OT - a polite inquiry into the British monarchy - from an American

[timwat]

 

So for obvious reasons, I'm not looking for a political discussion, or opinions about the institution of royal monarchy - forum rules prevail.

 

What I'm curious about, as an American, is the English perspective on the cultural implications of the death of the Queen and the succession of your new King. Namely, my news feed has for the last few weeks had a healthy volume of stories contemplating all manner of speculation about the inner workings of the royal family, plans for banishment or relegation to the sidelines, those who have nothing good to say about another, etc. This mildly surprises me, despite the rise in overall cultural interest in royal life (for example, that long-running Netflix, The Crown).

 

I think for me it is because we don't have a monarchy in the US. So I wasn't brought up as a child learning about the history of a royal family, I've never really revered a US president (maybe that says more about me than Americans in general), and so I am admittedly struggling to understand how royal family interrelationships engender such ubiquitous speculation. Of course, I do understand that the rise and fall in station carries with it at least symbolic future implications (given the role, or lack thereof, of contemporary involvement in politics of the royals, at least as I understand it). But how do you, as subjects of the crown (is that the right term?), feel about all of the speculation about relationships of King to Princes, intertwined with titles and such? Obviously the passing of a Queen (my condolences, she seemed to be much loved and respected) occurs quite infrequently, and so there may be no recent precedent to compare to. But is the speculation and conjecture expected by British sensibilities? Or is this something other than?

 

What I guess I am asking is for one of our English brethren to help me understand British culture a little. Absolutely no judgement intended - I simply realize I just don't fully get it, and I would like to learn a little about this out of personal curiosity.

 

Tim

 

 

 

[Lindaru]

I, too, am American, but my husband was part of a registered Scottish clan to which my name was added to the registry.

I felt a connection to the pomp and reverence of the passing of the Queen as one who did not grow up feeling any particular connection beyond the fact that in the sixties I had an A.M. radio that played CBC Winnipeg, Canada, and "God Save The Queen" would be playing on that at 6:00 a.m.

Looking forward to hearing more.
 

👑

 

[o0Ampy0o]

Britain is deeply into gossip, scandal and sniping about the royals. It has been that way many years prior to "social media." All the conjecturing over what could happen is just seasoning the anticipated feast. The obsession with the English has faded some compared to other periods but Americans (people of the USA) still have interest.

[Wrrtyuuiioop]

Being British myself, the Monarchy is at the heart of our Democratic process.

 

Our Government serve not just we the people but they pass the Laws and Regulations signed by and in the name of the Sovereign.

 

What you ex Colonists may not appreciate is that our Queen was not just our Monarch but she was a guiding light and a confidant of every elected and many non elected leader of Countries throughout the world including your USA.

 

There is nothing new under the Sun and she saw it all and offered Council to all who sought it.

 

Our Prime Minister wether they be good or bad are are appointed by the Sovereign and they have it in their power to suspend the Government but not to take over the running of the Government, their role is as Head of State.

 

The running of the Royal Household is based on traditions and certain processes and procedures with Duty being the foremost and woe betide anyone who falls foul of the Royal Establishment.  Prince Andrew has and Prince Harry has and they both suffer the indignity and fall from favour and have been stripped of certain titles and ranks. 

 

When they were young William and especially Harry were wild and the Police RPS had their work cut out.  William mellowed and fell into line but Harry did not and has not behaved as a Royal should and never ever should he have married who he did.  That was always going to lead the paperazzi on a witch hunt.

 

I firmly believe that Charles never loved Diana, her role was to provide heirs to the throne.  Charles’s love has always been Camilla, but as she was married prior the Royal Establishment would never have sanctioned a Divorced Woman being the Mother of an heir to the Throne.

 

Do note that the Monarch is not just the Sovereign and Head of State but they are also the Head of The Church of England, and they promise to uphold the Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland.

 

Going way back to 1936 King Edward IV was forced by the Royal Establishment to abdicate because an American Divorcee could never be allowed to become the Wife of the King.

 

Finally King Charles III is in fact my very distant Cousin, 19th Once removed to be precise.  
 

Now there is an argument that the present Royal family should not be where they are as the line of succession since William 1 aka The Conqueror has not been direct, more a wibbly wobbly line but that is another story.

 

If you have read all this go get a beer you deserve one.

 

 

[Cliffk]

Whew, this is bound to be binned by DB … 😅

 

in the interests of balance, I’m British too, though a clear minority in the demographic under discussion. I’m nobody’s subject, and republican to boot (but just for clarity, not in the American red vs blue sense 😉). So absolutely no disrespect to Biggles, but to me and many of my circle, just the concept of monarchy is an anachronistic abomination and a hugely successful sociopolitical con.

