The Swedish Haga Palace is the new official residence for HRH The Crown Princess Victoria and her new husband, Prince Daniel. They will move in upon their return from their Tahitian honeymoon.

King Gustav IV Adolf had envisioned a home in Haga just outside Enskede, so he commissioned architect Carl Christoffer Gjörwell to build a modern palace in the style of an Italian villa. The result looked less like a palace and more like a large, sunny country home. It has been used alternately as a private home and a summer house for several members of the Swedish royal family over the years.

Haga is the birthplace of Princess Victoria’s father, King Carl XVI Gustaf. The King – Prince Carl Gustaf at the time – and his four sisters spent their childhood at this palace with their parents, Hereditary Prince Gustaf Adolf and Princess Sybilla.

Young Carl Gustaf played happily on the grounds with Princesses Margaretha, Birgitta, Désirée, and Christina and they were photographed enjoying their small playhouse in the park. The Swedish media and the public were charmed by the royal children, especially the girls, who became affectionately known as Hagasessornas, “Haga Princesses”.

The death of their father in an airplane crash in 1947 outside Copenhagen, Denmark, devastated the family. Princess Sybilla, who felt as though “the floor fell out from under my feet”, took the children to live in an apartment at The Royal Palace in 1950.

Haga, abandoned as the official home, was left empty for several years. King Gustaf VI Adolf eventually transferred its ownership to the Swedish government for use as a guest house for visiting dignitaries in 1966.

Happily, Haga reverted back to Royal property in 2009. Just after Princess Victoria’s engagement was announced in February 24th of that year, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt declared that the rights of disposal to the palace would be transferred back to the royal court as a wedding gift to Victoria and her new husband, Prince Daniel. Attempting to echo the sentiments of Winston Churchill upon the wedding of Princess Elizabeth in 1947, Reinfeldt said: “[T]he royal engagement [i]s a beacon of light in the dark times of economic crises.”

This happy, warm palace looks extremely welcoming and should be perfect for the beaming royal couple. Congratulations to Victoria and Daniel upon the return of a very precious family home.

A great new article has appeared in the Boston Globe entitled Saved By The Crown. Writer Joshua Kurlantzick lays bare the reality that many republicans don’t want to hear:

[I]n an era of partisanship and diminished individual rights, monarchs can serve as a means of stability in a democracy that might otherwise tear itself apart. A.W. Purdue, author of the book “Long to Reign?”, argues that a king or queen “enables change to take place within a frame of continuity.”

It’s a great article, so click here to read it at the Boston Globe’s website. It’s sure to make Prince Charles very happy, as it makes a solid case for a sovereign’s intervention on their people’s behalf!

Queen Dropped from Victoria’s legal system

In a bid to place Australia closer to a Republican future, references to Her Majesty have been removed from the state of Victoria’s legal system.

This latest push for the removal of the monarchy is not an isolated incident. Victoria has also scrapped the title ‘Queen’s Counsel’ (QC) and ended the practice of new lawyers swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Rob Hulls, the state’s attorney-general and acting Labo(u)r premier, said:

“Having cases presented in the name of the Queen of England is an outdated colonial tradition that has really passed its use-by date. Substituting the director of public prosecutions for the Queen or Regina reflects the legal and political independence from the United Kingdom and its monarch that has been achieved by Australia.”

Hulls denied that the timing was intended as a snub to Prince William, due to make a visit at the end of January.

David Donovan, of the Australian Republican Movement, was more than a little annoyed with the royal system getting in the way of football loyalty.

“We would find it unbelievable that Prince William, who hasn’t been to Australia since he was in nappies – and who as president of the England Football Association has strongly promoted its bid for the 2018 World Cup, in direct opposition to Australia’s bid – would be able to speak to Australians on our own national day.”

The monarchists in this southernmost state are defending the system of monarchy at full-steam, however.

“The people in 1999 took a decision in which they affirmed that we should remain a federal commonwealth under the crown,” said Professor David Flint of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. “It’s completely wrong for governments to remove all reference to the crown as a gradual sort of thing.”

Philip Benwell, chairman of the Australian Monarchist League, defended the invitation to the Prince.

“Prince William will be King of Australia in the future and it’s therefore appropriate that he’s invited to speak,” he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/6832692/The-Queen-dropped-from-Victorias-legal-system.html

On the morning of June 20, 1837, England’s Princess Victoria was met by Prime Minister Melbourne, who bowed in deep reverence to her. The young lady, aged 18 years, had just become Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. She succeeded her uncle, King William IV, who had died only a few hours earlier.

Victoria was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as the first Empress of India, until her death on January 22, 1901. Her reign lasted 63 years and 7 months, longer than any other British monarch before or since.

Her descendant, Queen Elizabeth II, is the only sovereign who may trump Victoria’s place in the history books. Her Majesty has already been declared to be the oldest living British sovereign at age 83, surpassing Queen Victoria’s 82 years and 4 months.

