About 30 years ago, I open an office in London. After hiring a very competent manager, who is of course, a subject of the British Empire, I asked her if she thought they would ever get rid of the crown. She had a very enlightening comment saying no, we never would because it’s good for business. I asked her what she meant and she said are you kidding, you Anglophile Americans spend millions of dollars every year traveling to England to get close to the royal family. It’s one of our greatest tourist attractions.
The French chopped off the heads of all their royals. Now all French palaces and castles are open to tourists and France attracts more tourists than the UK. That UK 'royal business model' is a grotesque mystification, at best ...
The ancestors of the current monarch decapitated many, think Anne Boleyn.
I go to London to visit my daughter and her family, buy cheese, and visit Stonehenge. We took her to the UK when she was 16 because she liked the Beatles.
As a result of our ancestry search my spouse and I have identified links to England although I am 75% German.
Victoria's children were Saxe-Coburg Gotha via Prince Albert, one of the most intelligent men to have been a British Royal; he introduced the idea of the primacy of science in British life. The Victoria and Albert Museum(s) are his legacy. The late Queen's grandmother (who stopped her car in Kensington Gardens for my Mother to cross the road pushing a pram!) was Princess Mai von Teck, later Queen Mary. She never lived in Germany but spoke German well. None of this is news to we Brits. The present arrangements grew out of the most turbulent period of English History between 1642-88; wars, coups, executions and more*. All the powers of the Crown are vested in Parliament i.e. the people. Crown Land means I can walk across it and the Royal buildings (barring Sandringham) and all the collections belong to the people not the Royals.
*Please read The Putney Debates (online). It will sound very familiar to you.
Rather more so; her diaries were destroyed in part because of her recording her liking for physical satisfaction. Her great, great grand daughter was rumoured to be au fond. Prince Phillip told Larry Adler he couldn't keep up with her, if you will pardon the expression!
Good point. What is confusing is that there were many Kings of England, going way back to the 10th and 11th centuries, basically to William the Conqueror, and actually even before this, there were a group of Norse Kings from 1013-1042, and before that, Anglo-Saxon Kings dating back to Alfred the Great in 871-890 but this tree actually overlaps in time, but is separate from the Norse King Tree which only included three or four. The modern royal lineage I think, really begins with the Norman and Early Plantagenets. I don't know that all of them are actually direct ancestors of the present royals, but they are still a part of their history and the greater overall lineage. I have a book on the Plantagenet, and it provides Dynastic Family Trees in the back. The Windsors are part of the House of Hanover and Windsor, which dates back to George I, 1714-1727. Before this, there were the Tudors and Stuarts, which date back to Henry VII, 1485-1509. In this family tree it shows George I as being a descendant of James I (also called VI of Scotland), 1603-1625; and his line traces back to Mary Queen of Scots, James V, James IV, and then to Henry VII, 1485-1509. Henry VIII was on a different branch of this same tree, but he was also a son of Henry VII, and Elizabeth of York. Henry VII's daughter Margaret, (who must have also been Henry VIII's sister), seems to have married James IV of Scotland, leading to James V their son, and then Mary Queen of Scots was his daughter. Mary's second husband was Henry Stuart, and then James I (also referred to as VI of Scotland) married Anne of Denmark, and their son was Charles I, (1625-1649). Ultimately, this tree does date back to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. So perhaps the current royal family really are related to Henry VIII, through his sister Margaret. Henry VIII's direct line led to Jane Seymour giving birth to Edward VI, 1547-1553, and on this same branch of the tree they are showing Anne Boelyn as having given birth to Elizabeth I. ) Continued in the next three replies below...
Before the Tudors and Stuarts there were the Later Plantagenets. That tree had several Henrys and Edwards as well as Richard III. Ultimately, Henry VII who is at the bottom of this tree, is a descendant of all of the Henrys, going back to Henry IV, and then to a branch that includes Edward I (1272-1307), Edward II (1307-1327), and Edward III (1327-1377). Finally the Edwards were the descendants of Henry III 1216-1272 and Eleanor of Provence. The Early Plantagenet Tree came before this one, and William the Conqueror was a part of this Early Norman and Plantagenet Family Tree, which begins with Richard I, Duke of Normandy, branching to Richard II, Aethelred the Unready in 978-1016. The Richard II branch, leads to a third Duke of Normandy named Robert, and then William the Conqueror was his son. William married Matilda of Flanders and then had William II Rufus, and Henry I who married Matilda and also gave birth to a daughter named Matilda in 1141, who married Geoffrey of Anjou, leading to Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitane, who had another Richard I, and John. John had two wives both anmed Isabella and they had Henry III, (1215-1272). Henry the III is at the bottom of this tree, and is also at the top of the Later Plantagenet Tree.
At the coronation today, they used the old wooden throne which belonged to one of King Edwards, although they did not specify if it was Edward I, II, or III. They just said it had belonged to King Edward, and it is kept up in Scotland at one of the castles there.
So indirectly, I think they really are related to the whole lineage, but there are these different branches on all of them. In modern terms, we think of them as belonging just to the more recent House and Family Tree, which is the House of Hanover and Windsor.
I'm not an expert on this, but am just looking at what is outlined in this book. The book is called, "The Kings and Queens of England by Ian Crofton.
I know this is like totally confusing. If you see it in the book, it is a lot clearer because it shows each tree on a separate page, but they all start with the same person at the bottom, and then again at the top of the later tree. I really don't know how the Windsors think of their lineage, plus there are other branches not included on these trees that pertain to their current family ties. Anyway, it is just something to know about.
Here's another great article about the lineage of the Edwards, during the Later Plantagenet Period, and how Richard III may have been involved in stealing the throne from Edward V - who was just a young boy, while he was their uncle. If you are a subscriber - or if not, it might be available to read as a free article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/04/30/edward-v-coronation-disappearance
My thoughts are the same, that tourists would still go see the historic castles, etc. The news said that less than 40% of young U.K. people support the monarchy. $123 million taxpayer dollars spent for the coronation (the numbers aren't in)? People poor, hungry, unable to keep their homes warm? I just don't get it. This may be the last king.
That is just the coronation. I don’t know the actual figure, but I once read an article on the cost of maintaining the royal family and all their homes. It was a staggering amount. “Harmless fiction”?
spot on, looks like £100m spent, maybe more, and people going with placards in the streets arrested and handcuffed. Neo-fascism is here... ( btw I have been living in Notting Hill since 1981 )
I am sorry but you are so full of ???? The UK is ahead or tied with France on the tourism industry & for your information Buckingham Palace & Windsor Castle & many other Royal buildings are open to the public & well worth visiting.
THIS WORD IS IN TERRIBLE PAIN & SUFFERING. We need to keep & protect the beautiful aspects/history of the past GOOD & BAD.
After reading the following comments, more amusement... IS IT ALWAYS ALL ABOUT MONEY EVERYWHERE?
But although Diana was beautiful and glamorous, it was the works of her heart and care for all human beings that inspired deep love and appreciation for her.
I would guess that a lot of the tourist money goes to pay tour guides, restaurant owners and workers, hotel people, janitors, taxi drivers, souvenir sellers, other shop-keepers, and the like. Tourist money gets pretty spread around -- maybe more than most.
Aside from the scenario that Kim cites, the money the Crown spends, lavishly, from its own income, benefits U.K. businesses. Charles and the family are patrons of many different enterprises.
That statement is quite common but how wonder if it's revenue negative when you consider the costs involved. I'm British by birth but have been in Australia for 40 years since Thatcher made me an economic refugee and find the attitude towards royalty slightly amusing. Yesterdays sights reminded me of a bad Peter Sellars movie I once saw called The Mouse that roared. Also Trump turned your presidency into a sick joke !!!