 

Timwat, I genuinely appreciate yours was a neutral info-seeking post, so just to let you know, this is as deeply political as it gets for those of us who are anti-monarchy. In that sense, we’re talking similar levels to current left and right divisions in the US. So that’s all I’ve got to share on this, but at the very least I reckon it’s worth knowing that not all Brits are of the same mind on monarchy.

Again, no offence intended to anybody. Now I’ll get back to the good ‘ol regular stuff about keyboards …

[Docbop]

I remember reading some writing of George Washington and he said founding fathers liked the organization of the British government except for having a King or Queen and Royal family that was the one thing they didn't want.   So they decided on a elected president and rest modeled on British government.     Washington also didn't want political parties.  

[Kawai James]

I'm also British and am in complete agreement with Cliffk.

[MAJUSCULE]

Tim! My, what a spicy topic!

[xKnuckles]

Unlike Midi, football & so much of what is discussed here, this is a subject upon which I suspect I may possibly be qualified to express an opinion; being both British...and opinionated... 

I see there are some excellent comments already by my fellow countrymen from both pro and anti royal camps. Whilst understanding the views of those who object to it; personally, I love having a royal family. I like the antique ceremonial things which are part and parcel of it and which happen from time to time...  ...which, as well as being quite interesting and entertaining to witness, offer us a chance to reflect upon our long history... and our relative insignificance in relation to it. It can be humbling to think that the same ceremony just seen on TV has been performed for centuries in a very similar way.

The Queen was hugely loved here. Perhaps not so much because of her royal title as because of the astonishing way in which she worked at her role: devoting her entire life to it and fulfilling engagements and duties right up to the very end. How many people in their mid 90s are there who never stopped working? Some people may think of the word 'entitled' when they contemplate Kings and Queens; but the Queen sacrificed much in her fulfillment of her duty: a normal family life, the ability to expressed an opinion in public, the freedom to behave 'improperly'. She never complained about the relentless rounds of events which she had to attend or indeed anything else. Such a work ethic could not fail to win universal respect.

She, in her non-politocal role, had a unique vantage point from which to meet with hoards of world leaders etc. over the decades. Her wealth of knowledge must have been formidable. The sovereign meets with the prime minister every week and they talk in private. They never discuss what they talk about, but I think it can only be a good thing for our leaders to hear another, highly experienced voice as they make their decisions.

Politically, the sovereign stays neutral but is not without power. They give royal assent to new laws so they are extremely well informed politically.  Prime ministers come and go, but the sovereign remains in place as a genuine, long term embodiment of stability. If we come ever up against an insoluble constitutional problem, who knows: perhaps the sovereign may be the necessary key to unlock it.

The royal family give us a unique sense of both time and continuity. The Elizabethan age has just ended for us and a new era is now beginning. This is how the future will record and catalogue us. We can look back upon our history in neat packets according to who was on the throne.

As for how the royals affect us day to day.... they mostly don't but it is nice if they turn up at a local event. I suspect that most of us have met or at least come across one or other of them as they travel so much. I have been introduced to Princess Anne (she seemed lovely and extremely nice) and sang in a choir performing for the Queen.

As to all of the stuff in the press about them which you mention; it is horrible that they are hounded as they are. I think the easiest way to explain the level of interest here is that there is a largish group of people who treat it all as a sort of reality soap opera: they have been following the lives of the royals for decades and like to read about them as a form of entertainment. Regrettably our press is only too happy to fuel this fire by publishing every crumb of info that it can get its greedy hands on. No story about them is deemed too small or insignificant. The press coverage of them here is hideously intrusive and they all have my sympathy for having to cope with that. It must be horrific

[bfields]

19th cousins!  I wonder what are the chances that two random people are 19th cousins of each other.  Of course, if you go back far enough, the probability is 100%.  But is 19 enough?  Somebody must have modelled this....  I suspect the probability is high.

[timwat]

Thank you all, and please keep the information coming - it has been really enlightening for me, even the brief comments.

 

Of course, I am hoping this delicate topic can remain on the good side of the apolitical line - and perhaps that is a pipe dream (a non-political discussion about a monarchy).

 

But I am very much interested in the media phenomenon that is press coverage / conjecture about the royal family, and Biggles, CliffK, Ann, and others have helped to really contextualize this for me.