In 2012, Elizabeth will celebrate her Diamond Jubilee as Victoria did in 1897. Once the Queen celebrates this milestone, she has only 3 years and 7 months to go before she breaks Victoria’s record. It will be Elizabeth who is the longest lived, longest reigning UK monarch ever.

Many republicans are kicking up a stink over the Queen’s anniversary, declaring that they will not allow a public holiday to celebrate her jubilee. These Labour MPs equate it to celebrating “vermin”.

It is their right to protest, but it is also good manners and diplomacy to keep one’s mean mouth to themselves. How can we expect these Republicans to hold any power if this is how they behave? What would happen if, God forbid, one of them became Prime Minister, declaring on a personal note that a head of state was scum? Shameful.

Long live the Queen, and God save us from small-minded, embarrassing politicians.

Obama’s royal gaffe

President Barack Obama arrived in Tokyo November 13, the first stop on his four-nation tour of Asia. He met with Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko.

With a deep bow and handshake, Obama greeted the Emperor. His gesture has been met with criticism. Obama should know the custom of a country like a professional businessman and behave accordingly.

Apparently improperly briefed about accepted procedure in Japan or perhaps having a time zone mind melt, Obama stuck out his hand for a shake. Which was fine. And friendly.

He then proceeded to simultaneously bow. Which was not.

And take his eyes off the person he’s greeting. Which was not.

And, worst in the eyes of many, the over-enthusiastic president of the United States bowed way down at a 45-degree angle, indicating in that culture and apparently in the eyes of many others, subservience to the emperor, son of the man who authorized the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack. – LA Times

Prior to this incident, the President caused a stir during a visit to Saudi Arabia when he bowed deeply to the ground for King Abdullah.

After the Japanese visit, Obama will continue to Singapore, China and South Korea.

Good will to all men this season… or not

Labour candidate Peter White has been forced to apologize for calling the Queen a ”parasite” and ”vermin” on Facebook.

White, who is seeking election to Havering Borough Council in London next year, was summoned by officials after he compared the idea of a public holiday to mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 with ”celebrating vermin”.

Apparently becoming a politician does not give this man pause in his choice of words.

Stephen Fry an oracle?

According to the Telegraph, Stephen Fry has come to be regarded as a “modern oracle” because of all of his updates to many followers on Twitter. But Stephen has put his foot in it.

The actor and longtime comedian has upset friends of the late Princess Margaret by accusing her of anti-Semitism. During a lecture at the Royal Institute of British Architects, Fry claimed that the Queen’s sister had been shocked when he told her that he had Jewish ancestors. The princess then allegedly expressed her horror by shouting to everybody else at her table: “He’s a Jew. He’s a Jew.”

Lord Glenconner, who points out that Margaret’s chum Peter Sellers was Jewish, adds of Fry: “It’s a bit unfair of him to say these things when she cannot defend herself.”

Happy birthday, Prince Charles!

The Prince of Wales turned 61 on Saturday, November 14.

“No offence, Prince, but our ties to the monarchy should end,” says Jeffrey Simpson of Canada’s Globe and Mail.

Mr. Simpson offers up a summary of the excellent relations between Canada and the UK and even expresses respect and admiration for the Queen. When it’s Charles’ turn for the throne, however, Simpson says Canada will probably say farewell.

“[...]the issue is less about Charles himself, although personalities cannot be removed from public matters, as about the appropriateness and the fit of the British monarchy – and it is a British institution, no matter what its clangorous defenders say in Canada – for contemporary Canadian realities.

Our governments generally agree on world matters – climate change excepted these days. We are fighting together, as we have in the past. We share the more sensitive intelligence information, which we do with few others. The number of Canadians with family ties to Britain and vice versa is considerable and valuable. We trade with each other, talk sensibly to each other, work together. Few relations for Canada are as free and easy as with Britain. But they are British, and we are Canadians. That is not a statement of threat or disapproval or arrogance, but rather of fact.”

Will Canada truly say farewell, or will King Charles have a chance to see his face on the Loonie?

Winegums and Wilders: The latest RoyaltyNow! episode. See it today!

A mini-RoyaltyNow! podcast. Enjoy!

There’s going to be a follow-up commentary for my recent post, A modern monarchy, American-style. I felt it necessary because I should explain exactly why I changed from being a supporter of the Queen, to a monarchist, back to being just a supporter of Her Majesty.

It’s an in-depth political look at things, and you can toss in your two cents about it as well. I like discussions about these kinds of things (as you can probably tell!).

See you then!

I bet you didn’t know it, but the United States is … a monarchy.

What!?

Don’t worry: this is familiar territory for us. We were a monarchy once before when King George III was king of the New England colonies. That is, up until the Revolutionary War. After the war, we threw off the shackles and forged a new identity as a free nation without titles or hereditary positions….