Yes. Celebrity is attractive, Camelot, the musical, “I wonder what the king, is doing, tonight,” Mundane life can be punctuated by interesting stuff not one’s own. Life, reflected in story of others (death, divorce, hard feelings, love), patterns in chapters of life—hope in a marriage (being alone, celebrity’s, an event), older people acknowledged their own youth died when a celebrity dies. Truth, history, is stranger than fiction. A city can be grey. Life is color.
The lady you spoke to was mistaken. Royals bring in nothing, their palaces and other historic sites do, just like Versailles, just like Angkor Wat, just like the Taj Mahal , just like The Valley of the Kings. The presence or otherwise of royals is completely incidental (how many tourists catch sight of a royal anyway?) No, what people really come to see is attractions like The British Museum, The National Gallery, The Tate Modern, The Natural History Museum, The Science Museum, The Victoria and Albert Museum, Whipsnade Zoo, The Tower of London, The National Portrait Gallery, Chester Zoo, Kew Gardens, Westminster Abbey, The National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh Castle, Royal Albert Hall, The Scottish National Gallery, St Pauls, The British Library, Scotland, Wales, the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales, The Cotswolds, Cornwall, Dartmoor, Devon, the Peak District, The Cairngorms National Park, Loch Ness with its monster mystery - to name but a few which are far more attractive than Buckingham Palace or its occupants.
A record 39.1 million tourists visited Birmingham in 2016 and not a single royal lives there. 20 million people visited the Lake District in 2019, they didn’t go there to see any of the Windsors.
This 'revenue from tourism' myth is just that...a myth, it’s been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked. The Windsors bring in nothing, not tourism revenue, not tourists, nothing. If tourism was the deciding factor in a democracy’s constitutional arrangement, then the CEO of Merlin Entertainment, Alton Towers, Legoland etc, would be the Head of State.
We don’t need a king.. the Vice President should handle all ceremonial functions so that a President can govern.. not sure why anyone cares about any royals.. we fought hard and long to get rid of them.
Brilliant! Having the VP take charge of all ceremonial functions would at least provide an answer to the question, "What does the Vice President do, anyway?"
I'd rather our Vice President HAVE actual, important, impactual duties that get actual media coverage so we can see their potential to step into the presidency if necessary...
I have found many areas that our vice president is involved in. I find this information on websites and on television programs such as CNN. Seek and you shall find!
I prefer the U.S. version of royalty, often empty-headed celebrities who strut their moment upon the stage, then move on as revered, disgraced, or forgotten has-beens. At least the people make the current choice freely and U.S. royalty do not have a lifelong purchase on the public treasury as do the Brit parasites.
Except, we can’t work our butts off hard enough if the Republicans succeed in gerrymandering enough states to make it impossible for Dems to ever win an election. We have to end the electoral college and have many substantive wins in court to halt this extremist takeover of our country.
All the bad stuff crawled out of the Electoral College ooze. You can't get rid of the EC if you can't even control gerrymandering. We simply must get enough people to vote to knock over their towering roadblocks. We have the numbers. Do we have the will?
I have been watching Leonard Leo closely and categorize him as the most dangerous domestic terrorist in this country along with those who belong to The Federalist Society who knowingly participated in and perpetuate this insidious plot to maintain Republican Power and control. Don’t believe for one minute that Mitch’s 40-year plan for control was designed without the input of and assistance by many of these same people. Despite control, we must amass Democratic votes and clean house from local school boards on up. Excellent article.
Actors' pay?! That's something I never thought about. Their pay is between them and their employers. What business is it of mine? I'll honor any picket line I see. Since you ask, I don't think that I get paid anything..
My big question is: in the “Treasure of Sierra Madre,” did the kitchen worker who uttered the sentence “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges” get actors’ equity pay?
Exactly, Stan. I thought of him. His reality tv show had failed, so he ran for the presidency as an audacious publicity stunt, one.that turned him into a two-time loser. But unlike any other compound has-been he just won't go away.
Phil, try watching some of the excellent offerings on PBS that are made in England. You don’t have to be a Royalist to enjoy well-made murder mysteries or historical drama.
And don’t overlook the closer-to- home locally- produced shows.
I’ve been an avid supporter since my adult children watched Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street. Donations well spent !
At this point, I should say I really enjoyed the probable last such ceremony, the real star being the Abbey. Hats off, in both (or is it four) senses, to the King and Queen for their fortitude in making it through what would have been grueling for those half their age. In no other place could this have happened ..
Maybe a person appointed with role of social convenor—made famous by being sour, silent, powerful around formal traditions, and celebrity at the same time. Blame it all on “them,” instead of distraction to political stuff. A time limited, arms length, 9-year term, just to be different. NO formal goodbye at end, just usher in another. No mystery about life of such a public servant, or trio that serves as lightning rod for a role of too many galas. A real person(s) with minimal backstory, serious-side and, above all, unknowable political views. Festive stuff belongs to celebrity social conveners, not overworked social visionaries.
I think the monarchy is the symbol of a very real elitism that has been the foundation of British society and values - or at least the foundation of their still large aristocracy's claim to superiority. As long as their 1% are held in veneration, the 99% are not. It is a vestige of the ancient feudal past that should be put to rest, with a vengeance.
I concur (said with an Oxbridge accent). European aristocracy maintains in general a network of privilege that allows it to increase their lot’s fortunes while trying to look austere and modest. In the meantime, within the walls of their social circles, they laugh at what they call “les petites gens” or the 99%. They use their influence to traffic favors and access to power. I hope one day a journalistic team will shame them in public and hopefully put some in prison for their white glove crimes. I have had the displeasure of working in their midst and understood the nature of evil.
Except, Marisa, for Prince Randy Andy, who actually committed “black glove crimes” with the help of Jeffrey Child Molester Epstein. He should definitely go to jail.
Not just the symbol, but the very foundation of an anachronistic layer cake of privilege, wealth, class, racism, inequality, and associated suffering of the underclass. Monarchy is the opiate of the people, especially the seniors.
That class structure in the UK that has a certain % of people thinking they are definitely 'superior' by way of birth is something that is clung onto desperately by the ones who benefit from it. The 'lower working class' just tolerate the whole thing simply because it's easier than having a painful revolution, and after all there's all that pretty stuff like the Coronation to watch. I don't think the Brits have the stomach to go thru a revolution that took the country into a socialist framework. They dabble with it to get more rights which they definitely do want, but all that nasty fighting in the streets business is not something most Brits want - they would rather just negotiate for better conditions, altho a strike or 2 goes down quite well ! While there were plenty of people in the streets for the coronation, the vast majority stayed home & watched the goings on on TV - nice to watch, but time to discuss all those people getting paid just because they are 'Royals' - hence Charles is trying to slim it all down - he knows what the public mood is !!
The monarch, under the British constitution (yes there is one) has three main political rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. The late Queen, by virtue of her longevity and her weekly meetings with every prime minister while that person was in office, had a deep knowledge of the political process and of its likely repercussions in Commonwealth countries, which she also knew very thoroughly. Prime ministers have acknowledged how helpful her perspective was, which owed nothing to electoral requirements and sprang from a lifetime of service to the country. We can only hope that Charles has acquired something of that same depth of perspective. No elected politician is bound by the monarch’s opinion on any issue, but it is certainly an educated one that deserves attention even if not followed.
