|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Why is British Royalty So Beloved?
Goodness -- you can't escape mention of the royal wedding nowadays. I wonder -- why are the members of the British Royal family so beloved? What I see: ... Conspicuous consumption, ... They don't really have jobs, ... Special treatments, reminding us that they are better than the rest of us, ... Unimaginably wealthy, ... Haven't really earned anything in generations. So, why are they beloved? May 19 18 12:01 pm Link I could give a fuck less what they do. May 19 18 12:10 pm Link Why is British Royalty So Beloved? Good question... only people I know who can party like rockstars all year long and get paid millions of dollars to do it... worlds wealthiest welfare recipients... I gotta marry into that family somehow...  May 19 18 12:25 pm Link Why do so many people pay so much attention to the Kardashians?...any celebrities for that matter? I don't dislike (or hate) any of them for their wealth and status, but I'm not so much impressed with it either. May 19 18 12:36 pm Link I could give a Rats Arse about the No Friggin talent kardashians or the royal couple. May 19 18 12:45 pm Link ernst tischler wrote: Their millions of viewers are teenage status shopping attention whores who are Kardashian wannabees and BonBon munching couch potatos envious of that lifestyle... in other words... losers who don't have a life... May 19 18 12:52 pm Link We are Americans. We are genetically prevented from understanding "Royalty".  We sailed to a new continent to escape "Royalty". (and a few other things) I wouldnt be foolish enough to get between a Brit and their "monarchs" though. The royal family has a deep place in the heart of most the British folks I know. I will leave it to a British citizen to explain for certain, but I believe it has much more to do with a celebration of traditions, and enjoyment of the history of it than anything like the "worship" that too many people believe happens. There is of course the celebrity thing, but I believe it is much more than that in Britain. As for the Kardashian thing. All we can really hold out hope for is it will be over sooner than later. I am proud to say, that so far (with considerable effort) I have not watched a single minute of the wedding, or any of the hype surrounding it. I may have to read a book for the next couple days to keep that record intact............. May 19 18 01:54 pm Link Given the egregious history of Royalty(Henry VIII) Not to single out British Royalty, all Royalty has their hands dirty. I dont understand how any intelligent, aware person can be a fan. May 19 18 02:50 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: Not all nations and not all people were conceded the favour of stringing up the aristocrats and Holy Joes at the lanterns like the French were. This historical milestone is often missed. May 19 18 03:04 pm Link To understand the British love of Royalty one must understand British History starting with the huge event of the Magna Carta instituted in 1215 where disputes between the King , the feudal Barons , the church and later the Popes led to an agreement about " basic freedoms of the individual", which much later even affected the formation of the American constitution .From the time of Elizabeth 1st to Queen Victoria the British Commonwealth of Nations grew to where the British Empire controlled almost half the world........ Australia , Canada, India, New Zealand,, South Africa, Malaysia/Singapore. even Ireland. Britain's wealth & power was decimated by WW1 & even later WW11 Royalty was for the most part beloved & admired during the period of British expansionism( even involvements with large areas of the middle East). Doubts about the value of Royalty probably developed after( Karl Marx), Socialism questioned these traditions.. And even today. several factions in England wonder how much longer will the house of Windsor exist.. Tradition has always been a strong factor in life of the British people.. But huge changes have made so many Britons question their current values. Brexit & rampant immigration problems seem to be adding to the general unrest.. May 19 18 05:46 pm Link Brit friends tell me that many Brits despise the 'royal' May 19 18 06:00 pm Link Unlike those in the American aristocracy, British royalty understand the importance of civic duty and responsibility, and the importance of being part of something larger than themselves. Young Harry didn't have to, but he enlisted, became a pilot and flew two combat tours in Afghanistan. His brother, William, is also a military pilot. Their uncle, Andrew, flew combat during the Falklands War back in the eighties. I am not saying that British royalty should be revered but rather respected for the contributions they do make for the betterment of society. Something not seen very often on the side of the Pond, especially today. His father, Charles, notwithstanding.  