Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the Obsession with the British Monarchy?
Conclub ^ | 04-18-11 | The Rat

Posted on 04/18/2011 3:14:00 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen

A WALT DISNEY FAIRY TALE IN A NON-FAIRY TALE WORLD

- The royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton is nearly upon us. Cable news channels are ramping up for 24×7 coverage. Brits of all shapes and sizes are busting at the seams, and people around the world who yearn for the days of Princess Diana are coming out of the woodwork like crazy. Why?

Think about it: On April 29, millions upon millions of people the world over will watch the wedding of a woman who is only famous because she is marrying a man who is only famous because he happened to be born into a family that has been declared royal by the British government. And you thought Kate Plus 8 was ridiculous?

While I somewhat understand the delusional fixation the British themselves have with the whole monarchy thing, the celebrity-worshiping obsession that millions of Americans seem to have with this fairy tale escapes me. Given that British Royalty has essentially been ceremonial for the last 400 years or so, the whole thing is a bit bread and circuses, don’t you think?

I mean hey — let’s talk seriously for a minute. Prince Charles (“His Royal Highness, The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales,” to be precise) seems like a nice enough chap, but Pee Wee Herman even thinks he’s prissy. Here’s a guy who’s waited around his entire life to become king, only to realize that he may in fact be passed over in favor of his number-one son, Prince William. (who also has a long pompous name) So what does Poor Charles have to show for it? By most accounts, an annual income in excess of $29 million. Not bad for a king in waiting, huh?

So what does the Prince of Wales actually do all day? I mean, what exactly does he do for a living anyway?

According to the Mirror, Charles is a very busy fellow indeed. In addition to 25 or so “royal engagements” per week, (shaking hands and cutting ribbons), he devotes a fair amount of time to his pet causes, which include the environment and organic farming. He seems to visit quite a few factories and businesses and such, where he passes out lots of “well done; carry on.” compliments. (and more handshakes of course) At an event in Halifax, Charles spent so much time shaking hands that the concert band was forced to play God Bless the Prince of Wales three times.

Between jaunts around Britain aboard the Royal Train, or by way of his dark blue Jag, Charles finds time to squeeze in get-aways to former British Colonies for more pomp and circumstance. All things considered, not a bad gig for the money.

For a majority of Brits, (referred to as monarchists), support of the Royal Family is inextricably linked to patriotism. Conversely, a significant portion of the population is becoming increasingly vocal in its opposition to the monarchy, calling it an expensive and unaccountable institution, particularly during weak economic times in an increasingly competitive world.

The bottom line is this: The monarchy costs British taxpayers in excess of $100 million a year; principally for the purpose of allowing the queen’s royal subjects to feel good about themselves and forever bask in the glory of the “good old days” of the British Empire.

Oh, and for all you crazy American monarchists, be sure to visit the official Royal Wedding site. It’s pretty impressive; Cinderella would be jealous.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: princewilliam; royalty; royalwedding; wedding

1 posted on 04/18/2011 3:14:02 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

The establishment love dictatorship


2 posted on 04/18/2011 3:18:04 PM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Beats dead air on the TV screen?


3 posted on 04/18/2011 3:18:44 PM PDT by Rodm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Beats dead air on the TV screen?


4 posted on 04/18/2011 3:18:54 PM PDT by Rodm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

The Brits would be far better off if they ditched the Royal Family and used Miss England and the Page 3 girls who usually pose topless for the British tabloids for Royal Family stuff (presiding over the opening of Parliament, grand openings of Burger King locations, etc.).


5 posted on 04/18/2011 3:19:30 PM PDT by bwc2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

“Why the Obsession with the British Monarchy? “
********************************

the most “common” folks have never gotten over it...

In reading of the framers of the first constitution, The Articles of confederation, we see that they have always wanted george replaced with their own King, namely, George Washington...george wouldn’t play ball, but...they never got over it...and certain figureheads have well taken advantage of this problem...


