Queen Elizabeth To Miss Commonwealth Summit For The First Time In 40 Years

[webfact]

Charles and Queen in Royal jobshare: As Her Majesty scales back foreign trips, Palace gives Prince more prominent role

• Buckingham Palace reviewing the Queen's long-haul travel commitments
  
• Prince of Wales is to perform one of his most significant duties to date


• He has never attended in place of the monarch at the bi-annual gathering


• Charles and Camilla will also attend State Opening of Parliament together

By JAMES CHAPMAN and REBECCA ENGLISH

LONDON: -- The Queen plans to scale back her public duties and give Prince Charles a bigger role as ‘co-head’ of the royal family, well-placed sources have revealed.

Buckingham Palace and senior figures in Whitehall began discussing how to deal with the monarch’s advancing years several months ago, the Mail understands.

They concluded that her 64-year-old son – the longest-serving heir apparent in British history – should take a more prominent position representing the sovereign at key events, particularly those abroad.

It follows the surprise announcement by Buckingham Palace yesterday that, in a 40-year first, the Queen will not attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference. Instead, Charles will take her place at the two-day event in Sri Lanka in November.

Aides reluctantly admitted what has been suspected for some time: that the monarch, who reached the age of 87 last month, was not up to making frequent long-haul trips.

But Charles’ presence at Parliament today suggests it is also part of the carefully-choreographed plan to share the burden of responsibility.

One senior royal source told the Mail the decision for the Queen not to go to Sri Lanka was part of a ‘wide-scale review’ of her travel plans, although they insisted that it was largely ‘business as usual’.

Aides were also swift to deny that Her Majesty’s recent ill-health – she was hospitalised in March for the first time in ten years after being hit by gastroenteritis – had anything to do with the development.

Full story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320601/Queen-miss-Commonwealth-summit-time-40-years.html

-- Daily Mail 2013-05-08

[Keesters]

My best wishes to you, Your Majesty.

Long live the Queen.

[Scott]

She's worked tirelessly for her nation. She deserves a lighter schedule.

[stoneyboy]

Especially after this entrance at the Olympics.

[cheeryble]

It is so bizarre how families ruling families like QE 2's who formed the laws to enable them to grab a grossly unfair share from their fellow citizens end up getting admired in some puppy like way. Why not admire MY Mum who worked full time in a shop until 74, slowly saving money, then reverted to just looking after house and my Dad, as opposed to riding out every day and going to Ascot.....while someone else does the cleaning. BTW my Dad and all his brothers were in the army, navy, and air force used as pawns to defend the system I speak of, and not all made it.

Ohhh the strain of making an appearance! Ohhh my ass! My mother hated stopping work, she loved it even though it was on the bus at 8 each morning.

What would you say if someone came to a party, the pizza arrived, and they said "whoa there may not be a slice for you! We are getting 274 slices each, and if you don't like it you're in jail.......my daddy arranged it that way".

I say "best wishes for a healthy life......... and give us back our share. Turn your extra palaces into retirement holiday homes so a few other old folks have something special to look forward to each year in the country."

Edited May 8, 2013 by cheeryble

[midas]

It is so bizarre how families ruling families like QE 2's who formed the laws to enable them to grab a grossly unfair share from their fellow citizens end up getting admired in some puppy like way. Why not admire MY Mum who worked full time in a shop until 74, slowly saving money, then reverted to just looking after house and my Dad, as opposed to riding out every day and going to Ascot.....while someone else does the cleaning. BTW my Dad and all his brothers were in the army, navy, and air force used as pawns to defend the system I speak of, and not all made it. Ohhh the strain of making an appearance! Ohhh my ass! My mother hated stopping work, she loved it even though it was on the bus at 8 each morning. What would you say if someone came to a party, the pizza arrived, and they said "whoa there may not be a slice for you! We are getting 274 slices each, and if you don't like it you're in jail.......my daddy arranged it that way". I say "best wishes for a healthy life......... and give us back our share. Turn your extra palaces into retirement holiday homes so a few other old folks have something special to look forward to each year in the country."

We would never expect anyone from a country that doesn't have a Monarch as its head of state to understand why

people admire her so much.

There has to be a head of state in one form or another and many of her subjects believe she is far more preferable than having a corrupt President who is only ultimately interested in lining his or her own pockets and that of any crony mates he or she may have.

At least with a monarch they know they are in it for the long haul and as such are far more worried about what people will think of them than someone who will be voted out of office at the next election.

[7by7]

Agreed, except for you last paragraph.

I'd say that simply because the Queen doesn't have to worry about winning elections, either for herself or her party, she is able to be more balanced and less partisan than any politician ever could.

