Here are some photos of Spain’s King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia, along with Crown Prince Felipe and his wife Princess Letizia. The four royals attended a tribute to fallen soldiers in Madrid on Sunday. As we learned last week, King Juan Carlos is abdicating in favor of his son Felipe. The King announced his decision suddenly, although there seems to be a months-long transition period in which Felipe and Letizia will gradually begin taking over more and more of the King and Queen’s duties, with Juan Carlos officially stepping down early next year, probably January or February.
In the immediate aftermath of the King’s decision, many media outlets pointed out that Juan Carlos’ popularity has dipped significantly over the past few years in particular, and many think Felipe and Letizia will have a better shot at rebranding the royal family and Spain in general. But now The Telegraph’s sources claim that King Juan Carlos had another reason for abdicating: he didn’t want Felipe to grow old waiting for the throne, like Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales.
King Juan Carlos told courtiers that he wanted to abdicate in favour of his son because he did not want his heir to “grow old waiting for the throne like Prince Charles”. The 76-year-old monarch, who announced last Monday that it was time for “a younger generation to step into the front line,” is said to have been influenced in his decision to abdicate by the situation of the Prince of Wales, who at 65 is the oldest heir to the British throne for 300 years. It emerged on Sunday that King Juan Carlos had privately told those close to him that he felt it was right to pass the throne on while his heir was still a young man.
“I do not want my son to wither waiting like Prince Charles,” he reportedly told Rafael Spottorno, chief of the royal household, according to a report in Spain’s daily El Mundo newspaper.
King Juan Carlos had been considering the decision since his 75th birthday in January 2013, his chief of staff admitted, and that he had discussed it at length with those in his inner circle.
“He saw, above all, that his son was in his prime and didn’t want to see him like Prince Charles who will be 66 years old in November,” the newspaper quoted Mr Spottorno as saying.
The Zarzuela Palace refused to confirm or deny the statement on Sunday morning. A Clarence House spokesman “declined to comment” on the reports. “There is a lot being written every day as regards the abdication and we are not prepared to comment on every article,” a spokesman said.
John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, on Sunday called for the Queen to “gracefully step aside” and allow the Prince of Wales to deliver next year’s address to Parliament. Lord Prescott said that Her Majesty, now 88, should follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI and the three European monarchs who have abdicated this year and become the “Queen Emeritus” as part of a “gentle succession”.
“Why not let Charles take more of the burden off her shoulders? In 2015, she could hand over the State Opening of Parliament to her son,” Lord Prescott said. “It could be the King-in-Waiting’s Speech. Though knowing Charles, he’d probably want to rewrite it – especially any bits which were not environmentally-friendly. When Pope Benedict XVI stood down last year he became Pope Emeritus. So why can’t we have a Queen Emeritus? Elizabeth has given great service to this country. No one would think less of her if we allowed her to enjoy her remaining years with her grandchildren and great grandchildren as the Queen Mother.”
King Juan Carlos…explaining his decision to abdicate, said a generational change would open “a new chapter of hope” for a country hit by a deep economic crisis, and insisted that his son had “the maturity, the readiness and the sense of responsibility needed to take on with full guarantees the leadership of the state”.
The Telegraph also points out that “republican fervour” is at an all-time high these days in Spain, with 62% of Spanish citizens wanting a referendum on whether they should abolish the monarchy. My take… I enjoy princes and princesses from a distance, but I’m happy that I live in a democracy where the only “royal families” are political dynasties duly elected by popular vote or the “royalty” of entertainment figures. So, I don’t mind seeing “republican fervour” in any European country with a monarchy. That being said, I think Felipe and Letizia should have a chance to see if they can turn this thing around and revitalize the monarchy. Give them a few years, and if they can’t make it happen, then abolish the monarchy.
As for all the stuff about asking Queen Elizabeth to abdicate… she’s in a much different position than King Juan Carlos. Queen Elizabeth is actually the most popular figure in the British royal family. If and when she goes, there will be significant “republican fervour” no matter what.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Pacific Coast News.
Royal Shade! Amazing.
HAHAHAHAHA
I do think most people even if they aren’t monarchists have a soft spot for the Queen.
