Why do you post on the RF thread?

[LaMarschallin]

I'll put my colours on the mast:

Tl/dr: I post here because I'm interested in the royal family and I don't know anyone in real life that is.

Longer story: my mother was fascinated - and had a very good knowledge - of the contemporary (to her) royals. She also disliked them enormously: "It's ridiculous! Some poor old woman, without two pennies to rub together, saying 'God bless you, Queen!'.

I'm probably a very watered down version. I'm a republican but feel that, while they're here, I might as well enjoy the spectacle. I'm certainly not a revolutionary; I enjoy my comfort too much.

I don't know anybody that's particularly interested in them these days. Generally, I would say, most people I know are mildly pro and I have some great discussions with my daughters re clothes.
But no one feels as strongly as some here. And, while that can be scary, the discussions can also be fascinating (sometimes in the way of a car crash...).

I can see that a lot of people now see it as a sort of reality show (Skip Charles! Vote William/Harry/Anne in!). I'm also surprised that people can take so much interest but have so little knowledge about how the institution works or of its recent history.

I could bang on a lot more, but won't because this thread will doubtless sink below the waves!

Also weird that people think 'royals=history . It sounds to me as though a person who says that has never properly studied history . A real study of history is not a fixed list of dates and names - it's constantly changing and being re interpreted.

Which is exactly what I posted, and @LaMarschallin agreed with - defining 'history' - as 'created' not set in stone or neutral.

Posting as someone with a degree in history...

@mixedrecycling

Yes @mixedrecycling - I read your post and I didn't mean to imply I was referring to you specifically - I meant I've heard ' I love history so I love the 'royals' ( paraphrasing) many times here and it's nonsense

I certainly don't think royals=history (and I'm rubbish at dates) but it can't be denied that they have an important part of history (and have shaped it at times) and, at present, it can be assumed that they're still part of it.

Part of it only in the sense that we all are

Charles will make history by being the last con - a - nation , that I agree with

Same. As I've gotten older (& hopefully more mature) I've become a very soft Royalist. I'm much more appreciative and understanding of our system of Constitutional Monarchy and the stability it brings.

Part of it only in the sense that we all are

Up to a point, imo.
I don't think I'll have any influence on the way history is formed.
I certainly find social history fascinating and we're all part of that.

'Getting rid of the 'house of lords ' does not mean there will be no second chamber so that can be put to bed.'

The HOL in it's current format is a beacon of common sense, intelligence and erudition compared to the Commons. There are some incredibly experienced, insightful people in the Lords. Some of the work produced at committee level is ground breaking. I was watching a debate a couple of weeks ago and was struck by the difference - the Lords actually listened to what was being said, there was none of the braying disdain and childish behaviour of the Commons. There's room for reform, most definitely, but if we end up with an elected second chamber, it'll be the same as the Commons.

Agree with so many of the posts on here particularly @user1492757084 and @Mummyoflittledragon I also enjoy @CathyorClaire posts because although they generally hold a different view to me I respect they are a proper republican and would be rid of the lot of them, rather than hating the royals but staunchly supporting Harry and Meghan which a lot of ‘republican’ posters do, I can’t get my head around that as it fries my brain so tend to gloss over their posts. I just find the Royals and their history absolutely fascinating, I watch a lot of royal history programmes and of course Mick I just love the drama! It’s the best soap opera on earth!

I just find the Royals and their history absolutely fascinating

You're not wrong, LadyVictoriaSponge - it is

Just an one historical example, we could look at why the Duchies of Lancaster/Cornwall still exist, when as part of the 1760 agreement land holdings were ceded to parliament in return for the civil list
One suggestion I've seen is that they weren't worth anything like as much then so weren't thought worth including, but that's another thing we'll probably never know - though given the institution's taste for backroom deals it's hard not to wonder

I think the older I’ve got the more royalist I’ve become. I didn’t think about it much when I was young tbh. I love the pomp and pageantry; I couldn’t take my eyes of the Queen’s funeral it was beautiful and made me feel proud. DH was the same (and he never watches Royal stuff). I like the fact they are neutral and they bring a lot of money into the country too. I know they aren’t perfect but I would hate to see them go.

