Is The Royal Family Uninspiring or Isolated?

[ysbel]

I could see where a Brit as Head of State of Australia is not going to work anymore because Great Britain and Australia have different interests and political forces now.

But what does William and his lack of current direction have to do with that? The situation in Australia would remain the same regardless of William's attitude. On the contrary, it appears that the high regard that everyone regards the Queen has put a rather flimsy band-aid on a wound that is not likely to heal for the Australian state and the Queen's personal good reputation made it easy to forget that she still is an anomoly as a British woman who is the Head of State of a country she sees rarely and can not do a lot for.

I think this important fact becomes more obvious when one looks at Charles and later William but I don't think the truth of the situation and its relevance of the Crown to Australia is really changing that much because of William.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Camilla never worked at much either most of her life. What she does today, she is "forced" to do.

Oh please, so she didn't work in a shop or office, so what! I have never seen her with her arm twisted behind her back, details of food being with held, gun to her head, so it is totally inaccurate to suggest she is 'forced' to do anything. What she does today, she seems to enjoy and gives each and every event her full attention.

William is international. He is Diana's son. The torch bearer or the icon. Everything he does of is interest, nonsense or not

William seems to be more popular to the younger generation in the states, where the illusion of Diana as a princess, rather than an ordinary woman with problems, still exists. Other European countries have their own living well behaved prince and princesses now and frankly next to them, the word plank springs to mind when thinking of William.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

William seems to be more popular to the younger generation in the states, where the illusion of Diana as a princess, rather than an ordinary woman with problems, still exists. Other European countries have their own living well behaved prince and princesses now and frankly next to them, the word plank springs to mind when thinking of William.

I guess you are right about the mass media perception of Diana and William in the US. But I certainly do not feel the same way as the mass media/consumer feels about them. I am always insulted by what I read in the US mass market press about them. It's a bunch of baloney imho. No, actually, that's an insult to baloney to call it that. It insults the pig that made the baloney. Diana and William by themselves are fine; it's the stuff written about them in the mass media that is crap.

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Well, ok.... here's a few things Camilla has done in her life....

1) She has been a wife, twice
2) she is a mother to two apparently happy and successful people, both making her a grandmother now within close range of each other

Why is spending your adult life being a wife and mother considered worthless nowadays? It's not relevant anymore? It makes you weak or something, because you are out there busting your hump in some high-powered city job?
What made Diana more worthy to be Queen? Because she was a wife and mother too.... Diana did charity work, as does Camilla. Where is the difference?

Is the difference in the mistakes? The extramarital affairs? Because both Diana and Camilla did that.... And yet they were/are both in the position of being married to the Heir Apparent and being future Queen Consort.

I think both of them were/are worthy and their mistakes makes me like them more because I can relate to people who make mistakes. I can't stand people who come across perfectly polished. It intimidates the hell out of me. It scares me. I have to figure, if someone comes across so perfect, there must be something perfectly wrong!

Right you are noting that both ladies in question are just usual housewives "enhanced" by some official engagements and charity work. Nothing else really...

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

William seems to be more popular to the younger generation in the states, where the illusion of Diana as a princess, rather than an ordinary woman with problems, still exists.

I would say the most prolific dream factory of Diana as a fairytale princess and Camilla the evil stepmother is Richard Kay's columns at the Daily Mail-a British publication not well known in the States.

[Aurora810]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

I guess you are right about the mass media perception of Diana and William in the US. But I certainly do not feel the same way as the mass media/consumer feels about them. I am always insulted by what I read in the US mass market press about them. It's a bunch of baloney imho. No, actually, that's an insult to baloney to call it that. It insults the pig that made the baloney. Diana and William by themselves are fine; it's the stuff written about them in the mass media that is crap.

It seems that the tabloid stories are so welcomed in Britain. And frankly, people that are in positions like royals, I hate reading about like that. Save those stories for the dumb celebrities. In my opinion, it's the tabloids and scandals that have hurt this institution. I'm not sure who to blame, the media or the RF themselves for allowing themselves to become tabloid topics. Likely more blame falls on the royals for continuing to be tabloid targets. It seems that there should be a difference between royalty and celebrities but yet the difference seems to be fading away. The royals need to realize they are not average joes and they are not celebs. They are part of a royal family, that has a long standing tradition and they need to act appropriately.

[diamondBrg]

Starting with Prince Charles, I think the idea of absolute and unquestioning loyalty to traditions, ideas and concepts of the past are a thing of the past and the British people and the Commonwealth had better get use to that.