I am a rabid Republican (in the monarchy sense!), but even I like the Queen. Bitch can WERK.
Once she’s gone, we have to have a vote, the Royals need to go.
Yes, BUT….slipping into a republic with an elected, non-executive head of state, won’t come easy. What types will make up the pool of candidates? Ex PMs like Thatcher or Blair? Talk show hosts? Captains of industry? Lead singers? You know what I mean! Such a risky thing, in terms of international prestige, and also risky in that a perceived puppet could by default give additional power to a Prime Minister, as a quasi leader. Again, Thatcher looms in memory. As it is Britain has clout in some arenas because the monarch has no personal baggage, in many ways. The one she has, the link to the past, is turning out to be an asset. It’ll take a ferociously faught argument to make Britain make the leap, in spite of knowing that the principle of monarchy is outdated. (It does the job, at least, of keeping out anyone who seeks election…..;) )
Please excuse and overlook the lengthy reply…. I can’t seem to delete it. I’ve really overdone the raving/waffling re royalty and it’s made me giddy.
Apologies all round. 🙂
How about…none? Presidents are useless if they hold no real power. Let the prime minister assume the major roles and delegate to his ministers as needed.
But CC, that’s the whole concern! The major republican powers have been doing it long enough for the system to feel right and proper. There are powers in Britain who still seem to contain DNA from the Glorious Revolution in 1688, and for whom real power in a figurehead is anathema. (Mythic or sentimental power, they can’t abolish).
But hand executive power to someone elected by anything less than, say, 80% of the vote, and there’d be pandemonium!
@Leah This is true. I can admit I have a soft spot for her work ethic and sense of duty, but if I’m to be fully honest, I’m beyond tired of seeing her and her husband’s face. Even the next in line, with Charles and Camilla, will be hard to look at. Yes, this is shallow and yes, we all will age…it’s part of living. But they are hard to look at as the face of the UK.
Although it would be nice for The Queen to enjoy her twilight years on her own, enjoying grandchildren and visiting her friends if she has any real, loyal ones, but I don’t think it would go over well. Some would say why should they break the rules for her when her Uncle wasn’t allowed it?
But anyway, who are we kidding, QE is a stickler for tradition. Even in death, they would have to pry her off of the throne.
Ha ha ha nice try, JC, you cheeky monkey. We know why you’re abdicating. (And Charles, ‘withering away’ indeed….he’s better than ever). Major clue in this info is using John Prescott as a mouthpiece, that always leads to gales of incredulous laughter!
Blimey I must come across as the worst kind of partisan/fan. But tis only jesting in a gossip forum. Real good pro/anti ranting’s in the Guardian comments….blood and feathers all over the place. 🙂
Chris, why is he really abdicating?
Hi!
Oh there’s a ghastly tangle of financial scandal/ personal unpopularity/you name it, and tis true, old age. I wouldn’t wish to alter a tone of cheery frivol here to sober political debate, nor would I be much good at it, but as a lifelong Guardian reader of course I’d say that’s a good source of balanced info re any royal stories, avoiding the desperate yearnings in some other UK sources incl the Telegraph . (But one’s own bias is inevitable of course!) One thing though…John Prescott is truly a buffoon, who makes Boris Johnson sound like Bertrand Russell, and I think all newspapers, leftish or right, know this. Bonkers choice of expert opinion here!
Thanks, Chris! I’m not much for royal gossip, so I depend on you fine folks to ‘splain things to me.
Ok, here is what I got. I admit, I’m a bit out of date….Let’s see… at his age… rumor is that even with the broken hip, he is still being unfaithful to his wife. Both son’s in law are well, one ex son in law… has criminal charges pending ( I think, I have not been kept up to date, so have no idea how the trial is doing or if it ended) the other is an A- you know what. The son… how can we forget about the allege daughter he did not give his name too… the best friend gave his name instead… yup, he is going to be king! They are not the British Monarchy were mum has the $$, sort to speak, nope, people pay for them…
I love reading the Guardian’s monarchy comments!
I agree with you too. I think Charles is stepping up to help his mother and is far from “withering away”.
Agree on both points. Charles knows his mom isn’t going to leave on her own and the Guardian Monarchy comments are great.
