Why on Earth do people love the royal family

I get a kick out of how popular they are in the USA.

Yes, I would love to meet any of them. Would be very cool.


Hell, if it wasn't for the Brits, I'd be speaking Dutch. Yuck.

 

Well, I wouldn't like to say whether Culldav is a native born Australian or otherwise, but I can see why you, and a number of Aussies, are puzzled by aspects of his posts. Several idioms - in particular the use of "Y'all" are not in my (limited) view typically Australian. I hasten to add that, although I am currently studying here, I am not an Australian, and therefore not in a position to properly judge his status (but even I know about Jaffas and about Rolf Harris - who is as least as well known to British kids as Aussie ones).

But while not gainsaying any of your very valid observations, perhaps it is possible for someone to adopt the national characteristics and speech patterns of another society for which he has great admiration. A few years ago, when I first came to Australia, I met a kid my own age who spoke with a quite convincing New York accent. I found out that he is Jewish, and so admires the US that he tries to be American in any way he can - but has never set foot in the USA. I find Australians, especially younger (and lesser educated) ones, to be very easily influenced by American culture.

Anyway it's up to Culldav to confirm or deny his Australian nationality, and having committed himself so resolutely on the subject matter of this thread, I would recommend he does so.

To return to the main topic under discussion, I have never, ever, met anyone - either in the UK or in Australia - who has professed love for the British Royal Family. My own considered opinion is that Elizabeth II has done an outstanding job as Monarch, and that the Westminster System of Government is the best that society has stumpled upon. A Constitutional Monarchy ensures an apolitical head of state, and one that is trained for life for the task and responsibilities entailed. He/she is not dependent upon the favour of any political party or of any powerful commercial or industrial entities. He/she does not have to curry favour in order to be re-elected in three or four years time, and can act in a truly independent manner. And most importantly, the Monarch has no real power other than denying absolute power to the head of executive government. He/she is the sword of Damocles which hangs over the head of every would-be dictator.

The concept that the Royal Family are loved and revered is as much a nonsense, as the concept that they are considered 'better' than the rest of us. I respect the reigning Monarch because she has done an extremely difficult job well for longer than my gran has been alive, and I will judge Charles by how well or otherwise he discharges those same duties. I do not give a second's thought to any other members of the Royal Family - as they are of no consequence to our system of governance.

 

I agree with the Gist of this. HM QE2 is my monarch and I have the greatest respect for her- quite different from loving or venerating. I like having a non elected head of state because it means the Monarch is there for everyone. There have been issues with the current middle aged Generation of Royals but I particularly like William and Henry, especially the latter.

 

While I certainly understand your concept...remember it is possible this person simply does not enjoy Cricket.

AboveAlpha

 

Since everyone has played Cricket at school whether you like it or not you invariably know certain things about it even if you never picked up a bat ever again. I have never played baseball, have no interest whatsoever in it but I know hat a short stop is, who Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe and Babe Ruth were and that the Cubs play at Wrigley field. You don't have to know the difference between a googly and a chinaman but you almost certainly know what they are if you are from a commonwealth country but there can hRDLY be an Australian male over 5 years old alive who does not know what the ashes are..and yet it is all meaningless to you.

 

I know a few Aussies who don't like cricket and would spend time even watching it. I on the other hand get withdrawals about this time of the year. Summer is coming up and the International cricket season is about to start. Living abroad, I only get a chance to watch a few highlights.

This year, Australia's oldest adversary is coming over, the Poms. Always fabulous cricket when Australia plays the Old Dart. I'll be home for Christmas. The Boxing Day Test is on again at the 'G'. I've got the tele booked, a slab of Australian finest and a comfy chair. I'll be at the 'G' in spirit with the other 80,000 to 100,000 cricket tragics watching it live. Three, four, even five days of some of the best cricket ever televised. The ladies of the household will be out shopping at the Boxing Day specials. Bring it on!

 

I've no use for the anachronistic royalty, I find it appalling supposedly intelligent adults humiliate themselves before them...I don't hate them personally just the anachronistic social caste system them represent...

 

You seem to like the word 'anachronistic' a lot. They don;t represent a class system. They represent all of us. You don't have a nobility in Canada and a lots less class divide then the USA. I can;t see any good reason to ever be rid of the Monarch. For certain it would not make any difference to your life as a Canadian other than the government would have a more expensive head of state and an expensive election.

 

you know little of canada apparently...

 

Not a very good response.

The USA has a gini coefficent (A measure of inequality ) of 3.7 whilst Canada is .3-half way between switzerland and japan.

 

LOL, a less charitable person than I might retort that you know little of the Westminster system of governance, or of the role of the Monarch in all our Commonwealth societies - apparently.

I, of course, would not dream of saying such a thing.

Perhaps we need to examine the term 'anachronism' in greater depth, before concluding that both the Westminster System, and the British Class System qualify for that description.

The Oxford English Dictionaries define anachronism as - a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.

Which is perhaps not the same thing as saying - a thing originating in a period other than the present (which applies to the cultural practices and traditions of most older societies).

The British Class System is much the same as that of any other developed western nation - the primary difference lies in a minor and increasingly unimportant variation, known as the Peerage. As someone whose father enjoyed a (very) minor title; I can assure you there is no practical advantage to be gained therefrom. The people who weild real power in British society, are the same demographic which does so in every developed nation - the wealthy and the powerful. And these are the people to whom the great unwashed genuinely grovel in every society - including yours.

