Edward 8,Duke of Windsor

[Jozanny]

They're a funny old lot the Royals - though William and Kate seem normal compared to the rest of them. And they always have been. This heir nonsense goes back to a time when things were sorted out in a "My army is bigger and tougher than your army" basis, and has just continued because the priviledged need a figurehead to justify tradition and uphold the myth of rightful heirs.

Edward is a case in point of what could have been a really bad king. I couldn't say that his brother was a good King in the sense that he made any radical impact or contribution - as Elizabeth hasn't. I suppose the best that can be said is that they haven't done anything garishly wrong.

Charles might be a different proposition. I wonder why they called him Charles? If it were me, I wouldn't have named him after the King who succumbed and was executed by Parliament.

I used to be like those on the far left Paul, and in my brash American way saw the British royal family as a waste of time and an outdated extravagance, and that they may be, but one need look no further than Hollywood, California to see that Americans too conflate the glitter of tinsel town as larger than life, so we seem stuck with the necessity, whether it be a decorative monarchy, to use Niall Ferguson's phrase, or a Hollywood movie star, like John Wayne. And if we look closely at Helen Mirren in her biopic of Elizabeth II after Diana's death, it isn't easy to decide if the modern monarch sacrifices herself to her duty to the state, or to that of being a museum piece, however cognizant or not.

She still has power, though it is not that of the Elizabethan age for which she is named, and Edward too was seemingly caught in this crux of the symbolic figure without function beyond a show piece.

[Paulclem]

It's funny that the King's Speech was released this year. Oh the wave of pro-Royal feeling that will gush forth from the press and those lick spittle BBC news programmes. A faintly partial term the Free press.

Of course some bounder will spoil the show when they start asking questions about how much they cost us each year again.

If they do a good job then let's employ them. We can have a bit of accountability then.

[OrphanPip]

William is supposed to be having an official visit to Canada this summer, they cost a few million dollars every time they step foot here.

Edit: On top of the other institutions of the crown that are maintained year round in Canada, like the Governor General.

[Paulclem]

I used to be like those on the far left Paul, and in my brash American way saw the British royal family as a waste of time and an outdated extravagance, and that they may be, but one need look no further than Hollywood, California to see that Americans too conflate the glitter of tinsel town as larger than life, so we seem stuck with the necessity, whether it be a decorative monarchy, to use Niall Ferguson's phrase, or a Hollywood movie star, like John Wayne. And if we look closely at Helen Mirren in her biopic of Elizabeth II after Diana's death, it isn't easy to decide if the modern monarch sacrifices herself to her duty to the state, or to that of being a museum piece, however cognizant or not.

She still has power, though it is not that of the Elizabethan age for which she is named, and Edward too was seemingly caught in this crux of the symbolic figure without function beyond a show piece.

I have nothing personally against any of them, but I resent the implications of their positions - that they are superior - when they are clearly mediocre people in positions bolstered by courtiers who arrange everything for them.

So I'm of your opinion too, and I agree about all the Hollywood guff, and the worshipping of celebrity and youth. So much fluff really masking a very experienced and capable money making machine. I actually dont mind that - we can choose to buy into it or not, but I don't like the expectation that we should think it's anything more than it is, just as I don't like the expectation that we should think of the Royals as anything but unremarkable people who happen to be in remarkable positions.

There are a great many talented and hardworking people who are much less recognised than these daft celebrities and ivory towered Royals who deserve much more recognition. Yet the TV here is going to be full of Royalty rubbish as the wedding approaches, and then we'll go back to mindless celebrity rubbish again. Bah

Anyway, I'm off to my CA meeting soon - Curmudgeon's Anonymous.

[jocky]

The mystique of the Royal family is gone, apart from the professional palace watchers and the glossy magazine journos. What did it matter if Edward was a Nazi sympathiser? Parliament is supreme and has been since 1649. Serious historians do not concern themselves with the blurb, but concentrate on the times when Monarchy actually had power, when their policy affected the lives of everyone. While I accept that their doings are interesting , for example Prince Andrew's strange friends, they are now consigned to the pages of Hello magazine.

[Paulclem]

The mystique of the Royal family is gone, apart from the professional palace watchers and the glossy magazine journos. What did it matter if Edward was a Nazi sympathiser? Parliament is supreme and has been since 1649. Serious historians do not concern themselves with the blurb, but concentrate on the times when Monarchy actually had power, when their policy affected the lives of everyone. While I accept that their doings are interesting , for example Prince Andrew's strange friends, they are now consigned to the pages of Hello magazine.