Until now.

Today confirmed for me that we are back to being a monarchy, or at least right around the corner from being one. Fred Dicker, currently the State Editor for the New York Post, referred to someone in the position of Lieutentant Governor as being an “heir apparent” during his time on Don Imus’ radio show.

People are even using monarchy terminology to identify positions of power in this country now. On top of the Kennedy replacement debacle, this is yet another sign that monarchy will never die.

For those of you unfamiliar with America’s state governments, the title of lieutenant governor is the highest officer of state after the governor, standing in for the governor when he is temporarily incapacitated. If for some reason a governor dies, resigns, or is removed from office, the lieutenant governor usually becomes the governor. In the case of Massachusetts, if any of the above scenarios occur, the lieutenant governor becomes acting governor until the next election.

So in other words, the Lt. Gov. takes over to maintain order until the people can vote and have a say. This makes sense. Something like the Kennedy family and the senate seat controversy does not. At least, it doesn’t make sense for a democratic country.

Since Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy’s death, there has been a huge amount of speculation over who would replace him. As I understand it, his seat was to remain empty until we could vote in a new senator at the designated election time, but because President Obama’s healthcare reform bill is up on the block, officials don’t want to wait. There was much scurrying about to change laws so that the Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick, could have the power to appoint an interim senator now rather than later in order to help pass the healthcare bill.

Kennedy’s family members are publicly pushing the governor to choose the candidate they want. Famous family members who are not elected and shady moves that take the power of the vote from our hands, determining who is right or wrong for an elected office? Hm. Interesting.

Temporary though he may be, the replacement being put into the senate seat in this manner seems slightly less than democratic. The only thing that could make this more appalling is if the public doesn’t care. That would be tragic.

At least monarchy has never pretended to be anything other than what it is – an unelected hereditary system. People love it or hate it, but at least they know what they’re dealing with.

Here in the U.S.A., we have a long history of struggling to become a democratic nation where elections are the norm. We are told stories of the heroics and democratic ideals of the men who founded our nation. The men and women who hold public office today are neither heroic nor democratic, it seems. They are anything but noble and barely repress the scorn they feel at having to allow the public a say in what happens in their own lives.

Politicians today hold up a shield of democracy and fairness, but behind it they carry a proverbial sword to slay anyone who throws a monkey wrench into their carefully crafted plans of self-gain.

You can turn your back on the Queen, but never turn your back on a politician.

Many people like to think they’re above the fantasy of royalty. Serious people dress in suits, work in an office in a capitol building, and they certainly don’t wear crowns! Hmph!

In truth,  fame, money, and the trappings of titles are things that people dream about. Some even make it a reality.

The American media loves the Kennedys and once proclaimed Jackie O. as their “Queen”. The former first lady even had frocks and hats made in the style of Her Majesty’s outfits.

An American Royal Family?

Activist Jesse Jackson was recently crowned an African prince by the Agni people of the Ivory Coast. The same nation also crowned the late Michael Jackson king back in 1992. Michael, the crazy musician famed for hits such as “Thriller” and “Billie Jean”, even named his sons Prince Michael and Prince Michael II.

It’s not just Americans who desire to live in regal fantasy with royal power and the respect of a nation. The English have the same desire – and fuel ours – with their very real Monarchy. Some of the public like it, some don’t, but all can agree that it has cast a spell over the world. Even the tiny Kingdom of Tonga celebrated the coronation of its newest king in an English style – crown, scepter, robes, and throne. His name is even King George. That’s influence a politician can only dream of, and will most likely never have.

Just off the coast of England, there is even a tiny principality named Sealand that is controlled by a ‘royal family’. Just to warn you: it doesn’t have casinos or yachts in a harbor. “Sealand” is actually an anti-aircraft platform beyond the boundary of the U. K.’s territorial waters called Roughs Tower.

Roy Bates, a former Major in the British Army, ran the legendary Radio Essex from Knock John Tower in the 1960s. When convicted in 1966 of violating British broadcasting law, he moved his broadcasting equipment to Roughs Tower where he established himself as “Prince Roy” and renamed the platform Sealand. Roy Bates’ son, Michael, has been referred to as the “Prince Regent” by the family since 1999. Bates’ wife is “Princess Joan”.

This principality isn’t joking around, either. They’ve minted coins, issued stamps, composed a national anthem, and have even had a row with the Germans. They look like they’re here to stay.

As long as human beings have the need for a regal leader and that dream of enchantment, the concept of monarchy will never die. That’s not a rallying cry; it’s the truth.

J. Marc Schmidt of Australia says that he doesn’t want a president.

“Our head of state ought to be one of us. We rejected the idea of our own president once, and with good cause, because a president is not what we need,” says Schmidt. “We need something more; a living, breathing symbol of our land.”