[Dave Bryce]

4 hours ago, Cliffk said:

Whew, this is bound to be binned by DB … 😅

Lovely.  I so enjoy being put on the spot on political discussion. 🫤

 

That being said, I’m torn about how to handle this topic.

 

On one hand, this strikes me as quite political, as has also been noted above by those more knowledgeable than I on the subject.  In that light, I feel it would be inconsistent to leave it.

 

On the other hand, I see questions being asked in what looks to me to be a sincere and respectful manner and being answered in a direct and informative manner, so I’m hesitant to delete it:

 

I’m inclined to think being consistent is more important.  I simply don’t want politics in this forum, and leaving it up here puts me in the position of having to decide what political discussion is appropriate going forward. I also feel it’s not even-handed to leave what I believe to be a political topic active just because a country other than the US is the subject.

 

I see two possible paths here - I can delete it, or I can move it to Dr. Anderton’s forum, which is much more flexible on content (pending me checking with brother Craig first, of course).

 

I’ll leave it to the OP (Tim) and the folks from the UK to choose which they’d prefer.  I would respectfully request that no one else weigh in on the topic until that decision has been made.  

 

Thanks for keeping this civil.

 

dB

[timwat]

I'm really sorry about that, Dave.

 

As enlightening as it has been for me personally (and very civil and even-handed), it was a stupid idea to put that up. 

 

I'm fine with you nuking it entirely, but if the UK folks who have weighed in want to move it to Craig's forum, that's fine as well.

 

Again, sorry.

[Anderton]

As the person to whose forum this would be moved, I don't have a problem with it. But let me explain why.

 

First, Sound, Studio, and Stage has always been somewhat of an OT-oriented forum, going back to its roots in 1995. The range of discussion is very broad. I've noticed some of the people in Keyboard Corner seem almost apologetic for posting an OT thread in KC, because KC is so on-topic, and an unparalleled resource for keyboard players. The sense for some people is that OT dilutes that. But no one needs to apologize for posting an OT thread in SSS. 

 

Second, I can be a heavy-handed moderator   You don't see it because the people in these forums are, frankly, a cut above most online discussion forums. Hardly any moderation is required. There were some political discussions in SSS around the time of covid. When emotions ran too high, I simply locked the thread. I also deleted some posts that I felt worked against the spirit of musicians helping each other, being tolerant of each other's viewpoints, and trying to do the right thing. Some people resented that, so they left. Other people came onboard because they liked being able to discuss hot-button topics in a civil way with other musicians.

 

Bottom line: You can pretty much post what you want in SSS. If a thread gets to the point where it negatively disrupts the camaraderie that makes Musicplayer.com forums so cool, then I'll intervene to keep things on course. But I don't expect to see that happen very often.

 

(I might add this thread brings up very interesting points in an intelligent manner, and I find it fascinating.)

[Cliffk]

Gratifying to see such thoughtful responses, though as was mentioned above, these forums are on a different level to many out there - which is why we stay. 😊 It’s really important to keep communication channels open while retaining respect and tolerance for viewpoint diversity, especially on contentious close-to-the-bone issues like this. In that spirit, I’m happy to have the thread moved to Craig’s forum.

[nadroj]

 

[quote]What I guess I am asking is for one of our English brethren to help me understand British culture a little.[/quote]
 

Hey Tim, you’ll need more voices than just English ones to help you understand British culture - just a heads up and FYI! 
 

Britain is a very diverse country, with many different cultures (and ethnicities) represented in it. The UK itself has several countries within it. There are parts of British culture that haven’t taken as well to the fuss made about the Queen’s passing as others. 
 

Chiming in as a working class Scot, many of my peers (or more accurately, most people I know) have been frankly bemused by the whole thing. A large number of Scots in my generation (under 40) simply don’t see a need for the Monarchy and would probably be happy with abolishing it and having a Republic instead. Common complaints up here (not necessarily made by me) are that the Royal family is an “outdated concept”, and a “waste of taxpayer’s money”. There’s also been a lot of frustration over the “forced period of mourning”, especially considering many people here simply didn’t care.
 

Saying that, many of the older people I know have had sentiments very similar to those shared by above posters - so it seems to me there is certainly a generational divide in regards to our attitude towards the Monarchy. 
 

But in terms how we reacted - the worldwide consensus on the day of the Queen’s funeral was that everything in the UK was closed, but if you went outside of my house into the main street of my little Scottish town, it was business as usual - buzz, busyness, shops open, workmen making a noise, etc. No one batted an eye-lid. Even some national-chain Supermarkets who announced they’d be closed nationwide stayed open up here. 
 

