The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > General Royal Discussion

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 06-02-2012, 03:29 PM
prinz_von_buzim's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rijeka, Croatia
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
That would be the Habsburg Monarchy who ruled Austria until 1918. The Austrian branch fell in 1740, just did some checking. I didn't know Croatia was ruled by Habsburgs until 1918?




Robin Hood and Mr Bean do very little to promote the popularity of the British Monarchy.

Yes they are popular, the question was why?
The British Royal wedding was apparently watched by 122 million people, in comparison it was reported that 750 million watched the wedding of Charles and Diana. Popularity might be decreasing?


Yes, Croatia was ruled by Habsburgs from 1527 to 1918.


Yes, question was why and I responded why. Also, I have described you and explained you why historical power can't be the reason. Croatia is a small state but there are many countries in central Europe that had similar non-english history, and also there british dynasty is the most popular and the best known. So explain me how could british royals become more popular if not because of anglisation through movies and music and general anglo-american dominance in popular culture.
__________________

__________________
  #42  
Old 06-02-2012, 03:46 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by prinz_von_buzim View Post
So explain me how could british royals become more popular if not because of anglisation through movies and music and general anglo-american dominance in popular culture.
My answer is you don't have to be ruled by a country to know of it.
I refused to admit that my Monarch is known throughout the world because of movies (based solely on the fact they are apparently based on British history) and music (for which I have no other explanation than the majority is in English).
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #43  
Old 06-02-2012, 03:49 PM
prinz_von_buzim's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Rijeka, Croatia
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
My answer is you don't have to be ruled by a country to know of it.
I refused to admit that my Monarch is known throughout the world because of movies (based solely on the fact they are apparently based on British history) and music (for which I have no other explanation than the majority is in English).

So you deny it as a reason, but you didn't tell what is the reason then.
__________________
  #44  
Old 06-02-2012, 03:53 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,317
Before PD, people in the US laughed at the BRF. They were not cool. We loved Princess Grace and her family. After PG died, PC fired her public relations lady. I think PC felt overwhelmed with the papparazzi and still does today. If you want publicity who don't file lawsuits left and right. Monaco has been hiding the Casiraghis from the US. This has been implied in both Vanity Fair and the NY times recently. Some people in the US follow the BRF today because: 1) they speak English 2) they have a big PR department that feeds the American press and 3) people like Will and Kate. They act like normal people. They ARE NOT even close in popularity as American film, tv and rock stars.
__________________
  #45  
Old 06-02-2012, 03:55 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by prinz_von_buzim View Post
So you deny it as a reason, but you didn't tell what is the reason then.
In my very first post in this thread (on page one), I stated my two reasons why I believe the monarchy is the most popular, tradition and Lady Diana Spencer.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #46  
Old 06-02-2012, 03:58 PM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by layla01 View Post
Hi all,
Celebrating the Diamond jubilee, I wonder how come international media is always covering the british royal family, but hardly mention the other royal families.
Why do you think that is?
Thanks
Because yanks only knew of the Queen E II before Marengo and I joined this Forum...we educated the rest of the world....sort of....No...heck...come to think of it...I´ve hit base there...
__________________
  #47  
Old 06-02-2012, 04:22 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
It has no "political" baggage, but if take a glimpse into history and see the abdication, the mistresses, the name changes, the (current) divorces, money issues, the general all round scandals that family has baggage and HM has done a grand job of making up for her predecessors errors.
True, but the BRF's mistresses, name changes, divorces, money issues, etc. are all "soap opera"-type problems that haven't harmed anyone in the same way that, say, the Italian and Greek royal families' involvement in politics did (by supporting dictators), the Habsburgs' rule did (by running countries that wanted to be independent), the Hohenzollerns did (by helping start WWI), etc. I wouldn't think that there would be historical animosity against the BRF for its divorces, money issues, etc. like there would be against the Italian/Greek royal families, the Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FanofMonaco View Post
They ARE NOT even close in popularity as American film, tv and rock stars.
Polls suggest otherwise- the BRF has approval in the US of around 80%.
__________________
  #48  
Old 06-02-2012, 04:26 PM
doric44's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: toronto, Canada
Posts: 147
i think its a number of factors not just any one single thing.. the former British empire and many countries connections to it. i mean they did controll 1/4 of the worlds landmass and like 500 million people
esp rich ones like Canada Australia and New Zealand with lots of their media covering them.
even India i think certain segments still look to the UK. then obviously you have the American fascination with the BRF esp princess Diana.
and now William and Kate their marriage was heavily covered here in north America and throughout the industrialized world .