These folks are NOT as modern people going to any longer do the "Everything for God and Country" thing and I will just forget that I am a human being with my own life to live. HM is the last of that breed.

The Royal Family are personally and separate from the UK government extremely wealthy, they don't need one more penny from the "people" to live fabulously and luxuriously lifestyles for generations to come.

But the British people from all indications do need them and do want the class system that has been established for centuries.

The days of ordinary people telling very wealthy people what to do and how to do, and let's face it, it is all about jealousy and envy, are quickly coming to an end.

[Aurora810]

After thinking about things some more it occurred to me that this family has likely changed with the times more than the other RF’s. So maybe to some that should be seen as inspiring? To know that your RF is not really all that distant from having problems and issues like so many of the rest of the us and to see how they handle things maybe that’s inspiring? In what other RF has the crown prince(I know Charles isn’t technically called that but that is his position) married his mistress? A mistress that was vilified for many years by many in Britain and worldwide. How many other RF’s have had pics of members stumbling drunk out of a bar or have had stories about a member that has experimented with smoking pot?

I suppose it comes down to what you want in a royal family. Would you like a very perfect looking family that looks perfect and acts perfect all the time. Or would you rather have a RF that has had their moments of bad press and bad decisions from time to time, but yet still stands rather proud. No one is perfect and just because they are royalty doesn’t mean they are leading absolutely perfect lives. Maybe Charles will be a better monarch someday because he has Camilla whom he truly loves by his side. Maybe Harry will be a much more patient and understanding father with his own kids someday because he has been through some troubles of his own. Just some thoughts!

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

The Royal Family are personally and separate from the UK government extremely wealthy, they don't need one more penny from the "people" to live fabulously and luxuriously lifestyles for generations to come.

I don't believe they necessaily "need" the Civil List payments and grants that pay for official palace and ceremonial expenses, but I think that since they do serve a function for the UK people, some kind of payment is appropriate. They work for the UK government, in a sense, and so should be paid something for it. I'm sure their private wealth is considerable, but they do work, despite what people say, and unless they are paid in some form for their work, it's slavery, and we don't want that, do we?

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

I don't believe they necessaily "need" the Civil List payments and grants that pay for official palace and ceremonial expenses, but I think that since they do serve a function for the UK people, some kind of payment is appropriate. They work for the UK government, in a sense, and so should be paid something for it. I'm sure their private wealth is considerable, but they do work, despite what people say, and unless they are paid in some form for their work, it's slavery, and we don't want that, do we?

Absolutely not and I have repeatedly posted that I think they should be paid. My point was that they do not need the money or the goodwill and support of the British people because of their separate and independent wealth, quite the contrary, it is the British people that need them.

I have also repeatedly posted that I would not personally tolerate the intrusion into my personal and private life by perfect strangers for a second as the Royal family has been expected to endure.

[QueenMaharet]

Is the Royal Family Uninspiring?

I suppose it depends on what you consider inspiring. They inspire me because of the charity work they do, (sorta) they inspire me because of the history they have, the inspire me because of the sometimes difficult position they can be in (I'm talking about the darned if you do darned if you situation), a place that I could never handle, and the Queen particularly inspires me because of the way she carries herself.....and I really could elaborate on that!

So I suppose my response to that question is, what inspires you?

~QM

[Vanishing Lady]

QM took the words out of my mouth.

***Warning: Coming out of left field, but this is how my thoughts are running***

Hmmmmmm...

Times change, people do not. The Royal Family has been fulfilling the same role, with a few variations (to allow for people to forget whatever got their panties in a bunch in whichever century), for centuries.

It's not that they are uninspiring so much as that fewer people refuse to be inspired by them anymore. They seem uninspiring because 24-hour, wall-to-wall "controversial celebs" coverage makes them look that way.

The discretion in covering the royals and those of their class is no longer really in place; the image no longer jibes with the reality, so you feel disappointed and wonder at the point of their existence. Who could continue to labor in a Victorian fantasy in the face of the "evidence"?