Personally I deeply admired Elizabeth for certain aspects of her character in the face of her public leadership, though I wasn’t particularly upset by her passing, and I wouldn’t lose any sleep if it was announced that the Monarchy was being disbanded tomorrow. 

 

Obviously this viewpoint doesn’t go down particularly well South of the Border, and there have been a lot of heated discussions over it as a result! I am able to fully appreciate and respect those who do not share the same thoughts, though. 
 

My wife is very anti-monarchy, though she had the chance to go see the Queen when she lay in state here in Edinburgh at St Giles’ Cathedral. She didn’t have to wait long and decided she wanted to have the experience while the opportunity was there, and when she saw the casket she was actually fairly struck by it and ended up very glad she went. People are complex, with emotions and motivations that don’t often fall into nice little lines or categories, so I’m fairly certain cases like the above won’t be uncommon. You can not care for the Monarchy and still be saddened by the loss of the only Queen anyone under 70 has ever known. 
 

Without getting into politics (which I refuse to do), there is also the fact that the Scottish vote very differently to our cousins South of the Border, and that is certainly worth reflecting on when it comes to our reactions to “British” traditions. 

 

It is also worth noting that our politicians decided that even if Scotland became an independent country back in 2014, the Queen would still have remained as our head of state - which shows that the Monarchy issue isn’t simply one of politics. Understandably though, this topic is not one I’m going to go into on this forum! 
 

There’s also an aspect among younger people of different ethnicities, and from different parts of the Commonwealth, who have been frustrated at the mourning almost being “pushed” on them and their cultures - to use their own words. Again, this looks like it’s a generational thing. 
 

In short, the mourning, and coverage of what to many outsiders may seem to be the national mindset conveyed by the media certainly isn’t widespread over every part of British culture, and as we’ve even seen in this thread, there is no one single national unified reaction or response to the Monarchy and the Royal Family. 

[Wrrtyuuiioop]

Back again.

 

Great comments so far.

 

Let me put on record that I am neither Pro or Anti Royal.

 

Given the choice I would rather have a figurehead as head of state than some grossly  egotistical Businessman/General as President/Prime Minister/Chancellor who thinks that they are above the Law and they they can run roughshod over everyone (strike out whatever is not applicable in your Country).

 

British Government is not run by a single person, it is supposed to be managed by a consensus of the Cabinet, therein lives the problem, membership of the Cabinet is controlled by the PM.  The rank and filed Members of Parliament are not given the freedom to diverge from the Party line before the respective Whip takes umbrage upon them and cuts their rights as an MP, they are all on a lease.  Hence our system does have its flaws and it is why we are in the state we are currently in, especially today with our new PM causing mischief and mayhem with the policies.

 

Let us not forget that Queen Elizabeth was not born to be Queen, the role was forced on her by the abdication of the supposedly Nazi sympathising King Edward IV that forced his younger Brother George into the role.  Going back in history the present Royal Family are not of British origin but they are from the House of Hanover, they changed it to the House of Windsor.  In WW 1 the main protagonist was Kaiser Wilhelm II was in fact the Grandson of Queen Victoria and this led to the change of name to Windsor.

 

Whatever fence one is on the side of one thing cannot be changed an has to be acknowledged by all subjects of the UK and Commonwealth is the dedication, loyalty and duty that the Queen provided in the role for over seventy years.

 

With the History of, and actual Pomp and Pageantry (which we are by far the best at in the World) being a major draw for visitors to the UK the income that it draws into the UK exceeds the cost of the Royal Purse (housekeeping cash given to HRH for managing the Royal Household.

 

Charles III is a very different person to his Mother and time will tell on his influence but I would hazard an educated guess, Status Quo will be maintained.

 

 

[Threadslayer]

12 hours ago, xKnuckles said:

 I think the easiest way to explain the level of interest here is that there is a largish group of people who treat it all as a sort of reality soap opera: they have been following the lives of the royals for decades and like to read about them as a form of entertainment. 

What I cannot understand is the fascination and adoration many many Americans have for the British royals. Didn't we fight that whole revolutionary war thingy back in the 18th century specifically to get out from under the boot heel of the British monarchy? I guess the analogy of a soap opera is pretty apt, but it seems like we have a large section of self-loathing colonists hungry for any morsel of the pomp and pageantry of our past rulers.

[Doerfler]

happy to see this thread alive and civil at it's new home. 

[ProfD]

Thanks brotha @timwat for starting this thread. 

 

Many thanks to our fellow forumites who've answered the inquiry and provided their perspectives. 