To be frank, I’m also doubtful JC’s health would hold up another 20 years.
What’s been driving me crazy is that all the british tabs and US tabs have been talking about ‘princess letizia-she’s copying Kate’. Or else ‘the new spanish princess’ 1) those two have been around for ages. and 2) Not EVERY female royal in the world is copying Kate. Jeez, who would want to? (and I say that as a fan)
And the spanish abdication/official stepping down will actually happen in a few weeks on June 18th. The Palace has confirmed the dates as follows: Juan Carlos will sign the abdication act at the Royal Palace on June 18. Felipe becomes king as soon as that happens. Then, on June 19, the proclamation will take place in front of the Cortes Generales.
L
It’s just how the press tries to spin Kate for the better.
Not long ago I read this as a fact on a trivia site.
Kate popularized the Fascinator.
Because what Kate did for the Fascinator is what Madame de Pompadour did for the pompadour.
Just another reason imo why people shouldn’t believe what they read.
Agreed. Letizia was around well before Kate. Felipe and Letizia were married 10 years ago, she is 41 and already has 2 kids. And she is going to be Queen in 2 weeks….kate will not be Queen for a VERY long time.
Gotta love it when reporters who never report on royalty are forced to write a story or create a slideshow. Kate is probably they only person they have to compare any other princess to. Kate is great but Laetiza copying? C’mon now…
*meanwhile in the Uk Charles is desperately crying over a pint*
Talking about Royal shade!
Tee hee! Gawd, sharp intake of breath from Sofia and the Duke of Edinburgh!
Private Eye’s been running a series of brilliant spooferies during all these recent abdications, with the eager Charles leaping from his bath at every BBC announcement. 🙂
LOL. I’ll have to go check those out! I keep forgetting about Private Eye.
Hola Blu
It’s a longrunning saga, ‘Heir of Sorrows’, goes back to the grim old 80s. Unutterably brilliant, I think. And written with much affection I feel, behind the lampooning. Written by Dame Sylvie Krin……..
In fact, it’d be instructive to learn how its author reacted, if at all, to that Buzzfeed drivel, since he/she has for decades nailed the ‘courtiers’ in the character of Sir Alan Fitztightly…..
Links please!
Ladyslippers
I’m not sure it’s online, P Eye’s always needed to maximise revenue from its fortnightly print issues, and thus keeps the good stuff in that medium only…or it used to anyway.I’ll have a root inline, maybe someone put it up independently. I think you’d love it!
*sobs*
It’s so not fair! I want to see too!!!!
😪😪😪😪
Oh yes they do!
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/
Although I don’t know how much content is online vs. the magazine.
Funny, I was just thinking how I picture monarchs as elderly but Liz was once a young queen. The British throne is not likely to have young monarchs in my lifetime. Wills will be in his 60/70s when he ascends and at that rate I’m not likely to be around to see George’s big day.
Will is 31-32? Charles is 66. I doubt Charles will be on the throne 30-40 years from now.
Okay my math was a little off there. But Wills won’t be king for at least 20-25 more years.
Ya never know bettyrose. The Queen Mother died at 102. HRH is going strong at 88. (Seriously, 4 freaking outfit changes in 1 day? I would not be in a good mood and I am years younger) I wouldn’t be surprised to see Charles on the throne when he is 90. Those Windsors are packing a lot of those longevity genes.
OT: I wonder how much of their long life has to do with 100’s of years of privilege and never doing without quality nourishment?
Lady D!
Just out of devilment, as you are right of course….the family are also longtime adherents of complementary medicine, homeopathy in particular. (sad thing: that’s one reason the Grey Men in Suits try to shut Chazza up. Protect the $$$!)
Well, homeopathy can’t hurt them too much, it’s just water after all. 😀
BURN! Ouch. A tact-free remark if ever there was one.
I just wish royalty everywhere would be abolished. The concept is vulgar to me.
This! A million times,
yes.
The concept of Royalty can adapt to modern times. They can play their role and have that celebrity political blended platform, but they can’t rely on people forced to pay them. They should make their money like others or offer a service where people willingly give them funds.