The values that the BRF appear to stand for are the same values that many people would claim to stand for: stability, family life, honor, etc. The problem is...those aren't the people who buy the tabloids and romantics no longer run the world.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Counter-arguments in support of The British Monarchy

Part One: The Royal Residences
1) Every single palace and castle that the royals reside in -- Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, St James Palace, Clarence House, York House, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, Balmoral -- has a unique historical significance. By living there and maintaining these places, the royals are actually serving the public interest rather than draining it.
2) The public funds that are invested into these places are reciprocated in kind, in the form of these places being open to the public enjoyment at certain times of the year. It's a trade: Help pay for the repairs and maintainance, and they are open to you when the royals are not living there, with the exception of the royal apartments, as we don't want anyone barging in on the Queen & Co. in the loo, do we?
3) By being open to the public, these residences are further maintained by the fees which the public pays for their museum access. The fee money and the grant-in-aid money pays for repairs as well as the salaries of the maintenance workers. It pays for insurances against fire, flood, and whatever manner of natural disasters.

But please do not take my word for it. You can read precisely how all this money is used in the Annual Financial Reports courtesy of the British Monarchy Media Centre.

Now I have some questions.

Part Two: The Whole Shabang
Say theoretically that the grants-in-aid are taken away. Can we say certainly that the royals would be willing to maintain these places at their own expense? Or is it more likely that these places would be sold? Sell Queen Victoria's beloved Highlands castle? To whom? Perhaps a footballer family? Or maybe lease Windsor Castle to weekend tourists?

But the palaces are just part of the equation. If you "get rid" of the British monarchy, deciding to go all republican and elect a President..........

Bye bye to the guards wear the funny bearskin hats.
Bye bye to the changing of the guard rituals. Maybe even bye bye to the Union Jack?!
Bye bye to the Trooping the Colour, Royal Maundy services, State Opening of Parliament (bye bye to Parliament period)
Away go the Palace garden parties, the investitures honoring thousands of unsung heroes
No more royal weddings. No more Royal Ascot.

Fine, so the President of Great Britain takes over the diplomatic functions of Head of State, i.e. the State receptions for visiting heads of state and ambassadors. Ex-King William and ex-Queen Kate are living in exile somewhere, no one cares where.... but there are still complaints about public drains, because the President has to live somewhere, and the President has to charge official expenses somewhere. So all the negative stuff remains (the expense of it all). But where are the nostalgic things? The jewels, the glory, the pride? Gone away.

Is that truly what the "British people" want? To be so much like the US? Democratic Republic fraught with corruption and boring, boring, boring, oh and I almost forgot.... historic (some ancient!) palaces are gone to disrepair and celebrity-ownership abuse?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Let us not forget that Prince Charles is the father for these unacceptable royals. If they are unacceptable, it may imply that Prince Charles has done inadequate job at bringing up his children.
I think that both Princes have a fair chance of becoming as productive members of the British Royal family as their father has become.

As parents of ROYAL children I think that both Diana and Charles have failed.

Their sons are not a credit to anyone, least of all them. Charles felt that he knew better how to bring up his sons than his parents did when raising him and Diana also felt that they could do the job better but, I believe, they both failed as parents of ROYAL children who would live their lives completely in the public eye.

Charles, at the same age, having been raised by the Queen and DOE, to be fully aware of his duty and responsiblities, was far more aware of the image and pressures not to bring his family into disrepute than these two young men who, frankly, are both heading towards major problems with alcoholism in my opinion.

Charles had a far better upbringing for being a royal child than did William and Harry imho.

[PeoplesPrincess]

...it is the collection of photos of drunk William and Harry that do not inspire me, along with their very frequent vacations. And Kate, I'm sorry to those of you who love her, but she is just so blah to me. I would not look too favorably on any young woman who did not get a job for so long and spends so much time enjoying activities she isn't paying for, never mind the fact that she is a potential future queen. While W&H seem to understand they are privileged, there is still a want of discipline.

I know no family is perfect, but I feel this family has had an awful lot of scandals. This is not the media's fault as, while they do report the scandals in often times tasteless ways, they do not cause them. For the most part, the Queen's children did not handle their divorces very well. Alexandra and Joachim of Denmark are a great example as to how I wish the BRF had dealt with things.

The question was intended more for a discussion on where you want to see the RF go in the next few years, not whether or not you think it should exist (although for some people that is the same question). I used to think the monarchy was doing a so-so job and maybe, with Charles and Camilla finally married, they could clean up their act a little and hopefully downsize a bit, but now I just have little to zero faith in William's and Charles' ability to do that.

[Roslyn]

Oh dear! I hope this topic doesn't get derailed and crash as so many topics I find stimulating do.

