The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   General Royal Discussion (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/)
-   -   Why are the Windsors more popular then other royal families? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/why-are-the-windsors-more-popular-then-other-royal-families-33165.html)

layla01 06-02-2012 10:47 AM

Why are the Windsors more popular then other royal families?
 
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

Charlotte_Aster 06-02-2012 10:49 AM

Because they speak english?

Lumutqueen 06-02-2012 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte_Aster
Because they speak english?

I don't know a royal family that doesn't speak English. I honestly think it's for two reasons, tradition and Diana.

royalistbert 06-02-2012 10:55 AM

Maybe because one time their family head of largest empire on earth. ;)

Al_bina 06-02-2012 10:58 AM

:previous:
That is correct. The late Diana, Princess of Wales, added tabloid recognition after the empire decline.

NGalitzine 06-02-2012 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalistbert (Post 1423775)
Maybe because one time their family head of largest empire on earth. ;)

The Empire, the Commonwealth and the English language spread the influence of Britain and its monarchy around the world.

Probably in Latin America you would find more news on the Spanish Royal Family because of the former Spanish Empire and the Spanish language.

Tyger 06-02-2012 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 1423779)
:previous:
That is correct. The late Diana, Princess of Wales, added tabloid recognition after the empire decline.

Not so - though she certainly increased the tempo - 'Majesty' magazine came into being primarily because of interest in the new marriage of Charles and Diana, and Diana in particular. However, Diana very rapidly became a scandal (as did Sarah) - and that's what was sizzling the tabloids. Prior to Diana, the BRF - and particularly the 'dashing Prince Charlie' - ears and all - was tabloid fodder. Hardly a day/week/month went by without speculations about Charles' girlfriends and trips abroad showing him dancing with exotic beauties or being kissed in the Australian surf by a sweet young thing (that one was a set-up by a photo-journalist). Little snippets were routine in 'Time' and in 'Newsweek' magazines in the People section.

Also, there were documentaries, and the Investiture and Princess Anne's wedding and Olympic career. Tons of stuff was always out there - and probably its because the US is for obvious reasons of history, language and culture connected to Britain. We're joined at the hip, like it or not, so there is a market for all things British in the US which includes the BRF.

In fact, I think it was with the Queen's children - particularly Charles and Anne - reaching adulthood and Charles reaching marriageable age (particularly) that began the strong interest among young adult women. Diana entered the royal family at a time of already great interest in the royal family - of a kind that wasn't there in the 1950's and 1960's. I think its long been surmised that the public interest got whetted with a documentary the Queen allowed to be made about the private lives of the royals in the late 1960's - which opened the floodgates of interest in the 1970's and which Charles continued when he allowed documentaries to be filmed about their family life and work life in the 1980's. Becoming media 'stars' like that changed the playing field substantially for the BRF. (Rupert Murdoch probably also did - much of the weirdness of the 1980's and 1990's around the BRF I think was a function of Murdoch and his tabloid journalism style).

I suspect that if any other royal family began allowing documentaries about their lives - and had someone like Rupert Murdoch to stir the pot with salacious gossip true or not - we would at once find that royal family noted in the press. Press attention is usually a function of an event large enough to garner general press coverage - films/documentaries serve that purpose.

NGalitzine 06-02-2012 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyger (Post 1423796)
I suspect that if any other royal family began allowing documentaries about their lives - we would at once find that royal family noted in the press. Press attention is usually a function of an event large enough to garner general press coverage - films/documentaries serve that purpose.

Not so much. The Danish royal family have done documentaries on their daily lives, they give interviews (including The Queen), they have had the big weddings and the big jubilee celebrations, lots of glam white tie & tiara events, but they do not attract the same international attention outside of Scandinavia and perhaps Australia, because Denmark is a small country that has not had a global empire and spread its language and culture around the world. The US is the worlds major media market, but I would guess very few Americans can speak Danish or perhaps even find Denmark on a map, there is little historical connection so the American people and their media pay little attention to the Danish monarchy.

Al_bina 06-02-2012 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyger (Post 1423796)
Not so - though she certainly increased the tempo - 'Majesty' magazine came into being primarily because of interest in the new marriage of Charles and Diana, and Diana in particular. However, Diana very rapidly became a scandal (as did Sarah) - and that's what was sizzling the tabloids. Prior to Diana, the BRF - and particularly the 'dashing Prince Charlie' - ears and all - was tabloid fodder. Hardly a day/week/month went by without speculations about Charles' girlfriends and trips abroad showing him dancing with exotic beauties or being kissed in the Australian surf by a sweet young thing (that one was a set-up by a photo-journalist). Little snippets were routine in 'Time' and in 'Newsweek' magazines in the People section ... [snipped]

A large portion of the US had no interest in all things you have listed. One might say that various documentaries were seen by a small cluster of residents of Palo Alto or Berkeley, who try hard to appear highly intellectual. The late Diana, Princess of Wales, was viewed as appealing by an average American because of her charity work and outgoing personality excessively covered by US mass outlets.