The concept, imo, that people are given money just because they want it and have the power to make others given them that makes them thieves. They’re not honest.
+1
Royalty is kind of an outdated concept, but I don’t wish they would go away altogether. But I think they need to stop thinking everyone should bow or curtsy to them. That is, they shouldn’t expect to be treated differently from anyone else. They should always remember they are taxpayer funded, their lifestyles financed off the backs of hardworking people.
I don’t understand the “curtsey. (anyone?) It seems a bit, well, humiliating.
So they should curtsey and bow to us. Ha. I see pigs not flying!
Personally I would never curtsey to anyone. I mean, really, why should I?
I think there’s a place for royalty. Royals could continue the PR/ambassadorial role. Sort of like glamorous celebrity representatives of their country. The problem is just like times past, some Kings aren’t naturally suited to that role.
Letizia is drop dead gorgeous
She looks very classy and understated in that suit. I have no idea if it’s expensive, but she makes it look that way.
She looks like she’s had a lot of work done on her face. Quite a bit, actually. I am not trying to be insulting (honest), just stating what I see. I am sure she is a nice person.
Her eyes look crossed or something; is it an actual condition or overdone something? I can’t tell.
Yeah, she has big time tox face. I’m seeing shades of Nicole in the texture.
I was thinking botox but also a nose job. Look how small her nose is.
Would’ve been classier if he hadn’t called out Charles by name. We’d still know who he meant.
I agree. What a horrible way to say it.
Imagine the frosty glare over the royal cornflakes, as Prince Philip innocently curses the outspoken ruddy Bourbon, always putting his foot in his mouth….. HMQ swallows a curt reply….
Pr.Philip and the Queen probably had a good laugh and a toast.
The shade of it all!! Love it
Ps Dear Spain: Be done with the monarchy and never look back.
All T all shade.
After QEII is gone, it will be interesting to see how long before the British public also starts to get over their royal family. I think we can all see that none of them will be as well respected as she was.
I agree. The Queen is going to be a very, very tough act to follow. The BRF might have to adopt some of the European royal family attitudes (do I remember a comment from one of the BRF about those “bicycling European royals” or some such thing?)
What *I* wonder is whether Charles will be Charles III, or use another of his names, and give us ‘King Arthur’!
It’ll be such a big deal when we lose HMQ, I feel for him facing what I suppose is a ‘frontlash’…….the unvoidable comparisons with his mother long before a new reign. I’m glad he has Camilla now, he was a lonely man for so long. *hoists bosom and adjusts lorgnette*
I remember something about Diana liking to hang out in the kitchen with the staff and being scolded because that was only something done in Scandinavian monarchies.
The Danish Royal Family successfully rehabilitated itself through several things:
1) crown prince Frederik’s choice of wife, Princess Ingrid of Sweden who exerted a gentle, but significant influence on the Royal Family itself (King Christian X was very strict and a rather forbidding character). She also seemed to have a natural flair for PR – allowing the public a bit more access to the RF through piblication of private photos, etc.
2) Crown prince Frederik was a jovial man with the common touch.
3) the German occupation of Denmark from 1940 to 1945 gave the RF an opportunity to serve as a national symbol for the populace, which they cultivated by King Christian X riding through the streets of Copenhagen ever day during the occupation and the crown princly couple riding their bicycles in the city. There’s also a story (I don’t know if it is true) that the King threatened the Germans that he would wear the yellow star if it was to be enforced on the Jewish citizens.
The British royals don’t need to be rehabilitated, I’d say. It’s a cleancut debate, about retaining hereditary titles vs elected heads of state. But within the present frame of a constitutional monarchy, I’d think any minor tinkering will be along the lines of reduced expenditure. (And, dear Charles, I support you with all my heart, but hand over the royal art collection to public galleries, as soon as you can!)
Srsly though, consideration of European royal familes’ conduct during WWII gives a good explanation about the Windsors’ solid base in affections. Let my, and older, generations pass, and that will have been forgotten, and then change might be really debated!
ps Arthistorian: I don’t mean to pounce at all, just waffling here
Can’t be any worse than Bertie following Victoria. And we know he died in the public’s affection.
