Why Are The Windsors More Popular Than Other Royal Families?

[Meraude]

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.

As far as I know there have never been a State visit of a President of the U.S. to Sweden, the only U.S. president to visit Sweden was George W. Bush to Göteborg in 2001 to an E.U. summit, and I can't find any pictures from the meeting as there was lots of protests against the Bush visit.

Here is a picture of president Bush when visiting Denmark: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ark_welcome_George_W._Bush_and_Laura_Bush.jpg

 

[Tyger]

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.

I am currently an Angeleno but I am East Coast born and bred. I was living and working in the Washington D.C. area when Prince Charles came to visit with Camilla - I believe they were freshly married and she was a newly minted Duchess. There was a fair amount of newspaper articles about them - I recall reading them - but people didn't flow out of shops and onto the streets to gather as they passed by. There was respectful interest - and very positive newspaper coverage - but by no means would I categorize it as a 'major event'. Perhaps it has something to do with D.C.?

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.

Interesting perspective. Nothing I think about when I am reading about the royals, though.

 

[EIIR]

It also should be pointed out that anyone under 30 will probably have very little personal recollection of Diana, other than her death. I was about 12 when she died and I don't really remember much about her from before her death, other than what I've read in a few royal books in the last couple of years. So I don't think you can really say that young people especially became interested in the BRF because of her.

The BRF are also the subject of a number of Hollywood films, with The Queen and The King's Speech both having significant success at the box office and winning many Oscars.

 

[Kit]

That would be the Habsburg Monarchy who ruled Austria until 1918. The Austrian branch fell in 1740, just did some checking.

Sorry, I have to put my 2 cents in:

The Austrian Habsburg branch didn't fall in 1740, after Karl VI. death the male line was extinguished. His eldest daughter Maria Theresia took over and together with her husband founded the new house Habsburg-Lothringen which ruled Austria and the whole Austrian-Hungarian monarchy of which Croatia was a part until 1918.

Okay now back to topic: I don't know why the BRF is more famous than all the other royal families but I can tell you that here in Austria that interest in the Royals began with Diana's marriage to Charles. Before the wedding nobody cared about the British monarchy and suddenly there was this huge interest in them. The few scandals during their marriage and the widespread media coverage certainly helped that since then the interest in them never came to an end.

The weddings in all the other Royal families (e.g. Mette-Marit & Haakon, Maxima & Willem-Alexander, Mary and Fred, Letizia and Felipe, Victoria and Daniel and now Wills and Kate) suddenly caused a public interest in these monarchies too. And thanks to all the births of the children and as it is the case in Sweden and now also Spain the scandals caused by the kings the public interest is as high as it never was before.

 

[Super Baroness]

I'm speaking as California girl, but I think the main reason they are "more popular" (in the sense of being more well-known/bigger following) is simply because all the media that surrounds the BRF is presented in English: day to day engagements, weddings, special events, etc. Even though nearly every other royal family speaks English, it's rare that they have a broadcasted event in English. There's a reason I never really got into families other than the British: I just never had the patience to watch something (i.e. Swedish wedding, Danish christening) that I didn't understand. So I just think it's that the British Royal Family is more accessible - I mean, this is an English speaking forum but has members from all over! Which is awesome btw! Similarly, that's why at least American magazines are more willing to cover the BRF.

It also should be pointed out that anyone under 30 will probably have very little personal recollection of Diana, other than her death. I was about 12 when she died and I don't really remember much about her from before her death, other than what I've read in a few royal books in the last couple of years. So I don't think you can really say that young people especially became interested in the BRF because of her.

I agree. The best example that I can personally think of was when I went to LA last year when William and Kate came and TV crews were interviewing people why they were there. The older women (and a few men) said they came because of Diana. The younger people (a group that I fall into) said they came because they liked William and Kate and wanted to see what Kate was wearing lol. For the record, I was there because I love the history of the BRF

 

[COUNTESS]

Yes, you are right same language and we have a connection. BUT, to many Americans, who could care less about any royalty, don't have any idea that the others exist, because they lead quiet, unheard of lives, while everything the BRF does is a major media event, everywhere. They love the limelight, whatever they say and make sure it is in the papers. Monaco gets affection here, because of Grace and to some extent her son is very Americanized.

