Gransnet forums

Chat

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands

(54 Posts)
Honeysuckleberries Tue 19-Apr-22 12:37:17

Did anyone see this programme about Queen Beatrix on channel 5 I think last Friday? I thought it was very interesting and a thoughtful insight into how an abdication works. Her mother abdicated for her after she had reigned for 30 years, and then QB reigned for 33 years and abdicated in favour of her son, Willem who was 46 when he came to the throne. When she abdicated she said it was because it was time the next generation took over and he was up to the job.
iMHO, the Dutch royal family have got it right, the throne is always occupied by someone who is ‘youthful’ and can represent the country with energy and vibrancy.
Whilst I respect our Queen and the work she has done we are now faced with a decreasingly visible Queen. I think she is due a rest for her remaining years. When Prince Charles takes over he will be in his late 70’s probably so we will have yet another ageing monarch.
If you compare the two monarchies the Dutch appear to be younger, energetic and more in touch with their people than our aged, creaking monarchy.
Wonder what you all think. I will be behind the settee with my crash helmet on!

volver Wed 20-Apr-22 18:44:39

Despite the idea that it's so tied in to the Queen, the position of Head of the Commonwealth is mainly ceremonial. There are countries in the Commonwealth who do not have the Queen as HoS and a country doesn't have to have been part of the Empire to be in the Commonwealth.

I think any international grouping of countries is a good thing, but this one doesn't have to be linked with the monarchy.

maddyone Wed 20-Apr-22 18:43:47

I agree with you Parsley I also think the Commonwealth smacks of the old days of colonialism. Like you I don’t understand why the Queen sets such store by it. I felt quite sorry for William and Catherine on their recent tour.

maddyone Wed 20-Apr-22 18:40:38

I do wonder about the future of the Commonwealth after William and Catherine’s recent trip.

Princess Anne has recently been on a visit to Australia but there was little media interest. Perhaps she’s not glamorous enough. I would have been interested though because she’s a royal I have a lot of respect for.

Parsley3 Wed 20-Apr-22 18:38:25

Anniebach

The Dutch and Swedish royal families are not head of the
Commonwealth

Is the Commonwealth a good thing? Isn’t ruling the UK enough? To me it has always smacked of the good old days of colonialism. I am not a fan of the Commonwealth and don’t understand why the Queen sets such store by it.

volver Wed 20-Apr-22 18:30:49

Anniebach

The Dutch and Swedish royal families are not head of the
Commonwealth

The Queen is currently Head of the Commonwealth and Charles will be, because the Queen has said that's what she wants. But William has said he doesn't mind if he is not Head of the Commonwealth in the future, but instead it is a "non Royal".

So comparisons with other countries' royal families don't hold up.

volver Wed 20-Apr-22 18:24:53

Grandma70s

The difficulty is, we frequently don’t do a very good job when electing leaders, do we?

I’ll stick with the monarchy unless they do something unforgivable.

In all seriousness Grandma70s I don't understand the approach that says we shouldn't vote for our leaders. That we should just rely on a particular family because we can't be trusted to choose somebody good.

Nobody would ever say we shouldn't vote for an MP and a government of our choosing.

Bellanonna Wed 20-Apr-22 17:59:26

Interesting post mawthemerrier

Anniebach Wed 20-Apr-22 17:52:22

The Dutch and Swedish royal families are not head of the
Commonwealth

Grandma70s Wed 20-Apr-22 17:49:18

The difficulty is, we frequently don’t do a very good job when electing leaders, do we?

I’ll stick with the monarchy unless they do something unforgivable.

Kalu Wed 20-Apr-22 17:46:43

I have always thought the Dutch RF have got it exactly right. Similarly, the Swedish RF. A more modern and acceptable example if indeed our own RF have to continue.

A Président Zelenskyy ? Yes, even better

volver Wed 20-Apr-22 17:33:52

Are we allowed to mention the service at the Cenotaph?

maddyone Wed 20-Apr-22 17:32:58

What doesn’t she do? Well for starters she didn’t give out the Maundy Thursday monies did she? Prince Charles did it.

maddyone Wed 20-Apr-22 17:31:14

If to be alive is the only qualification, it doesn’t say much for the job does it?

vegansrock Wed 20-Apr-22 17:11:29

She has to be alive and she remains Queen. She doesn’t have to do anything.

volver Wed 20-Apr-22 16:13:16

What duties doesn’t she carry out ?

We'll never know...grin

When I asked recently what duties were expected of her in this job (for job it is) I was told that I didn't know much about it. But nobody decided to enlighten me, they just kept saying I needed to educate myself. Sort of Catch-022, really.

Anniebach Wed 20-Apr-22 15:04:33

What duties doesn’t she carry out ? When her father was treated for cancer she and her husband went on an official tour
in his place.

She didn’t carry out public duties when pregnant should she have abdicated then ?

Callistemon21 Wed 20-Apr-22 15:03:45

She doesn't seem to have lost any mental capacity.

If posters feel all the hand shaking, ribbon cutting, meeting and greeting, general pomp and circumstances is irrelevant and unnecessary and she 's still compos mentis enough to do what is necessary regarding state papers etc then I can't see anything much to criticise.
Although perhaps it's time to give Mr Johnson a good dressing down.

volver Wed 20-Apr-22 14:58:29

She promised to be of service.

Maybe the best way of being of service is to understand one is too infirm to undertake all the duties and let somebody else do the job.

Callistemon21 Wed 20-Apr-22 14:55:05

I think she made that promise aged 21 and she's not one to break a promise, maddyone.
She's not failing but she is delegating.

maddyone Wed 20-Apr-22 14:51:43

I think the Queen imposed the self control on her self and that’s probably the reason why she has refused to consider abdication or even retirement. It was probably informed by her uncle’s abdication, but by refusing she’s made us all live in a country where the Head of State can’t perform her duties, such as they are, I don’t find anything particularly admirable about it. I would admire her more if she had retired. The longer it goes on, the less admiration I have for this situation, which I find to be beyond ridiculous.

Callistemon21 Wed 20-Apr-22 12:37:36

I sensed
You mean you gleaned from the media?
But you don't know anything about life behind the scenes in fact?

Callistemon21 Wed 20-Apr-22 12:36:11

I sensed a very controlling mother, and a stubborn sense of self infallibility, a long time before she became a dear old lad

She's not a dear old lady - that's a ridiculous thing to say.

She has probably had to use the utmost self-control all her life to maintain standards, do her duty when she probably wanted to just go away and live in the country with her horses.
Her children seem to love her, as do most of her grandchildren.

nanna8 Wed 20-Apr-22 11:56:00

Yes, on consideration I also agree Carbonated. She always played it safe, not into innovation but as a post war monarch maybe that was understandable.

Parsley3 Wed 20-Apr-22 08:13:09

An interesting post Carbonated. I find myself agreeing with you.

Carbonated Wed 20-Apr-22 07:12:35

It makes me feel sad when I think about the Queen still being on the throne. She trained her son up to be King, at a heavy cost to him as a person, and she hasn't allowed him to step into that role. Historically I can't think what innovations, architecture, fashion, philosophy or anything she's inspired and will be considered 'Elisabethan' once her reign is over, despite her being the longest Monarch to reign. I sensed a very controlling mother, and a stubborn sense of self infallibility, a long time before she became a dear old lady.