|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2010 19:59:49 GMT
I'm sure you all know what tidbit of news brings this subject to mind. I am therefore wondering what people think about such things in the 21st century.
Coming from two different republics, obviously, I am not really attracted to the idea of royalty. And yet royalty interests a lot of people from both countries. And the United States has even sort of invented new homegrown 'royal' families over the years, such as the Kennedys or even the Clintons. In such families, every incident touching any member of the family -- sons, daughters, brothers, uncles, grandmothers, nephews... is considered newsworthy for some reason. Did Americans miss even one scrap of the Kennedy family life? Ski accidents, medical incidents, infidelities... I think not. But one advantage of a "non royal" family is that is does not cost the taxpayers any money.
Which of course brings us to the British royal family, so full of passion, drama, etc. It seems a bit silly to me while also costing a huge amount of money. However, I do understand that they are performing certain jobs -- foundations, ribbon-cutting ceremonies, noble causes, and also the intangible value of representing the country, adding stability, and helping to keep people's minds off what the politicians are scheming.
Meanwhile, France had a long standing passion for the Grimaldi family, whose daughters were an absolutely pornographic soap opera for many years. But they lost interest in Monaco about 10 years ago when things settled down. Prince Albert's marriage next year will provide maybe 48 hours of fluffy coverage, but I would guess that only about 10% of the population will bother to pay attention. Anyway, Monaco is not France, so it has all been a spectator sport. But any famous French families of note? Not a single one. Just movie stars, like everywhere else. Here today, gone tomorrow.
What really perplexes me are the far away countries with Queen Elizabeth II as their official sovereign. Canada, Australia, etc... I do not understand how this can continue.
I hope that I have not been offensive, but what are the current thoughts of other people about royalty and kingdoms in the 21st century?
|
|
|
Post by myrt on Nov 17, 2010 20:18:06 GMT
I think the current furore in the UK media totally bizarre and tedious already........maybe it's a plot hatched between the current governent and the royals to deflect us all from the damage being wrought on our public services...it wouldn't surprise me! (They did it in 1981 but that didn't end well...) I'm not a Royalist but I'm not ready to remove them totally - they are an anachronism in the 21st century but so are afternoon tea and buns, steam trains, amusement arcades and badly dressed men in white socks and sandals and I quite like all of them...(actually not the white socks - disgustingly unappealing) They're all part of the gravy train that is the UK tourist trail - Olde Englande, Welsh castles and Scottish shortbread and Princesses....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2010 20:18:32 GMT
You're not being offensive K., these are questions that are on many minds right now I'm sure. Why Canada still has Queen Elizabeth II as their official sovereign? I have no idea. Maybe it's just that everyone needs someone to look up to, and she seems like a good safe bet?
This engagement and subsequent wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton will no doubt bring in a lot of business for the UK. Not a bad thing for a country going though so much financial upheaval. I actually like this couple, they seem genuine and genuinely in love, unlike the circus that was the marriage between Prince Charles and Princess Diana. He was 35 and she 19, an comfortable union, arranged by the Royal Business Machine.
All in all I think most Canadians are not that interested in what happens to the Royals in the UK. On a personal level, I'm astounded by how they lavish and flaunt their money, when so many people are disadvantaged and even starving in this world. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by myrt on Nov 17, 2010 20:27:01 GMT
But..but..the Queen gets her breakfast cereal out of plastic containers.......how humiliating that was for the nation......we all thought they had silver service at every meal.....and wore their crowns 24/7! Actually I don't think they flaunt their wealth anything like as much as the current reigning superstars of the worlds of rock or silver screen.....but I'm glad the Canadians aren't being force fed endless hours of interviews with her friends, her mother's sister's cousin twice removed and the man who once sold her a budgie for her 5th birthday (I made that up). Consider yourselves very fortunate! My husband, an anti royalist, is already making gagging noises, walking out of the room in disgust and generally getting sick of it all.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Nov 17, 2010 20:40:02 GMT
As a Brit it is easy to get dragged into all the hysteria....a case in point being when Diana died....the country went bonkers. The British press is completely out of control and this morning's newspapers were crammed with pics, comparisons between Kate and Diana...it's all very silly. I bought the only daily without a pic of simpering royals on the front.
I prefer to vote for my head of state....I don't think that the current set up is either fair or practical. I know that our current Queen and some of the other royals work really hard, but it does seem archaic.