Agreed. Strange friends indeed. But then they're a bit strange.

Do you remember the history we were taught at school - that the Roundheads were the baddies? It wasn't so overtly put, but that's definately how it came across.

There was a myth that on the night that Cromwell died, England was struck by the biggest storm in living history. They said it was the Devil come to collect his soul. A right piece of Royalist propaganda if ever I heard any. Probably referring to the Divine Right of Kings.

[jocky]

James V1 wrote two treatises on Kingship, for my sins I had to write my dissertation on them. The ' Divine Right Of Kings ' and ' Basilikon Doron ' Greek meaning Royal Gift. He was a King that mattered ( not because I is Scottish ) He has been given a really bad press. He also penned pamphlets ranging from tobacco to witchcraft. Henry 1V of France termed him " The wisest fool in Christendom " My point being he was the last Monarch who exercised absolute power, at the same time having the nouce to work with Parliament. His son Charles was an idiot and the supreme example of why primogeniture never worked.

[prendrelemick]

The Royals are like your Granny's ornamental pottery, useless but nice to keep for old times' sake.

I hope young Kate knows what she is letting herself in for.

[Paulclem]

Yes. Though they seem a bit more out of it all living apart from the Royal circle.

Following Jocky's idiot theme - you then get the Czar Nicholas - not the sharpest tool in the box, to put it kindly, and The Kaiser who liked to "dress up" as a soldier. Both these blokes were roundly unfit for running an ice cream stall let alone a country. Bad thngs happened, which may have happened anyway, but which they did nothingto help. Of course they were both relations of Queen Vic for whom there are lots of stories, but not much about what she said.

[Emil Miller]

I Yet the TV here is going to be full of Royalty rubbish as the wedding approaches...

Unfortunately you are right. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just for a day and that was it, but if it's going to be anything like Prince Charles wedding, I shudder to think about it. The sheer sycophantic hysteria that attended that occasion actually drove me abroad. The whole thing was so ballyhooed it was probably one of the greatest single assaults on human intelligence the UK has ever experienced. I have been a republican since I was about six-years-old when the headmistress told the school assembly that "You should love your Queen." One word formed in my mind then and it still remains unanswered...'Why?' I do have some respect for Prince Charles blocking lunatic architectural schemes but apart from that I wish they would adopt a lower profile or simply go away.

[Paulclem]

I agree. It'll be terrible, and the lower profile/ go away option works for me too. They are all well off, so they could go and live where they liked.

[Emil Miller]

I agree. It'll be terrible, and the lower profile/ go away option works for me too. They are all well off, so they could go and live where they liked.

Well I hope it will be less frenetic than his father's wedding, because it's not far off. My recollection of his father's marriage was a grotesque, even by British tabloid experience, concentration on the wedding months before it happened.
Royalty is not going to go away, because the Queen is at the centre of a vast web of patronage where various gongs are handed out to the 'great and the good' for services rendered to various organisations and, in consequence, to the status quo.

[MarkBastable]

There was a myth that on the night that Cromwell died, England was struck by the biggest storm in living history. They said it was the Devil come to collect his soul. A right piece of Royalist propaganda if ever I heard any.

...not that you could claim Cromwell scored somewhere between Santa Claus and Papa Smurf on the jolly-loveability scale.

[Paulclem]

...not that you could claim Cromwell scored somewhere between Santa Claus and Papa Smurf on the jolly-loveability scale.

True - but at least he had talent. And he wasn't forever by his own insistence. You have to admire someone's warts and all honesty. I don't agree with the whole Puritan thing - banning Christmas and all that, but it needed someone with strong moral fibre to usurp the King in the first placce and not be corrupted in turn by the power.

[Paulclem]

Well I hope it will be less frenetic than his father's wedding, because it's not far off. My recollection of his father's marriage was a grotesque, even by British tabloid experience, concentration on the wedding months before it happened.
Royalty is not going to go away, because the Queen is at the centre of a vast web of patronage where various gongs are handed out to the 'great and the good' for services rendered to various organisations and, in consequence, to the status quo.

I didn't watch much telly then, and so it affected me less. Perhaps Will and kate will want it to be more low key given what happened to Charles and Diana.

I know that patronage is not going to go away easily. The only way it will is if they do it themselves. Charles has displayed a certain talent for bad choices in the past. I'm not so sure about William though.