6 posted on 04/18/2011 3:20:00 PM PDT by gunnyg ("A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

If it is of no import, why not ignore it? Why waste all those words and electrons on a non-event?


7 posted on 04/18/2011 3:21:25 PM PDT by La Lydia ("California: When the parasites outnumber the hosts, it's all over.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
Why the Obsession with the British Monarchy?

Cause tourists are money.

8 posted on 04/18/2011 3:22:44 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Million upon millions in a world of billions isn’t really an obsession. Most of the folks I know could give a crap, until I saw the date in this article I didn’t even know when it was (soonish was about the best I had). The vast majority of the world won’t be paying any attention.


9 posted on 04/18/2011 3:22:58 PM PDT by discostu (Come on Punky, get Funky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
The English accept royalty because they feel that makes them royal by extension over to the rest of us.

Have you noticed they often talk about “The Wooooorld!”

They can't just say “the world”, it has to be “The Wooooorld!”

10 posted on 04/18/2011 3:26:26 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Whether they want to admit it or not, everyone knows Obama is hiding his bc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

An old law for the ‘’news’’industry.. If there’s no leading news story, then create one. This wedding is as exciting as watching a cat clean itself.


11 posted on 04/18/2011 3:30:34 PM PDT by shadeaud ("If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten." -- George Carlin B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

The Obsession with the The royal wedding is mostly by women and Chris Mathews. They love fairy tales.

The gay guys I know only watch the wedding to goof on Prince Williams ‘barky’ attire.


12 posted on 04/18/2011 3:31:41 PM PDT by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

If you don’t want to see it-—don’t watch it.

Leave the brits alone and let them have their fun. They may be Muslimised in the very near future, they need all the recreation they can get.


13 posted on 04/18/2011 3:33:13 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
The bottom line is this: The monarchy costs British taxpayers in excess of $100 million a year; principally for the purpose of allowing the queen’s royal subjects to feel good about themselves and forever bask in the glory of the “good old days” of the British Empire.

I'll see them and raise them one "affirmative-action president" who is costing us a whole lot more than $100 million a year, and that with no end in sight (so far).

14 posted on 04/18/2011 3:41:50 PM PDT by thulldud (Is it "alter or abolish" time yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
Why the Obsession with the British Monarchy?

Caught in tangled web of Gaddafi

Could scrapping the Civil List spell more power for Prince Charles?

Libyan gun-runner and friend of Prince Andrew 'gave Princess Beatrice £18k necklace' before Duke allegedly lobbied British company for him

Now Prince Andrew comes under fire for links to ruler of second corrupt former Soviet state

Prince Andrew's choice of friends called into question AGAIN after four-day stay with a sex offender

15 posted on 04/18/2011 3:45:31 PM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

I dont know anyone who gives a rats ass about any of these people. This is 100% media driven, no one cares.


16 posted on 04/18/2011 3:47:01 PM PDT by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Here's one more....

'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Prince Charles urges environmentalists

17 posted on 04/18/2011 3:47:40 PM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Husker24

Given what the royals get up to, I’m thinking someone ought to give a dang.


18 posted on 04/18/2011 3:49:04 PM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Husker24
Case in point that mentions George Soros...

Prince Charles brokers $1bn deal to save Indonesian rainforests

19 posted on 04/18/2011 3:50:58 PM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Mentions Buck House....

Colonel Gaddafi's son buys £10m Hampstead mansion

20 posted on 04/18/2011 3:53:56 PM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Bottom line is, though were are loath to admit it, due to our language and history....we’re still an English culture, and their royalty is in a way....our royalty.


21 posted on 04/18/2011 3:55:04 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
From 2004....