The way I see it, on the wedding day most people will have a day off work... ;D that's got to be good for morale...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2010 20:47:31 GMT
Regarding Diana, the whole world more or less went bonkers about that (well, maybe not some African villages without electricity). Some news items are hard to beat, tragic or not. Then again, those of us in other countries probably spent a lot less on flowers.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 17, 2010 20:55:27 GMT
I like the Queen and her family, especially Prince Philip. They provide endless entertainment. As with everything it is easy enough to pick and choose what I want to read about them and what not. When the marriage does occur I'll cast a glance at it but no more than that. The UK wouldn't be the same without them, and for the worse not for the better.
They are excellent value for money and even though I don't have the figures I tend to think the revenue from the Crown Estates, which is paid to the state not the Queen, far exceeds the money (Civil List?) given to the Monarchy. She gets 7.9 million pounds a year and that is approx 13pence per man, woman and child in the UK per year.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2010 21:34:19 GMT
Okay, but what about other royal families....? Not the 'nice' constitutional ones like Spain, Denmark, Thailand or Luxembourg, which operate (I assume) like the British, but, say Saudi Arabia, Brunei or Oman? (Of course the debate about democracy vs. dictatorship is obviously a different subject.)
The rest of us sometimes find it difficult to differentiate.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Nov 18, 2010 0:23:07 GMT
Yes, because there are also constitutional-democratic monarchies and dictatorial republics.
There are arguments in favour of unelected, ceremonial heads of state - not necessarily monarchs; they can be Presidents where the PM is the head of government. Some say they assured needed stability to the State when governments fell several times a year, as used to be the case in Italy, Israel and some other countries.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Nov 18, 2010 0:57:50 GMT
I, like Deyana, do not think the majority of Canadians are that interested in the British Royal Family, but we all like a good wedding! We are a Commonwealth Country and a portrait of the Queen is in most Government Buildings and oddly enough, hockey arenas, why, I do not know, just part of our history and our continued commitment to our Allies since WW1 and WW2, I am guessing. I understand the excitement over a new Princess as many people are romantics at heart even though she will probably be titled a Duchess until the time they become King and Queen. I just wish the press would leave it at what it is, an announcement of an Engagement and to stop with the comparisons with Princess Diana, really not fair. It was nice to hear some happy news for a change.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Nov 18, 2010 2:26:55 GMT
The engagement news finally made its way into this household, in a 12th page newspaper article.
People seem to want inherited royalty. Beyond the political dynasties, which I dislike, you get "rock royalty" and "Hollywood royalty", and Americans referred to in the press as "blueblood."
I like the idea of a ceremonial family whose job it is to be attractive (and virtuous if possible, or at least interesting), and then a separate group of intelligent people running things who get voted in and out at intervals.
The British royal family provides reassuring symbolism that the UK can afford, and gives good value for money. Since they are no longer allowed to order random people beheaded, they seem a harmless lot. I might watch a few min of this wedding eventually on YouTube or something. I first saw footage of his parents' wedding accidentally, a couple of years later. Mostly ignoring them, as with most press furors, seems to be just about enough.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2010 6:39:53 GMT
And then there are the silly royal familes of former kingdoms -- France, Italy, Greece, Iran, Austria.... Can you believe they still fight over things like succession?
|
|
|
Post by tillystar on Nov 18, 2010 6:44:04 GMT
I am trying not to get too excited about being invited to the big bash. In this new age of austerity I have heard it will just be a few close family and friends. Kate is bidding on a $7.99 copy of Di's dress from China on ebay and her majesty has offered to pick up the tab on the reception (courtesy of Marks and Spencer's party food range), obviously the bride's parents will be providing the party decorations. I've heard that Disney princess paper plates and Peppa Pig streamers are this year's best sellers.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Nov 18, 2010 21:02:47 GMT
I found out this year that a not terribly distant relative of mine was a princess. Apparently she married a certain French-Polish prince André Poniatowski at least in part because he was a bit skint and she had money. I think the not terribly scenic Boulevard Poniatowski just inside the Boulevard Périphérique in E Paris is named in honor of his father.
My claim on the French throne is thus pending.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Nov 18, 2010 23:14:17 GMT
Just don't expect a curtsy.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 19, 2010 3:52:09 GMT
*snork* Tilly! ;D
Listen, you need to take me to the wedding with you. I've missed my chance with Prince Charles twice -- once when he married that chit of a girl, even though he was born the same year as I & could have had me, then the second time when he chose that woman who will never wear all that great jewelry with the same panache that I could.
Other than that, Fumobici is now my fall-back option.