For the most part, the public always dreads the incoming Prince whilst the soon to depart (RIP) monarch is held in great affection.
@Chris, I am far from a BRF expert, but it looks like none of our resident experts have addressed your question. I once asked your question here and was told that Charles will most likely not use his own name, because the prior Kings with that name were not popular or good at their jobs.
They seem to like using repeating names, but so many seem tainted. Arthur is mythical, Henry is an obese wife killer, Edward is spoiled and weak, etc. My question has always been this – why not name the heir the name he can use to reign? Elizabeth knew Charles would be the heir, yet gave him a name he cannot use. Why wasn’t he given the honored name of his grandfather – George? And why do the women always reign with their own names, but the men tend not to? So many questions. It looks like they finally got with the program by naming George – George.
Mayamae hi
I’ve just promised myself to shut up but this is great…..you know, he *could* try Arthur, in a nod to the king that never was, Henry VIII’s elder brother who died young. The thought tickles me, a great Camelot fan. Aaaand, he has Louis…hee hee, of course that is for Earl Mountbatten, but it’d really cause raised eyebrows abroad! But I don’t feel, just personally, that ‘Charles’ is really tainted. To many, one was a ‘martyr’, the other at worst a roisterer with a good heart. Hm. Debateable for sure, but still, not a cursed name. He’s a sentimental chap, after all. There’s another name crying out for justice still… Richard. The last Plantagenet. Let Charles rescue him from Shakespeare!!
Chris,
I read somewhere Charles is considering George VII due to Charles being unlucky (last one being executed and all that), although I don’t know if any decisions have been made. I do like Arthur, though, mostly because of visuals of Charles trying to pull a sword out of the stone!
AH,
I love the Scandinavian royals. I know Queen Elizabeth is set in her ways, but I don’t think that a nice airing out would do the Windsors any harm at all! 🙂
What Blu said, re the related royals. They’ve shown that changes aren’t painful, nor destructive for the institution. Tiny steps in Britain while HMQ and particularly Philip are with us, but later, the future has happy possibilities.
bluehare,
The last King Charles was the second of that name and he was in many ways a canny operator. His father Charles I was executed after his lost the civil war with Parliament.
Charles II was offered the English Crown after the death of Cromwell and his reign is called the Restoration – known for a renaissance in theatre, leaps forward in the natural sciences, and a general licentiousness (especially at court). Charles II had frequent disputes with Parliament – over money, and over their phobic fear of Catholics (he wanted peaceful co-existence, they wanted anyone not Anglicans barred from public office, which they got). In his last years, his court was financed by the French Louis XIV on a vague promise from Charles II to convert to Catholicism when the time was “right”, i.e. on his deathbed and in secret, which wasn’t exactly what the French king had in mind.
Henry and George have been the most successful Kings of England, even Henry 8. The tradition of using their names for PR purposes is a sound one. George in particular.
With regards women, though they were not expected to rule there is a tradition too. Many of the Queens and or consorts are named Elizabeth or Mary and in our present Queen both whilst Kate’s middle name is Elizabeth.
Finally, Victoria did change her name. Her first name was Alexandrina.
Arthistorian, hi
Do you feel, if I may ask, that his name is usable again, as I do? I’ve often thought that there are traits of Charles II in the Prince of Wales; the best parts of the old king. Traits too of Geo III, but the Stuart part enthralls me. King Charles III?
Richard IV? George VII? King Arthur?!
.
Chris: I think he should go ahead and be George VII. George is one of his names afterall.
Charles is unfortunate. Can you imagine the talking heads as he rides to his coronation…..bringing up all the trouble his namesake Charles Kings had!!!!
Not to mention every time he has a misstep or the media decides to rag on him.
I’ll say that EIIR/Philip are probably not superstitious sorts seeing that they boldly named their child Charles despite the family tradition of it. However they hedged their bets and called him George AND Arthur. Two iconic names for Kings even if one is mythical. Or they were possibly psychic in their name choice given all the bother the current Charles has including the possible ending of the monarchy on his watch.
Mayamea: Henry/Edward aren’t the most unfortunate Kings despite 2 of those namesakes being notorious. Henry could as easily be Henry I or II or V. All revered Edward 2 and 7 were particularly unfortunate, but Edward 7 could have been King David if he chose, but considering he abdicated, David would have been crossed off the list for a very long time.