 

[soapstar]

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?

That could be due to a number of reasons - the date of the wedding (Prince Charles and Diana married on a Saturday, while William and Kate married on a weekday), the fact that William and Kate aren't as popular as Charles and Diana, or maybe the fairy tale aspect that surrounded Prince Charles and Diana's wedding created a lot more excitement. We also have to take into account how much the media has changed. People no longer have to rely on television, they can now watch everything online.

So, I don't think it necessarily has to do with waning popularity. Especially since there seems to be such high interest in the Jubilee celebrations - they're predicting a global tv audience of 3 billion.

As for the number of people that watched W&K's wedding, it's hard to get an actual count since currently only 8 countries have reported their numbers (132 million people watched in those countries). In addition, those numbers don't include the people that watched rebroadcasts of the wedding, taped it to watch later, or watched it live online (72 million on youtube, etc).

So while I do think more people watched Charles and Diana's wedding, the actual numbers for W&K's wedding is higher than 122 million.

 

[Tyger]

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?

I always wondered about the figures - and had no idea the disparity was so great, being weighted towards Charles and Diana to such an extent. It was another time - Diana was the touted virgin bride (one cringes at that now - and then - it was odd even then) and young. It was a fresh and new story after years of waiting for Charles to marry. The thrill was that Charles was marrying - people forget that. That it was the Queen's son marrying.

William and Kate were older, had lived together - it was an older story - had gone on for a long time. Memory of the mother may not have played as well as people think. It may be because of the Saturday/Weekday thing, its true, at least to explain some of the numbers - that's a good point - but somehow I suspect its more banal than that.

 

[Erin9]

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.

IA we are interested in the BRF, but I don't think many ponder the " what if's" involving the monarchy. I don't think Americans can even imagine a monarch in the US after George III. I can't anyway. We are interested, but from afar. A big part of our history is the idea- not always the reality lol- of opportunity based on merit not who your parents are.

 

[EIIR]

I always wondered about the figures - and had no idea the disparity was so great, being weighted towards Charles and Diana to such an extent. It was another time - Diana was the touted virgin bride (one cringes at that now - and then - it was odd even then) and young. It was a fresh and new story after years of waiting for Charles to marry. The thrill was that Charles was marrying - people forget that. That it was the Queen's son marrying.

William and Kate were older, had lived together - it was an older story - had gone on for a long time. Memory of the mother may not have played as well as people think. It may be because of the Saturday/Weekday thing, its true, at least to explain some of the numbers - that's a good point - but somehow I suspect its more banal than that.

The disparity in the viewing figures between Charles and Diana's wedding and Will and Kate's wedding is very easily explained. Partly it's because it was on a Saturday, but also it was because in 1981 there were a grand total of 3 television channels available in the UK. Today there are almost 500; add in the fact that people can now record TV to watch later or stream it online whether live or at a more convenient time.

This is also why the ratings for the Queen's Speech on Christmas Day have fallen over the years, as previously the Speech was shown on 2 of the 3 channels at the same time, so most people saw it.

I would take all the TV ratings, particularly from 1981, with a big pinch of salt, as it's really impossible to say how many people were watching any of these events. The BBC said that when they took people who recorded last year's royal wedding to watch later, or streamed it via the BBC website, the number watching in the UK was around 34 million. That's big enough to put W&K's wedding in the top 10 most-watched British TV broadcasts ever.

 

[kyle]

This thread has made me question my being more interested in British royalty than other royal families. As a young teen, I became interested in midieval times. I used Encyclopidia Brittania to chart the English Kings and Queens through history

The house I grew up in is a Victorian. My grandparents were born in the Edwardian era. Prosperous Americans were fascinated with the English and French during these periods and would try to copy the styles. They would pursue marriages with the aristrocats in England to raise their status. Artists and writers flocked to England and France to absorb culture.