Erin9 06-02-2012 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalistbert (Post 1423775)
Maybe because one time their family head of largest empire on earth. ;)

I think that's the main reason. So many countries today have a connection to Britain. Certainly in the U.S., that is the reason for the popularity imo. We are so bound to England via history, traditions, and language, there is naturally an interest.

I don't think Diana is a huge factor. She added some glitz, glamour, tragedy, controversy, etc, but the public was interested in them long before Diana and this interest has continued long after. (IIRC QEII was on the cover of Time magazine in the U.S. at age 3--which was before anyone thought she'd be queen.)

I really don't attribute William, Harry, and Kate's popularity primarily to Diana. They're young, good looking, and the next generation of royals in the family. IOW, I don't think it would matter who their mother was: the interest would still be there.

Tyger 06-02-2012 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 1423812)
A large portion of the US had no interest in all things you have listed. Perhaps it is applicable to a small cluster of residents of Palo Alto or Berkeley. The late Diana, Princess of Wales, was viewed as appealing by an average American because of her charity work and outgoing personality.

Hmmm...not really sure what you mean about Palo Alto and Berkeley. :confused:

Since I was very much around during everything I have listed I do know that the BRF was followed in the US Press in the way I have said - and I was one of the young people interested - a very long ways away from Palo Alto. I recall watching the Investiture on television, I recall watching Princess Anne's wedding with the same wrapped attention as I would years later with Prince Charles' wedding.

To be honest I don't think there is an 'average' American who cares about Diana's charity work. Diana was famous - pure and simple - for her looks and her sexy wardrobe - that's it. Personal physical attributes made Diana famous - and because she was married to the heir to the British Throne - charity work (its always pretty fuzzy to an 'average' American what the royal is actually doing) and personality were side points. She had a nice smile - that's not personality.

Erin9 06-02-2012 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 1423779)
:previous:
That is correct. The late Diana, Princess of Wales, added tabloid recognition after the empire decline.

Well, if we're talking about tabloid recognition--as in the junk "papers" in the U.S.-- then Fergie deserves credit, too. She was ALL over the tabloids in the early 90s--as a scandal. THEN, she worked on changing her image in the late 90s. A lot of that was via the U.S. media and work opportunities--ie Oprah, Weight Watchers.

Why? IMO because Americans were and are curious about TRF and Fergie was willing to talk about them. Yes, that included Diana, but she was not the sole focus of the conversation. Furthermore, Americans tend to like seeing people pick themselves back up again.

Erin9 06-02-2012 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyger (Post 1423818)
To be honest I don't think there is an 'average' American who cares about Diana's charity work. Diana was famous - pure and simple - for her looks and her sexy wardrobe - that's it. Personal physical attributes made Diana famous - and because she was married to the heir to the British Throne - charity work (its always pretty fuzzy to an 'average' American what the royal is actually doing) and personality were side points. She had a nice smile - that's not personality.

Agreed. That was mainly it. It wasn't the charity work that made her popular here. That was "nice", but certainly not the reason for the public's fascination with her. And, when she wanted to, she played the victim very well--which also got her attention. It was the fairy tale gone wrong.

Tyger 06-02-2012 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 1423812)
A large portion of the US had no interest in all things you have listed. One might say that various documentaries were seen by a small cluster of residents of Palo Alto or Berkeley, who try hard to appear highly intellectual. The late Diana, Princess of Wales, was viewed as appealing by an average American because of her charity work and outgoing personality excessively covered by US mass outlets.

Having actually lived in Palo Alto at one time, in the rarified atmosphere of the eminent Stanford University, I can vouch that no one would have thought me - anyway - an intellectual (of all things) for having watched a documentary on the British Royal Family. ;) Maybe for other things :tongue: but not for that. :smile:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1423805)
Not so much. The Danish royal family have done documentaries on their daily lives, they give interviews (including The Queen), they have had the big weddings and the big jubilee celebrations, lots of glam white tie & tiara events, but they do not attract the same international attention outside of Scandinavia and perhaps Australia, because Denmark is a small country that has not had a global empire and spread its language and culture around the world. The US is the worlds major media market, but I would guess very few Americans can speak Danish or perhaps even find Denmark on a map, there is little historical connection so the American people and their media pay little attention to the Danish monarchy.