Charles is first royal in Iran for 33 years

22 posted on 04/18/2011 3:56:18 PM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
yeah.......Prince Charles ignorance is showing, I pray The Queen just skips him and hands the Monarchy over to Prince William and Kate, they would make a much better King and Queen than..............

http://www.vyoos.com/images/potty-prince-charles.jpg

23 posted on 04/18/2011 3:57:07 PM PDT by KC_Lion (America is on the Brink of War with itself, and no one seems to notice or care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Same reason the useless idiots have an obsession with the Kennedys.


24 posted on 04/18/2011 3:57:50 PM PDT by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

25 posted on 04/18/2011 3:59:50 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
Why the Obsession with the British Monarchy?

The obsession of the US media? That's because American media types are apparently fascinated by pasty-faced, bucktoothed, chinless, inbred loons. Most of the rest of us don't give a crap.
26 posted on 04/18/2011 4:03:25 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Why the Obsession with the British Monarchy?

A: It’s fun to watch inbred Europeans do silly stuff!


27 posted on 04/18/2011 4:05:49 PM PDT by VanDeKoik (1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Why the obsession? It reminds us of why we kicked England out.


28 posted on 04/18/2011 4:31:15 PM PDT by MuttTheHoople (Democrats- Forgetting 9/11 since 9/12/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

Correct me if I’m wrong-please, but isn’t the whole English monarchy thing predicated on blood? That is a ‘’royals’’ blood is different than a ‘’commoner’s’’ and as such such ‘’blood’’ cannot be mixed? How is this any different than anything the Nazis postulated on when it came to matters of blood and race?


29 posted on 04/18/2011 4:35:19 PM PDT by jmacusa (Two wrongs don't make a right. But they can make it interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

“Our royalty’’ In pigs eye. Friend , you need to go back and re-read American history, particularly the American Revolution. I’ll help you out... we chased this kids ancestors outta here at the point of a gun. “Our royalty’’ my ass.


30 posted on 04/18/2011 4:40:42 PM PDT by jmacusa (Two wrongs don't make a right. But they can make it interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
"While I somewhat understand the delusional fixation the British themselves have with the whole monarchy thing, the celebrity-worshiping obsession that millions of Americans seem to have with this fairy tale escapes me."

For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation is possible.

I won't be tuning in to watch Kate and Wills tie the knot, but that doesn't mean that I don't feel a certain affinity for Britain's royal family, and for their traditions.

For reasons that are a bit hard to express, those institutions are important to me, as is that country. My country's roots are there, and we were once a single people. My own family draws its roots from those islands, so there is a certain long lost kinship I feel with them.

In a nutshell, I'd like to see them endure.

31 posted on 04/18/2011 4:49:03 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

32 posted on 04/18/2011 4:49:52 PM PDT by hawkboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221
The Brits would be far better off if they ditched the Royal Family and used Miss England and the Page 3 girls who usually pose topless for the British tabloids

How very crude...

33 posted on 04/18/2011 4:50:31 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221
The Brits would be far better off if they ditched the Royal Family and used Miss England and the Page 3 girls who usually pose topless for the British tabloids for Royal Family stuff

"We are not amused."

34 posted on 04/18/2011 4:51:49 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
Given that British Royalty has essentially been ceremonial for the last 400 years or so

Actually 300. Didn't become truly irrelevant to government till 1714, when George I succeeded to the throne.

George III made a serious effort to regain political influence for the Crown, but it didn't take.

35 posted on 04/18/2011 4:57:22 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

36 posted on 04/18/2011 5:01:34 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

They piss off Barrack Hussein Obama. That’s gotta be worth something.


37 posted on 04/18/2011 5:08:11 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

The Crown persists in the UK (and 15 other Commonwealth Realms that have voluntarily kept the shared monarch) for several reasons.

1. The Crown separates patriotism from politics. No British politician has ever been accused of being unpatriotic when they criticize a Prime Minister. Something that often happens in the US.

2. The Prime Minister may be master of the political landscape and have the power to fire nuclear weapons, but authority for that power is vested in the Crown and the Constitution, not in him. He may issue orders but it is still considered “advice” that the Crown is bound to act on.

