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

None whatsoever.

It is quite amusing to see all the usual suspects with all the usual criticisms which miraculously do not apply to their sugary favorites! And some new criticisms that are dependent on time travel...male preference primogeniture dates back to Roman times but a pp claimed wildly that W was responsible!!!

Earthshot is a smashing success, so of course the denigrators will claim that it is evidently all other people. Because William was not at the Earthshot workshops in Rio last week photocopying the workshop worksheets...apparently his contribution is nothing.

And apparently the workshop was paid for by "others" as those without access to the journal entries are quite upset, despite the financials being good enough for both the charity commission and more importantly Michael Bloomberg, (any charity Bloomberg is involved in is famously well run with tip top accounting as most Americans would know.)

It must be hard to see the unrelenting smear campaign mostly originating from Montecito roll off W&C's backs, as W&C remain highly popular amongst the public with ratings that Starmer, Badenoch and Farage can only dream about.

Not much. But it also won’t improve the lives of the ordinary either.

There will always be people full of immense wealth and privilege in the UK. You would have to decimate the whole system of aristocracy. You would have to heavily tax the rich (in which case they would flee to tax havens and no longer contribute to society).

And even if we did turn into a Republic you will still reprehensible characters in charge (see Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Silvio Burlosconi). Brexit proved that people are happy to make fantastical promises of improving lives and repurposing funds that never actually materialise. It would be exactly the same as before, but without the added benefit of having a living monarchy (see coronations, weddings, jubilees and trooping of the colour etc) brings to the economy.

We've tried republicanism in the past and it didn’t work. I prefer having a separate figurehead that stays above politics, though of course there needs to be reform and better transparency.

Why is this done constantly by pro h and m posters?
bringing up H and M to say you hope this doesn’t turn into a H and M bashing thread!
particularly as you are the only one to mention them at the time!
it’s counterproductive, unnecessary or worse a deliberate ploy to get posters to mention them!

I am amused by the posts on this thread saying Prince William is not a leader when it’s patently clear they have no idea what a leader does…

@My2cents1975of course they are going to be more popular than the politicians. Whatever they do or in this case don’t do has no bearing on our lives. They could all retire tomorrow and it wouldn’t make the slightest difference to any of us.

It sounds like a very positive term to me! It would be great if he achieves that role. Sadly, I don’t think he is qualified for it, and even if he was, I don’t think he would be allowed to do it.

Just on this, the science behind opinion polls as conducted by various polling companies is well-tested and valid. The link below explains some of how they work. When they are conducted appropriately and ask the same question over a period of time (as is the case with popularity polls, which are conducted regularly for both politicians and public figures like the royal family), they are pretty accurate.

How can you possibly tell what millions of people think by asking just 1,000 or 2,000 respondents?
In much the same way that a chef can judge a large vat of soup by tasting just one spoonful. Providing that the soup has been well stirred, so that the spoonful is properly “representative”, one spoonful is sufficient. Polls operate on the same principle: achieving representative samples is broadly akin to stirring the soup. A non-scientific survey is like an unstirred vat of soup. A chef could drink a large amount from the top of the vat, and still obtain a misleading view if some of the ingredients have sunk to the bottom. Just as the trick in checking soup is to stir well, rather than to drink lots, so the essence of a scientific poll is to secure a representative sample, rather than a vast one

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldppdm/106/10616.htm

prefer having a separate figurehead that stays above politics, though of course there needs to be reform and better transparency.

Yes so would I, whether a Monarch or an elected president. The problem is that under a Monarchy it's far more likely that we have what we have now- a lack of accountability or transparency, a culture of defence and patronage, overpraise and people falling over themselves to keep their secrets, from Parliament to the press. If there were fewer of them and they had to justify what they did it would be far better for them and us. It's outrageous that they can lobby for exemptions from legislation, and the Parliament says they can't discuss it, and they can voluntarily choose to pay or not to pay tax, again, not allowed to be discussed!