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Nov 19, 2010 5:18:07 GMT
When I was a little girl, my father told me that I was royalty because my second toe was a bit longer than the first. Even if I am old enough to not care... I still believe that (a little bit bit).
|
|
|
Post by myrt on Nov 19, 2010 7:38:10 GMT
I am trying not to get too excited about being invited to the big bash. In this new age of austerity I have heard it will just be a few close family and friends. Kate is bidding on a $7.99 copy of Di's dress from China on ebay and her majesty has offered to pick up the tab on the reception (courtesy of Marks and Spencer's party food range), obviously the bride's parents will be providing the party decorations. I've heard that Disney princess paper plates and Peppa Pig streamers are this year's best sellers. That made me giggle! ;D And not far from the truth.... The thing about Royals - the 'nice' ones - is that they have really been reduced to symbols and a daily advertisement for whichever country they represent. Which is far better than the not nice ones - but those we tend to judge using our western values which is not necessarily relevant or helpful. I tend to think it's not really any of our business how they operate. The bit I find difficult is the bowing and scraping..... I have never waved a flag at a passing royal, never bought a celebratory bit of bric a brac and never pored pver the countless pages dedicated to their births, deaths and marriages. I imagine they do earn a fair bit for the UK but they really are a business these days or a piece of living history - viewed thus I think their continued existence is worth the expense. It's that whole UK aristocracy/superior blue blooded thing that really gets up my nose...and even the Royals are excluded from that! Commoners by comparison, my dears! My second toe is longer than my big toe too....my children blame me entirely for their inherited misssapen feet (they say) but now I shall be able to let them in on the family secret....coo.....
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 19, 2010 9:28:07 GMT
Toe lengths: udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythtoelength.htmlAnd, sorry all you prospective royalty but: There are two different length patterns for toes. The most common pattern is a foot structure where the second toe is the longest. The less common pattern is the structure where the great toe is the longest toe. When a particular toe is straightened or shortened with either type of foot structure, there should be a small difference in length between one toe and the adjacent toes. Aesthetically, the toes looks best if the overall length pattern is parabolic.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Nov 19, 2010 12:09:45 GMT
The Dutch really get into Queen's day, but also have a lot of junk sales then, which are fun.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2010 11:56:03 GMT
The date, which is understood to be a weekday, is being cleared with other members of the Royal family, the prime minister's office and Scotland Yard -- and is expected to be announced this week.
When you think that some couples just have to negotiate with their parents! How many of you needed clearance from Scotland Yard to set your wedding date?
As the queen is traditionally not available for major events during Lent and Easter, the only likely April dates are between Tuesday, April 26 and Friday, April 29.
Clearly, Mom has her own agenda!
Meanwhile, all of these events are creating havoc with my own social calendar, because the marriage of Prince Albert of Monaco is also coming up on July 2nd, and you can imagine how important I find that event. He already has changed the date once because he didn't want to miss an important meeting of the IOC in Durban. Anyway, this way the new princess "can make her first royal visit to her country of origin."
Appearances are saved. What a relief!
|
|
|
Post by ninchursanga on Jan 27, 2011 17:06:30 GMT
Somewhere I once read that the monarchies in Western Europe are the most stable countries, so maybe it's worth forking out all that money. And in Holland Queen's day is a lot of fun! On the other side, as it is the case in the Netherlands, I don't agree that the state should give that much money to a family that is already filthy rich and who makes a huge secret out of their fortune (it's not known what Queen Beatrix really owns as it's not made public). The Dutch Queen is also much more powerful than many people think. She is part of the government and has her own cabinet that functions as a bridge between her and the ministers, but besides the name of the director it's kept secret who is in there. The Queen also has a big say in who will be appointed into the privy council. The privy council is not in the spotlight, but has great influence on the policies of the country. And not to mention that the Queen has to sign off the laws, holds weekly meetings with the prime minister, can dissolve parlament etc. etc. A lot of people are not aware of how involved she is in the govenment.
Her husband, Prince Claus who was very popular despite being German, once commented that the people should be glad monarchy is hereditary cause the job is so awful it would quickly die out if people had to do it volunteerily. When the Dutch crown-prince wanted to marry, he had to get approval of parliament which was a big fuss because his fiance's father was minister during the Vileda regime. The problem was solve but the bride's father was not welcome at the wedding and so far has not paid any 'official' visit to the country. Most people loved the Argentinian bride, until they recently started to realise that she's just a spoiled jet-set kid. Better them, than me. I must not think of getting my mother's approval and having a whole parliament approving my fiance. Sounds a bit antedilluvian to me.
|
|
|
Post by gertie on Feb 11, 2011 3:18:56 GMT
First, hearing you speak of the Clintons as a royal family of American politics just grosses me out. I know the Kennedy family is hardly pristine from sexploits and scandal, but I have less problems with the view of that family probably because of the time period. I was a young child, and such things were more circumspectly discussed if at all in those days.
