Queen too shy to watch her Christmas speech with royals


sanctus
#1
LONDON (AFP) - Queen Elizabeth II is too shy to watch her Christmas Day broadcast to the Commonwealth with the rest of the royal family.

The Daily Express, citing royal sources, said the stoical 80-year-old monarch cannot bear to watch her pre-recorded traditional festive message with her relatives.

The royal family traditionally gather for Christmas at Sandringham, the queen's private estate in Norfolk, eastern England, where she is based throughout the British winter.

The queen's Christmas speech is a rare personal and often spiritual message to her subjects and other Commonwealth citizens across the globe.

"The family all watch it at some point or other, whether live or on a recording, but she can't bear to be in the same room as them when it's on," a royal insider told the newspaper Saturday.

"She has had a lifetime of being at the centre of attention every time she walks into a room, and never puts a foot wrong when she is in public.

"She has a lovely dry wit but for some reason she gets quite self-conscious about this broadcast when she is with her family and prefers to go into a seperate room and watch it on her own."

A Yuletide institution, the 10-minute broadcast is televised on December 25 at 3:00 pm (1500 GMT) in Britain, as many families are recovering from their traditional turkey lunch.

It is broadcast at convenient local times across the 53-nation Commonwealth, a successor to the British Empire which encompasses around a third of the world's countries and a quarter of the world's population.

The Christmas message is to be available as a podcast for the first time.

This year's broadcast was taped at the historic Southwark Cathedral in central London.

In it, the queen says: "The wisdom and experience of the great religions point to the need to nurture and guide the young, and to encourage respect for the elderly."

Meanwhile the Daily Express said that Sarah, Duchess of York, the ex-wife of her second son Prince Andrew, will not be present at Sandringham this year.

The pair are still close and co-operate over the upbringing of their children, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

Previously, Sarah has stayed at a farm on the estate, while Andrew and their children were in the main house.

But she is no longer prepared to accept the humiliation of being banished, and will spend Christmas with her mother instead before spending New Year with her daughters, the newspaper said.
 
Blackleaf
#2
My grandmother is a huge Royalist and she and my grandfather always come to our house on Christmas Day, but she refuses to come here until after 3pm so that she can watch the annual Christmas Day Queen's speech on the TV at 3pm at her house. And then in the evening when part of it is shown again on the news we switch the TV on because she likes to watch it again.
 
sanctus
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

My grandmother is a huge Royalist and she and my grandfather always come to our house on Christmas Day, but she refuses to come here until after 3pm so that she can watch the annual Christmas Day Queen's speech on the TV at 3pm at her house. And then in the evening when part of it is shown again on the news we switch the TV on because she likes to watch it again.


Watching the Queen's annual Christmas speech is part of my family traditions as well. In my younger days, and until fairly recently actually, I was quite a Royalist myself. In the past year or so, I have somewhat changed my views, regarding the entire monarchy as an out-dated and useless institution.
 
Blackleaf
#4
If anything is outdated, it's the Republic.

At most, the Constitutional Monarchy is only 300 years old, dating from the time when Charles II came to the Throne after England was a Republic for a decade under Cromwell (not only a Republic, but also a dictatorship).

But whereas the Constitutional Monarchy is only 300 years old, the Republic dates back to at least Ancient Rome.

Take a look at America's old Constitution - the US is the ONLY G7 country which runs its democracy according to a document from the quill pen era. Britain, thankfully, is ingenious because it has an unwritten Constitution, consisting of hundreds of different documents. This makes our "Constitution" much more flexible.

The US Constitution is not only older than the French, German, Italian, Belgian, Spanish and Greek constitutions, it's older than all of them put together.

it's the Republic that's old, not the Constitutional Monarchy.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Dec 23rd, 2006 at 09:06 AM..
 
sanctus
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The US Constitution is not only older than the French, German, Italian, Belgian, Spanish and Greek constitutions, it's older than all of them put together.

it's the Republic that's old, not the Constitutional Monarchy.

