Stay updated with breaking news from Felipe abreu. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
a country formed in revolt from the then english monarch. welcome to you all. thank you very much for coming in, particularly on such a busy weekend. catherine, can i start with you? there's no doubt that this weekend feels like a very public affirmation of this queen. but is it also consciously, do you think, for the monarchy, at least, a moment of transition? it does feel like that. it's been feeling like that for a while now. we saw the prince of wales represent his mother at the state opening of parliament, another major occasion, and this one too, so i think transition is a good word for it, but he's not being a replacement. he's representing her. and i'm intrigued that there hasn't been a suggestion of there being a regency. in other words when the monarch continues, but because they are no longer able to carry out their duties to the same level, the person who's due
someone who seems to be beyond politics who can really rally the nation in times of great need or crisis, and that happens in other countries. there are elected presidents or otherwise chosen heads of state who are not part of a dynasty that we see here. although, there are one or two where they are, it can feel almost dynastic. that is true. and also i was once based in south asia and saw two monarchies fall. i mean, well, one, it was a republican revolution that got rid of an unelected dynast in nepal, and in bhutan, it was actually a king who said, "it's time for me to give up absolute power and for this to become a constitutional monarchy". but that is the way of the world is heading towards democracy. although, of course we see setbacks. when india became independent, l the minute it became independent, it declared itself a republic and it got rid of all the maharajas, - who were very autocratic and incredibly wealthy, i gave them a palace each. and did that stop the i
and i'm intrigued that there hasn't been a suggestion of there being a regency. in other words when the monarch continues, but because they are no longer able to carry out their duties to the same level, the person who's due to succeed when they die fills in for them. exactly. part of that might be because everybody feels, the queen herself, particularly, that she's not completely incapacitated, as happened, for example, with george iii, when he was seriously ill and the person who became actually george iv, his son and heir became the prince regent, so they haven't gone down that path at the moment. perhaps they remember the history of it because he wasn't a terribly popular figure when he was regent, was he? no, he was not. and in those days, the monarch
well, two points actually, we'll come to the one about the rest of the world in a moment, if we can. butjust very quickly, on this question of transition, this used to be a really nervous time for monarchs, didn't it, when when an old king or queen was coming to the end of their life, because they worried that at that point, another member of their enormous family from some other branch would turn up and say, "actually, we think our claim is bigger than the claim "of the next person you've lined up." it's not quite the same now, but presumably there's still an issue about why it passes the way it does. the queen got it because her uncle had it and he then abdicated and his brother picked up, and then it went through her line. presumably... the duke of kent's line. and there are all kinds of people, presumably, who could could say, actually, if you have a hereditary system, our claim is better than that. well, you mentioned bonnie prince, charlie earlier, and there are certain people who think his descendants should be brought back. but they're a minority.
had more political power, and he didn't use it in ways that were particularly impressive. but i think it's also to do with the fact that this queen has this very strong sense that she signed up to this for life, and so i think there's possibly an unwillingness to to stand down. but we may yet see that happen, we may yet see a regency act. because nobody can know the state of how her health may change over the coming... i find that so interesting only because, catherine, knowing that you were an editor of a catholic publication probably ten years ago we would you have said a pope would resign? no, he's in it for life. and yet that happened. and so never say never in these situations where we're in uncharted waters for a monarch to be this old, really and having been on the throne this long, and what happens next, it's really hard to say. interestingly, the queen will be well aware of how queen victoria disappeared from view for quite some time after the death of her husband, prince albert, and became very unpopular.
from the often absent thai monarch to king felipe of spain, embarrassed by his dad. in the studio thisjubilee weekend, are catherine pepinster whose new book defenders of the faith, addresses one of the reasons this queen does not contemplate retirement and her faith. yasmin alibhai—brown, a british columnist who is a committed republican, and henry chu from the la times in the united states, a country formed in revolt from the then english monarch. welcome to you all. thank you very much for coming in, particularly on such a busy weekend. catherine, can i start with you? there's no doubt that this weekend feels like a very public affirmation of this queen. but is it also consciously, do you think, for the monarchy, at least, a moment of transition? it does feel like that. it's been feeling like that for a while now. we saw the prince of wales represent his mother at the state opening of parliament, another major occasion, and this one too, so i think transition is a good word for it, but he's not being a replacement. he's representing her.
that she signed up to this for life, and so i think there's possibly an unwillingness to to stand down. but we may yet see that happen, we may yet see a regency act. because nobody can know the state of how her health may change over the coming... i find that so interesting only because, catherine, knowing that you were an editor of a catholic publication probably ten years ago we would you have said a pope would resign? no, he's in it for life. and yet that happened. and so never say never in these situations where we're in uncharted waters for a monarch to be this old, really and having been on the throne this long, and what happens next, it's really hard to say. interestingly, the queen will be well aware of how queen victoria disappeared from view for quite some time after the death of her husband, prince albert, and became very unpopular. and it was only when she had her golden and diamond jubilee, the other monarch that reigned
i don't think there is quite that claim. i think if there is a nervousness around, it will be about the extent to which charles will be fully accepted. and i think that's notjust to do with the republican feelings that yasmin has been talking about. i think that's an issue about who he is. and some people aren't that well inclined. and because we no longer accept the idea of the divine right of kings. i mean, which we effectively cut a king's head off. or you can argue back to the days of the civil war, but there was an element of we no longer accept that principle. well, indeed. and therefore, presumably that guarantee for him isn't there? well, indeed. but i think it's if there is nervousness, it's more is he fully accepted? and again, ifound it extremely interesting that the queen made a comment in her accession anniversary statement earlier this year about how much she wished to see camilla
and now, interestingly, the prince has been married to his second wife for longer than he was married to diana, so i think, if you like, they've had time on their side. i think she's been bedded in as this member of the royal family. there are people who still feel, as you're suggesting, yasmin, but i don't think it's quite as powerful as it once was. henry, ijust wanted to, as we close, talk very briefly about the rest of the world. it's a bit unfair, but this weekend of all weekends, this is very much a domestic—focused edition of dateline. unusualfor us. butjust on that you gave a great example of asia, where you've got monarchies who voluntarily gave up, monarchies who were deposed. we have a monarchy that's proving very supportive in thailand of the militaryjunta there that seized powerfrom a democracy. i mean, just an observation from you, perhaps on the uses and abuses of monarchy internationally. having a monarch is no guarantee of either the good or the evil of a monarch, of the monarchy.
when we see a new monarch is that prior to any coronation, if they have one, of that monarch, we're going to get opinion polls, i would think, about them. millions of people have never forgotten diana. | you know, they've wiped her out of history. - prince charles's first wife, who died in a car accident. and that's why camilla being installed again. by the queen, kind of given this, i think is to misread . how many people really feel passionately that l diana was wronged. i think that's true, but i think that has somewhat faded. no. it's not as strong as it once was. and now, interestingly, the prince has been married to his second wife for longer than he was married to diana, so i think, if you like, they've had time on their side. i think she's been bedded in as this member of the royal family. there are people who still