I like the RF because it makes Britain different and the spectacles are spectacular. The recent funeral was broadcast all over the world, and the coronation will be widely followed. What other small country could command that level of interest?

If president Biden died tomorrow, it wouldn't get the same coverage. Prime ministers, presidents etc don't command the same level of interest.

The alternative would be a president as well as the prime minister? Or what? Just a boring prime minister. Most of the world wouldn't even know his name.

The costs are not outrageous and they bring in a lot of tourist money.

No one looks upon royals as walking on water, and the recent H&M fiasco has actually made them more human.

Having said that, it's obvious that some people (not necessarily you, Novella, you just made me think of it) post in order to change the minds of/correct others.
Imo, that won't be successful and just ends up in everyone doubling down.

Yes, proselytising is rarely effective. And quite boring.

Genuine discussion, when people have opinions but are also willing to listen and consider whether their own views are 100% right, is usually far more interesting.

There are some posters I just skip - the ones who say anyone who doesn't agree with them must be stupid, or are fore-lock tuggers, or sycophants etc etc it's very lazy

I'm mildly pro-monarchy in its current form but would be open to an alternative form of head of state if there was a reasonable proposed alternative which worked for the country.

For me, I'd want a plan that included strong protections and a good stewardship of the Crown land, buildings, assets and historical archives.

For now, while we have it I love the pomp and pageantry. I like the gossip and the clothes, and the bling.

I like the RF, and enjoy others opinions and knowledge on them on these boards. I believe the RF are a big part of British culture and the revenue they generate for tourism is valuable to us.

I was not raised in the UK, and where I'm from the RF are respected and almost idolised. It is interesting to see a more balanced opinion, as there are posters on here who really dislike them too, and their opinions are interesting to me.

Some posters get quite nasty and that's a shame, attacking them personally or unkindly speculating on their marriages which nobody deserves no matter who you are. That's an unpleasant side of British culture, the need to hate on celebrities and those in the spotlight, bring people down.

I follow because I’m interested in how people can be manipulated. For example:

• how the public can be manipulated about the RF via the media, the RF’s own PR machine, some RF members’ own SM (Eg Instagram), parliament
• how the RF members are manipulated by the media, by parliament, all ultimately being the people
• how certain family members try to manipulate the media and therefore the people

For me, it’s all about who holds power, and how they wield that power.

I've thought about this off and on over the evening.

I did have QE2's funeral on, and although I tuned in and out found it very moving - a combination of huge and complex, yet very simple (lots of people marching).

For me, a big part of that was the sense of the end of an era and generation. My father was born in the same year a died a couple of years ago. I grew up on his stories of growing up during the war - sitting with his mother to listen to Chamberlain announcing 'consequently, we are now at war with Germany, being called up towards the end of the war, the complete conviction he had that everyone should stand up and be counted against any injustice (not always easy to live with). The war and the Holocaust shaped him so profoundly - he would have been 17/18 when the news reels of the concentration camps broke. A few months ago, gradually going through his things, my mother found and gave me the diary he kept in 1946/47, in the Navy waiting to be de-mobbed, and it is very special to me.

I was lucky in having a relatively old father (he was in his 40s when I was born) who had the time and inclination to tell those stories to his last child and only daughter.

Even so, the Queen and Prince P's death had a lot of resonance for me. Maybe it would have just as much for those who didn't get to hear the stories from their relatives who lived through it? Yes, they would have had very different experiences, and their lives were not recorded to the extent that the RF's were. But there is a representative function for the RF, in a way that perhaps isn't the same for elected representatives who do a job for a period of time.

I don't say that this is a reason to retain the monarchy necessarily - I have given my views on the constitutional aspects already.

But I wouldn't dismiss people who say royals=history just because they are not engaging with history as something that is constantly created and recreated. It may be that they are talking about 'history' in a completely different way.

By the by, I think anyone resorting to little slogans to undermine their target actually undermines their own argument/viewpoint - whether that is Megain/Harkles or Doolittle/con-a-nation. If you have a reasoned point of view then express it, silly little sneers just make you look petty and afraid that your argument cannot stand by itself.

