Americans and the Royal Family

  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 02, 2014 3:50 AM GMT
    Forgive me for being a massive stereotypical titbag. I'm not suggesting that every American has this, but certainly some and I would wish for some clarification.

    Why on earth do some Americans idolise the royal family (considering well...yknow...our past), and the fact that you guys are a republic! You should be proud that you're in a republic!

    Indeed, why does anyone even idolise the royal family?
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Aug 03, 2014 12:26 AM GMT
    Well, you know as an alternative Americans could idolize Jake Shears with his balls hanging out. That would be cool.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Aug 03, 2014 12:35 AM GMT
    The attraction is about the pomp and circumstance of the Royals and not about the politics or form of government. It's similar to Hollywood A-list actors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2014 1:06 AM GMT
    But how more advanced America could be; like Canada. If America still had the Royal Family as Head of State, and was apart of the Commonwealth. But I love the way the American president{s} bow to our Queen; and she has seen many come and go.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2014 1:19 AM GMT
    I think only the white old Anglo Saxon Americans do. The rest don't give a shit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2014 3:20 AM GMT
    kevex saidI think only the white old Anglo Saxon Americans do. The rest don't give a shit.


    In fact, one knows that is not true.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2014 3:26 PM GMT
    "Idolise" is a bit of an overstatement. A more interesting question might be why Americans are more fascinated with the British royal family. It's not as if we (or nearly anyone else) is interested in the Swedish or Dutch crowns.

    Simple reasons include:

    1) our filial, enemy-to-ally ties to the English-speaking U.K.
    2) the extent of BRITISH tabloid coverage
    3) the extent of WORLDWIDE publicity on U.K. royals...
    4) ...because of THEIR filial interests given the former British EMPIRE
    5) the contrast between stoic Elizabeth and the shenanigans of younger members
    6) our possible amusement at well-paid figureheads (who aren't our own)
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 03, 2014 5:36 PM GMT
    Aunty_Jack saidBut how more advanced America could be; like Canada. If America still had the Royal Family as Head of State, and was apart of the Commonwealth. But I love the way the American president{s} bow to our Queen; and she has seen many come and go.


    Doubt it. The Queen is the head of state and head of the church of England. There really is no separation between church and state like there is in America. (Theoretically, anyway, I know of the lobbies and whatnot).
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Aug 03, 2014 6:24 PM GMT
    It's romance - the same as watching a fantasy movie. Being safely on the other side of the pond, the reality doesn't enter in, so it's safe to dream.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2014 10:28 PM GMT
    jaroslav123 said
    Aunty_Jack saidBut how more advanced America could be; like Canada. If America still had the Royal Family as Head of State, and was apart of the Commonwealth. But I love the way the American president{s} bow to our Queen; and she has seen many come and go.


    Doubt it. The Queen is the head of state and head of the church of England. There really is no separation between church and state like there is in America. (Theoretically, anyway, I know of the lobbies and whatnot).


    Separation of Church and State in America LMFO, but then how could this be possible when America is the worlds largest christian country, that is helping keep religion alive in others. But sorry America just seems like another failed republic now days, and I know we Aussie have a quality of life many Americans only dream about. Look at England's history and some of it's most darkest years was when it was a Republic, under Cromwell.

    Long Live our Queen, and William and George will keep that alive.
  • carew28

    Posts: 661

    Aug 03, 2014 10:49 PM GMT
    eagermuscle said"Idolise" is a bit of an overstatement. A more interesting question might be why Americans are more fascinated with the British royal family. It's not as if we (or nearly anyone else) is interested in the Swedish or Dutch crowns.

    Simple reasons include:

    1) our filial, enemy-to-ally ties to the English-speaking U.K.
    2) the extent of BRITISH tabloid coverage
    3) the extent of WORLDWIDE publicity on U.K. royals...
    4) ...because of THEIR filial interests given the former British EMPIRE
    5) the contrast between stoic Elizabeth and the shenanigans of younger members
    6) our possible amusement at well-paid figureheads (who aren't our own)



    Actually, the Dutch king isn't bad looking.

