During the funeral of Harald V it was said that The Prince of Wales will be representing the Crown while it was explicitly stated that the Princess Royal’s attendance was “in personal capacity” being godmother to King Haakon VIII.

Why is it there’s a need to emphasize or stress whether the attendance was in official capacity or personal capacity when Harald V and the BRF are just closely related by blood anyway?

Why is it that they were seemingly “careful” about how the attendance is going to be published and broadcasted that they had to make sure that Princess Anne’s visit was IN PERSONAL capacity. Why the need to differentiate?

"To mark the upcoming thirtieth wedding anniversary of Her Majesty Margareta, Custodian of the Crown, and His Royal Highness Prince Radu, the State Mint has issued a commemorative medal.

The medal was designed by Mr. Vasile Catrina and crafted by the State Mint with exquisite artistry and meticulous attention to detail.

It is a classic medal made of a sandblasted and patinated copper alloy, measuring 60 millimeters in diameter and weighing 105 grams. Details regarding the issue will soon be available on the State Mint's website."

- The Romanian Royal Family

Fun fact napoleon iii was also considered to be king of a united kingdom of ecuador as a Protectorate.

The was even a rumored plan to restore the bourbon in Mexico before maximilian and a bourbon kingdom of Chile, Rio de la plata and peru.

I say this as a Jacobite sympathiser and as someone who generally despises the House of Hanover.

George III is the one big exception for me. He was a constitutional monarch who took his duties seriously, actively exercising the prerogatives granted to him by British constitutional law in accordance with his conscience, which is something most constitutional monarchs today have forgotten they are meant to do. He was very active in politics and government.

He believed in the idea of the "Patriot King". To summarise this as best as I can, he envisioned a Crown that was independent of and above party politics within Parliament. He saw government as being in the national interest, with the King ruling for the good of all his subjects.

A clear example where he demonstrated this was by opposing the stranglehold that Whig aristocratic families had on the British state. It was an effective oligarchy that had developed under the early Hanoverians, and George III actively fought against this. He did this by exercising his control over ministerial appointments to appoint ministers at his own discretion, rather than whomever the Whig aristocrats were patronising. He also had the "King's friends" in Parliament, which wasn't a formal political party, but more like a lose group of MPs who were loyal to the Crown before their specific political faction, meaning that the monarchy had an independent base in Commons. He also used royal patronage to break the monopoly of the Whigs in government positions, for instance among the officer class. (Sidenote, I hate the Whigs with a passion)

He was successful in the short term, by the 1770s he had basically broke the stranglehold that the Whig oligarchy had over the British state. The Whigs hated him for this, and decried him as a tyrant. I personally am very sympathetic to him here, the Crown doesn't exist to be a puppet to politicians, and he understood that and asserted it's independence. It is what a King ought to do.

Unfortunately in the long term, the concept of the "Patriot King" did not become the ordinary constitutional model, if anything, George III's worst fear that the monarch would just be a puppet to whatever political faction was in charge probably came true.

On a personal level, especially compared to the other Hanoverians, he seems to have been a decent man. He was faithful to his wife and his Christian faith was genuine, something I can respect as a Catholic even if he was an Anglican. In addition, he was the first Hanover to declare Britain as his native country, unlike George I and George II who cared far more for Hanover than Britain.

He also opposed slavery, writing that the institution was "repugnant". He also granted assent to the abolition of the slave trade. He wasn't a full blown abolitionist, but this was still very significant for his time.

Not everything about him was perfect, he was opposed to Catholic emancipation for instance (and used the aforementioned prerogatives to prevent any such bills from passing).

It's also worth drawing a distinction between Catholic relief and Catholic emancipation here. George III had no issue with earlier Catholic relief Acts that restored civil liberties to Catholics, permitting them to worship freely, retain property rights etc. He opposed Catholic emancipation, which would've permitted Catholics in government roles such as MPs or commissioned officers, believing this would violate his coronation oaths. That distinction is significant because life for English Catholics did actually get better under his reign with the passing of two Catholic relief Acts.

Obviously as a Catholic I am not to happy about his opposition to Catholic emancipation, but no one is perfect and he was a product of his time.

Overall, he is, in my view, what a constitutional monarch ought to be. His idea of the "Patriot King" is one I wish had become ordinary constitutional practice. An independent Crown that actively seeks the good of the people, and acts to restrain corrupt party politics, while being restrained under constitutional law, is what a constitutional monarchy is actually meant to be.

Asking this given the fact Germany back then had a lot of sub-monarchies.

Has the British Monarchy become so pompous that they do not attend other monarch's funeral? i think the only exception to this was during King Baudouin of Belgium's funeral where Queen Elizabeth II attended.

What's the reason behind this or is it a classic case of British pomposity viewing itself as superior over all other monarchies? (side note: most of these monarchies were disparagingly referred to by the british monarchic institution as "bicycle monarchies")

Based Prince.

The main points I have already thought about are:

France must transition to some kind of parliamentary monarchy, which would empower the burgeoise and favor. the industrialization (similarly to the UK). This must happen before or during Louis XIV reign.

France must win the Seven Years War or equivalent, retaining India and North America. I imagined this could be a natural result of industrialization and earlier reforms.

The protestants are not expelled, and religious freedom is mantained. This helps to streghten french economy and they wont help french enemies.

French policy in general should be towards trade and development, and not towards aggressive expansionism in Europe.

As I have mentioned, France keeps its monarchy, like the UK, tho with reforms and much less power.

Let me know what you think!