William the Quiet Disruptor - Future of the Monarchy

[PrettyFlyforaMaiTai]

I just read this Sky News article “My Week with Prince William: The Quiet Disruptor” and found it really interesting.

The article paints a picture of someone who’s trying to do things differently, more of a “quiet disruptor” than a traditional royal. He seems to want to modernise the monarchy, focusing less on ribbon-cutting and more on community projects and real social impact. It might not be flashy, but it feels more in touch with what people care about today. He wants to be seen as a trustworthy global leader who uses his influence for good in a time when there is a lot of distrust in leadership worldwide.

It talks about how, although some still label him “work-shy” because he schedules his engagements around his children, most of the people interviewed actually saw that as a positive. They praised him for putting his family first and being a present dad.

It acknowledges that not everyone will be happy with this new version of monarchy, and some people will criticise the change in ethos.

I suppose time will tell whether this new approach will change anything long term. Charles also said he wanted to modernise, so let’s see it sticks this time. But it’s an interesting read if you’re curious about how William’s trying to shape his role.

William the Quiet Disruptor

You are quite correct to urge us not to regard the present royal family and their wealth through the lens of the medieval world. Very few of the belief structures or economic arrangements have survived to this time except for some anachronistic and dysfunctional land ownership patterns and, of course, the wealth itself which, as ill gotten gains tend to do, remain concentrated within the same hands regardless if the virtue or otherwise of the owners. People descended from serfs or slaves tend to stay poor. People descended from robber barons, rapists, and slave owners tend (by and large) to stay wealthy.

What does that tell us we should want, or expect, from our current millionaires and billionaires?

People descended from … rapists …. tend (by and large) to stay wealthy.

I beg your pardon?

Sorry I am finger typing. Collapsed several thoughts at once while thinking of slavery and empire. I am not accusing the Royal family of being particularly rapey. However if you read any account of the Medieval period—for instance Barbara Tuchman’s work, you will grasp that the adjuration not to apply modern mores to our ancestors extends much farther than just to their corporations snd financial instruments. The past is, indeed, a different country and they do things differently there. Serfdom, slavery, rape, warfare—all took place under different cultural rules.

"self sufficient" is a subjective concept.

If you think the Royals are a waste of money and their assets could be better used by the state, then you come up with a rationale for doing so.

The Royals wouldn't be able to complain, because it would be in the same historical tradition of seizing monasteries or agreeing with parliament to take a distant cousin's throne.

On the other hand, should the need ever arise, perhaps they could do a deal like the royal family of Bavaria https://www.castleholic.com/2020/01/the-wittelsbacher-ausgleichsfonds-or.html

It didn't protect them from the Nazis, but they seem to be quite financially secure now, and the current head of the house has lived with his male partner since the 1980s, so perhaps is a winner in the end, when you compare that to the ups and downs of Royal relationships. (He is also hypothetically the current Stuart King, were it not for the act to settlement).

This is rather the point that I was trying to make upthread. You put it very clearly!

Exclamation marks are shouting? Is this a new thing? Capitals are shouting - exclamation marks are for emphasis - or has the MN rules changed for this thread only?

@smilesy , I guess it was you who made a reference to Monet, and the post made me smile, because of the gremlins who mess with words. I can't find it now. I don't know how many pages back it was and it doesn't really matter that I find it. I was just looking for a way to use 'monet' instead of 'money'.

Prince William is in charge of 135,000 acres of land. I would imagine at least 100k people live on it. He's been D of C for 2 years. So far he's been building housing with supportive services, no doubt employing locals, to house locals. He's extending freeholds and is apparently realizing that he's going to have to deal with low rents and buildings in need of repair. All of this is going to take time. It sounds as though he has a different communication style than Charles but he can also concentrate on the Duchy; I tend to think Charles diverted his time to Highgrove.

Water rights in NY are complicated as it can be a mixture of public and private.

https://ogs.ny.gov/real-estate/lands-now-or-formerly-underwater#:~:text=and%20Land%20Management-,Overview,the%20Office%20of%20General%20Services.

@smilesy@upinaballoon I’m sorry- it was me being a smartarse about the money/monet autocorrect- sugggesting you take it to Christie’s for valuation…🫢

I wonder if you were mocking me because you thought I had made a mistake. I'll never know. Really I was making a pun.
It was money and now I'm landed gentry.

The country needs money. Not the ‘Prince William garden project’ or other such stuff. Putting your name to something is no different to cutting ribbons. Stay royal but stop taking the money. And give the land to the country.

'Give the land to the country'.........

Who do you mean by country? I have little doubt if the duchies were 'given' to the government, they'd be sold off, likely to overseas renewable companies or the like, profits disappearing off shore, and tenant farmers losing livelihoods. The government would probably spaff the proceeds on some ridiculous initiative, and that would be it, gone.

I absolutely was not mocking you! I assumed it was an autocorrect and also assumed you would realise it was a feeble joke.

He's been D of C for 2 years. So far he's been building housing with supportive services, no doubt employing locals, to house locals. He's extending freeholds and is apparently realizing that he's going to have to deal with low rents and buildings in need of repair. All of this is going to take time.

Yet somehow he's still managed to find the time to sign several environmentally damaging yet profitable mining agreements.

I could not agree with you more.

It has been amusing to catch up on the recycled unvarying talking points, some complete with new usernames but the same posting style. The repeated narrative that UK politicians, if given more power, would somehow behave better is...bold.

William is a very popular heir. If Republicans can't make inroads with a relatively unpopular monarch, it will be a hopeless case against Diana's firstborn son.

I look forward to all the news channels desperately trying to explain (and pronounce) the Latin version of William as either Gulielmus or Gulielmus or Guilielmus.

I think William is popular enough—but its odd to describe him primarily as “Diana’s son” as though the RF didn’t have a somewhat conflicted history with Diana herself. I mean what is King Charles here? Chopped liver?

"Diana's firstborn son"??

Quite melodramatic 😆

W is C's 'firstborn son' too...

I look forward to all the news channels desperately trying to explain (and pronounce) the Latin version of William as either Gulielmus or Gulielmus or Guilielmus.

William IV (who ruled immediately before Victoria) was Gulielmus IIII on his coinage. Somehow, I think William may opt not to Latinise his name?

(Also W(illiam) V gives you some visually appealing options for a royal monogram!)

United for Wildlife: don’t make me laugh. They love killing wildlife. Charles and Camilla would still be fox hunting if they could. He even lobbied parliament to get it brought back. He said that it was romantic. Those spurs they dig into the polo ponies are horrendous too. Prince Philip loved trophy hunting but was president of WWF. They are given medals and honorary titles just because they are royal. People act like grovelling, sycophants in their company.

Well the polls have also shown a consistent drop in popularity and support for RF as a whole - at the moment support is still above 50% but barely and it’s on a steady downward trajectory - so I’m not really sure it matters who is the ‘most popular’ out if a group who are becoming less and less popular overall.