Why do you love The Royal Family?

[pedropony76]

I previously posted this on The Royal Family board but only received one response so wanted to post here for traffic.

For those that love The Queen & The Royal Family, can you actually explain why?

I often see MNetters saying ‘Oh I love The Queen, I love this member and that member’ but no one ever says why. I came across the video of Stacey Solomon saying she doesn’t get why the country is so obsessed with this family as it could be any one of us born into royalty and I totally agree.

For me, when I think of The Royal Family, I instantly think of colonialism and how many of the jewels on the Queen’s crown has been stolen from different countries. I understand not everyone thinks like this but why do some love the members of this establishment as if they’ve done anything to better your life? I’d love to hear people’s views. I’ve tried to have this conversation in real life but everyone I know couldn’t care less about The Royal Family so I’m none the wiser.

Here’s the Stacey Solomon clip for any who haven’t seen it before

It makes me feel sick to hear people describing the Queen as their ‘moral compass’.

How low can your standards be? My God.

Batshit.

Yes thank you! This is literally my point. I really don’t understand any of it and I don’t think The Queen has done a day’s work either. Some of the more recent comments saying that The Queen has done her duty for X amount of years. It’s her job? She didn’t just wake up one day and think ‘do you know what. I want to go to all these charity events, give speeches on the TV’ and all the other things that she does. The Royal Family is a massive institution that has advisors and the whole lot. It’s not like they’re just doing this out of the goodness of their own heart. She has a job and some may say she’s done it well but I don’t see how that makes her such an amazing person. Each to their own I guess

Exactly. I don’t get it either

Also I’m not sure why people are dragging Stacey Solomon? I don’t watch Loose Women or daytime TV. I actually saw the video on Twitter and linked the YT clip as it was a few mins longer. Just posted it because I saw it and agreed with her

Is this a joke? Nothing in between those two extremes 🤔

I doubt Stacey Solomon (who a pp has kindly told me is a tv presenter) would make the shortlist for an elected head of state.

As low as the PM perhaps. Compare and contrast the two.

I agree OP. I'm not a royalist in any shape or form. Having said that, I'm not a republican either. I'm pretty indifferent.
I accept some people love the theatre of it all, and that's fine. I'm sure some members of the royal family are lovely, and some not-so-lovely, just like society generally. That's the thing, they're just people! I don't get the bowing down to them; any more than I get the adulation of celebrities (that's odd too). But each to their own.
Apart from watching the Paddington Bear clip on YouTube (which was lovely) I largely ignored the Jubilee. But have no problem with other people celebrating.
If there was a referendum tomorrow on whether to keep the monarchy or not, I don't think I'd vote. I'm that indifferent...

Queen not political? Have a look at the Privy Council, Orders in Council and closed decisions on invading other countries before trotting out that myth for the hundredth time.

The queen and the creepy medieval political traditions have for decades been used as political instruments (or she's manipulated the governments on both sides of the HoC, depending on your POV).

Interesting that people who've literally bought into a fairytale of Benevolent Queen, artfully woven since 1953 (complete with hologram in the jubilee carriage) are talking about conspiracy theories.

PA was only able to do what he did because he was "royal". Door opening for corrupt foreign deals etc.

@10yearoldwisdom The pictures of her alone at Prince Phillips funeral made me cry and admire her more.
Do you also admire every lonely widow who had to bear the loss of her husband on her own during lockdown? Presumably not.
I think many people get attached to the RF because they give them an emotional focus, a bit like getting attached to personalities on Coronation Street etc. They are people whose lives you can follow, gossip about and admire from a safe distance, without all the messiness of real life relationships.

I'm a republican and don't spend much time thinking about the RF, but the fact they get so much public money when so many are struggling is a scandal that should start a revolution in my opinion. Their "service to the people" consists in shaking a few hands, talking a lot about various issues without actually doing anything about them, and smiling for the cameras in a soup kitchen or whatever. How about giving the state 10 million of their superfluous cash for the NHS, or children growing up in poverty? Now that would be a service to the people!

It’s always the same on these threads. The bingo card goes:

Cap doffing
Forelock tugging
Bowing and scraping
Fawning
Inbred
Versailles
No place in a modern democracy (despite 12 other European modern democracies having monarchies)

It’s fashionable to be a republican these days, despite the obvious pleasure, evidenced so clearly over the last four days, that so many of us take in having a monarchy. No republic could replicate the joy, pride and sense of belonging displayed and articulated this weekend.

I’m sorry but you are wrong and grossly mistaken about the Queen’s role. Since the Act of Union in 1707, Parliament has been our de facto ruler above the judiciary, executive, monarchy and church. And within Parliament, the democratically elected House of Commons is at the apex of power over the now advisory House of Lords. Decisions to “invade countries” have absolutely nothing to do with the Queen. The Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet retain the constitutional right to decide when and where to authorise military action. They don’t even have to put it to a Parliamentary vote although in more recent times they have done so.

As for the Privy Council it is how inter-departmental Government agreements are reached by ministers. Orders in council’ are personally approved by the Queen during meetings (albeit after ministers have reached an agreement to recommend approval beforehand). ‘Orders of council’ do not require the approval of the Queen – only by ministers in their role as privy counsellors.

However, the process for Orders in Council is that the lord president reads out the orders of the day, which are approved by the Queen. Although she can in principle refuse, approval is now merely regarded as a formality – much in the same way that royal assent is granted to acts of parliament. As in, the Queen de facto has no choice but to approve whatever the councillors decide just like she has no choice but has to approve acts of Parliament.

