only be beneficial. Leaving aside countries' leaders, you often see commonwealth citizens who are excited at being invited to receptions, garden parties etc. If we had an elected head, knowing the uk, we'd chose Ant&Dec or Christopher Biggins. Why would an foreign leader, body, or individual be excited about meeting them? Indeed if we follow the Irish example and elect the Minister for the Arts as a president, it would be Nigel Huddleston. Is anyone excited to meet Nigel Huddleston?

The US will do whatever is in their own political and financial interest regardless of Brexit.[/quote]
You’re misunderstanding the Irish system — you don’t need to be a politician. Other presidential candidates over the last few elections have included the CEO of Barnardo’s Ireland, a civil rights campaigner, a journalist, the organiser of the Special Olympics, the founder of the Chernobyl Children’s Charity, and other people with a strong record of public service.

Michael D Higgins stopped being Minister for Arts, Culture, and the Gaeltacht long before he ran for president — and he was far more prominent in that portfolio than Nigel H, and left a big legacy. Irish Film Board, established Irish language TV station etc. He’s an interesting figure, anyway —from a very disadvantaged background.

Gosh @madisonbridges which decade do you live in?

A lot of wc do not really care about the monarch. If it were not for fear of destabilising funding, travelling etc. they would all go in the way of Barbados. They are staying purely what they think is a benefit for their citizens.

Everyone like a little party where they feel important, but overall, I think it's just a no harm done kind of thing.

@Cranncat.
You’re misunderstanding the Irish system — you don’t need to be a politician.

No, but Higgins is. I was addressing the original comment about him. I understand the system. It's not that difficult. You have to be nominated by local or national govt. He'd have to be more prominent than Nigel Huddleston because I've never heard of him either.