Personally, I think Charles and Richard are really unfortunate.
LAK Hi
Much of what I’ve burbled here is only playful really, or daydreaming perhaps. Cos really, I don’t know that a name change would occur at all. Only as small part of the public would recognise the patchy tradition, the rest would be justifiably bewildered by it, and that would surely undermine a man who wants to be taken seriously at last, even though as king he’ll have to zip it.
Reigning as ‘Charles’ he’d honour the better parts of I and II; neither was downright baad, and the good parts are worth a nod. IMOof course.
(I wish we were in a pub, I’d love to rabbit with you and others on this, starting with the Henrys!)
@LAK, I completely agree about Charles and Richard. When I think of Richard, I think of Richard III, and I have to wonder anew about the missing nephews. I love the idea of George. William can be a George and then George be a George. It’s boring but sentimental.
Re: Victoria. Didn’t she actually go by the name Victoria rather than her first name? How different it would be. We’d be talking about the Alexandrinan period.
Mayamae, LAK Hi yet again…..
Just want to stand up for Richard here! (In a fantasy way of course, it’s never going to be a contender)….but : there are those (and moi) who don’t credit the murderer tag at all, and lay it on Henry Tudor instead. So we grab sny chance of restoring his good name, and this seemed like a good one. Ah well. At least he’s got his spine back at last, sans hunch.
🙂
Edward II was most unfortunate in many ways but also greatly maligned by history. In fact, his life could be said to resemble William’s in many surprising ways. If William is smart he will learn from history and not repeat it. Still, I adore Eddy II 🙂
Dame hi
Jaw on floor: what gives with Edwd II? I’m beyond intrigued! He certainly has an unfortunate rep, even without the red hot poker. Cough it up girrl, what’s the story?
🙁
GAH!! Got my Charles mixed up. You guys are smart; love the history talk!
I was just reading a book not too long ago, where Edward II was talked about, and the general thinking was he was actually much better than history makes him out to be. But that hot poker thing makes my butt pucker.
Agree re Richard III. The victor gets to write history and I think it happened here.
Chris, can I ask you what the expression ‘rabbit with you’ mean? It sounds like it means get together and chat. I guess I wonder more how the expression came about?
p.s. you had me looking up lorgnette earlier.
Mayamea: Richard 2 was also usurped. By his cousin Henry Bolingbroke (Henry 4) which was the seeds of the eventual War of the roses.
Richard 1 was mostly abroad on crusade and spent some of that captured, so all in all Richard = unfortunate.
Chris: I can see how CIIIR might restore the name Charles. Especially if they use the European tradition of Emperors and various Kings all being named Charles to great success (don’t mention Spain’s Don Carlos or even abdicating Juan Carlos. Tee hee), but I feel the British Charles Kings were unfortunate.
On the subject of their characters, few were outright bad characters. History is written by the victors and many people don’t always look behind the curtain.
Though when you look at entire collection and the times they lived in as well as comparing to their European counterparts, they were all almost as bad or as good as each other with very few exceptions.
Don Carlos can be excused on the grounds of his obvious mental deficiencies and the blame put squarely on a system that allowed someone like him to have absolute power.
He’s too old to change his name now! Plus, it’s not like he’s obliged to. Most kings didn’t change their names. There’s nothing wrong with being Charles III, Charles II was awesome. 🙂
Maybe if Diana had lived, he was probably king now. It’s a different story. Can’t compare the two. Having a king is not bad, if he is a good king.
Speaking of Diana. I’ve always wondered if there’s truth to the rumor that Juan Carlos and Diana had an affair.
It doesn’t matter. I don’t think it’s true. Whatsoever, the rumor happened after the divorce to Charles.
This is just a Spanish dig because Spain is pissed at the Brits for holding on to Gibralter. Nothing to see here.
Well he is not wrong. After all Charles is not going younger.
love me some royal s**t-talking! let’s see if the queen rips him a new one in response.
Deflect much JC? We all know why you are abdicating.
Seriously! My first thought when readings this was: “Whatever helps you sleep at night, Juan.”