I admired Queen Elizabeth the second. I understand that during her reign she was actually cutting down on the amount of money that she was getting from the people via their taxes.She stopped using the Royal Air Force and got rid of the royal yacht. Jenny - I agree with your comment about Queen Elizabeth II. Charles has always been concerned about the environment. I have a copy of the book he wrote on this topic. I admired his first wife, nuff said on that topic.
Doesn't the Monarch have the power to suspend Parliament in the U.K. and Canada? I thought Queen Elizabeth used that power at least twice during her reign.
It is a very limited and murky area. The queen's agent, the Governor-General, has the discretion to refuse to dissolve parliament when the PM instructs them to, if in their opinion the opposition can cobble together a viable government. This power was used once, in the 1920's, when the GG (Lord Byng) refused to call an election when PM MacKenzie-King quit, and instead allowed the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen to attempt to form a government. That died fairly early, and MK campaigned loud and long that the GG had acted in an anti-democratic fashion against the command of the government. MK won the subsequent election in a landslide. Ever since then the GG has avoided being in a similar bind, and nobody has touched it. The only near exception has been Stephen Harper, who, upon learning that he was about to be defeated on an non-confidence vote and thrown into an election he was likely to lose, instructed the GG to 'prorogue' Parliament, which essentially means to close the session and all bills and business, and start it all over again. After frantically consulting in all directions, the GG agreed to carry out the PM's instruction, which was widely criticized as a partisan way to short-circuit the probable will of parliament. But they were all wary of repeating some version of the King-Byng Crisis.
So, while the power exists in theory, it is so limited as to be virtually useless. And recent trends have been to treat the GG as the head of state in practice.
Try reading about the Whitlam era in Australian politics where clearly the Crown was involved in downing a socialist government and it's PM at the time. Records between Buck House and Australia have never been released !!
Very well said! There is continuity in their service. Elected politicians have a fixed term and do not always act in the best interest of the commons, i.e. the majority of those they serve. They always have an eye on what they need to do to get re-elected.
Robert - I am surprised at you! This is NOT a harmless fiction, It is a fiction that inherently relies on the idea of hereditary privilege - that some people are born better than others, not because they are in any way gifted, or markedly more intelligent than others, but simply because of who their parents are. And that goes back to the fact that centuries ago, their ancestors were in the right place at the right time, better at killing people and better at theft than others around at the time. The royal family are obscenely wealthy and yet we, British tax payers, at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are struggling to put food on their table, had to pay for this ridiculous extravaganza that we had absolutely no say in whether or not it happened. It is also not true to say that the king has no power. As has been shown recently, the royal family get the chance to see legislation that might affect their interests before it is ever seen by MPs, and they have, on many occasions, insisted on changes to such legislation that will further benefit them financially. And having those who disagree with the idea of monarchy arrested before they had even started to peacefully protest, again shows that this is not harmless.
Our new king is known to require servants to put the toothpaste on the toothbrush for him! And although his friend Jonathon Dimbleby tried to claim that he would find the idea of anyone swearing allegiance to him repugnant, it is absurd to suggest that the idea of having people swear an oath of loyalty, not just to him but to his successors, was something put in the coronation ceremony without his approval or desire. It is also totally anachronistic that, in a country where the majority of people do not see themselves as Christians, that our new king was swearing to uphold the protestant religion. How offensive to everyone who does not see themselves as protestant! Giving representatives of other denominations and religions tiny walk on parts in this ceremony does not make this right. If the UK is ever to even start to achieve any improvement in its quite hideous levels of inequality, both of status and of wealth, we must get rid of these symbols of totally unearned hereditary wealth and privilege.
I was ten years old when Queen Elizabeth II was crowned and mesmerized by the pomp and circumstance. All my ancestors were from England save one from Wales, and I felt connected to the royal family. But my mother set me straight. We would never be invited to tea, she said, because we would be considered commoners. That's why we had a revolution, she reminded me. My ancestors came here very likely because they were cut off from grazing lands and had no access to a decent life. Only years later did I realize that I must have identified with the royals because we lived in the Jim Crow South where white people were presumed to be at the top of the social order. I skipped the coronation today and haven't watched any of the news about it, but I've been thinking about Meghan Markle. I hope she had a good enough day, connecting with people who respect and like her for who she is. Being a duchess under her circumstances must be a bitter pill. I wish her well.
progwoman, I couldn’t agree more with you. I gained new respect after recently watching « Suits » in which Meghan Markle starred. No wonder she has the strength to deal with the royals and their weirdness. I would have gained new respect for Charles if he had personally insisted that she and Harry and their children be included. I also didn’t watch it and find it all a bore.
It is also not true to say that they bring in millions in tourism. As many people have pointed out, the French make far more money from places like Versailles than anywhere in Britain and the French got rid of their monarchy a long time ago. Given that tourists don't ever get to take tea with any of the royals if they happen to visit Buckingham Palace or other royal palaces (which cost an absolute fortune to visit, by the way), they would visit whether we still had a monarchy or just the historic symbols of them.
I agree. While I enjoy reading the history of the British monarchy and other European monarchies, that is where I think they belong. As long past history. In the 21st century, having inherited monarchies have no place anywhere. They need to go like slavery.
We might look at the royalty as a kind of social experiment that seeks to answer the question “Can we produce a superior person if we give him-her lots of money, a solid education, lots of manservants and maidservants and chattel and cattle?” I suspect that we would agree that we can’t reach a conclusion about this experiment. And so why continue it?
I'm a dual UK-US Citizen living and working in Arizona – and have spent most of my adult life in the US. Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee Award for graduate research and study (home or abroad) brought me to Columbia University and changed my career and life - for the better.
The British Monarchy exists to serve the people, give them hope and unite the nation. Despite the Royal soap opera and intrigue, amplified no-end by the press, the same can't be said for a large number of numbskulls occupying Parliament. In the US we are barely beginning to recover from the events leading up to the 2016 election after which Trump, a patently incompetent, seditious narcissist infested the People's House - the White House, and through his low IQ convinced millions of Americans that Covid was some kind of hoax that would evaporate by Easter 2020. Over 1 million Americans have died as a direct result and in 2020 Trump set about destroying our democracy in order to remain in power like some insane King devoid of decency and taste.
Neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Kind Charles III would ever dream of abusing the roles and titles they hold for personal gain and power. The Monarchy has no political power at all. It serves at the pleasure of the people and for the people. Britain's armed forces pledge allegiance to the Crown not to Parliament - as such they are completely apolitical even though they are of course permitted to vote and hold personal views of one sort or another.
In our now global society where, it seems, every living and inanimate thing is treated as an exploitable commodity from which profits are to be extracted as quickly and for as long as possible, Britain's Monarchy operates as a social gyroscope combatting political extremes, corruption and exploitation that are so frequently engaged in by elected officials. We most definitely need to do better in the US starting with ethical oversight of lawyers and especially the Supreme Court. We need a better justice model than the two tier one so clearly in operation today.
So as a dual citizen there are times when I feel decidedly betwixt and between both nations. But the United States is my home and where the bulk of my family now are. I just hope that we in the United States can correct our course and find, in new leaders in Congress and all levels of government, that social gyroscope that enables us to set a course for a better future and tack our way toward it - together rather than apart.
So do I. Praying Trump does not get re-elected. I doubt he will. Even stupid people who voted for him should get the picture of a sociopath, liar, thief, crook and a predator. Get my message?
I am a Brit, and have mixed feelings about our royals. I think it's a good idea to have a head of state who is a) decorative, and b) has no real powers. On the other hand, the idea of a head of state by birth encourages too many among the rich and powerful to think in terms of entitlement rather than worth. Birth should not give anybody anything. The royals set a bad example for the rest of us.