That said, Schmidt doesn’t want Queen Elizabeth II as Australia’s head of state, either. He thinks that Prince Harry should become an Australian citizen and become their king.

Read his article below:

Australia is lucky to have a great democracy, which, as most people will tell you, works quite well. But Australian voters are sick of politicians. In the 1999 constitutional convention and referendum, we could have finally become independent from Britain, but we said no. Our parliament-appointed head of state would have been just another government employee, meaning little or nothing to ordinary people.

We don’t want another dark-suited, distant bureaucrat who won’t listen to us once elected. We have plenty of those. We want something else, but what? In 1999, many supported the idea of a popularly elected president, a leader chosen by and representing the people rather than the government.

It’s nice to fantasize about a popularly elected president like, say, Dick Smith, someone who listens to our needs and wants and hopes, and connects directly with the soul of our land. But the reality is we would more likely end up with someone like George W. Bush. And Bush wasn’t even all that popular! Something like 48% voted against him in the 2004 election. In the final year of his presidency, he was quite unpopular. Many Americans and others hated him and spoke ill of him whenever possible.

We do need someone with executive power, and it would be great if that someone represented and symbolized Australia, too. These are the job requirements of any head of state: To be an executive and symbol.

Queen Elizabeth is a terrible head of state. She does not fulfill either job requirement well. She’s not Australian and she lives overseas. Her anachronistic monarchy discriminates on the grounds of sex and religion. Her use of executive power in 1975, though the Governor-General, was a deeply embarrassing moment in Australian history. We must cast her off.

A president or Queen Elizabeth will not do. What we need is our own king.

Our own king can’t be just anyone. It has to be someone with royal blood. This is how these things have have always been done. We already have a queen, so our first king should come from her family. I choose young, handsome Prince Harry, whom otherwise has little chance of ever being our king. In the past, other monarchies have separated like this. For example, in 286 AD the Roman emperor Diocletian divided the Roman Empire into sections, each with a separate emperor.

Our king must be Australian. It is a simple matter to give Prince Harry Australian citizenship. Of course he will have to acquaint himself with Australian culture and history. That should be no problem for an Eton-educated prince, who has also already spent some time living and working on a farm in Australia.

The king must be coronated in Australia. It must be a civil ceremony rather than a Christian one, because our monarchy will not discriminate against any sect or religion.
The king must live in Australia. Yarralumla and Admiralty House are suitable residences for any king of Australia.

The king must marry an Australian citizen. If he gets engaged to someone who is not Australian, we must naturalise that person as well, much as Mary Donaldson became a naturalised Dane before her royal wedding in Denmark. This spouse can be anybody. Religion, wealth, and other factors will not matter. The only thing that will matter is love.

The king’s first born, male or female, will be the heir, and only he or she will be referred to as Prince or Princess. Any other children will rejoin society as adults, to be called upon if the heir dies unexpectedly.

The heir to the throne must also marry and provide an heir. Our monarchy will not discriminate against homosexuals, so naturally, gay marriages will be allowed. If the crown prince or princess is gay, he or she must still provide an heir. Adoption and other non-traditional forms of procreation are therefore totally acceptable. Adopting royal heirs has historical precedent. The Roman emperors did it, for example.

As head of state, the king will have the same powers and responsibilities as our current queen, represented in Australia by the Governor-General.

We don’t even need a referendum to make this change. Our constitution requires that our heads of state be the ‘heirs and successors of Queen Victoria’, and Prince Harry already is.

Republicans argue that the people alone should choose their head of state, that monarchies are unfair. I disagree. Choice is overrated. In America in 2004, for example, the choice was limited to George Bush and John Kerry, and in 2008 it was limited to Barack Obama and John McCain. Monarchies use a far older, wiser, and fairer arbitrator than any election: Fate.

Do any of us get to choose whom we are born as, when or where? Whether we are born a boy or a girl, gay or straight, rich or poor? No. Fate alone decides all of these things. Thinking this way, ‘anyone’ actually can become king or queen. Fate can be cruel, capricious, and incomprehensible, but it is completely fair precisely because it favours nobody.

A king doesn’t just symbolise and represent a country and its people. He personifies them. A king is as much a part of the land as the mountains and the forests, the cities, the rivers and the plains. George W. Bush could never have said that of himself, and Barack Obama wouldn’t either.

Anyway, people like monarchies. We humans are drawn to certain ways of organising our society, and try as we might, we can’t shake our biological heritage. Is there any other reason why the marriage of Mary Donaldson to a Danish prince, and their visit, made the front pages of newspapers and magazines all across the country?

Our monarchy will be based on love, fate and family, rather than logic, bureaucracy and elections.

It will be a warm-blooded counterbalance to our cold, distant government. The art to its commerce, the past to its future, the Yin to its Yang.

Redroom.com – J Marc Schmidt