And perhaps we ought to further examine the term humiliate, which is defined by most dictionaries as - to make feel ashamed and foolish by injuring their dignity and pride. This is something one may do to another, not easily to oneself. One may indulge in ostensible self-denigration or self-abasment, but this is a social construct, not genuine humiliation, and one can act with humility and not be humiliated.

So when I show deference to an older person, or a lady, or address my teachers respectfully, I am not humiliating myself - I am merely showing the respect I consider their due. I am not diminished as a human being in doing so. 'Render unto Caesar ...' and all that.

And so, in the unlikely event I would meet 'Er indoors at Buck House', I would initially address her as Your Majesty, and thereafter as Ma'am - suffering no diminution as a human being in the process. It is only those suffering from a poor self concept who are feel threatened by showing respect for others.

 

I concur wholeheartedly with the above.

 

I agree also. But try telling that to a fired up socialist union official who only sees class warfare as an option. The system needs to change.:thumbup:

 

well let me expose your lack of knowledge of the Commonwealth societies....there are 53 commonwealth countries ONLY 16[/B] recognize the queen as head of state...now, you wanna give another demonstration of how little you know...

I respect everyone until they give me reason not to...you grovel and demean yourself to a level no adult should ever stoop to...

the entire notion of royalty is as childishly idiotic as a belief in leprechauns, fairy's...

 

Ummm ... fair point - but where did I state that the Queen was Head of State in every country in the Commonwealth?

Contain your colonial indignation, my friend, and make allowance for the fact that I have technically been an adult for just over a year - it takes a moment or two to 'put away childish things'.

But seriously, I feel no personal diminution from affording people their due respect - if you so do; perhaps your self concept is somewhat fragile. As an interesting aside - my dad held the title Sir William, and it was notable that Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, and Viscounts (people with far senior titles to his) had no problem with addressing him as such.

In respect of Absolute Monarchy - I would tend to agree. In respect of Constitutional Monarchy, as a function of perhaps the best system of governance upon which we have stumbled - I could not disagree more. It works, and it works much better than any Republic - nothing else delivers a totally apolitical Head of State, free of the taint of politics, not beholden to any political or commercial organisation, and capable of denying absolute power to the Head of executive government.

 

Yep, they are the gist for middle class gossip ,for with bugger all better to do the petty-bourgeois must chatter.

Abdication or Decapitation I reckon.

 

Bring on the Workers Republic !

 

I have a more certain and probably more popular solution; bring back Royal absolutism and public disembowelling.

 

you stated it here...-"LOL, a less charitable person than I might retort that you know little of the Westminster system of governance, or of the role of the Monarch in all our Commonwealth societies - apparently."...

and the Westminster system of governance is not the same in every country that has it...Canada's is not like Australia's or new Zealand's...

fair enough...

and my distant ancestor was Charlemagne and a number of emperors, kings and pope's since then so what, it doesn't mean I'm deserving of more respect than anyone else, I don't require anyone to kiss my butt in submissiveness...anyone who would do that would lose my respect as they obviously have none for themselves...

well that's a delusion...the constitutional monarchy is represented by an appointed Governor General, an ordinary citizen selected by the government in power who performs the same function as the absent royal, so the "royal" is superfluous...and you're naive if you believe the government of the day doesn't choose the GG before they know that he/she will be favourable to their political leaning...the office of GG today is a political patronage appointment and nothing more...

 

I would be amazed if anyone in the UK would approve of the idea that their head of state should be a foreign citizen, effectively beyond the reach of the judiciary, who lives on the other side of the world, and who has the power to dissolve their government at any time and for any reason.

 

Hey, that's easy for those who have kicked the Union jack ,off their flag.Mind you the Quebec Population,always didn't like it.

The GG ,is an out-dated affront to democratic sensibilities ,particularly inAustralia ,where the GG, John Kerr, sacked the elected government, in 1975!

And the Constitution, after the fact ,changed to defend and legitimise the Coup!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

As Liberal Party leader Malcolm Fraser, who would play a large part in the crisis, put it, "The Queen has tenure, and she couldn't be sacked. But a Governor-General holds office at pleasure, and if he ceases to please then he can be removed by a Prime Minister."[4]

 

As with most mentally challenged individuals, they feel vulnerable and afraid if they think no one is protecting them - hence people’s love for the royal family.

These poor frighten little things think if they love and worship the royal family, the royal family will love them in return.

 

Thats odd because our current dynasty started as exactly that a bunch of Germans who spoke no English. You do yourself no favours with you r assertions of dissolving governments at will since the Monarch does notde facto have that ability and has never actually done so. As any realist knows only the governor general has the power to dissolve a government in Australia and in the UK only the Prime Minister has the de facto ability to do so. They Queen just rubber stamps the decision with no greater role than that as of a notary.

Indeed QE2 is the Notaire Plus Grande of 'her' realms.

- - - Updated - - -

The last attempt at A republic in Australia essentially just renamed the CG as 'The president' it as to be appointed and not voted on.

 

What in incredibly stupid comment from the resident Irish-American-pretending-to-be-a-digger.

 

Thank you my friend - the system which has served the UK well for the past 400 years, and Australia equally well for over a 100, needs little justification. The concept that the majority of Australian and British citizens who show a marked preference for this system, do so out of deep personal affection for a Monarch few of them will ever meet, is as nonsensical as it sounds.

But on a lighter note - there are Banana Republics around the world - who ever heard of a Banana Constitutional Monarchy? Let the Republicans flail around - the British Monarchy is here to stay.