People should remember too that she has no real power and can only advise. The speech she will be reading later today in Parliament may be called the Queen's speech; but Cameron wrote it for her (or rather his speech writers did).

Having a ceremonial head of state means that she can do all the flag waving, hospital opening, tree planting etc. while the Prime Minister can get on with running the country.

[Scott]

One doesn't have to have a deep appreciation for a monarchy to have a great deal of respect for a woman who has worked hard and tirelessly for her country for many years.

I think some people underestimate the appreciation that many people from other countries have for the Queen.

[Baerboxer]

It is so bizarre how families ruling families like QE 2's who formed the laws to enable them to grab a grossly unfair share from their fellow citizens end up getting admired in some puppy like way. Why not admire MY Mum who worked full time in a shop until 74, slowly saving money, then reverted to just looking after house and my Dad, as opposed to riding out every day and going to Ascot.....while someone else does the cleaning. BTW my Dad and all his brothers were in the army, navy, and air force used as pawns to defend the system I speak of, and not all made it. Ohhh the strain of making an appearance! Ohhh my ass! My mother hated stopping work, she loved it even though it was on the bus at 8 each morning. What would you say if someone came to a party, the pizza arrived, and they said "whoa there may not be a slice for you! We are getting 274 slices each, and if you don't like it you're in jail.......my daddy arranged it that way". I say "best wishes for a healthy life......... and give us back our share. Turn your extra palaces into retirement holiday homes so a few other old folks have something special to look forward to each year in the country."

[Sing_Sling]

Enter King Charles . . . it's definitely time for us to get rid of the monarchy as our titular head . . . keep the Union Jack in the top left hand corner, though . . . history is history.

[midas]

At 4.22 minutes in this video, here is very rare close-up glimpse of the Queen in a relaxed state about to sit for a portrait chatting away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GyctpeeZbmw#!

Edited May 8, 2013 by midas

[VocalNeal]

Agreed, except for you last paragraph.

Yes it is Phil the Greek who does all the worrying about what people think of him

[Morakot]

Queen's speech reveals changes in way royal family intends to operate

The presence of Prince Charles and the absence of plans for foreign tours by the Queen show how the monarchy is changing

Caroline Davies, guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 May 2013 14.51 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/08/queens-speech-changes-royal-family

[cheeryble]

At 4.22 minutes in this video, here is very rare close-up glimpse of the Queen in a relaxed state about to sit for a portrait chatting away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GyctpeeZbmw#!

I notice you didn't choose the portrait Lucian Freud, with whom I was acquainted, did.

Really though.

Is it Sycophants United here?

Weird.

You know on a personal level the royal family are all very pleasant indeed.......but that doesn't mean they're not wrong to not consider their position in all it's unfairness.

It would be different if they showed any real talent or intelligence, but they don't...which is probably why they let it continue (plus it's very easy to live a life of high luxury).

Oh for rulers of true class and character like Marcus Aurelius.

Edited May 8, 2013 by cheeryble

[cheeryble]

I've just got to say......

That ridiculous photo in Post 13 of them overdressed like chimps at a tea party perfectly displays the quintessential vulgarity of the whole institution.

Edited May 8, 2013 by cheeryble

[Keesters]

Enter King Charles . . . it's definitely time for us to get rid of the monarchy as our titular head . . . keep the Union Jack in the top left hand corner, though . . . history is history.

No need to change a system that isn't broken. I personally don't see the American system as a viable alternative. There may be something better than that but does Britain really need it? History is history I agree but change for the sake of change...NO.

[Sing_Sling]

Enter King Charles . . . it's definitely time for us to get rid of the monarchy as our titular head . . . keep the Union Jack in the top left hand corner, though . . . history is history.

No need to change a system that isn't broken. I personally don't see the American system as a viable alternative. There may be something better than that but does Britain really need it? History is history I agree but change for the sake of change...NO.

I'm not a Pom

Edited May 9, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[Keesters]

Enter King Charles . . . it's definitely time for us to get rid of the monarchy as our titular head . . . keep the Union Jack in the top left hand corner, though . . . history is history.

No need to change a system that isn't broken. I personally don't see the American system as a viable alternative. There may be something better than that but does Britain really need it? History is history I agree but change for the sake of change...NO.

I'm not a Pom

Well what are you then, Australian? It might have helped if you'd said so before using the words "FOR US TO GET RID OF". And if you are Aussie then as far as I can remember the last time you were asked about changing your head of state you left it as it was because no viable alternative was offered.

[ratcatcher]

I've just got to say...... That ridiculous photo in Post 13 of them overdressed like chimps at a tea party perfectly displays the quintessential vulgarity of the whole institution.