    Will and Harry were nice-looking kids when they were younger, and they attracted a good bit of attention. They resembled their mother, and there seemed to be some hope for the future. But now that they're grown, the Windsor genes seem have taken over, and they're starting to look as worn and decrepit as old Charles himself. . God help them by the time they're in their forties, it will spell the end of the monarchy, for sure. But who knows, maybe by that time their own kids will be attractive teenagers, and people will be willing to keep it around for a bit longer.
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 03, 2014 11:07 PM GMT
    tazzari saidIt's romance - the same as watching a fantasy movie. Being safely on the other side of the pond, the reality doesn't enter in, so it's safe to dream.


    That is an eloquent way of putting it. You've brought life to something and allowed me to understand this issue. Thank-you! icon_biggrin.gif
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 03, 2014 11:09 PM GMT
    Aunty_Jack said
    jaroslav123 said
    Aunty_Jack saidBut how more advanced America could be; like Canada. If America still had the Royal Family as Head of State, and was apart of the Commonwealth. But I love the way the American president{s} bow to our Queen; and she has seen many come and go.


    Doubt it. The Queen is the head of state and head of the church of England. There really is no separation between church and state like there is in America. (Theoretically, anyway, I know of the lobbies and whatnot).


    Separation of Church and State in America LMFO, but then how could this be possible when America is the worlds largest christian country, that is helping keep religion alive in others. But sorry America just seems like another failed republic now days, and I know we Aussie have a quality of life many Americans only dream about. Look at England's history and some of it's most darkest years was when it was a Republic, under Cromwell.

    Long Live our Queen, and William and George will keep that alive.


    You could argue the same for monarchies. Henry VIII doesn't just leap to mind, indeed he violently springs.

    In essence, it's a cruel waste of money. Just like trident should be scrapped and spent on other areas of society, so should the monarchy. What about the money you ask? It's good for the economy: use the palaces as museums...or even hotels.....
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Aug 03, 2014 11:46 PM GMT

    In essence, it's a cruel waste of money. Just like trident should be scrapped and spent on other areas of society, so should the monarchy. What about the money you ask? It's good for the economy: use the palaces as museums...or even hotels.....

    I think perhaps you underestimate the value of having a Head of State who in theory at least, is above it all. I think of when the King and Queen visited bombed-out parts of London during the war, or of a friend of mine who went to the palace to receive a medal from the Queen - no feeling of it being electioneering, or some way to one-up the other party, etc.

    I was in Sweden for the world championships in skiing a number of years ago. The pursuit race was VERY close, and the decision went back and forth for half an hour or so. In the end, they gave it to the Norwegian, but the King of Norway too the Russian second place (1/10 second) to dinner. A politician doing that would be viewed in a very different light.
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 03, 2014 11:49 PM GMT
    tazzari said
    In essence, it's a cruel waste of money. Just like trident should be scrapped and spent on other areas of society, so should the monarchy. What about the money you ask? It's good for the economy: use the palaces as museums...or even hotels.....

    I think perhaps you underestimate the value of having a Head of State who in theory at least, is above it all. I think of when the King and Queen visited bombed-out parts of London during the war, or of a friend of mine who went to the palace to receive a medal from the Queen - no feeling of it being electioneering, or some way to one-up the other party, etc.

    I was in Sweden for the world championships in skiing a number of years ago. The pursuit race was VERY close, and the decision went back and forth for half an hour or so. In the end, they gave it to the Norwegian, but the King of Norway too the Russian second place (1/10 second) to dinner. A politician doing that would be viewed in a very different light.


    I don't think in theory or in practice a singular person or persons should be "above it all". That's very anti-democratic. And whilst the concept of having a few people being nice to their fellow man is always a pleasing thing, there are numerous people who visit bombed out parts of the world to give a helping hand, and they don't get any thanks. They certainly don't get a state funeral. The royal family reminds me of the catholic church: willingly support charitable causes but refuses to strip away the unnecessary gold, marble, silver, silk and trivial expensiveness in their dress. It's all show. Perhaps in some cases it isn't, but it'd help their rep if they decreased the vulgarities of their wealth considering the economic crises we're in.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Aug 03, 2014 11:52 PM GMT
    I agree with you in principle, but every once in a while a good monarch can do a lot of good - not so much "above it all" as "outside it all." But I agree completely with the waste of money. Is there a medium position?