In case it does, I just wanted to jump in first and say that if I were a UK citizen living there, I would want the Constitutional Monarchy to continue. My only reason for turning against it as an Australian is I think the time has come for us to have our own Head of State. But I don't want Britain to lose its living history, which is what I think the RF provide. They keep the country's heritage alive, and provide a sense of tradition and continuity and security that would be missed and the loss of which would make Britain a far less interesting country, IMO. Even their mundane ribbon-cutting and fete-opening activities provide something important for the communities in which these activities are carried out. I think it would be very sad if Britain became a republic.

And as for whether the Royals need the public more than the public needs the Royals, I think it is a symbiotic relationship, but in the final analysis the country can do quite nicely without the royals but the royals cannot continue without the support of the people. The Royals may not need the money they receive from the country, but they do need the sentiment that keeps people bowing and curtseying to them. Without that they are just pampered, arrogant rich people.

How do they retain the esteem and affection of the people in the 21st century? That is the question!

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

But I don't want Britain to lose its living history, which is what I think the RF provide. They keep the country's heritage alive, and provide a sense of tradition and continuity and security that would be missed and the loss of which would make Britain a far less interesting country, IMO. Even their mundane ribbon-cutting and fete-opening activities provide something important for the communities in which these activities are carried out. I think it would be very sad if Britain became a republic.

This is exactly what I was trying to say all this time, but I didn't say it so well. That's what I mean. For British voters to chuck the monarchy just because of disillusionment with young royals would be a mistake, imho! People come and go. I don't know how else I can say it. People die, but institutions endure. William will be an old man when he is king; he might have a silver jubilee if he is lucky. Then he will be gone, but I hope the monarchy will go on after him. The heritage and history is worth it. It is worth the short-term (in the long course of things, it is short-term) frustration. No one cuts ribbons like the British royals do. And no one makes so many people in one town as happy as they do, with one visit! You know all those people that welcome Charles when he visits a town? How much fuss goes into welcoming a royal to your town? All the headaches are nothing compared to the happiness and excitement. that is worth it, imo.
So there are some expenses that go along with it. Shoot, all governments have taxes and expenses, for official ceremonies and housing for the politicians, the diplomats, and the visiting counterparts. But what makes Britain unique is their royal family! Don't chuck the baby out with the bathwater! That's all I mean to say.... I love living here in US, in California. It's my home. I traveled to many places, but this is home.... I just urge that the British monarchy deserves to be appreciated for its many attributes. It's a brilliant institution, and the royal family is filled with some of the most impressive people I have ever read about.... I can't say enough good things about many of them. Anyway, I could go on forever but I must be driving everyone crazy already....

[wbenson]

I wonder if there's always been a feeling of despair and imminent gloom about younger members of the family, especially after decades of a very well-loved monarch. I don't know much about how people felt about them, but George V (that day's William; actually Harry by birth order) and to a lesser extent Edward VIII and George VI grew up in the shadow of Victoria, and it must have been extremely hard for them to live up to the image she had built.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Oh dear! I hope this topic doesn't get derailed and crash as so many topics I find stimulating do.

You're such a troublemaker, Roslyn. Always in the thick of the contentious threads............

How do they retain the esteem and affection of the people in the 21st century? That is the question!

I think they do it by not behaving like, as you put it, pampered, arrogant rich people. The senior royals, even the young ones, have responsibilities and duties as well as privileges, and if they get enduring reputations as people who are happy to grab the latter while ignoring the former, they're going to do serious damage to the public perception of the royals and, by extension, of the monarchy.

Now that the royals are tending to marry people from the middle classes, questions may well be asked about what it is that makes royals different. The royals in the past were raised to be concerned about their duties, and they tended to marry women from social classes with similar outlooks. Now the young royals are marrying middle-class spouses after themselves being exposed to a range of social classes at university or even at school, these values of duty and responsibility may not be so evident. The Duchess of Gloucester provides a good example that this sort of marriage can work and that the non-royal partner can become royal, but some of the more senior young royals seem to be having problems in that regard.

[diamondBrg]

I think it would be nice if at say age 21 to 25, Royals were given the option of simply opting out with NO consequences attached of any kind. They could surrender any titles, their place in the line of succession, any right to public monies they might have. In return they are left alone, the media leaves them alone, people leave them alone and they are not discriminated against simply because they did not want to devote their life to the "people." I don't know about anyone else, anywhere else, but I would have never gone for doing or not doing anything just because of the "people."

For this to work, no banishments like with the former King, when a divorce happens, the person that is non royal is not ostracized. They get to be just like everybody else and with their PRIVACY intact.