May 19 18 06:33 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: Not in my hood. LOL! May 19 18 06:58 pm Link Frank Lewis Photography wrote: That's ridiculous. May 19 18 08:14 pm Link A lot of British culture leaves me baffled. May 19 18 08:15 pm Link Teila K Day Photography wrote: They were in great risk being in Afghanistan just because they were Royals! May 19 18 09:17 pm Link Jerry Nemeth wrote: The statement, "Unlike those in the American aristocracy, British royalty understand the importance of civic duty and responsibility, and the importance of being part of something larger than themselves." ...is still no less ridiculous. May 20 18 01:31 am Link Looknsee Photography wrote: I never watch the news. If my daughter hadn't told me about the wedding I'd never known. May 20 18 08:32 am Link My ancestors fought two wars so I don't have to think about royalty. May 20 18 09:15 am Link Guss W wrote: Your ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812? May 20 18 09:48 am Link Like a chip butty the Monarchy is something only a Brit would understand. Why the fascination here in the U.S.? The pomp and splendor perhaps or the fact that the U.S. will never have Royalty, unless You count Beyonce and what'shisname. May 20 18 02:56 pm Link Maybe that old aristocracy is beloved because old money and power seems so sophisticated. I can hear a bevy of Fran Dreshers saying, "so classy". Women still like fairy-tales. Honestly, being married to a prince seems incredibly annoying. Your man's Mommy has a HUGE say in everything that you do and you always have to walk behind her. Your choice of clothing is scrutinized constantly. Forget about thigh-high stillettos forever ladies. MM is good for Prince Harry. She is really into community activities before being an actor. Plus her former vocation as such will help her dazzle the press. Seems like a LOT of work to hold that duchess title. Well as Lorde said, "We'll never be royals" but I can certainly live with 'lux' (my own way/personality/choices intact). You know, many people live their lives under such control... far from being a royal... just your average husband/wife scenario with a Ray Romano type Mum. Bah! Make your own fairy-tale. May 21 18 06:08 am Link Kevin Fair wrote: I wonder if Prince Harry watch MM in Suits and fell in love with the premise of her character first, then made it his reality. May 21 18 06:12 am Link The royalty links us to our deep past. To have a modern day connection to the age of kings gives us a sense of immortality. Not being British, speaking for the British, the Queen is the living embodiment of The British Empire just as the flag is ours - imho. May 21 18 06:54 am Link Jules NYC wrote: That's what I thought listening to a lot of the women reporters gushing over the ceremony. Prince Charming. Kiss a frog who becomes a prince. Rapunzel. Etc. Seemed to be a lot more women along the pathway to the castle too. May 21 18 07:55 am Link GRMACK wrote: That is what I truly don't understand. Does a woman REALLY buy into that? Isn't a Prince Charming a man that treats you with respect, doesn't cheat on you (part of respect), encourages your development in every way, cares about your feelings, etc.? May 21 18 10:03 am Link Jules NYC wrote: I don't think so. May 21 18 10:07 am Link Jules NYC wrote: He was very impressed by her when he first met her. May 21 18 10:09 am Link Jerry Nemeth wrote: I didn't get into their story on that level of detail. May 21 18 10:21 am Link Looknsee Photography wrote: I'm British and a republican. But most royals do pursue military careers and if there is a war on then, unlike Bushes and Clintons and Trumps, they usually see combat. May 24 18 09:27 am Link Frank Lewis Photography wrote: During the German air raids on London 1940/41 the british government urged the royal family to evacuate Princesses Elizabeth (who became Queen after the dead of her father) and Margaret to a safer area of England. Like many, many children of all social classe who were evecuated to safer areas. May 25 18 04:32 pm Link thiswayup wrote: George H.W. Bush served as a naval aviator from 1942 to 1945, reached the rank of a Navy Lieutenant, was shot down as pilot of an "Avenger" torpedo bomber in September 1944 by the Japanese and picked up by the submarine USS Finback (and had to stay aboard for four weeks). In November 1944, Bush returned to USS San Jacinto and participated in operations in the Philippines until his squadron was replaced and sent home to the United States. Through 1944, he flew 58 combat missions for which he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation awarded to San Jacinto. May 25 18 04:56 pm Link Jerry Nemeth wrote: Prince Harry served under a cover name while being in Afghanistan. When a british tabloid