  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 03, 2014 11:56 PM GMT
    tazzari saidI agree with you in principle, but every once in a while a good monarch can do a lot of good - not so much "above it all" as "outside it all." But I agree completely with the waste of money. Is there a medium position?



    A medium position would perhaps be a state-funded charity. Or perhaps even the concept of the poet-laureate. I do like the idea of the poet-laureate...although, I don't particularly think Carol Ann Duffy is an excellent poet (hopefully the next one will be).

    I think the issue is with celebrity-culture. People claim that celeb-culture is new, but it's always been around. I think the concept of the monarchy is the oldest and long-lasting celebs the world has had.
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 03, 2014 11:57 PM GMT
    Also, I believe they have the power to dissolve parliament....they should've done this by now!
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Aug 03, 2014 11:58 PM GMT
    You're probably right - after the sword-weilding, I'm-the-toughest-guy stage.

    Outta here to dinner with a friend!
  • jjguy05

    Posts: 459

    Aug 05, 2014 10:10 PM GMT
    jaroslav123 said

    Why on earth do some Americans idolise the royal family (considering well...yknow...our past), and the fact that you guys are a republic! You should be proud that you're in a republic!

    Indeed, why does anyone even idolise the royal family?


    By "the royal family", I'm assuming you mean the British royal family.

    Are Americans obsessed with them? No. Are American tabloids and media obsessed with them? Sure. But they're obsessed with all celebrities. And it doesn't mean that ordinary Americans give a shit.

    Aunty_Jack saidBut how more advanced America could be; like Canada. If America still had the Royal Family as Head of State, and was apart of the Commonwealth.


    Nigeria is also a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. And most Commonwealth countries don't actually recognize the Queen as their head of state. Out of 53 Commonwealth members, only 16 still have the Queen as head of state, such as Canada, Jamaica, Britain, and 13 others. These 16 countries are called the Commonwealth Realms. Most of the other 53 Commonwealth members are republics (like Nigeria, India, and South Africa), though some are monarchies but with their own indigenous monarchy (like Malaysia).

    The 53-member Commonwealth of Nations is merely an association of modern states that used to be part of the British Empire. What exactly the Commonwealth does is anybody's guess. It's not a real association of countries like the EU or ASEAN.

    Aunty_Jack saidLook at England's history and some of it's most darkest years was when it was a Republic, under Cromwell.


    +1

    Americans are taught a very distorted version of history, one that sets up a national narrative that Americans can be inspired by and believe in. One distorted central theme of the American national narrative is that the Pilgrims came to America in search of religious freedom. In reality, the Puritans were kicked out of England & Scotland (Britain wasn't yet unified, but the crown was) for overthrowing the monarchy and setting up a brutal theocracy under Cromwell.

    In theory, Britain and Canada today do not have separation of church and state, but have full religious freedoms in practice. We have religious freedom in the US as well, though not more so than Britain and Canada. And despite having church-state separation on paper, we don't fully practice that separation. God is mentioned on our money, after all.

    jaroslav123 said

    In essence, it's a cruel waste of money. Just like trident should be scrapped and spent on other areas of society, so should the monarchy. What about the money you ask? It's good for the economy: use the palaces as museums...or even hotels.....


    The monarchy doesn't actually cost the British public anything. The palaces, btw, are indeed owned by the state -not by the royal family- and many do indeed operate as museums and accept visitors. The royals do have some private residencies that do indeed personally belong to them, like Balmoral and Sandringham House. However, the big well-known palaces, like Buckingham, Windsor, and Holyrood belong to the British state, just as the White House is public property in the US, and doesn't personally belong to the president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2014 10:19 PM GMT
    Long live the Queen!

    role-of-ant-queen.jpg