He must address the Queen and senior members of the royal family as Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Ma’am, or Sir. He gets’ a townhouse and a small country retreat, while the Royal Family has multiple palaces. And while the Queen is first in precedence at all state occasions, the Prime Minister comes in 19th. It teaches humility to politicians, who are not noted for their humility.

3. The Crown makes Prime Ministers and cabinet members disposable. Because a President is both Head of State (symbolic leader of the nation) and Head of Government (in charge of running the government). They are very difficult to get rid of when scandal hits. Had Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton been Prime Ministers they would have been dumped in a matter of weeks instead of dragging the issue out for months.

And while a King is difficult to force out, when push comes to shove an unsuitable King has been forced out, twice, in 1688 and 1936.

4. What is now the UK had a republic. Parliament killed King Charles I and established Cromwell as Lord Protector (effectively President-for-Life). England was mired in war and became a military dictatorship until the Restoration. Not a good record.

5. In the UK, most republicans (favoring abolition of the monarchy) are leftists like Cherie Blair, and Tony Benn. Conservatives like Margaret Thatcher support the monarchy.


38 posted on 04/18/2011 5:08:46 PM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
Well I guess this explains that new donut at Dunkin Donuts - called the "Royal Wedding". Damn, they got rid of the Reverse Boston Cream donut for this?

Some of the females in my family are all a-flutter over this royal wedding. Guess it feeds into their princess fantasies that they grew up with.

Always amazed me, the differences between the sexes. Girls grow up fantasizing about princes that sweep them off their feet while us boys grow up fantasizing about big-bosomed bar girls bearing mugs of frosty beer.

39 posted on 04/18/2011 5:48:00 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (I am 4 days from outliving Brandon Tarkikoff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

I understand that the monarchy isn’t going anywhere. Its tradition, its the way they roll. So o.k. I’m not really “into” the british monarchy but I have to say that princess Diana was interesting to me. mostly because she was the most attractive person to join that group EVER! and she sure did seem to try and add a little class too. Now her son is marrying someone who will pretty up the gene pool again. Maybe in the next generation or two the monarchy will actually be attractive!


40 posted on 04/18/2011 9:11:37 PM PDT by annelizly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

“Why the Obsession with the British Monarchy?”

A question better answered by good psychiatrist.

IMHO


41 posted on 04/19/2011 4:44:17 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen
When I was 9, I watched Elizabeth's coronation. I was daddy's little princess but I knew I would never be queen....or so I thought.

Marriage made me a queen and I would be blessed with 3 very special charges. And I have grandsons just like the Queen. I hope to attend their weddings someday.

42 posted on 04/29/2011 8:54:26 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeCitizen

You do know that in England, “republican” basically means, “Marxist”...

The Royal Family does cost as much as you say... and it brings in almost as much in revenue.

The Crown Estate is not the property of the Royal Family, it’s the property of the nation.

We probably could sell it all off and clear our defecit overnight, and have a very nice big Wal-Mart with office space, at Buckingham Gate. But it would be a tacky, graceless, tasteless thing to do, which is why the Marxists (republicans over here) are all for doing it. A bit like our last Prime Minister, a leftist, selling off our gold reserves at fire sale prices.

Over here, politicians cost an absolute fortune, have their snouts in the trough, are constantly being found with their hands in the till, defrauding the country, and doing lucrative jobs on the side when they’re supposed to be at work in Westminster serving the British people.

So it’s no surprise that even the best of our politicians, couldn’t ever inspire a turn-out as big as we had in London today for the wedding.

The news over here showed so many Americans in the crowd that I can only assume that you guys look at the turn-out in London over the last 48 hours and WISH you had a head of state who could inspire anything like as big a love-in (without being a Marxist).


43 posted on 04/29/2011 12:57:10 PM PDT by MalPearce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson