Is The Royal Family Uninspiring or Isolated?

[QueenMaharet]

To answer the question at the start of the thread..

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]

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]

To clarify...

...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]

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]

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.

 

[Roslyn]

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

Yep! That's me. Always spoiling for a fight!

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.

I think that being Royal is something that can be learned by people with a suitable temperament and incentive. The born-Royals have it instilled into them from birth, well, at least until recently they have.

Being Royal is not magic, just a way of looking at the world and thinking about things. I think that to be successful an outsider would need a very strong sense of history and duty and responsibility and devotion to the institution of the Monarchy, and be willing to put the Monarchy and its demands before their own personal wishes. It certainly wouldn't be easy, but for the right sort of person it would be a marvellous opportunity.

I tend to think that William and Harry might not have had "being Royal" drummed into them as much as earlier generations, and maybe that is making things a lot harder for William.

 

[love_cc]

Earlier generations of royals are more inspiring in some way. I always find Prince Charles special because he tries everything he could and use his willpower to overcome his character flaws to meet people's expectations of the future king and do his duty. The younger generations needs to be observated for a longer time. My age is the same as Prince William and I don't think I can ever use him as a very inspired person because I find the monarchy itself has no long held an important position in people'e lives and their hearts. I am fond of individual royals but I am not going to support the monarchy system in the long term. I don't think the abolishement of any monarchy toward by peaceful transition will cause many pains with the consent of people. It is not really these royals I really needs but some qualified and committed people who are willing to be guardians of the country's historica traditions and good values and best interests I needed.

It's good to have royals to live in the palaces rather than leaving these palaces as cold musuems. The existence of royal history really attracts tourism which is fasinating. But the role of future monarchs may have to be re-adjusted IMO-the role of consititutional monarch seems to lose more and more people's interests. People have already have the cabinet, the shadow cabinet and the MPs to rule the country. What the real use of another set of ceremonial heardfigure? Probably for the future royals they have to demonstrative their differences from their peers to honour their special postion of understanding the country's history and good traditions and good interests.

Anyway I find it harder and harder for ordianry people to care much about the monarchy overall. Our lives will be never like theirs: they would not really understand our lives even they try to and we only can image their lives and analyse the infoirmation available to understand their situations. It is irrelevant most times unless when we are interested in them.Such a pity but I have to admit the reality.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

I think Richard Kay panders to some, but as with the Di Express, the followers seem to be lower class housewives, who have very little else to do with their lives. If you read through the comments sections, the comments are getting fewer and fewer and whilst the Dirty Mail may not 'publish' many pro Camilla comments, the anti Camilla ones seem to come from the same small band.

I wasn't particularly talking about the media though, many people, IMO, here in the UK seem to have woken up to the fact that Diana was far from perfect and should now 'be remembered fondly', but allowed to RIP. The 'following' in the US seems to want to perpetuate the poor little princess myth.

I am very dissapointed with William and Harry's behaviour and especially Williams lack of oomph. For many in the UK, IMO, he was only thought wonderful because he was Diana's son and because her image has been tarnished people are looking at him as a prince and they are wondering if this is all the monarchy has to offer, are they worth our support.

Having said all that, I can well remember the bad press Charles always got about being boring, a party boy, a philanderer, not taking his role seriously, being too intense, etc, etc.

Are they inspiring, I'm afraid not. Are they still lovable, warts and all, well some of them!

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

All that I really wanted to say in this thread was that I sympathize with the disillusionment by the younger royals, especially Prince William and Prince Harry, and the Yorks girls. At the same time, I think that these indignities will pass and the monarchy will endure, because it has always endured. The monarchy has responded to countless curve balls over the centuries, and as I said before, its people ebb and flow with the times, and it moves on. The monarchy is much bigger and stronger than both PW and PH combined.

That is all I ever meant here. British history and US history are equally meritorious.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well it's always endured because of natural deference. Now that's a rarity and I don't think the monarchy can weather any more storms.

 

[QueenMaharet]

What do you mean by natural defense?

 

[ysbel]

Do the Royal Family need to inspire? Elspeth reminded me of a quote by George V in response to a critic that complained he was alien and uninspiring.

The King replied, "I may be uninspiring but I'll be damned if I am an alien"

George V obviously didn't think it was a bad thing for a monarch not to be uninspiring. But is it a bad thing today?

Is the occupational requirements for a royal family that they be inspiring?

 

[ysbel]

What do you mean by natural defense?

She means natural deference not natural defense, right, BeatrixFan?

As I understand it when people give you deference they give you a high place of honour and respect. I believe that before the British Royal Family could take deference for granted. Now they can't.

 

[QueenMaharet]

She means natural deference not natural defense, right, BeatrixFan?

Whoops....read that too fast! I get it now!
I do agree that I don't automatically defer to anyone, just because of who they are......same thing goes with respect in general. I was always taught to respect your elders, but I decided a long time ago that I'm not going to respect someone just because they are older than me, I'll respect them (or not) depending on their actions, and what kind of person they are. I'll be polite to them, as I would be to anyone, but respect does not come automatically.

