A bit of a rant: I suppose I've got a bit of a new perspective (for me) and now I find I am forever seeing something that frankly annoys the stuffing out of me.
I've noticed that newspaper articles about Royalty constantly make stupid mistakes. For example, one newspaper called Prince William of Wales a 'crown prince') and another said that Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice would lose their HRHs upon marriage. I realize that the knowledge represented in these forums is somewhat specialized, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that London-based reporters specializing in covering Royal news for English newspapers could get these sorts of things wrong.
What I think is happening is that these 'errors' are being made deliberately because inevitably one of us, or someone like us, will write in and correct the 'error.'
Then, the paper can use this contact between paper and reader to promote sales of advertising space or justify high prices for same. The paper will say, see how attentive our readers are? How responsive they are?
I further suspect that opinion articles about Royalty are being written to provoke similar response and for similar reasons. Op-ed writers will complain about the ugliness of the Princess Royal's hat or insist that Prince William is "useless" (I sure hope none of those who say he's useless ever need to be sought or rescued by helicopter!)
Furthermore, I find annoying those who complain about the wealth and laziness of the Royal Family. Plenty of people are richer, but they don't get the constant attacks. Perhaps folks just like to criticize and complain? I dislike republicans attacking the RF on personal grounds. Ad hominem attacks will only hold the republican cause back. How about doing something practical, like demonstrating how the UK would be better as a republic?
The RF are attacked for being insufficiently transparent--yes, public money must be accounted for properly, but it's nobody's business who wears boxers and who wears briefs. As far as I can see, the Queen runs a branch of the government--her branch is responsible for executing certain laws and procedures, for conducting certain diplomatic tasks, for handling important hospitality arrangements, and for liasoning between the nonprofit sector (charities), the government, and the people. In the US, the president must carry out both head of state and head of government duties. One can see in photographs the physical strain this pair of jobs puts on one who is after all only a mortal man. With social duties handled by the RF, the PM can concentrate more (quality and quantity) on political and economic matters. With the mess in Egypt and its terrifying potential consequences, I sure don't want Mr Obama opening any hospitals just now!
I think that the UK needs to make up its mind about what it wants from their RF. It's unfair to constantly criticise. I remember before Princess Diana passed, the RF were depicted as inhuman, bereft of normal family feelings. This was seemingly confirmed in the days after she died, when they stayed in Scotland. Now, with Alistair Campbell's diaries published, we know that Princes William and Harry were balking at making a public spectacle because they were so upset and didn't want to do anything that could be construed as pleasing the press. So if the press were saying come to London, show us your sorrow, they were more determined to stay in Scotland. The RF were, after all, doing what real human beings would do--protecting the bereaved boys!
End rant. For now. God save The Queen (from the her critics)
I've noticed that newspaper articles about Royalty constantly make stupid mistakes. For example, one newspaper called Prince William of Wales a 'crown prince') and another said that Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice would lose their HRHs upon marriage. I realize that the knowledge represented in these forums is somewhat specialized, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that London-based reporters specializing in covering Royal news for English newspapers could get these sorts of things wrong.
What I think is happening is that these 'errors' are being made deliberately because inevitably one of us, or someone like us, will write in and correct the 'error.'
Then, the paper can use this contact between paper and reader to promote sales of advertising space or justify high prices for same. The paper will say, see how attentive our readers are? How responsive they are?
I further suspect that opinion articles about Royalty are being written to provoke similar response and for similar reasons. Op-ed writers will complain about the ugliness of the Princess Royal's hat or insist that Prince William is "useless" (I sure hope none of those who say he's useless ever need to be sought or rescued by helicopter!)
Furthermore, I find annoying those who complain about the wealth and laziness of the Royal Family. Plenty of people are richer, but they don't get the constant attacks. Perhaps folks just like to criticize and complain? I dislike republicans attacking the RF on personal grounds. Ad hominem attacks will only hold the republican cause back. How about doing something practical, like demonstrating how the UK would be better as a republic?
The RF are attacked for being insufficiently transparent--yes, public money must be accounted for properly, but it's nobody's business who wears boxers and who wears briefs. As far as I can see, the Queen runs a branch of the government--her branch is responsible for executing certain laws and procedures, for conducting certain diplomatic tasks, for handling important hospitality arrangements, and for liasoning between the nonprofit sector (charities), the government, and the people. In the US, the president must carry out both head of state and head of government duties. One can see in photographs the physical strain this pair of jobs puts on one who is after all only a mortal man. With social duties handled by the RF, the PM can concentrate more (quality and quantity) on political and economic matters. With the mess in Egypt and its terrifying potential consequences, I sure don't want Mr Obama opening any hospitals just now!
I think that the UK needs to make up its mind about what it wants from their RF. It's unfair to constantly criticise. I remember before Princess Diana passed, the RF were depicted as inhuman, bereft of normal family feelings. This was seemingly confirmed in the days after she died, when they stayed in Scotland. Now, with Alistair Campbell's diaries published, we know that Princes William and Harry were balking at making a public spectacle because they were so upset and didn't want to do anything that could be construed as pleasing the press. So if the press were saying come to London, show us your sorrow, they were more determined to stay in Scotland. The RF were, after all, doing what real human beings would do--protecting the bereaved boys!
End rant. For now. God save The Queen (from the her critics)