We are talking monarchy here. "Pomp and Circumstance" has always been a part of the institution including the one of which we are forbidden to speak.

Speaking of chimps and tea parties, let's try these deadbeat non-royals with imperial delusions. Truly vulgarity at its peak.

.

[Sing_Sling]

Enter King Charles . . . it's definitely time for us to get rid of the monarchy as our titular head . . . keep the Union Jack in the top left hand corner, though . . . history is history.

No need to change a system that isn't broken. I personally don't see the American system as a viable alternative. There may be something better than that but does Britain really need it? History is history I agree but change for the sake of change...NO.

I'm not a Pom

Well what are you then, Australian? It might have helped if you'd said so before using the words "FOR US TO GET RID OF". And if you are Aussie then as far as I can remember the last time you were asked about changing your head of state you left it as it was because no viable alternative was offered.

No need to say what I am to have that opinion . . . 'US' getting rid of a monarch as our titular head is exactly that: 'Us'.

You're quite right, of course - I am not a Republican, though I despise at what the GG did in Whitlam's time, nor am I a monarchist . . . it just seems the time has come for a change . . . and for 'US' to have Prez nor a King/Queen is quite acceptable.

[billd766]

It is so bizarre how families ruling families like QE 2's who formed the laws to enable them to grab a grossly unfair share from their fellow citizens end up getting admired in some puppy like way. Why not admire MY Mum who worked full time in a shop until 74, slowly saving money, then reverted to just looking after house and my Dad, as opposed to riding out every day and going to Ascot.....while someone else does the cleaning. BTW my Dad and all his brothers were in the army, navy, and air force used as pawns to defend the system I speak of, and not all made it. Ohhh the strain of making an appearance! Ohhh my ass! My mother hated stopping work, she loved it even though it was on the bus at 8 each morning. What would you say if someone came to a party, the pizza arrived, and they said "whoa there may not be a slice for you! We are getting 274 slices each, and if you don't like it you're in jail.......my daddy arranged it that way". I say "best wishes for a healthy life......... and give us back our share. Turn your extra palaces into retirement holiday homes so a few other old folks have something special to look forward to each year in the country."

I do admire your Mum for working in a shop until she was 74.

The Queen however is STILL working at 87 some 27 years after she was entitled to a state pension and she was doing her bit for the Royal Family as a teenager both before and during the war too.Her Father and uncles were in the military as were 2 of her 4 children and as both her grandchildren are as well.

The palaces are not really hers but belong to the state as do many of the things she uses in her daily job.

[cheeryble]

It is so bizarre how families ruling families like QE 2's who formed the laws to enable them to grab a grossly unfair share from their fellow citizens end up getting admired in some puppy like way. Why not admire MY Mum who worked full time in a shop until 74, slowly saving money, then reverted to just looking after house and my Dad, as opposed to riding out every day and going to Ascot.....while someone else does the cleaning. BTW my Dad and all his brothers were in the army, navy, and air force used as pawns to defend the system I speak of, and not all made it. Ohhh the strain of making an appearance! Ohhh my ass! My mother hated stopping work, she loved it even though it was on the bus at 8 each morning. What would you say if someone came to a party, the pizza arrived, and they said "whoa there may not be a slice for you! We are getting 274 slices each, and if you don't like it you're in jail.......my daddy arranged it that way". I say "best wishes for a healthy life......... and give us back our share. Turn your extra palaces into retirement holiday homes so a few other old folks have something special to look forward to each year in the country."

I do admire your Mum for working in a shop until she was 74.

Thankyou Bill yeah she was a character and made it to 95.

The Queen however is STILL working at 87 some 27 years after she was entitled to a state pension and she was doing her bit for the Royal Family as a teenager both before and during the war too.Her Father and uncles were in the military as were 2 of her 4 children and as both her grandchildren are as well.

My point about my Mum working was that she loved it.

My guess is the Queen does too, which is why she cannot bring herself to abdicate (apart from Charles's "problem").

The palaces are not really hers but belong to the state as do many of the things she uses in her daily job.

Hang on!

This surely was part of a deal.

The fact is it is like saying the Christian Church changed their abhorrent practices like only priests being allowed to read the bible, no women priests etc.

The point is that the rights were taken away from the church while it kicked and screamed.

I suggest it's been the same with the royal family........the historically gave away what they had to.......(not to mention the PR).

Once again don't get me wrong I happen to have known a couple of earls and many other orders down the scale, my ex had Charles to visit and so on, these are nice enough people.

I am simply saying the royal family of Great Britain has been an affront to any ideas of decent social ethos.

Edited May 10, 2013 by cheeryble