I can't quite decide if the lack of automatic deference is a "problem" in terms of the longevity of the RF......

 

[Chimene]

I think the deference issue is partly the BRF and the media’s fault. It all started with the documentary and barbecue in 1970s. I hope I’m remembering this correctly. Once they opened themselves up, the magic is gone and the intrusions into their private lives became a problem. It escalated with Charles and Diana, and we are still seeing the effect of this today. It will be interesting to see how they will overcome or evolve from these challenges in the coming years.

 

[diamondBrg]

You know, the British people have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. They have endured some of the most horrendous conditions and events in human history. From their island nation has sprung multiple nations and a world power. I really think they need to give themselves a bit more credit, they do not need the Royal Family to inspire them or even to unite them, they already have within themselves everything that they need to continue to evolve and grow as a people and nation.

 

[BeatrixFan]

You know, the British people have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. They have endured some of the most horrendous conditions and events in human history. From their island nation has sprung multiple nations and a world power. I really think they need to give themselves a bit more credit, they do not need the Royal Family to inspire them or even to unite them, they already have within themselves everything that they need to continue to evolve and grow as a people and nation.

Actually we haven't. The British have only been around since the time of Union, before that it was the English, the Scots and the Welsh and before that it was various little collects of indiginous people slaughtered by the Vikings and the Normans etc. We have indeed endured horrendous times but what nation hasn't? Indeed, most horrendous events in other nations were caused by us. I agree that we don't need a Royal Family to inspire us but our past is not exactly built on something to be proud of. Gordon Brown has been speaking alot of this of late, talking about British identity etc. Nobody really knows what it is and therefore it follows that we need something to inspire nationalism. Whether thats an RF I don't know - it used to be but it seems they've lost their ability to inspire.

 

[Nichola]

Does HM's life long commitment to her people inspire me? Yes. Does the BRF's commitment to their public duties inspire me? Yes.

However, we live in a world where the press need to sell papers. SO, instead of publishing stories about HM's commitment or the family's public duties, for example, we get criticism, or a story on how the Princess Royal fell over during an engagement etc etc. I think it's shocking when their engagement numbers are published each year because so so many go unoticed, meaning people sometimes see them as lazy.

I think having a monarchy is a great thing. I mean, just think of the tourism it brings to the country, and the happinness it brings to some people. Also, people love tradition. For example, people disagreed when Edward and Sophie began their own businesses, largely as it was something that was different.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Is it a commitment though? I mean, in reality, she's just lived a long time as Queen which PR wise can be painted as devotion. And again, the RF don't really have commitment to their public duties, they have to do them or they'll be thrown out so they do them.

 

[Elspeth]

I've deleted all the derails into off-topic issues, as well as some of the personal comments being thrown around between participants. I've also moved a few posts to the Is the Monarchy Worth Keeping? thread. Please keep this thread on topic from now on and stay away from any more fights.

Thank you.

Elspeth

for the British Royals moderation team

 

[Odette]

Seems like the Liechtensteins are the most isolated from everyone else.
The British Royals except for the Queen usually travel to weddings and funerals and for vacations. Prince Charles & Diana used to go to Spain every summer and it seems that other Royals always go to London for the various celebrations.

 

[greek101]

Does anyone think that the British Royals are too isolated

When it comes to the European royals you usually see them at events together on many occasions getting alone great but when it comes to the British royals they hardly ever seem to mix with the other royals at all even when at official events (weddings, funerals). I was just wondering what everyone else thought on the matter.

 

[Jacknch]

This is a good question and I think the answer is that the age difference between the British Royals and the European Royals is out of sinc by at least 10 or 20 years which may cause a social gap. Can you imagine the Prince of Wales at 60 years of age spending time with the younger heirs to the European thrones? Their interests and personalities are also very different and always have been. For example, Queen Margrethe 2 enjoys artistic past times whilst Queen Elizabeth 2 prefers horsey outdoors kind of things and being rather shy and impersonal QE2 would probably be embarrassed to show off her paintings (even if she knew how to paint). It's definately the age thing - QE2 is old fashined and a strict taskmaster to herself so letting her guard down and being a real person isn't her thing.

 

[User0501]

When it comes to the European royals you usually see them at events together on many occasions getting alone great but when it comes to the British royals they hardly ever seem to mix with the other royals at all even when at official events (weddings, funerals). I was just wondering what everyone else thought on the matter.

I think the Japanese Royal Family are more isolated than the British Royal Family.

 

[User0501]

Seems like the Liechtensteins are the most isolated from everyone else.
The British Royals except for the Queen usually travel to weddings and funerals and for vacations. Prince Charles & Diana used to go to Spain every summer and it seems that other Royals always go to London for the various celebrations.

The Queen do not travel overseas for funerals and weddings because The Queen adheres to the royal protocol strictly. Usually The Queen is represented to such events by other members of the royal family such as HRH Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh who represented The Queen at the late Pope John Paul II's funeral at The Vatican.