Not sure that fascination with royalty is harmless. The notion that someone is actually born higher than others is not different from believing the reverse. Like accepting slavery.
I say this as a scot and a Brit... the monarchy is an embarrassment and seem to be an excuse for a portion of the population to believe that they have ‘betters’ and are doing their duty by paying attention to the drama while excusing any number of ‘indiscretions’ in the name of tradition. It should be left in the past and represented in museums. America, there is much I do not envy about the USA right now but your lack of monarchy is one thing.
The aristocracy and gentry control at least 30% of the land in England, according to the Guardian. This, of course, is probably only a small portion of the land that the monarchy owns or controls worldwide (it is very difficult to find exact figures). I can't help but wonder what the British economy would look like if there were to be major land reform, allowing citizens and their government to control an additional third of their country. In terms of their impact on the economy, and the ability of their citizens to own property and thus build intergenerational family wealth (yes, I am sitting in on your Wealth and Poverty class for a second time), I think it is too generous to see them as a benign force in their society. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author
Thank you for these figures. I wonder if this control might be thought of as land that has been thus far conserved. Lands should be conserved or a percentage in land reform. Good luck with that. Every bit of land that has been preserved by the aristocracy does not have to be open for development. The article says that the monarchy itself owns only 1.4% of the land.
I think this is the 21st century and we need to put things that belong in the past in the past, such as royalty, internal combustion engines, and animal agriculture.
At least this made work for those whose job it was to pick up that manure. And of course, it could be used to fertilize land instead of polluting the atmosphere.
Alright then it's ironic since the last figure I heard is 12 percent of the carbon in the atmosphere is due to livestock. If you have I a point, and I don't think you do, you should try and make it.
Yeah and move forward with artificial intelligence, social media, metaverse, and going to MARS. Are you equaing lab grown meat with electric vehicles. Each to it's time.
Yes. Interesting is how dopey individuals (tapes on any continent), is as wreckage, but the story is bigger than any one chapter. What ends a good story, or a captivating story? An ending. Unknowable is in seeking a substitute story; continuing is a stronger motivator than ditching an idea. People support people—not always, but it’s an impulse to avoid being negative (though some people’s impulse is to be angry, annoyed, suspicious, and unsupportive). People don’t aim to be naive, but optimism, hope, encouragement, is nicer to be around than scorn, sneering, and character assassination.
I really do not think that Trump should run for president. I think he wants to be king. You can't tell him anything because he already knows everything he thinks.
I wish that we Americans would pay less attention to British royalty. We fought a war to rid ourselves of Royalty yet many Americans follow the royalty celebrities like our own Hollywood folk--and neither group are worthy of much attention. We do expect to much ceremonial activities of our president when the primary duty is and should be governance.
It's okay. So long as they were in an international intrigue movie (such as James Bond) they know as much about international relations as most politicians.
I, for one, think the monarchy is a distraction that is holding us back. Everybody goes on about how good for tourism they are, but what about the other side of that. How bad for the economy are they? With our eyes to the past wee have got complacent. We aren't doing anything much with the intellectual and cultural capital we have and where financial services took the focus, even those are going overseas after brexit. We are in real trouble in terms of jobs (please look past the numbers to the actual what people are doing). Nostalgia, the Royals, the fairy story, imagine how much we could do if we didn't have them, They're a complacency machine, and it is killing us.
And the amount of money they invest in being liked and in reminding everyone why they are “good for the country” via films and documentaries? “The System”, as Diana and now Harry explained, is as dark as any other white glove crime ring.
I agree with Robert. And I think the media, in the last few weeks, have been very un-insightful and unoriginal, unanimously proclaiming that no one cares about the Charles and the coronation. Not really true. I do have to say, though, I thought that both Charles and Camilla looked a little awkward with those crowns. Embarrassed, and nervous that the crown would fall off.
I was concerned about how stressed King Charles look and how miserable he looked. I noticed he was uncomfortable with the crown and he works real hard not to flown it but the queen or so. She's called same to enjoy herself but I wish you'd been somebody else
About 30 years ago, I open an office in London. After hiring a very competent manager, who is of course, a subject of the British Empire, I asked her if she thought they would ever get rid of the crown. She had a very enlightening comment saying no, we never would because it’s good for business. I asked her what she meant and she said are you kidding, you Anglophile Americans spend millions of dollars every year traveling to England to get close to the royal family. It’s one of our greatest tourist attractions.
The French chopped off the heads of all their royals. Now all French palaces and castles are open to tourists and France attracts more tourists than the UK. That UK 'royal business model' is a grotesque mystification, at best ...
The ancestors of the current monarch decapitated many, think Anne Boleyn.
I go to London to visit my daughter and her family, buy cheese, and visit Stonehenge. We took her to the UK when she was 16 because she liked the Beatles.
As a result of our ancestry search my spouse and I have identified links to England although I am 75% German.
King Charles’ ancestry has a sizeable German chunk. He recently addressed the German parliament in German
Apparently Queen Victoria spoke German much better than she spoke English.
Yes, her family descended from Hanovers. The name change to Windsor was due to political reasons ("optics") during WWI.
Apparently the UK’s royal family is more German than English.
Victoria's children were Saxe-Coburg Gotha via Prince Albert, one of the most intelligent men to have been a British Royal; he introduced the idea of the primacy of science in British life. The Victoria and Albert Museum(s) are his legacy. The late Queen's grandmother (who stopped her car in Kensington Gardens for my Mother to cross the road pushing a pram!) was Princess Mai von Teck, later Queen Mary. She never lived in Germany but spoke German well. None of this is news to we Brits. The present arrangements grew out of the most turbulent period of English History between 1642-88; wars, coups, executions and more*. All the powers of the Crown are vested in Parliament i.e. the people. Crown Land means I can walk across it and the Royal buildings (barring Sandringham) and all the collections belong to the people not the Royals.
*Please read The Putney Debates (online). It will sound very familiar to you.
I was aware of that.
True of George II, no monarch since. But she did have a German husband, whom she adored.
Rather more so; her diaries were destroyed in part because of her recording her liking for physical satisfaction. Her great, great grand daughter was rumoured to be au fond. Prince Phillip told Larry Adler he couldn't keep up with her, if you will pardon the expression!
thank you
Actually, Henry VIII was not an ancestor of the Windsors, whose family name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. https://www.royal.uk/saxe-coburg-gotha#:~:text=The%20name%20Saxe%2DCoburg%2DGotha,British%20dynasty%20was%20short%2Dlived.
Good point. What is confusing is that there were many Kings of England, going way back to the 10th and 11th centuries, basically to William the Conqueror, and actually even before this, there were a group of Norse Kings from 1013-1042, and before that, Anglo-Saxon Kings dating back to Alfred the Great in 871-890 but this tree actually overlaps in time, but is separate from the Norse King Tree which only included three or four. The modern royal lineage I think, really begins with the Norman and Early Plantagenets. I don't know that all of them are actually direct ancestors of the present royals, but they are still a part of their history and the greater overall lineage. I have a book on the Plantagenet, and it provides Dynastic Family Trees in the back. The Windsors are part of the House of Hanover and Windsor, which dates back to George I, 1714-1727. Before this, there were the Tudors and Stuarts, which date back to Henry VII, 1485-1509. In this family tree it shows George I as being a descendant of James I (also called VI of Scotland), 1603-1625; and his line traces back to Mary Queen of Scots, James V, James IV, and then to Henry VII, 1485-1509. Henry VIII was on a different branch of this same tree, but he was also a son of Henry VII, and Elizabeth of York. Henry VII's daughter Margaret, (who must have also been Henry VIII's sister), seems to have married James IV of Scotland, leading to James V their son, and then Mary Queen of Scots was his daughter. Mary's second husband was Henry Stuart, and then James I (also referred to as VI of Scotland) married Anne of Denmark, and their son was Charles I, (1625-1649). Ultimately, this tree does date back to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. So perhaps the current royal family really are related to Henry VIII, through his sister Margaret. Henry VIII's direct line led to Jane Seymour giving birth to Edward VI, 1547-1553, and on this same branch of the tree they are showing Anne Boelyn as having given birth to Elizabeth I. ) Continued in the next three replies below...
continued from my post above....