 

Thanks brotha @Cliffk, I figured there were alternative sentiments over there to what we saw on American TV. 😁

 

There's absolutely room for civil discussion even when it comes to issues that could be sociopolitical.  Great job keeping it that way.😎

[Anderton]

Perhaps one other factor is that Europe in general has a sense of history that Americans don't have. Monarchies were a part of Europe for centuries, so it seems (to some degree) woven into the fabric of society and public consciousness. That sense of history can be brutal (Spanish inquisition, anyone?) or notable (the renaissance). 

 

Around where I live, "history" goes back a few hundred years at most. If Europe, you can be driving along and see a wall built during the heyday of the Roman empire. So maybe in one sense, the monarchy represents a connection to continuity that has survived for centuries. 

[stoken6]

Compelling thread.

 

As a Brit, I will comment that not everyone in my country is fascinated by the Royal family. Threadslayer's comment about Americans being fascinated is enlightening - I suspect simply because of the "otherness" of it ("You mean your head of state ISN'T elected?"). And of course an American married into the family, adding to the interest. 

 

I will say the late Queen was a wonderful diplomat and poster girl for the UK brand - and of course that doesn't necessarily follow for the rest of the family (anyone? York?). However, I don't particularly feel a tragic loss at the peaceful passing of a 96-year old woman. 

8 hours ago, nadroj said:

Personally I deeply admired Elizabeth for certain aspects of her character in the face of her public leadership, though I wasn’t particularly upset by her passing

Jordan expresses it well here.

 

8 hours ago, nadroj said:

and I wouldn’t lose any sleep if it was announced that the Monarchy was being disbanded tomorrow.

I don't know how I would feel - neither birthrights or elected premierships are a guarantee of success and stability (insert illustrative country of your choice here).

 

Cheers, Mike.

[ToddP]

18 hours ago, xKnuckles said:

They give royal assent to new laws so they are extremely well informed politically.  

I'm curious about this. Is it in their power to dissent? What happens then?

[Lindaru]

Thank you, everyone . . . for filling me in your perspectives and history.  To this, I would put on my bagpipes synth patch and raise a drink!  (Or I could let You Tube do it for me).

🍻
 

 

[stoken6]

1 hour ago, ToddP said:

I'm curious about this. Is it in their power to dissent? What happens then?

In theory, yes. In practice it never happens - it would be a breach of protocol to deny the manifesto of an elected government.

 

Of course, it is entirely conceivable that those in power may breach the norms of their office...

 

Cheers, Mike.

[nadroj]

1 hour ago, Lindaru said:

Thank you, everyone . . . for filling me in your perspectives and history.  To this, I would put on my bagpipes synth patch and raise a drink!  (Or I could let You Tube do it for me).

🍻
 

 

Anything but a bagpipes synth patch! 😂 

[Anderton]

Anyone care to common on the England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland dynamic? Some of it seems fraught...

[ProfD]

28 minutes ago, Anderton said:

Anyone care to common on the England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland dynamic? Some of it seems fraught...

Well, Ireland and Britain had an uneasy relationship for centuries culminating in "the Troubles".  I'll stop there. 😎

[nadroj]

3 hours ago, Anderton said:

Anyone care to common on the England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland dynamic? Some of it seems fraught...

Google “UK voting map brexit” and “uk voting map 2019 general election” (2015 too) and look at the images. That will give you a bit of an idea. 
 

Basically a lot of people in Scotland feel they’re being led by a conservative government they didn’t vote for, and that they were dragged along on Brexit against their will. But as I said above, independence isn’t a black and white issue, as most polls still sit around 50/50, which is risky for the Scottish Government (currently led by the Scottish National Party, who as the name suggests, are very, very pro-Scottish Independence). The last independence referendum in 2014 saw the independence movement lose 52-48, but then a surge of support for the SNP in the General Election the year after.
 

The Scottish Government want to hold another referendum for independence in the next 2 years (Brexit sped things up), but the UK government has said it would block/deny any request for one, which obviously hasn’t gone down well. If that happens, the decision on whether or not we’re allowed to hold one goes to court and gets messy for everyone involved. 

There are many, many conflicting opinions about the above on both sides of the border.
 

On top of all of this, the UK is also in a shambles (economy is very rapidly going to pot, with some more bad news today) and has had 4 Prime Ministers in the last 6 years - each either forced to resign or having stepped back for one reason or another. Add in a lot of problems still stemming from Brexit, and it’s safe to say things are pretty chaotic. 

[MathOfInsects]

I am going to wait to post in this thread until all the funeral and other ceremonies are completely over. So, probably some time in 2027.