Originally Posted by Curryong
Yes, that is the question. On the other hand what is the intrinsic value of an institution in which few take much interest and apathy reigns especially among the under-25s.
And none of the countries which once were monarchies seem to want their royals back in power.
I've lived a long time. Attitudes towards the monarchy in Britain and Australia where I've lived for most have my life have undergone such a sea change in my lifetime that its like two different worlds. And in my view in the future it's not likely to change back to the enthusiasm for the British monarchy of my childhood.
I appreciate your perspective curryong. When I look at you tube clips from the 50's & 60's of royal tours or events in Britain I'm always struck by the huge numbers who turned out. Even for "junior" members of the royal family. And the very respectful commentary of broadcasters.
I feel that the first half of the C20th was the high water mark of deference for the monarchy & that it was bound to change eventually.
Being counter intuitive, might a very low key royal family actually be the best answer for the survival of the monarchy? A return to the simpler style of a George III for example, away from the imperial pomp & the model of a "family on the throne" created during the later C19th & early C20th. I wonder whether some attempts at being "relevant" (especially by younger members of the royal family) are counter productive. It almost feels sometimes as though they're trying too hard & I'm attempting not to be cynical or dismissive here.
In dullness lies survival perhaps.