Before the Tudors and Stuarts there were the Later Plantagenets. That tree had several Henrys and Edwards as well as Richard III. Ultimately, Henry VII who is at the bottom of this tree, is a descendant of all of the Henrys, going back to Henry IV, and then to a branch that includes Edward I (1272-1307), Edward II (1307-1327), and Edward III (1327-1377). Finally the Edwards were the descendants of Henry III 1216-1272 and Eleanor of Provence. The Early Plantagenet Tree came before this one, and William the Conqueror was a part of this Early Norman and Plantagenet Family Tree, which begins with Richard I, Duke of Normandy, branching to Richard II, Aethelred the Unready in 978-1016. The Richard II branch, leads to a third Duke of Normandy named Robert, and then William the Conqueror was his son. William married Matilda of Flanders and then had William II Rufus, and Henry I who married Matilda and also gave birth to a daughter named Matilda in 1141, who married Geoffrey of Anjou, leading to Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitane, who had another Richard I, and John. John had two wives both anmed Isabella and they had Henry III, (1215-1272). Henry the III is at the bottom of this tree, and is also at the top of the Later Plantagenet Tree.
At the coronation today, they used the old wooden throne which belonged to one of King Edwards, although they did not specify if it was Edward I, II, or III. They just said it had belonged to King Edward, and it is kept up in Scotland at one of the castles there.
Continued again, below...
So indirectly, I think they really are related to the whole lineage, but there are these different branches on all of them. In modern terms, we think of them as belonging just to the more recent House and Family Tree, which is the House of Hanover and Windsor.
I'm not an expert on this, but am just looking at what is outlined in this book. The book is called, "The Kings and Queens of England by Ian Crofton.
Thank you for this.
I know this is like totally confusing. If you see it in the book, it is a lot clearer because it shows each tree on a separate page, but they all start with the same person at the bottom, and then again at the top of the later tree. I really don't know how the Windsors think of their lineage, plus there are other branches not included on these trees that pertain to their current family ties. Anyway, it is just something to know about.
Here's another great article about the lineage of the Edwards, during the Later Plantagenet Period, and how Richard III may have been involved in stealing the throne from Edward V - who was just a young boy, while he was their uncle. If you are a subscriber - or if not, it might be available to read as a free article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/04/30/edward-v-coronation-disappearance
Isn’t the British monarchy bloodline mostly German as well?
The English are a Germanic people. Saxon.
The English are a Germanic people. I'm English.
My thoughts are the same, that tourists would still go see the historic castles, etc. The news said that less than 40% of young U.K. people support the monarchy. $123 million taxpayer dollars spent for the coronation (the numbers aren't in)? People poor, hungry, unable to keep their homes warm? I just don't get it. This may be the last king.
That is just the coronation. I don’t know the actual figure, but I once read an article on the cost of maintaining the royal family and all their homes. It was a staggering amount. “Harmless fiction”?
spot on, looks like £100m spent, maybe more, and people going with placards in the streets arrested and handcuffed. Neo-fascism is here... ( btw I have been living in Notting Hill since 1981 )
Apples and oranges.
I am sorry but you are so full of ???? The UK is ahead or tied with France on the tourism industry & for your information Buckingham Palace & Windsor Castle & many other Royal buildings are open to the public & well worth visiting.
THIS WORD IS IN TERRIBLE PAIN & SUFFERING. We need to keep & protect the beautiful aspects/history of the past GOOD & BAD.
LOL!
After reading the following comments, more amusement... IS IT ALWAYS ALL ABOUT MONEY EVERYWHERE?
But although Diana was beautiful and glamorous, it was the works of her heart and care for all human beings that inspired deep love and appreciation for her.
She is the only royal that I have ever loved.
What about King Zog of Albania?
No more than Czar Stan of Stanistan
Hear-hear!
No more. I can't Stan it!
Like everything else, the monarchy is a commodity. Does the income from tourism exceed the expense of the monarchy?
Yes.
Wonder if the income trickles down to benefit the taxpayers? Bah, humbug.
I would guess that a lot of the tourist money goes to pay tour guides, restaurant owners and workers, hotel people, janitors, taxi drivers, souvenir sellers, other shop-keepers, and the like. Tourist money gets pretty spread around -- maybe more than most.
Exactly.
Aside from the scenario that Kim cites, the money the Crown spends, lavishly, from its own income, benefits U.K. businesses. Charles and the family are patrons of many different enterprises.
That statement is quite common but how wonder if it's revenue negative when you consider the costs involved. I'm British by birth but have been in Australia for 40 years since Thatcher made me an economic refugee and find the attitude towards royalty slightly amusing. Yesterdays sights reminded me of a bad Peter Sellars movie I once saw called The Mouse that roared. Also Trump turned your presidency into a sick joke !!!
Yes. Celebrity is attractive, Camelot, the musical, “I wonder what the king, is doing, tonight,” Mundane life can be punctuated by interesting stuff not one’s own. Life, reflected in story of others (death, divorce, hard feelings, love), patterns in chapters of life—hope in a marriage (being alone, celebrity’s, an event), older people acknowledged their own youth died when a celebrity dies. Truth, history, is stranger than fiction. A city can be grey. Life is color.
True.
The lady you spoke to was mistaken. Royals bring in nothing, their palaces and other historic sites do, just like Versailles, just like Angkor Wat, just like the Taj Mahal , just like The Valley of the Kings. The presence or otherwise of royals is completely incidental (how many tourists catch sight of a royal anyway?) No, what people really come to see is attractions like The British Museum, The National Gallery, The Tate Modern, The Natural History Museum, The Science Museum, The Victoria and Albert Museum, Whipsnade Zoo, The Tower of London, The National Portrait Gallery, Chester Zoo, Kew Gardens, Westminster Abbey, The National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh Castle, Royal Albert Hall, The Scottish National Gallery, St Pauls, The British Library, Scotland, Wales, the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales, The Cotswolds, Cornwall, Dartmoor, Devon, the Peak District, The Cairngorms National Park, Loch Ness with its monster mystery - to name but a few which are far more attractive than Buckingham Palace or its occupants.
A record 39.1 million tourists visited Birmingham in 2016 and not a single royal lives there. 20 million people visited the Lake District in 2019, they didn’t go there to see any of the Windsors.
https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/record-visitors-boost-birminghams-tourism-12843996
This 'revenue from tourism' myth is just that...a myth, it’s been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked. The Windsors bring in nothing, not tourism revenue, not tourists, nothing. If tourism was the deciding factor in a democracy’s constitutional arrangement, then the CEO of Merlin Entertainment, Alton Towers, Legoland etc, would be the Head of State.
It is fine with me. The Celebration was quite tasteful. My Northern Irish relatives living in Belfast may have a different opinion.
We don’t need a king.. the Vice President should handle all ceremonial functions so that a President can govern.. not sure why anyone cares about any royals.. we fought hard and long to get rid of them.