and i think a big reason is Queen Elizabeth herself she has reigned for 60 years and traveled to countless countries in that time . she is a popular cultural icon. she is one of the most recognized people in the world.
the royal family is a brand and her face is the logo. right up there with coca-cola and MacDonalds and Apple and some may not like that but its true .

you could go to some tiny village in china and i guarantee you show a picture of her and ask who is that... they will say the Queen of England the coca-cola logo they will say coke
__________________
  #49  
Old 06-02-2012, 04:54 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by layla01 View Post
Hi all,
Celebrating the Diamond jubilee, I wonder how come international media is always covering the british royal family, but hardly mention the other royal families.
Why do you think that is?
Thanks
Frankly, I have no idea.

But they are missing some very fascinating and interesting stories in the other Royal Houses, that is for certain!
__________________
  #50  
Old 06-02-2012, 05:08 PM
MissByrd's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ashburn, United States
Posts: 118
This is an interesting topic to contemplate and lots of thoughtful answers. Language, culture, the breadth of the Commonwealth...all seem to be part of the answer. My ancestors came to the US from England in the late 1600's...a long time ago to still feel a "tie". But, we speak the same language, study the same literature, etc.

But, I think another reason is "the Media". Honestly, they are ignorant and insular. They seem unaware that there are other Countries with extremely interesting royal families with fascinating histories. And, much of what they report about the BRF is inaccurate. They would rather report on the boring and trashy activities of the movie and sports types. During William and Catherine's wedding, they must have had one camera devoted to David Beckham, but one little clip of the other European royals arriving. I heard one of our more well-known media saying (in her haughty voice) that here was the Crown Princess of Spain whose name is Patricia.

I have told many people about the beauty of Crown Princess Victoria's incredible wedding and sent them youtube clips. Almost all had little knowledge of Sweden, but loved seeing it.

Lucien, I remember reading Hans Brinker as a child and wanting to know more about your beautiful Country.

For me, it has been a fascination with history, the pleasure of good books and music that made me aware of people beyond my own space.

Thankfully, those of us here on TRF are not limited to one royal family. Smile...
__________________
"...and we can most truly say that they all lived happily ever after. But for them it was only the beginning of the real story." C.S. Lewis (The Chronicles of Narnia)
  #51  
Old 06-02-2012, 05:17 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,520
Miss Byrd, I completely agree with every incredible word...particularly about the insular, unsophisticated and in some cases blatantly ignorant American media.

I will never forget when Prince William was christened and a certain very famous anchorwoman interviewed a spokesperson for Buckingham Palace and actually asked why it was necessary to baptize the Prince.

How I cringed with embarrassment...

In all fairness, the lousy William/Kate wedding coverage wasn't all down to the American outlets. I only watched the BBC, thinking their coverage of the event would naturally be moving and outstanding.

WRONG. The BBC kept their cameras almost exclusively on the Beckhams out of all the other wedding guests. They all but ignored the Continental Royals, only bothering to identify one or two of them..and they even misidentified one!

It was such a disappointment.
__________________
  #52  
Old 06-02-2012, 05:24 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by layla01 View Post
Hi all,
Celebrating the Diamond jubilee, I wonder how come international media is always covering the british royal family, but hardly mention the other royal families.
Why do you think that is?
Thanks
Probably the same reason why the British media are apparently ignorant of all the other royal families - I have no idea why though.
__________________
J
  #53  
Old 06-02-2012, 06:26 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by prinz_von_buzim View Post
But the fact is that british royal family just IS more popular than others.
Popular is different from being well-known. I think the BRF is well-known - she is Head of State, correct? So that means when anyone's president or dictator or ruler or whatever - Head of State - comes to England on a State visit, they meet the Head of State, the Queen - correct? Do I have this right? Its not the same in other countries like Sweden or Spain or such-like.

Anyway, I think its a mistake to equate being well known with being popular. It sounds odd to say that the BRF is popular in the US. Is it? Do people really think in those terms about the BRF? It just is. A fact. People don't really turn out here for British royal visits the way they do in the Commonwealth countries - except perhaps the Queen/King - but even then the turn-out is not impressive - pretty marginal - people have to be urged out there and even then don't bother unless they happen to be in the area when an event happens near them. How this idea got started that they are popular, I don't know.
__________________
  #54  
Old 06-02-2012, 06:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 665
If the French Monarchy still existed I think it would be even more popular. It certainly be more grand IMO.
__________________
  #55  
Old 06-02-2012, 07:04 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalistbert View Post
If the French Monarchy still existed I think it would be even more popular. It certainly be more grand IMO.
I agree.