Thank you for this - so I stand corrected. Wish those documentaries were aired here - but it probably has to do with the language thing, as someone mentioned. To show here there would have to be someone dubbing or making subtitles. Thing is, I think there is a market for it - its just gone unrecognized. Or - more likely - its been analyzed and decided its not enough profit for the trouble.

Al_bina 06-02-2012 12:19 PM

I think that the British royal family was/is popular because of its glorious past and Crown Princely couple, who dragged the reputation of the family through mud.
Having visited Palo Alto, I can say there is a rarified atmosphere of faux intellectuals, who tend to ask stupid questions and argue about things they do not understand.

Tyger 06-02-2012 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 1423832)
I think that the British royal family was/is popular because of its glorious past and Crown Princely couple, who dragged the reputation of the family through mud.
Having visited Palo Alto, I can say there is a rarified atmosphere of faux intellectuals, who tend to ask stupid questions and argue about things they do not understand.

Ah, I see, personal experience - and your personal experience, backed up by your own credentials as an intellectual (I'm betting - and a love for all things American :tongue: ), is the defining experience of a place? LATER: I apologize for this remark. I don't see myself as as ever being (intentionally) snarky, yet on re-reading, I believe I flared a bit and this is. Al_bina, I apologize. :sad:

P.S. I don't think the BRF can be said to be 'popular' because of the scandals - I think the word or phrase you are looking for is 'well known'.

P.P.S. Just for the record, Americans can be abysmally ill-informed about issues elsewhere in the world - never let it be said that an American let the facts (or lack thereof) get in the way of having and voicing an opinion. :rolleyes: Agreed. (Its a free country, after all - and the lack of threat of retaliation for an opinion makes for sloppy thinking, I sometimes think). I suspect others in other parts of the world can be as ill-informed but they are ill-informed far more rigorously. :tongue: People expect so much more of the US and Americans (for lots of reasons) and when it and they do not measure up, its startling, and disheartening, no doubt.

Mirabel 06-02-2012 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyger (Post 1423818)
To be honest I don't think there is an 'average' American who cares about Diana's charity work. Diana was famous - pure and simple - for her looks and her sexy wardrobe - that's it. Personal physical attributes made Diana famous - and because she was married to the heir to the British Throne - charity work (its always pretty fuzzy to an 'average' American what the royal is actually doing) and personality were side points. She had a nice smile - that's not personality.


I agree; I doubt if one American in fifty could name one of Diana's charities, but everyone still knows who she is.

Also, American interest in the BRF long predated Diana; Royal Weddings were televised back in the days of Princess Alexandra (my mother watched that).
There was huge press interest whenever Charles visited the US, and that was before he married Diana.

I'm not sure why so many Americans follow the BRF and are totally ignorant of other Royal Families; I'm inclined to attribute it to the special relationship between the UK and the US. In a strange sort of way, we think of them as ours.

We share a common culture, so we have many common interests.
And perhaps others feel as I do, jealous of the Jubilee festivities! :flowers:

prinz_von_buzim 06-02-2012 12:56 PM

I didn't read all the posts above, so I am sorry if I say something that is already said above.

Fact that british royal family is so more popular than others is because they are english. If there was any american royal family, it would be definately more popular, but as USA has no royal tradition, the most popular family is british one.

Why? From the same reason as everything else. Why is 90% of serials and movies about USA or UK? Why is globally popular music in 90% of cases english or american (even when it is not, it is sang in english language)? And so on...

We live in period of anglo-american domination in world. This domination is maybe not as much felt in political power as it is on cultural level. Because for example in states like Russia, where USA has no political influence, young people are very americanizied. On the other hand, russian cultural influence in world doesn't even exist.

Lumutqueen 06-02-2012 01:30 PM

I disagree that they are popular just because they are British , they're not even the oldest royal family. Whilst English is a widely spoken language, every royal speaks English AFAIK, because at one stage that was the language spoken by the most people.

They are popular because of tradition, they once ruled 3/4 of the world and the sun never set on the Empire.

NGalitzine 06-02-2012 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1423874)
I disagree that they are popular just because they are British , they're not even the oldest royal family. Whilst English is a widely spoken language, every royal speaks English AFAIK, because at one stage that was the language spoken by the most people.

They are popular because of tradition, they once ruled 3/4 of the world and the sun never set on the Empire.

Its not that they speak English and other families don't (they do), its that the British Empire/Commonwealth spread the English language around the world providing a historic/cultural link that other European royal families don't have to the same extend. The only family comparable would be the Spanish royal family due to their historic links with Latin America.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises