Discussion about the Windsors' Social Views / Activism

[JessRulz]

Following recent discussions elsewhere in the British Forum, the moderating team has created this new thread to discuss the social views and/or activism of the British Royal Family as a whole or individuals. The purpose is to keep comparison discussions out of individual news threads.

We request that members keep any comparisons to a minimum, and based on fact not opinion. Posts that venture too far into comparative narratives will be removed.

The moderating team would also like to remind you all that the media and journalists are off-topic.

Please direct any questions to the moderating team via PM.

 

[Lilyflo]

Thank you moderating team for this opportunity to discuss the BRF's work in general rather than just individually. There have been some occasions when I'd have liked to post about how several people have supported similar causes but that's more difficult in threads on specific members so this thread should provide a place for that.

 

[victor1319]

Charity Royalty?

I like the idea of this thread!

And I hope not to hijack it, because I understood something wrong... but what is the function of the "Social Activism" of the Windsors?

They are not allowed to interfere into the political sphere, obviously. Does this mean "Social Activism" is not political? I would say, the social question is the most political question of all of them!

And besides this: What does royalty have to to with charity anyway? Is this meant in a way in which the royals can lay the finger into some wounds of society (of course to heal them)? Or are they just making up for their political impotence by doing so?

 

[MARG]

Well, I guess that depends on what you understand as being "Social Activism". There are many, many spheres of life that have been, at one time or another, overtly political yet are not in and of themselves political.

The BRF cannot actively promote a political party and the main line of succession don't vote but when HM's Troops were deployed on active service and their body armour was found to be sub-standard, MP's were too busy pointing fingers to sort it any time soon. The Queen 'asked' them to sort it. Now! They did.

I think that was the first Gulf war, last century. [emoji187]

 

[Osipi]

I like the idea of this thread!

And I hope not to hijack it, because I understood something wrong... but what is the function of the "Social Activism" of the Windsors?

They are not allowed to interfere into the political sphere, obviously. Does this mean "Social Activism" is not political? I would say, the social question is the most political question of all of them!

And besides this: What does royalty have to to with charity anyway? Is this meant in a way in which the royals can lay the finger into some wounds of society (of course to heal them)? Or are they just making up for their political impotence by doing so?

I take social activism to mean standing up and supporting something that, at the current time, is a blight on society and whispered about over back yard fences and perhaps not understood enough. A very good example, to me, of social activism by a royal was taken on by Diana when she was The Princess of Wales and she actively sought to educate people on the AIDS crisis that hit in the 80s.

It didn't go over too well that she wanted to do this and there were a lot of questions that needed answers at the time. I do think the biggest impact that I remember was Diana shaking hands with an AIDS patient in 1987 and that changed a whole lot of attitudes and eliminated some fear of AIDS being a contagious disease.

The range of social activism today reaches far and wide. From Camilla highlighting domestic violence to Harry bringing attention to the needs of sick and wounded service personnel adjusting to civilian life to the campaigns for mental health and homelessness. Things that affect all areas of our societies

 

[victor1319]

Thank you, MARG and Osipi, for the examples you brought up! They illustrate, what royals can all do.

 

[Dalriada]

While some modern royals deserve recognition for their contributions to social “Improvement” none of them reach the zenith of social vision of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort who A.N. Wilson expertly argues “ was at the vanguard of Victorian Britain’s transformation as a vibrant and extraordinary center of political, technological, scientific, and intellectual advancement..” Albert’s ideas for improving the housing and working conditions of working class Britons makes small beer of guest editing glossy mags etc..

 

[Gawin]

Although this article deals specifically with the Duchess of Sussex, it applies to all the royals and the fine line they must walk between social activism and politics:


https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...8/meghan-markle-vogue-radical-royalty/595288/

 

[Osipi]

While some modern royals deserve recognition for their contributions to social “Improvement” none of them reach the zenith of social vision of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort who A.N. Wilson expertly argues “ was at the vanguard of Victorian Britain’s transformation as a vibrant and extraordinary center of political, technological, scientific, and intellectual advancement..” Albert’s ideas for improving the housing and working conditions of working class Britons makes small beer of guest editing glossy mags etc..

You're absolutely right on this. What comes to mind when I think about Albert and his campaigns for the betterment of society was being an adamant figure standing up for abolishing slavery world wide. Its no wonder that Queen Victoria listened closely to this man. He was not only her husband and father to her children but also her chief adviser on so many things.

There's a big difference though between the the time of Albert and the working royals of today. Albert actually sat in the House of Lords and exercised his right to voice his opinions on things there whereas, today, that platform is no longer available for working members of the royal family.