My grandmother and mother watched news reels about the British royals. My mother and I watched weddings and ceremonies on TV. We read articles in
Ladies Home Journal and McCalls about Elizabeth, Margaret, Anne. (As well as Queen Noor, Princess Grace and daughters) I had read biographies of Elizabeth 1 and Victoria.

I was 15 when Charles and Diana married. It was not my first exposure to the Windsors. I became aware of the European monarchies last year when I came on this site to follow William and Catherine's wedding.

 

[Meraude]

Queen Elizabeth is the only crowned (possibly the last crowned) monarch in Europe and she wears the full British royal regalia at the opening of the parliament, so when people think who is a queen/king, it's easy to remember her as she is the epitome of how a monarch should look on those pictures.

 

[LauraS3514]

That could be due to a number of reasons - the date of the wedding (Prince Charles and Diana married on a Saturday, while William and Kate married on a weekday), the fact that William and Kate aren't as popular as Charles and Diana, or maybe the fairy tale aspect that surrounded Prince Charles and Diana's wedding created a lot more excitement. We also have to take into account how much the media has changed. People no longer have to rely on television, they can now watch everything online.

Just a slight correction: Charles and Diana and Andrew and Sarah were married on Wednesday...I remember taking the days off work.

 

[soapstar]

^ Thanks for the correction. I don't know why I thought they married on a Saturday.

 

[nascarlucy]

In the United States you hear more about them than you do in other countries. That's probably one reason. If you live in Europe or in a particular country that has royalty, you hear about them more. There are some stories that I've only heard about due to reading royalty forums (birth of Princess Victoria's daughter for example).

 

[davidf85]

I believe it is because the United States is very intune with populat culture, and the U.S. was colonized by the British and there is plenty of English pride here even after the revolution.

 

[tihkon2]

I think it's as simple as these two reasons. They speak English and had a world wide empire more recently than say, Spain, and all the English speaking countries still have interest in the "mothership".
And secondly, they still do some things the most spectacularly as far as coronations and Jubilees. Don't underestimate how much luster a monarchy loses when the King or Queen no longer gets a coronation and where's a crown.

 

[COUNTESS]

They just have a lot of Ho Ha that follows them. They constantly use publicity. Other nations are much more circumspect. They are celebrities, although, they hate that word. Most people in this country, barely, know that any other royal families exist, as they don't make a public spectacle of everything they do and then go, oh we are "royal". Here it is just the show.

 

[EIIR]

Every royal family uses publicity, because everything the royal families do is essentially PR - they are constantly having to justify their existence. I believe Frederik and Mary of Denmark did a big spread for Vogue or Vanity Fair, posing in a whole host of fancy clothes and showing off their refurbished home. What is that other than publicity?

In every royal family tiaras are worn, medals and shiny orders are shared around, they still ride in carriages, dress up in military uniform, have royal weddings and royal christenings etc. etc. The European royals actually display more of their lives publicly than the British royals do. We've never seen the reception/speeches/dancing at any British royal wedding broadcast on TV and royal christenings are private events. In the rest of Europe the royals choose foreign royals as godparents to their children, which doesn't really happen in the UK anymore.

With the exception of the Coronation and the State Opening of Parliament, the British royals don't make anymore of a spectacle out of themselves than other royal families. It just so happens that because of the reach of our Empire, our language and our media, the interest in our royal family is huge compared to others.

 

[lucien]

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

They are not more popular,they are just known more as the world at large is "anglofile" by lack of better knowledge,one reason,the other being plain old ignorance,people haven't got a clue on what's what and where let alone who why and what for.Omnipotent backwardness it's called.Ce'st ca..Ce'st tout..

 

[RoyalistRiley]

They are not more popular,they are just known more as the world at large is "anglofile" by lack of better knowledge,one reason,the other being plain old ignorance,people haven't got a clue on what's what and where let alone who why and what for.Omnipotent backwardness it's called.Ce'st ca..Ce'st tout..