Why do people have this desire to see prominent Royal Family members 'working' and scrutinise and bemoan how much they do or don't do? (mostly don't)

It frankly is a giant waste of time. No amount of work can justify their privilege. So what difference does it make if they are involved with charities, go about setting up community organisations or sit on their arses at home and go shooting every weekend? Their privilege isn't earned. Their privilege in basic terms is God-given, handed down by dint of blood lines. This idea of William, Kate or anyone else with close proximity to the throne, having to demonstrate some sort of work ethic in order to prove their worth to the British public is ridiculous, it's fairy stories for kids.

They are Royal, they are not justified by works anymore than faith in Jesus Christ is.

As to getting rid of them, you would have to dismantle the notion of aristocracy by default, and to a certain extent the feudal inherited class system, which is exactly what people are really asking for when they say they want to get rid of the monarchy, but often are not thinking about. So would getting rid of the Royals affect the common person? It most definitely would because it would be a fundamental shift in the culture.

That would turn the UK into a pretentious meritocracy like America is. But it would be pretty much worse, as America at least started without an aristocracy, and has had time to find it's separate identity, whereas the UK would be reeling under the sudden removal of the weight of centuries of historical nepotistic, feudal based class hegemony. A total sudden shift of national identity. The culture wars we see both abroad and here currently would be as nothing to the upheaval it would cause.

And if you get rid of them in the cause of 'a fairer society' what happens to their lands? How does that get redistributed? The lands of others 100 + in line to the throne? Some of whom are incredibly land-rich and wealthy?

It's all nonsense. We have a Royal Family. We will keep the Royal Family criticism or no. And their PR machine is well aware of this.

William will be a fabulous King. I hope I’m still alive to see it.

An excellent post!
to the point, neither for nor against but representing the feelings of many people like myself.

What an enlightening post 🥰 You’ve given me a lot to think about.

'I am not a Royalist by any stretch, but I am prepared to discuss the role of the Monarchy and I hope this thread stays informative and balanced'

The proceeds with uninformed and imbalanced opinion.

We all saw right through that 🤣

Most people would never have heard of any of the initiatives without Earthshot. The prize ensures funding and interest for a slew of worthwhile projects.

'plus the grunt work will be done by countless others whose work he takes credit for.'

Could you provide a link to anywhere where William has taken credit for any of the Earthshot projects? I'd be interested to see where and when he did this.

Yep. So pompous the intro, so crafty the H&M aside, so stupid the actual opinion.

The Coronation was fabulous. If anything, it's should have been a bit more blinged up!

I’m tore between this. It looks bad in a cost of living crisis. But what’s the point of monarchy if they don’t bring out the bling and pomp during occasions like the coronation?

Maybe it depends on what’s going on in the current climate? I for one like seeing the gold carriages and glittering tiaras. Better to be seen and admired than locked away gathering dust. I understand that mine might be an unpopular view, but it’s not like they’re going to be do away with all those lovely jewels.

Well, I want to see evidence of them working simply because I am always being told how hard they all work and how demanding their jobs are.

Why ?
what possible difference would it make to you?
and even if the proof was hand delivered by a royal swan on horseback with fanfare , you would not believe it anyway.

every single time people post articles showing that the royals have done engagements that weren’t reported on by the media, it’s always hand waved away .

Maybe they don’t want to show the jewels as it will just highlight the fact that they were stolen and not rightfully theirs.

So are most things in the British museum (and others) to be honest…

King Charles was far less popular than Tony Blair in the nineties and into the turn of the century. For example, in March 2000, Tony Blair polled at 51% versus 40% for the then Prince Charles.

The unelected and unpopular then Prince Charles focused on the environment before it was cool and advocated for unpopular ideas which are now core government policies to improve the health of the nation...a win for everyone.

The elected and popular Tony Blair (elected in a landslide majority for Labour) enabled George W. Bush by following him into Iraq and Afghanistan, the reverberations of which are ongoing today.

But we know how many engagements they do. And we largely know how onerous they are. I don’t like having the wool pulled over my-and other people’s- eyes. I can see how William could make a very effective “silent disruptor” but I’m pretty sure the grey suits would stop him getting very far.