She has no political power and per our Constitution has to be politically neutral. The Queen doesn’t even have a vote in elections nor can she stand for election like we common people do due to this convention on political neutrality. She can take no blame or credit for any of the successive governments that have come and gone during her lifetime of service.

And it’s completely ridiculous in regards to Prince Andrew that you seriously think you have to be a royal to enable having sex with a 17yr old girl. This in a country where every year around 150 16-17yr old girls are married to men on average twenty years older than them and this is perfectly legal because of the parental consent loophole. And on the illegal side, girls under 18 make up 25% of all females trafficked for sex in the U.K. meaning literally thousands of girls under age 18 are being forced to have sex with adult men every day. Yes Prince Andrew is despicable, but to say he could only do what he did because he was royal is complete idiocy.

No, no more than a banker who went to private school and had all the contacts to forge an easy career in banking. Stacey made the most of the options available to her from the circumstances she was born into. That’s the way capitalist society works- so in that sense, while she might not subjectively “deserve” her wealth, she has objectively “earned” it. Just like all the other high paying careers such as bankers, city lawyers, actors etc.

The monarchy neither earn or deserve the wealth. Their lot, constitutional and political position and soft power is given to them by virtue of birthright alone, and we the public have no say. Their position has no place in modern politics and society and I can’t believe people are defending it.

To me the queen represents nepotism at its peak level, stolen wealth, and colonialism. The word colonialism lessens the impact of what colonialism actually entailed, but colonialism at its beginning looked like the present Russian invasion of Ukraine. None of the countries voluntarily gave their land, power, culture, historic artefacts, jewels and wealth voluntarily to the British Empire. Countless lives were lost, tribes wiped out, possessions stolen, families displaced - and the queen in her reign presided over the Empire and still to this day wears those stolen jewels, while those stolen artefacts are on display or lie unused in the basements of our London museums.

To this day we see the negative impact of colonialism - windrush, conflicts such as in Nigeria where the north and south are culturally and tribally distinct and should never have been lumped together as one country. I can never celebrate an old woman who represents an institution that caused so much pain around the world and reigned over and made Empire-related decisions. Beyond the nepotism that Stacey Solomon called out, the whole institution is sinister and I will never celebrate it.

How about giving the state 10 million of their superfluous cash for the NHS, or children growing up in poverty? Now that would be a service to the people!

As a matter of fact, the Guardian reported that as of ten years ago, the Queen has done more for charity than any other monarch raising over £1.4billion for hundreds of charities. www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2012/jun/11/queen-charitable-support

You do know that the Queen also pays income and capital gains taxes to the State on her private income? She volunteered to do this in 1992 and has done so since.

The word colonialism lessens the impact of what colonialism actually entailed, but colonialism at its beginning looked like the present Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Sure it did. A few ships carrying families of religious refugees landing on the shore looks exactly like tanks and soldiers invading under cover of shelling and mortar bombardment.

Your ignorance is staggering and offensive. Militarily force was used to invade Nigeria and Ghana just to name two. Thousands of men, women and children killed by British infantry. The Caribbean colonies were built and colonised on the back of British slavery. What the fuck are you talking about with a few ships of religious refugees?! You’re embarrassing yourself.

I’m taking about the beginning of colonialism. You’re referring to the apex of colonialism that occurred over 200yrs after its beginning.

This thought should have remained in your head. Staggeringly ignorant.

@Discovereads And I haven’t even touched on the Americas. What do you think happened to the natives? No military force used? It was worse than what’s happening in Ukraine- systematic force and genocide. Your attempts to minimise colonialism and British Invasion of the empire territories are offensive and inexcusable.

However, having seen your previous posts defending Prince Andrew, I won’t engage with you further.

You have misunderstood or I have misunderstood what you meant by “at its beginning colonialism…”. English Colonialism literally began with families of refugees from England colonising North America (Plymouth being the first successful colony founded by England outside the U.K.). It was from this initial beginning that everything else devolved in regard to English colonialism. Of course colonies were later founded and expanded by military force in later years, I never said otherwise. I don’t think it’s minimising to point out that at its beginning colonialism wasn’t about invading and taking over foreign kingdoms. Much of what is evil in the world starts out seeming to be reasonable and relatively harmless.

Also, I did not defend Prince Andrew, I said he was despicable but it’s idiocy to think a U.K. 16/17yr old girl is only in danger from a royal wanting to have sex with them when thousands of girls in this age bracket are being married off or trafficked and forced to have sex with adult men daily in this country. Surely you can see that the poster I was responding to was minimising the extent of sexual abuse of girls under 18 by saying Prince Andrew was only able to do that because he was royal. It ignores all the other girls similarly sexually assaulted and abused by the thousands of nonroyal men in this country.

You do know that the Queen also pays income and capital gains taxes to the State on her private income? She volunteered to do this in 1992 and has done so since.

But that's tax out of OUR tax. There's a difference....We give her millions, she's giving a bit of it back. Nothing admirable about it.

Nobody ever admired me for paying tax.🙄

Why shouldn't the queen pay inheritance tax too. I find this grossly unfair.

No, this is tax on her private wealth and is not anything to do with the public funds from the Sovereign Grant that we give her.

The reason she isn’t paying inheritance tax on Prince Phillips estate is because no inheritance tax is due for married couples when one spouse dies. This applies to every married couple in the U.K.

She paid inheritance tax when her mother died. It’s been the case since 1973 that royals have to pay inheritance tax on their private assets.

What’s not taxable is the Crown Estate but that’s not the Queens wealth, it belongs to the State (and we the taxpayers) and is the source of the Sovereign Grant we pay her as reimbursement for her work as a ceremonial head of state.