I understand what you are saying, but it does not change my opinion. The concept of financially supporting a monarch and his/her family is an outrage in my opinion. In Canada, financially supporting a Gov-General and the various Lt. Govenors is equally appalling. We are past the time when we need Kings and Queens. Her Majesty is a dedicated, much admired woman, but the institution she is part of is flawed and un-necessary.

These are not attacks on the present members of the Royal Family. I quite like the Queen and am quite fond of the Prince of Wales. I think he'll make a good King in his day.

But the system of monarchy, in whatever form, is saddly a byproduct of the past that has no relevance or place in a modern society.
 
Blackleaf
#6
WHY THE BRITISH MONARCHY
IS NOT FALLING,
AND WHY THE AMERICAN PRESS
MUST SAY THAT IT IS


This is why I would prefer to live in a Constitutional Monarchy than the United States, or ANY Republic.

Let's compare Britain with the United States -

Quote:

The reasoning behind this virtual campaign to defame the British monarchy in America is based on supposedly neutral ideologies that propose that republics are modern, and monarchies are antique.

Republics are allegedly progressive, while monarchies are allegedly reactionary; yet German Nazi fascism only came to power under the auspices of the Weimar republic, while the British monarchy was instrumental in defeating it.

The idea that republics are something new is totally false. Republics had their genesis in the historic period before the Common Era, when their innate tendencies towards corruption and cronyism were illustrated and writ large by the geniuses of the Greek golden age. And like genius of most ages, the Athenian republic saw to the destruction of those whose ability to lead was innate, on trumped up charges.




The recent death of the Princess Diana of Wales has caused a firestorm of controversy, as the posthumous legacy of the Princess skyrocketed towards the larger-than-life semi-mythical iconic status of sainthood. As the British people underwent the equivalent of a family feud, under the scrutiny of the whole world, it was hard for outsiders to fully appreciate the nuances that the British people respond to. Americans are outsiders looking in, yet there is the ancient connection with Britain as America's Mother Country, the constitutional institutions of which had a formative influence on America's constitutional features. Cultural differences, however, made it near impossible for Americans to feel comfortable, as the British public expressed its anguish and anger over the British royal family's concealed grieving. It was also impossible for Americans to understand the satisfaction the British people felt when they did in fact have an impact on the royal family, who responded immediately to public influences. In the United States, public institutions NEVER respond directly to public pressure.

First off, it is essential to understand that the English are ethnically the descendants of German people who settled in England after the fall of Roman Britain. The English are the descendants of Angli, Saxons and Jutes, tribes that migrated from the German heartland to the British islands, and the English monarchy has its roots in the chieftaincies of these tribes. The modern monarchy dates its origins in the reign of King Ecgberht, king of the West Saxons (circa 802 Common Era, or Anno Domini). The next most significant event in the development of the British monarchy was the Norman Conquest in 1066, yet at the time of the Conquest, England was already an ancient and established kingdom.

The British monarchy is over 1,195 years old, and it serves as the very heart and core of the British constitution. Where Americans swear allegiance to a piece of cloth -- the flag -- the British people swear allegiance to the Crown. The British monarch is the living symbol of the nation, and the monarch's family is the national family. All the members of the British public are as an extended family, through the auspices of the royal family. If they seem aloof, that is because aloofness is a trait of the British people culturally, not because it is a peculiarity of the British royal family. (Most Teutonic people, i.e., of Germanic ethnicity, are distinguished by a reserved and formal nature.)

The British monarch is intrinsically connected to the charitable infrastructure of the British society, associating the Crown with over 3,000 charities. The politics of the country are properly handled by the democratically elected members of the House of Commons, with the monarch's assent, which provides a process based on the most ancient traditions of legitimacy and the principles of law. Of course, the British monarchy is not the only example of a European traditional society in existence; the Scandinavian monarchies are more modest, yet equally as effective in the provision of a focal point for the goodwill of the nation. It is important to understand that the royal family embodies the pure ideal of the united country, outside of partisan divisions, or political ambition. It is an ideal that is unsullied, pure, untainted, uncorrupted, yet attainable. The royal family represents the positive bonds that hold a country together through good times and bad, solely on the basis of loyalty, love and compassion.