I think that saying "people haven't got a clue on what''s what" due to "omnipotent backwardness" is hardly a legitimate complaint. The simple fact is that the House of Windsor and their predecessors reigned over a quarter of the world's surface at one time and befitting the great power status that Britain held (whether it still does is a debate for another time) it is natural that more people would know about their royal family as opposed to somewhere like Luxembourg or Denmark and the general anglo-centric nature of popular culture today that you alluded to, especially in the case of the United States which seems to be unhealthily fascinated with royals seeing as they fought a war to get rid of them. Others are also right when they say that the British do pomp and ceremony better than anyone and that in turn attracts more attention. That's just how history has unfolded.

 

[mikebpool]

british royal

the main reason why the English monarchy is more popular in the world as a whole is simple its nothing to do with the late princess Diana or William and Kate or anything else. it is that its one the longest reigning monarchy in the world full of tradition which other lesser European monarchs have let go over the years none of them even have coronations anymore. no one can do pomp like the English can so you see its simple where simply the best thats all there is to it.
saying if the USA had a monarchy they would be popular is simply silly they share ours always have done not in a legal form but in a spiritlule form dont forget George the 111 was once king of the USA way back they cant forget that and hopefully never will

 

[Lumutqueen]

The USA don't 'share' our monarchy, they like their celebrities more than they like our monarchy. Other than Diana, William and Catherine and of course HM nobody knows the rest of the royal family, Edward and Sophie barely get any coverage when they go to Canada let alone the USA.

We do pomp and pageantry very well, it's been highlighted thanks to the Jubilee. But on a normal year the only events we have are the Trooping and the opening of parliament, and those events are only followed by royal watchers abroad.

 

[EIIR]

Actually, Trooping the Colour is broadcast live in several countries, and others show delayed highlights. I believe that Germany is one of the countries where it's shown live.

There is a unique bond between the Anglo-sphere countries which is hard to explain. The family ties are so deep that a lot of people here don't look at people from Australia, NZ or Canada as 'foreigners', but as kind of distant cousins (whom we like to beat at sporting events ). You'll struggle to find a family in the UK that doesn't have a family link to those countries. The link is probably not so deep with the US, but even even there estimates suggest that up to a quarter of Americans have some British ancestry. In the 1980 US census, over 32% of Americans claimed British ancestry, which would be the biggest single ethnic group in the US.

There's also the fact that after their neighbours in Canada and Mexico, the UK is the most popular destination for Americans travelling abroad. QEII has an approval rating of over 80% among citizens of the US. She, Charles, William, Kate and Harry would be quite well-known there.

All of this, I think, fosters a certain curiosity which goes both ways. The lack of a language barrier makes that curiosity fairly easy to satisfy.

What I don't understand is countries with their own monarchies being interested in ours. I mean, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain etc. all showed William and Kate's wedding live from what I remember. All have had their own big royal weddings, wouldn't that make them much less interested in another monarchy's activities than republics who don't have their own royal occasions?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Why they are popular? As Bruce Darnell would put it, Drama, Baby, Drama!

 

[miche]

^Why isn't Spain (Juan Carlos), Monaco (Albert, Caroline, Stephanie) and Sweden (Carl Gustav) more popular?

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I think it is similarities in language and culture that the BRF is more popular.If one does not speak a foreign language, it is too much work to follow.

 

[Grandduchess24]

I guess because of HM is a widely known image as monarch and also because of the Royal wedding, and William, Harry and the late princess Diana are popular and well known just like the duchess of Cambridge Is now with the rest of the BRF, or could it just be because we have a long history with the British and the monarchy?

 

[Mirabel]

The USA don't 'share' our monarchy, they like their celebrities more than they like our monarchy. Other than Diana, William and Catherine and of course HM nobody knows the rest of the royal family, Edward and Sophie barely get any coverage when they go to Canada let alone the USA.

I don't believe that (lack of coverage) means much; the Wessexes are simply too far down the line of succession to attract much attention anywhere, imo. (I think this is true even in the UK, where they are sent to less-important venues).


I do think many in the US share the monarchy; or at least they think they do.
(There were giant TV screens in Times Square to show the Royal Wedding; that doesn't happen for anyone else, not even the daughter of any president).

 

[dbarn67]

The British Empire compassed large portions of the planet for a long long time. The culture, mores and arts of most of the world, for good and for bad, has been led by the British.