uncovered this story the UK Department of Defence withdrew him immediately because of fears he could became a high value targed for the Taliban and because of this would endanger his comrades unneccessarily, too. A reasonable down-to-earth decision in my opionion. May 25 18 05:05 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: history May 25 18 05:25 pm Link After the Acts of Union passed in 1707 the monarch of England also became the ruler of Scotland and thus a powerhouse of a nation, the United Kingdom thrusted itself onto the world stage as the major nation in the world. The industrial revolution, jumpstarted by James Watt, that amazing Scott, whose famous engine, made the U.K, formidable. It was about sixty years after the English Civil War which saw the decapitation of Charles the first. That moment stained the parliamentary movement as Cromwell, the Lord Protector of the Commonweath for life wanted to hand down England to his son as if he were a sovereign. That succession plan worked only for about a year. The recall of the Monarchs therefore led to a sincere attempt at accommodation between Parliament and the Crown. When Queen Victoria ruled she had less power than Charles II as post-Charles 1, the monarchs had graciously accepted the supremacy of Parliament and no one wanted another civil war. Queen Elizabeth II had Winston Churchill as her first prime minister. She meets weekly with her prime minister usually to receive reports on what is happening in her realm. Her predecessors executive status, such as George III is what the President's powers were modelled on. Therefore, the cultural influence that she represents: if your state in America has as its foundation, as does California, common-law, then you are living by English customs as the foundation of law-evidence law evolved in that world-as the impetus for common-law was provided by King Henry II, who wanted judges to make laws that fit the customs of the people of his realm. Thus most law in Britain has been made by the bench up until the 19th century, and judges are supposed to legislate from the bench, as a prominent American jurist agreed. As Queen, Elizabeth rules, and the navy is the Royal Navy, as is the navy in New Zealand, for instance. Her status as ruler makes for popularity because she does not make the laws, and does not make policy. She does as she is told by the Government. When people said why was she receiving money from the government--the civil list-she shrewdly offered to give it up, saying she had plenty of income. She is quite a landlord- and so is her son--look up the Duchy of Cornwall, the property of the Princes of Wales since 1337. . However, she cleverly got everything covered by the sovereign grant, which she willingly gave up in the civil list, as the sovereign grant, which takes the income from her properties (Crown properties)--an agreement started in 1760, which is now well over $200 million per annum. She gave her assent to what really works well for her in 2012. So, when the heir-to-throne has a child who is having a wedding, Elizabeth gives the order, and her household cavalry parades and the government gives its support as she is the ruler, and they don't mess with royal weddings. They give advice, such as "don't invite Obama without inviting the current president." The Queen is not a like a rockstar. She is not like anyone on the East Coast. At the last Royal Wedding the fifth-in-line to the throne took a wife. The U.S. doesn't need royalty but for the British and the Commonwealth this family is well-regarded. As ruler she reads the speeches the government writes for when she opens parliament. They are not likely to fade-they are the ruling family and as long as they are loved and gracious and accomadating they will have no problems. May 25 18 06:53 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: Bc just enough "scandal" to keep us entertained, but otherwise inoffensive, not a threat to anyone and the upbringing (and with it the airs they exude so royally) can and will bring even Murucan presidents down a notch. As seen with Mr. Bush. May 25 18 06:58 pm Link Dea and the Beast wrote: Their tradition was more like a daily beheading May 25 18 07:25 pm Link Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote: Was. As you say. May 26 18 10:58 am Link It's the funny hats. And looking at who's "not invited". May 26 18 06:30 pm Link Wish we could just get rid of them. The age old argument here is that they bring in tourist $ and that's why we are supposed to keep "giving" I'm sure tourists would rather come to see historic buildings and towns/cities than a chance glimpse of some "untouchable" from a distance If Ihad my way they would all be told that they pay their own way or go the way of the dodo. They are not even rulers any more just figureheads Jun 09 18 08:19 am Link |