In fact, just as a point of interest - when I was growing up I had a fascination with old films, particularly one's from the 1930's, and they most often had as a focal point continental or Russian nobility and royalty - if they were about royalty or dealt with characters that were royal or noble. Never do I recall the British nobility or monarchy coming into the frame. For lushness and grandness the Russian aristocracy was a staple, in fact.

Even in the 1950's we had Audrey Hepburn as a continental royal in 'Roman Holiday'. We had Ingrid Bergman as a questionable Russian Grand Duchess in Anastasia. We had Grace Kelly as a continental royal in 'The Swan'. Then there were the early - and not so early - film versions of 'Anna Karenina' and 'War and Peace'.

The Abdication in the 1930's - because it involved an American - certainly was news here and the films and talk of it in archival footage cannot be avoided. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were a staple of society news reports right through into the 1970's - probably because the Duchess was American, though so was Princess Margaret and all her doings noted. In the end, scandal and reprobate behavior always garners interest.
__________________
  #56  
Old 06-02-2012, 07:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
Popular is different from being well-known. I think the BRF is well-known - she is Head of State, correct? So that means when anyone's president or dictator or ruler or whatever - Head of State - comes to England on a State visit, they meet the Head of State, the Queen - correct? Do I have this right? Its not the same in other countries like Sweden or Spain or such-like.
If a visit by a foreign head of state is to be considered a State visit, they have to meet the head of state in the country they are visiting, and the monarch is the head of state in every monarchy, be it the U.K., Sweden or Spain.
__________________
  #57  
Old 06-02-2012, 07:09 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
It's not only the American media who pay no attention to other royal families, it's also the British media. In all honesty, if you asked the average Briton which European countries have monarchies, let alone the names of any of the European royals, I think 90% wouldn't have a clue.

Part of the reason for the huge interest in the BRF is the English language. With the exception of Wikipedia, it's very difficult to find newspaper articles or documentaries about the other royal families that are in anything other than their own native tongue. There are no documentaries on the Danish royals, for instance, that are not in Danish; or at least there are very few. This immediately makes it much more difficult for the average non-Danish speaker to learn anything other than the Wikipedia basics on the Danish RF. With English being the international language, so many people around the world have some English, so learning more about the BRF is much easier. Plus, if Brazilian TV want to air a documentary on the BRF it's very easy for them to find linguists to translate the contents of such a programme from English, than it would be to translate a Danish documentary from Danish to Brazilian Portugese.

I think Americans have a particular fascination, and as seen in recent polls, a certain affection for the British monarchy because, had the US not declared independence from the UK, they would be their royal family too. Had things been different, QEII could be Queen of the US as well as Canada, Australia and NZ etc. I think that engenders a curiosity about the royals, and I think Americans are interested to look at the royals and think about how their nation would be different in that scenario.
__________________
  #58  
Old 06-02-2012, 07:15 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meraude View Post
If a visit by a foreign head of state is to be considered a State visit, they have to meet the head of state in the country they are visiting, and the monarch is the head of state in every monarchy, be it the U.K., Sweden or Spain.
Thank you. So I guess that doesn't factor in. Though I have to say, I recall pictures of our presidents at Buckingham Palace with the Queen - but not with other monarchs. Strange blank.
__________________
  #59  
Old 06-02-2012, 07:41 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
Thank you. So I guess that doesn't factor in. Though I have to say, I recall pictures of our presidents at Buckingham Palace with the Queen - but not with other monarchs. Strange blank.
Google Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan.

Maybe lack of Royal popularity is a West Coast thing? When the BRF comes to where I've lived, it's been a major event.
__________________
  #60  
Old 06-02-2012, 07:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanofMonaco View Post
Before PD, people in the US laughed at the BRF. They were not cool. We loved Princess Grace and her family. .
I disagree entirely; I don't know a single person who laughed at the BRF. There has always been lots of interest.

As for Princess Grace, she was much admired, but after she died no one paid much attention to the Grimaldis except when the tabloids mentioned the latest scandal. But press coverage was restricted to only tabloids once Grace was gone. None of the respectable papers mentioned them.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman picture of the month pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:48 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]