Hee hee, we can see the elephant in the living room , JC. (nudge nudge, know what I mean !). 😉
John Prescott is an idiot!
HM will never, ever, abdicate. It’s just not going to happen. And I’m entirely sure Charles knows and understands that, and I’d bet he shares his mother’s view on the matter.
William is the first one in that line I could see abdicating as retirement. He’s just of a different generation and I’m very doubtful he would be interested in working the way his grandmother does into his 80s.
He’s just abdicate because he’s lazy. What’s the retirement age in the UK? 65?
At least Juan Carlos isn’t on twitter.
O sweet mother of the divine, please don’t say Chazza’s on it? Nooooo.
I believe he is as Clarence House, Chris. He’s probably got a Royal Tweeter, because tweeting oneself is so . . . common. 🙂
Lawd above, it’s an evening’s entertainment in itself to conjure up a Brian tweet. What a dear man!
Seriously OT but does anyone know what those funny looking, old school golf pants are called? They wear them at St. Andrews. I thought a royal CBer would be more likely to know this.
They are called ‘plus fours’. Heavenly, or maybe not so much??
LOL I knew this! I asked the same question 3 weeks ago.
Blimey, rather a lot of worrying interest in tweedy bloomers! I blame John Galliano.
Tweedy bloomers! Lol! Indeed, they are going to be a gag gift for Mr. snarkweek’s birthday – part of a surprise golfing get-a-way to St. simon’s I’m planning.
Chris, you’re hilarious. And yes to a Plantagenet anything!
Dame!
What a lovely surprise for the Mr. (I think). I hope he loves them, there is a school of thought that believes golf exists *solely* to permit gentlemen to free up their inner Gaga and dress craaazy, whilst strolling about in a stern way.
Rlly though, what a great thoughtful gift, lucky man.
chris
You are kind. He is significantly older than I so it is a difficulty as well as a thrill to actually surprise him. He is a wonderful human being so here’s to love and plus fours lol. Now if only I could improve his game…
Thank you for the hearty laugh, DM.
I’m laughing thinking of Mr. bluhare unleashing his inner Gaga. Won’t happen in my lifetime, I’ll tell you that!
There is no proof he actually said that. A paper just said it. Claim is the key word, papers love to create a storyline that can boost the interest on something if that can lead to publicity for them. As much as I don’t care about monarchy he was raised to be a King and represent his country keeping good relations with other countries. He wouldn’t say something like that in public that could lead to cold relations with the British Crown.
Good point
Felipe becomes king next week on June 18. Juan Carlos abdicates and the power immediately transfers to the new king. Its quick and free of frills.
I think the Spanish King just wanted an excuse to step down rather than admit to the real reason why he did so.
He & a Spanish Princess (his daughter?) are in some kind of financial scandal. His popularity rating is very low. He’s also been very extravagant in a time when many Spaniards have been suffering. He’s not going to admit that it was due to his own faults that lead to him stepping down now. He’s going to try to make himself sound like a self-sacrificing & loving father. It’s too bad that he had to throw shade on QE2, who has a high popularity rating and doesn’t need to step down to avoid bad press.
Wasn’t there another European King who announced his abdication or retirement this year?
Juan is just bitter he had to remove himself and the Queen is still loved, respected and full of life.
Juan got caught with his alleged hands in the cookie jar, alleged mistress on hunting holiday and wiping out Elephant. He had to leave the royal throne in disgrace and he’s bitter! IMO.
Felipe becomes King on June 18.
This year? Like two weeks?
This year.
I often wonder if Prince Charles will ever be able to take the throne. Queen Elizabeth could very well live another 20 years.
Ooh, burn, King Juan Carlos that you don’t want your son to wait for the throne like Prince Charles. The difference between you and QEII, Juan, is that she is so popular that she doesn’t need to abdicate like you.
+1
LOL Nice try, Carlito. More like doesn’t want to be humiliated when the obvious scandal brewing beneath the surface emerges. This is no Charles V here we’re talking about — he’s not abdicating for the good of anything except his own reputation.
BURN!! point King JC
It is a different situation. Charles withers because his mother is trying to beat Queen Victoria’s record.