What Americans could not really fathom was why so many people in Britain were weeping. If the former wife of an American President's son passed away, it probably would not merit a newspaper article. While Americans did, indeed, weep over the sudden and tragic death of Princess Diana, many of them felt a secret guilt over it, because America is supposed to be the place where royalty was disposed of. The reality, of course, is that royalty is intrinsic to human life, for every nation has a royal family, through whom average people are able to bond themselves to the ancient homeland, for a common history is thicker than blood. This is why so much determined effort is made -- wholesale campaigns -- to stamp out the vestiges of American loyalty to the ancestral, patrimonial dynasty. The reciprocal mutual aid agreement that the average national enters into with the paramount chief, in an unspoken contract that lives in the hearts of its principals, cannot be broken by mere usurpers, standing in the place of the rightful king.

Most of the arguments Americans have against monarchies are actually the product of scholarship based on tortured logic. The claims made against the English king in the Declaration of Independence are all false, and misplaced when laid at the king's feet; and all the tales of presidential wisdom and impartiality are outright fictions, made to convince gullible members of the public that the displacement of tradition is progressive, regardless of the outcome. The republic set up by the Founding Fathers was designed to enrich those who control it; and this is still true today, which is why it seems to have a will resisting the restoration of legitimate government. When the Founders set it up in 1776, on an ad hoc, experimental basis, it was designed to protect the plantation aristocrats, whose plantations were virtual principalities manned by slaves and indentured servants. This gave the Federal regime the characteristics of a police state from the very beginning. The discarding of the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution of 1787 only enhanced this process, making the new republic little more than an infrastructure of prisons and police, charged with the mandate of protecting the propertied against the servant and slave classes that were not allowed to own anything. Even women of the ruling class were not allowed to vote until the 20th century!

The British Civil War was a genuine civil war between the classes for supremacy, and the people won the day, converting the British monarchy into a constitutional monarchy; yet the basis for the constitutional monarchy lay in the remote past, in 1215 at Runnymede. In contrast, the American Civil War, while ostensibly fought for the purpose of freeing slaves, was actually fought for the purpose of saving the Federal Government from extinction. By the time that the Federal Government abolished slavery, Britain had not only abolished it, but banned the international trade in slaves. The Federal Government of the republic actually operated on the revenues derived from a tax on the slave trade until 1807, so that it had a financial interest in the selling of slaves in the United States, during the first years of its existence.
The White House was built with slave labor, as was most of the City of Washington. Today, Washington, D.C. is the Versailles of America. A marble city of useless monuments designed to overwhelm individuals, to induce a hallucination of invincible righteousness that enables those under its influence to go out and destroy anyone who refuses to submit, without remorse. Washington, D.C. is a necropolis, a city of the dead. Its monuments to deceased lawyers and generals betray the republic's core nature as a naked police state, the very progenitor of fascism and holocaust and genocide. The roots of what Hitler accomplished had their origins in the era of revolutions and insurgencies, that was inaugurated by the American war for independence, followed by the instigation of the republic.

The reason this new republic was invented was because none of the plantation aristocrats who succeeded in overthrowing the government of the king, wanted to assume the awesome responsibilities of a monarch, which obliged these mediocre country squires to look after the concerns of even the poorest folk among them. The institution of the republican type of government enabled the property convention to be perpetuated, without the moral balance of a genuine constitutional government. The main characteristics of modern royalty is the dedication of its members to the service of the nation, as well as a proper concern for the welfare of the whole nation, outside of class considerations. The Federal Government of the republic is so entrenched in the class structure of the era it was founded in, to this day its institutions cannot help but discriminate against women, the poor, and ethnic minorities.