I loved The Queen. I really did. I like having a royal family. I like listening to arguments against the RF so although I often sigh when Novella posts, I love it, and appreciate it, that they do. Because they make me think. They make me examine my position. And that's never a bad thing.

I'm here because I love having a monarchy. You can state your support or not of it and no one goes off on a rant why you're wrong like they do over politicians. I don't want another layer of politics. It's enough. Parish council, borough council, county council, mayor, national parliament, UK parliament. Enough already. No more elections. Is the German president really doing a better job than the UK royals?

I'm in my 60s and no one really talks about the royals, except to snigger at gossip (thanks, H&M. 😉). But I don't get the impression people want them gone. Even friends who don't believe in royalty don't ever say anything in those terms. It's more that the royals just exist and have always been a part of our lives so it's like a great aunt Mabel. She's a fixture so unless she does something funny or interesting, we don't really feel a need to talk about her.

Your impression is wrong @serenster - a majority of those under 45 want the 'royals' gone .

I suspect the number is higher as the polls are not accurate .
Those under 45 are more likely to question MSM and they are certainly less deferential. They can see through the facade
Sales of Harrys book and the age and number of those turning up to see 'royals' tell the tale ( I suspect hand picked 'crowds' will be the next PR wheeze to disguise this )

Charles Windsor is the oldest ever new 'king'
I find that symbolic of the dying monarchy he represents

Sorry that should be @MarshaMelrose , not serenster

Yes I agree - the manipulation of people's perception is horrible and fascinating. But MSM has less of a hold nowadays

Recently I've noticed a change . Maybe it is Willly briefing against Chuck and vice versa but there are more negative stories about both popping up each day
Maybe the media knows it's getting to 50/50 re keeping the royals in their current over reaching position - and they can attract more readers by fuelling the debate rather than suppressing it
The BBC has not been balanced in its reporting so it will be interesting to see how they report the con-a-nation
No other European has a coronation - they wouldn't dare - their populations would not tolerate it
I dispair of the money wasted on the ludicrous feudal coronation but I think the sight of aging Chuck and Cammy having the blood diamond encrusted crowns plonked on their heads will be be final straw for many

'Your impression is wrong @serenster - a majority of those under 45 want the 'royals' gone .

I suspect the number is higher as the polls are not accurate .
Those under 45 are more likely to question MSM'

As quite a few pp have said, when young they had no interest in the RF/monarchy, but as they've got older they recognise the worth, so perhaps the majority of the under 45s not supporting the monarchy is nothing new. Young people rebel against lots of stuff and think they know everything - it's a tale as old as time.

You state the polls aren't accurate. How do you know that? Are you a polling expert? Perhaps the polls are actually overstating the numbers.

Under 45s questioning MSM? Perhaps. But then again, many younger people get their 'news' from social media and believe everything that confirms their bias, and have 'news' stories that confirm that bias algorithmically fed to them.

No other European has a coronation - they wouldn't dare - their populations would not tolerate it

Clearly Novella knows absolutely nothing about other European constitutional monarchies. They may not have had a crown plunked on their head, but recent changes of monarch in the last decade in other countries have seen huge ceremonies/pageants/parades/balcony appearances/public celebrations. And yet strangely, no revolutions…?

Novella

Yes I agree - the manipulation of people's perception is horrible and fascinating. But MSM has less of a hold nowadays

I understand many people distrust the MSM (mainstream media?). I still get the Times and Guardian newspapers, because that's my preferred way of doing the crosswords.
But what would you suggest as a good, unbiased source of news? I've seen people quote Twitter a lot. I don't use it and to me it seems even less unreliable (and a bit of an echo chamber, if I understand correctly how it works).
Genuine question, not attempting to grind any axes - I'm interested to know.

There isn't one guaranteed source.

They are all compromised in various different ways .
The key is to read a range of sources and keep your critical thinking head on
Twitter / Reddit definitely has a role as it's first hand but it's just part of the picture .

Re royal stuff - avoid any paper that cooperated with the 'royal rota ' nonsense
The independent and the guardian have done good work uncovering royal corruption

Don't forget books .
'And what to you do?' by Norman baker is very revealing re the truth around monarchy . And he was a former privy councillor for those who turn their nose up at the guardian