Brilliant! Having the VP take charge of all ceremonial functions would at least provide an answer to the question, "What does the Vice President do, anyway?"
I'd rather our Vice President HAVE actual, important, impactual duties that get actual media coverage so we can see their potential to step into the presidency if necessary...
Exactly. What we need is a separate "Master of ceremonies" to take the burden. Unless the Pres enjoys it.
Well, Lyndon Johnson took over when we lost JFK .. and went on to get us Medicare and The Voting Rights Act.
I have found many areas that our vice president is involved in. I find this information on websites and on television programs such as CNN. Seek and you shall find!
I prefer the U.S. version of royalty, often empty-headed celebrities who strut their moment upon the stage, then move on as revered, disgraced, or forgotten has-beens. At least the people make the current choice freely and U.S. royalty do not have a lifelong purchase on the public treasury as do the Brit parasites.
Unless, difny, you are a corrupt, christofascist Supreme Court justice. On the take from us AND the billionaire class. Talk about parasites!
Indeed! We can do something about that: Work our butts off to elect a congress that will take on scotus outrages effectively.
Yes, yes, yes!
Except, we can’t work our butts off hard enough if the Republicans succeed in gerrymandering enough states to make it impossible for Dems to ever win an election. We have to end the electoral college and have many substantive wins in court to halt this extremist takeover of our country.
All the bad stuff crawled out of the Electoral College ooze. You can't get rid of the EC if you can't even control gerrymandering. We simply must get enough people to vote to knock over their towering roadblocks. We have the numbers. Do we have the will?
Since you bring it up, I'm going to take the liberty of linking to a new Substack on the subject. Be forewarned. It'll make you madder than you already are. https://luciantruscott.substack.com/p/the-reign-of-enterprise-rent-a-justice/
I subscribed! It was a great article and made the whole mess clear! Ugh!
Thank you, Liz!
Thanks for taking the trouble to say so, Elisabeth! Obviously, I agree. ;-)
I sgned up for free subscriber status; the photo illudtration of the Leo Gang alone was worth the Link. Thank you.
I'm pleased that you found that newsletter rewarding, Bryan. Yep—the painting gives new meaning to the "worth a thousand words" saying.
Ok, I am ready! I like Lucian Truscott….rent-a-justice, I see it in your link. More like “own-a-justice”….omg. I’ll let you know what I think.
I have been watching Leonard Leo closely and categorize him as the most dangerous domestic terrorist in this country along with those who belong to The Federalist Society who knowingly participated in and perpetuate this insidious plot to maintain Republican Power and control. Don’t believe for one minute that Mitch’s 40-year plan for control was designed without the input of and assistance by many of these same people. Despite control, we must amass Democratic votes and clean house from local school boards on up. Excellent article.
I couldn't agree more on all counts, Linda!
Do actors get paid too much money? What do they do to improve the world? How much do you think that you get paid?
Actors' pay?! That's something I never thought about. Their pay is between them and their employers. What business is it of mine? I'll honor any picket line I see. Since you ask, I don't think that I get paid anything..
My big question is: in the “Treasure of Sierra Madre,” did the kitchen worker who uttered the sentence “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges” get actors’ equity pay?
And the writer of that line?
Stan and difny, I certainly hope they get actors equity pay! That’s why we fought and died for unions….
Yes, Alfonso Bedoya got paid for his role as the Mexican bandit who uttered that famous line.
He appeared in over 40 Mexican movies, and numerous American ones as well. He was a professional actor.
Yes, according to your definition, Donald J. Drumpf is the US version of royalty. This sort of scandal was inevitable.
Exactly, Stan. I thought of him. His reality tv show had failed, so he ran for the presidency as an audacious publicity stunt, one.that turned him into a two-time loser. But unlike any other compound has-been he just won't go away.
Hopeful I wake and find Trump was a movie I watched before going to sleep. I would not watch it again.
Well, he has an insurrection to run….the party’s just getting started!
Tell it to PBS> How many programs about the British uppers do they run (without my $upport)? ..
Phil, try watching some of the excellent offerings on PBS that are made in England. You don’t have to be a Royalist to enjoy well-made murder mysteries or historical drama.
And don’t overlook the closer-to- home locally- produced shows.
I’ve been an avid supporter since my adult children watched Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street. Donations well spent !
Gotta love "Father Brown" and anything with Nicola Walker, "Unforgotten," "Annika," or the drama "Last Tango in Halifax."
As an adult I watched Sesame Street with our child. Loved it. Now she has two children and tells me Sesame Street is out of touch with today. Ugh.
At this point, I should say I really enjoyed the probable last such ceremony, the real star being the Abbey. Hats off, in both (or is it four) senses, to the King and Queen for their fortitude in making it through what would have been grueling for those half their age. In no other place could this have happened ..
It looked exhausting to me!
Amen. I've said this very often.
Too bad Biden didn't send Kamala Harris. Would have made a point.
Maybe a person appointed with role of social convenor—made famous by being sour, silent, powerful around formal traditions, and celebrity at the same time. Blame it all on “them,” instead of distraction to political stuff. A time limited, arms length, 9-year term, just to be different. NO formal goodbye at end, just usher in another. No mystery about life of such a public servant, or trio that serves as lightning rod for a role of too many galas. A real person(s) with minimal backstory, serious-side and, above all, unknowable political views. Festive stuff belongs to celebrity social conveners, not overworked social visionaries.
I agree 💯% h. I find the whole thing a crashing bore. It's easy to forget the bloody history of the British Empire. Not this Yank....
They think we are bloody with all our gun deaths and they would be right!
I think the monarchy is the symbol of a very real elitism that has been the foundation of British society and values - or at least the foundation of their still large aristocracy's claim to superiority. As long as their 1% are held in veneration, the 99% are not. It is a vestige of the ancient feudal past that should be put to rest, with a vengeance.
I concur (said with an Oxbridge accent). European aristocracy maintains in general a network of privilege that allows it to increase their lot’s fortunes while trying to look austere and modest. In the meantime, within the walls of their social circles, they laugh at what they call “les petites gens” or the 99%. They use their influence to traffic favors and access to power. I hope one day a journalistic team will shame them in public and hopefully put some in prison for their white glove crimes. I have had the displeasure of working in their midst and understood the nature of evil.
Inbred descendants of the Hapsburgs
Remember the Tudors including Henry VIII!
As a child, I admired Josip Broz Tito, who kept a drill-press in the basement of palatial home.
I am unsure of Tito, however, as a general rule I think well of anyone who owns a drill-press as it is a very handy tool.
Except, Marisa, for Prince Randy Andy, who actually committed “black glove crimes” with the help of Jeffrey Child Molester Epstein. He should definitely go to jail.
Right, he’s just the one that got caught, that’s all. All of it, the product of impunity.
Not just the symbol, but the very foundation of an anachronistic layer cake of privilege, wealth, class, racism, inequality, and associated suffering of the underclass. Monarchy is the opiate of the people, especially the seniors.
Well said. I think in a hundred years time people will see the monarchy in a similar way as they do slavery.
Tones of Christopher Hitchens ~ ( that's a compliment.).
That class structure in the UK that has a certain % of people thinking they are definitely 'superior' by way of birth is something that is clung onto desperately by the ones who benefit from it. The 'lower working class' just tolerate the whole thing simply because it's easier than having a painful revolution, and after all there's all that pretty stuff like the Coronation to watch. I don't think the Brits have the stomach to go thru a revolution that took the country into a socialist framework. They dabble with it to get more rights which they definitely do want, but all that nasty fighting in the streets business is not something most Brits want - they would rather just negotiate for better conditions, altho a strike or 2 goes down quite well ! While there were plenty of people in the streets for the coronation, the vast majority stayed home & watched the goings on on TV - nice to watch, but time to discuss all those people getting paid just because they are 'Royals' - hence Charles is trying to slim it all down - he knows what the public mood is !!
"I don't think the Brits have the stomach to go thru a revolution that took the country into a socialist framework"
Maybe not the English, but I think the Scots are getting close.
Alfred E. Neuman as king, leading the royal garter? It will put itself to rest.
https://twitter.com/fox5dc/status/1651262437230780416
Inbred descendants of the Hapsburgs
How are they descended from the Hapsburgs.
Try some research. It's easy
Rubbish
Ian, Here, here! With a vengeance.
The monarch, under the British constitution (yes there is one) has three main political rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. The late Queen, by virtue of her longevity and her weekly meetings with every prime minister while that person was in office, had a deep knowledge of the political process and of its likely repercussions in Commonwealth countries, which she also knew very thoroughly. Prime ministers have acknowledged how helpful her perspective was, which owed nothing to electoral requirements and sprang from a lifetime of service to the country. We can only hope that Charles has acquired something of that same depth of perspective. No elected politician is bound by the monarch’s opinion on any issue, but it is certainly an educated one that deserves attention even if not followed.
I admired Queen Elizabeth the second. I understand that during her reign she was actually cutting down on the amount of money that she was getting from the people via their taxes.She stopped using the Royal Air Force and got rid of the royal yacht. Jenny - I agree with your comment about Queen Elizabeth II. Charles has always been concerned about the environment. I have a copy of the book he wrote on this topic. I admired his first wife, nuff said on that topic.
Seems to work as well in Japan
Doesn't the Monarch have the power to suspend Parliament in the U.K. and Canada? I thought Queen Elizabeth used that power at least twice during her reign.
It is a very limited and murky area. The queen's agent, the Governor-General, has the discretion to refuse to dissolve parliament when the PM instructs them to, if in their opinion the opposition can cobble together a viable government. This power was used once, in the 1920's, when the GG (Lord Byng) refused to call an election when PM MacKenzie-King quit, and instead allowed the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen to attempt to form a government. That died fairly early, and MK campaigned loud and long that the GG had acted in an anti-democratic fashion against the command of the government. MK won the subsequent election in a landslide. Ever since then the GG has avoided being in a similar bind, and nobody has touched it. The only near exception has been Stephen Harper, who, upon learning that he was about to be defeated on an non-confidence vote and thrown into an election he was likely to lose, instructed the GG to 'prorogue' Parliament, which essentially means to close the session and all bills and business, and start it all over again. After frantically consulting in all directions, the GG agreed to carry out the PM's instruction, which was widely criticized as a partisan way to short-circuit the probable will of parliament. But they were all wary of repeating some version of the King-Byng Crisis.
So, while the power exists in theory, it is so limited as to be virtually useless. And recent trends have been to treat the GG as the head of state in practice.
Try reading about the Whitlam era in Australian politics where clearly the Crown was involved in downing a socialist government and it's PM at the time. Records between Buck House and Australia have never been released !!
Thank you for this interesting and educational a part of history that you provided for us!
Theoretically yes, but in practice he/she can only use that power at the direction of the elected government.
Very well said! There is continuity in their service. Elected politicians have a fixed term and do not always act in the best interest of the commons, i.e. the majority of those they serve. They always have an eye on what they need to do to get re-elected.
Agreed. To be discussed is how much that wise person is to be compensated.
R
Can you send us a copy of that constitution?
Har-har!
Robert - I am surprised at you! This is NOT a harmless fiction, It is a fiction that inherently relies on the idea of hereditary privilege - that some people are born better than others, not because they are in any way gifted, or markedly more intelligent than others, but simply because of who their parents are. And that goes back to the fact that centuries ago, their ancestors were in the right place at the right time, better at killing people and better at theft than others around at the time. The royal family are obscenely wealthy and yet we, British tax payers, at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are struggling to put food on their table, had to pay for this ridiculous extravaganza that we had absolutely no say in whether or not it happened. It is also not true to say that the king has no power. As has been shown recently, the royal family get the chance to see legislation that might affect their interests before it is ever seen by MPs, and they have, on many occasions, insisted on changes to such legislation that will further benefit them financially. And having those who disagree with the idea of monarchy arrested before they had even started to peacefully protest, again shows that this is not harmless.
Our new king is known to require servants to put the toothpaste on the toothbrush for him! And although his friend Jonathon Dimbleby tried to claim that he would find the idea of anyone swearing allegiance to him repugnant, it is absurd to suggest that the idea of having people swear an oath of loyalty, not just to him but to his successors, was something put in the coronation ceremony without his approval or desire. It is also totally anachronistic that, in a country where the majority of people do not see themselves as Christians, that our new king was swearing to uphold the protestant religion. How offensive to everyone who does not see themselves as protestant! Giving representatives of other denominations and religions tiny walk on parts in this ceremony does not make this right. If the UK is ever to even start to achieve any improvement in its quite hideous levels of inequality, both of status and of wealth, we must get rid of these symbols of totally unearned hereditary wealth and privilege.
I was ten years old when Queen Elizabeth II was crowned and mesmerized by the pomp and circumstance. All my ancestors were from England save one from Wales, and I felt connected to the royal family. But my mother set me straight. We would never be invited to tea, she said, because we would be considered commoners. That's why we had a revolution, she reminded me. My ancestors came here very likely because they were cut off from grazing lands and had no access to a decent life. Only years later did I realize that I must have identified with the royals because we lived in the Jim Crow South where white people were presumed to be at the top of the social order. I skipped the coronation today and haven't watched any of the news about it, but I've been thinking about Meghan Markle. I hope she had a good enough day, connecting with people who respect and like her for who she is. Being a duchess under her circumstances must be a bitter pill. I wish her well.
progwoman, I couldn’t agree more with you. I gained new respect after recently watching « Suits » in which Meghan Markle starred. No wonder she has the strength to deal with the royals and their weirdness. I would have gained new respect for Charles if he had personally insisted that she and Harry and their children be included. I also didn’t watch it and find it all a bore.
It is also not true to say that they bring in millions in tourism. As many people have pointed out, the French make far more money from places like Versailles than anywhere in Britain and the French got rid of their monarchy a long time ago. Given that tourists don't ever get to take tea with any of the royals if they happen to visit Buckingham Palace or other royal palaces (which cost an absolute fortune to visit, by the way), they would visit whether we still had a monarchy or just the historic symbols of them.
Well said sir !! Many of the aristocracy don't seem to be that bright either. Just bright enough to keep a low profile !!!
I agree. While I enjoy reading the history of the British monarchy and other European monarchies, that is where I think they belong. As long past history. In the 21st century, having inherited monarchies have no place anywhere. They need to go like slavery.
We might look at the royalty as a kind of social experiment that seeks to answer the question “Can we produce a superior person if we give him-her lots of money, a solid education, lots of manservants and maidservants and chattel and cattle?” I suspect that we would agree that we can’t reach a conclusion about this experiment. And so why continue it?
I'm a dual UK-US Citizen living and working in Arizona – and have spent most of my adult life in the US. Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee Award for graduate research and study (home or abroad) brought me to Columbia University and changed my career and life - for the better.
The British Monarchy exists to serve the people, give them hope and unite the nation. Despite the Royal soap opera and intrigue, amplified no-end by the press, the same can't be said for a large number of numbskulls occupying Parliament. In the US we are barely beginning to recover from the events leading up to the 2016 election after which Trump, a patently incompetent, seditious narcissist infested the People's House - the White House, and through his low IQ convinced millions of Americans that Covid was some kind of hoax that would evaporate by Easter 2020. Over 1 million Americans have died as a direct result and in 2020 Trump set about destroying our democracy in order to remain in power like some insane King devoid of decency and taste.
Neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Kind Charles III would ever dream of abusing the roles and titles they hold for personal gain and power. The Monarchy has no political power at all. It serves at the pleasure of the people and for the people. Britain's armed forces pledge allegiance to the Crown not to Parliament - as such they are completely apolitical even though they are of course permitted to vote and hold personal views of one sort or another.
In our now global society where, it seems, every living and inanimate thing is treated as an exploitable commodity from which profits are to be extracted as quickly and for as long as possible, Britain's Monarchy operates as a social gyroscope combatting political extremes, corruption and exploitation that are so frequently engaged in by elected officials. We most definitely need to do better in the US starting with ethical oversight of lawyers and especially the Supreme Court. We need a better justice model than the two tier one so clearly in operation today.
So as a dual citizen there are times when I feel decidedly betwixt and between both nations. But the United States is my home and where the bulk of my family now are. I just hope that we in the United States can correct our course and find, in new leaders in Congress and all levels of government, that social gyroscope that enables us to set a course for a better future and tack our way toward it - together rather than apart.
So do I. Praying Trump does not get re-elected. I doubt he will. Even stupid people who voted for him should get the picture of a sociopath, liar, thief, crook and a predator. Get my message?
Don't bank on it. That presumes some people have brains that work !!!
Based on the evidence, you are probably correct
He is as you say a sociopath, liar, thief, etc. But you should know a sizable number of his fans are fans
precisely because he is a sociopath, liar, etc.
Hear! Hear!
I am a Brit, and have mixed feelings about our royals. I think it's a good idea to have a head of state who is a) decorative, and b) has no real powers. On the other hand, the idea of a head of state by birth encourages too many among the rich and powerful to think in terms of entitlement rather than worth. Birth should not give anybody anything. The royals set a bad example for the rest of us.
According to Bill Shakespeare, some are born great, some achieve greatness, and still others have greatness thrust upon ‘em.
Not sure that fascination with royalty is harmless. The notion that someone is actually born higher than others is not different from believing the reverse. Like accepting slavery.
I say this as a scot and a Brit... the monarchy is an embarrassment and seem to be an excuse for a portion of the population to believe that they have ‘betters’ and are doing their duty by paying attention to the drama while excusing any number of ‘indiscretions’ in the name of tradition. It should be left in the past and represented in museums. America, there is much I do not envy about the USA right now but your lack of monarchy is one thing.
The aristocracy and gentry control at least 30% of the land in England, according to the Guardian. This, of course, is probably only a small portion of the land that the monarchy owns or controls worldwide (it is very difficult to find exact figures). I can't help but wonder what the British economy would look like if there were to be major land reform, allowing citizens and their government to control an additional third of their country. In terms of their impact on the economy, and the ability of their citizens to own property and thus build intergenerational family wealth (yes, I am sitting in on your Wealth and Poverty class for a second time), I think it is too generous to see them as a benign force in their society. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author
Thank you for these figures. I wonder if this control might be thought of as land that has been thus far conserved. Lands should be conserved or a percentage in land reform. Good luck with that. Every bit of land that has been preserved by the aristocracy does not have to be open for development. The article says that the monarchy itself owns only 1.4% of the land.
I think this is the 21st century and we need to put things that belong in the past in the past, such as royalty, internal combustion engines, and animal agriculture.
Before there were engines on wheels spewing airborne effluent, there were horsies dropping manure, a lot of it ..
At least this made work for those whose job it was to pick up that manure. And of course, it could be used to fertilize land instead of polluting the atmosphere.
Wow, you're comparing the "dropping of manure" to the internal combustion engine? Is this supposed to be funny?
Nope ..
Alright then it's ironic since the last figure I heard is 12 percent of the carbon in the atmosphere is due to livestock. If you have I a point, and I don't think you do, you should try and make it.
Yeah and move forward with artificial intelligence, social media, metaverse, and going to MARS. Are you equaing lab grown meat with electric vehicles. Each to it's time.
Sure, both are coming to the fore in the 21st century. It's not complicated.
Actually most of the UK friends I have gotten to know are ready to ditch the monarchy altogether
Yeah, yeah, they’ve been saying so since the infamous tapes episode, yet look at the attendance of the events.
Yes. Interesting is how dopey individuals (tapes on any continent), is as wreckage, but the story is bigger than any one chapter. What ends a good story, or a captivating story? An ending. Unknowable is in seeking a substitute story; continuing is a stronger motivator than ditching an idea. People support people—not always, but it’s an impulse to avoid being negative (though some people’s impulse is to be angry, annoyed, suspicious, and unsupportive). People don’t aim to be naive, but optimism, hope, encouragement, is nicer to be around than scorn, sneering, and character assassination.
My friends who have this view aren’t attending or watching, they are trying to figure out how they will pay for food or electricity
They look silly.
Hmm, here we have a court jester in Trump, a dowager royal in Biden....yeah, American democracy is working just fine. A beacon of light for the world.
I really do not think that Trump should run for president. I think he wants to be king. You can't tell him anything because he already knows everything he thinks.
i don't think djt wants to be King; he wants to be a dictator. But he doesn't know the difference.
An orange Mussolini !! Bah !
If he could, he would. I don’t think he is electable anymore but his ego won’t acknowledge that he is a “has been.”
No more so than our having a mafiosa for President (Trump) and a nearly senile on now. (Biden)
Biden doesn't seem senile to me. Reagan very much was though.
I know, he just has a stutter which he has had all his life. My bad
Reagan actually had Alzheimer's while still in office.
I wish that we Americans would pay less attention to British royalty. We fought a war to rid ourselves of Royalty yet many Americans follow the royalty celebrities like our own Hollywood folk--and neither group are worthy of much attention. We do expect to much ceremonial activities of our president when the primary duty is and should be governance.
This is a wonderful comment. I always get a kick when our Press interviews a Hollywood actor on foreign policy.
It's okay. So long as they were in an international intrigue movie (such as James Bond) they know as much about international relations as most politicians.
I, for one, think the monarchy is a distraction that is holding us back. Everybody goes on about how good for tourism they are, but what about the other side of that. How bad for the economy are they? With our eyes to the past wee have got complacent. We aren't doing anything much with the intellectual and cultural capital we have and where financial services took the focus, even those are going overseas after brexit. We are in real trouble in terms of jobs (please look past the numbers to the actual what people are doing). Nostalgia, the Royals, the fairy story, imagine how much we could do if we didn't have them, They're a complacency machine, and it is killing us.
And the amount of money they invest in being liked and in reminding everyone why they are “good for the country” via films and documentaries? “The System”, as Diana and now Harry explained, is as dark as any other white glove crime ring.
I agree with Robert. And I think the media, in the last few weeks, have been very un-insightful and unoriginal, unanimously proclaiming that no one cares about the Charles and the coronation. Not really true. I do have to say, though, I thought that both Charles and Camilla looked a little awkward with those crowns. Embarrassed, and nervous that the crown would fall off.
The crown is too big for anyone to wear. Being a King is too much for anyone. Despite their holy anointing, they are mortals.....
I was concerned about how stressed King Charles look and how miserable he looked. I noticed he was uncomfortable with the crown and he works real hard not to flown it but the queen or so. She's called same to enjoy herself but I wish you'd been somebody else