The fact that the United States had its origins in a revolution against Britain, has always set the republican institutions of America against the traditions of legitimacy that emanate from the United Kingdom. Americans are faced daily with the details of English civilization as they exist in America, as the foundation upon which American civilization is based. Any American with even the barest education comes to realize that America is a kingdom without a king, and all the Founding Fathers managed to do was instigate an Interregnum. An intermission between legitimate governments. The whole 220 year history of the U.S. republic is nothing more than a blip on the radar, when compared to the nearly 1200 year history of the English monarchy. Because of the stark reality of this, the partisans of the republic invented the theory that the British monarchy was on its last legs, and it was just a matter of time before it would fall. The final fall of monarchy was to prove the ultimate righteousness of the American Revolution, because even though the supposed weakness of the monarchy was a fiction, the Revolution generated a polarization within the people, whereby the only way the republic could be right, was if monarchy was wrong, and therefor on its last legs. (When most of the European monarchies did fall, after World War I, it was only after the U.S. applied determined pressure to force them to fall.)

The reasoning behind this virtual campaign to defame the British monarchy in America is based on supposedly neutral ideologies that propose that republics are modern, and monarchies are antique.

Republics are allegedly progressive, while monarchies are allegedly reactionary; yet German Nazi fascism only came to power under the auspices of the Weimar republic, while the British monarchy was instrumental in defeating it. The reality is that the British people actually love their royal family, which is a sentiment Americans cannot relate to, because there are no political figures in the United States who are unconditionally loved by the American people. What has guaranteed the British monarchy's longevity, for this generation, was the compassion of the British public for the son of Princess Diana, the future king of the United Kingdom. It is a phenomenon that re-occures every generation, when the British people fall in love with the royal family again and again.

The idea that republics are something new is totally false. Republics had their genesis in the historic period before the Common Era, when their innate tendencies towards corruption and cronyism were illustrated and writ large by the geniuses of the Greek golden age. And like genius of most ages, the Athenian republic saw to the destruction of those whose ability to lead was innate, on trumped up charges. It is no wonder that the Founding Fathers of the United States felt kinship with the Athenian Republic, for the Athenian Empire was also built by misogynistic men who owed their wealth to the labor of slaves.

Americans know instinctually that until there is an American king enthroned, there will be no actual American independence from Britain on a cultural basis. America is not able to rise above the status of a colony of the motherland, because it has no crown. The crown is not a department of the government, it is rather the nation -- the people -- gathered together within the chieftaincy of the king, and united to form a family, more on an informal social basis than anything else. Where in the monarchical or traditional society there is the national family at the core of the nation, in the republican society there is just nothingness. There is no national family, there is no social union; there is no national sense of obligation or community. In a republic, the government is a business. In a monarchy, the government is the business of the human community, and the members of the human community have civil rights that they receive on an inalienable, hereditary "public trust" basis, that the government is unable to alter.

To read the rest article that is enough to turn any Republican into a Monarchist, go here - http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/archive/arc14.htm
Last edited by Blackleaf; Dec 23rd, 2006 at 09:38 AM..
 
Blackleaf
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by sanctus View Post

I understand what you are saying, but it does not change my opinion. The concept of financially supporting a monarch and his/her family is an outrage in my opinion.

According to latest calculations, it costs each Brit just 65p annually for the Monarchy. That's just one and a quarter penny each week. A Republic could cost more.

Quote:

We are past the time when we need Kings and Queens.

So how do you explain the fact that 45 countries in the world are Monarchies?
Last edited by Blackleaf; Dec 23rd, 2006 at 09:24 AM..
 
sanctus
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

So how do you explain the fact that 45 countries in the world are Monarchies?

Because others have it does not make it valid. Many countries have dictatorships also, but I do not accept that as a valid system of government either.

To be honest, I sometimes find myself divided. My family has always been royalist and strong monarchists, it is how we were raised. But as I get older I find the justfications for continuing with this syetm, at least for Canada, to be more and more invalid.