I still cringe whenever I hear the Clinton name because of my embarrassment at his poor performance in the White House. Sure, men in power have affairs...but to lie about it when caught practically red handed as though we are too stupid to connect the dots, and to take the valuable time of so many of our leaders trying to get him to admit to the truth of his mistake! Shameful. I bet he inhaled, too. I think even less of his wife. Sorry, but the name of Clinton is synonymous with dead weight in my book.
As for the British royals...I admit to a bit of starry-eyed wonder as a child at the idea of real life princes and princesses. I was among those who wakened at an ungodly hour to view the wedding of Lady Di to her prince. I am as disappointed in him as in Mr. Clinton. If he wanted to be with his current old lady so much, he should have manned up and married her to begin with. Had he been forthright with Diana and thus made sure she knew from the start she was only accepting that engagement ring in return for services as a brood mare, I'd say fine. No harm no foul.
To woo that poor, innocent, starry-eyed girl with promises of love was cold blooded in the extreme. At worst, I could respect someone who made a vow of love to another out of duty, and then lived his life as though he did love her. I share the hope of many in my country that old Queen Elizabeth is doing her best to hang on long enough to pass the thrown to her grandson. I have a fond hope he has enough of his mother in him to be marrying only for love.
I know people make mistakes, of course, I've made a few in my life. Owning up to them is never enjoyable, but it is sure preferable. I don't look with disfavor on these because they made mistakes, but because of how they dealt with them. A president willing to lie like a rug about his provable behavior will not have any trouble lying to everyone about things he is able to hide, and a wife who so readily accepts such behavior and even stands behind the perpetrator so easily will clearly be joining him in his poor behavior. A prince who would openly mistreat his supposed life love will only mistreat his people as king.
A lot was made a few years ago of a presidential candidate who stated he would fire employees caught in adultery because if your wife can't trust you, I sure can't. I don't really disagree with him. If you want to be with someone else, you can get a divorce easily these days in this country, so there is no reason for such nonsense anymore. Adultery and other nonsense is just a symptom of weak personalities, and as normal as that might be, it isn't what I want to see in the leaders of nations.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2011 6:16:54 GMT
A lot was made a few years ago of a presidential candidate who stated he would fire employees caught in adultery because if your wife can't trust you, I sure can't. I don't really disagree with him. If you want to be with someone else, you can get a divorce easily these days in this country, so there is no reason for such nonsense anymore. Adultery and other nonsense is just a symptom of weak personalities, and as normal as that might be, it isn't what I want to see in the leaders of nations. Obviously, we wouldn't have many politicians left in France with those rules.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Feb 11, 2011 14:53:50 GMT
Yes, but in general in France (and until recently this was the case in Canada - even English-speaking Canada) these matters were seen as nobody's business outside the people involved.
Unfortunately such gossip has spread from scandal sheets to "respectable" news sources.
Italians don't give a shit about such peccadillos either, and if anything for a while Berlusconi's antics increased his macho prestige, but now people are getting fed up because he seems pathetic and a bit of a laughing stock, and the thought of a codger in his 70s paying for sex with underage girls is rather gross.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Feb 11, 2011 18:14:33 GMT
(I'm glad no one thought to add the Bush name to the list of semi-royal American families!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2011 19:15:30 GMT
The only family that Bush brings to mind is the one in 'Dallas'.
|
|
|
Post by gertie on Feb 12, 2011 16:59:39 GMT
Well, if you're going to put Clinton up there, Bush should surely go up there as well. Seems like at least as much reason for that name as Clinton. Actually, putting either up there with Kennedy sort of blind sided me, I guess because Kennedy and Camelot thing. Never heard any reference to a king and Bush or Clinton. Can see the 'Dallas' - Bush thing much easier.
As far as the French / Italian thing goes...I always understood the affairs were understood / expected / not a secret in the same sense. Not that they're taking out a billboard, but they wouldn't lie about it. Or at least that is the attitude my French and Italian friends took. I've got no problem with people having open marriages. If all parties know the score and agree to it, then yes, fine, all their affair, perfectly acceptable. My objection is to the lying.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Feb 28, 2011 18:31:15 GMT
Well....knowing that the hype will be absolutely unbearable, I just volunteered to work on 'The Day' (it's a Bank Holday here) so I should miss the worst of it...won't protect me from the replays but I can cope. Just. Next year will be much worse...what with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee AND the Olympics...groan... (adjusts boring-old-fart-hat and waddles into distance) however...there's usually the prospect of a few good concerts to cheer me up.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Mar 1, 2011 7:10:32 GMT
Poor old Cholls is never going to be crowned, innit?
|
|