The British and their obsession with “Royalty”, class, bloodlines, and aristocracy -WHY???

In the US people obsess over trashy celebrities.

We're not obsessed with them at all. I hear more discussion about the Royal Family by Americans on DL than I ever have on the television, in the newspapers or in everyday discussion living in London. Most of us view them with indifference.

The reason the Royal Family is still around is that they have no point. The Netflix series about them illustrated this point well. They have no real power, their whole thing is just a title. If they had any actual power as monarchs they would have been done away with by now, but the fact that they're basically the English version of the Kardashians means that they can stick around for a while.

In all honesty I think that once the Queen and Phillip die the Monarchy will go with them. Every family member that has come after them has hated the throne and the "royal" shit. I think within a few decades the Windsors will move out of Buckingham Palace and it will close its doors for good.

Why is Charles so violently red, almost purple, these days?? He looks that way in every picture!

Because the monarchy is the source of all honors.

OP, first of all, nice use of thesaurus.com but your ignorance of basic history is showing.

The "greatest empire on earth" existed, in its day, precisely because of the structures around royalty, class, bloodlines and aristocracy. The upper class was the majority in the power structures. Sorry to break the news but the empire wasn't built by Trev wif a white van from 'Ull.

Which isn't to say it was a democratic or even fair structure, it was not. But it had its moments before power, democracy, government and the nation evolved, as they do. In some countries, for example, women can vote now. Others have done away with slavery. Objectionable things change over time, through elimination or improvement, history tells us. (By the way, universal health care in the UK was introduced after the Second World War by the Labour prime minister Clement Attlee. The son of a middle class lawyer, he was not exactly a product of aristocracy or empire, which had been withering in any event by that point for about forty years.)

Certainly there is indisputable majority respect for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and Princess Anne, based on years of service but today, I don't know anyone today who [italic]worships[/italic] the Royal Family. There will be a few sad cases, as there are those who worship, for example, Hillary Clinton. But emotional disorders in individuals aren't a useful basis for proving mass dysfunction in any population.

The role of the Crown is to act as a focal point for the nation. So when it needs one, there is the king or queen, above politics and performing ritual. (This is similar to the excitement and emotional stirring in many Americans when they see Mount Rushmore or a hot dog.)

Based on a thousand years of history and tradition, the majority of the British people support a constitutional monarchy as part of their system of democratic government, with the head of state filled by the man or woman who inherits the crown. The strengths and weaknesses of this can be argued but it's just a system. A choice. It is not impossible, though not quick or easy, for the British people to make another choice about how they are governed which may not involve constitutional monarchy. Hasn't happened yet. The family aspect is a bit of PR dreamt up during Queen Victoria's reign and expanded thereafter. And while today some members of the royal family are respected for their work or interests, others are not - at all. Like most families. Still, it's good for the newspapers. And while the hereditary concept grates some people I would point out that democracy produced Donald Trump.

As to the aristocracy, not for nothing are there books like "The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy," which the New York Times described as "A brilliant, multifaceted chronicle of economic and social change." Today, power can land in the hands of the educated, the reasonably moneyed and to a large degree, still, the white. An ancestor didn't have to saddle up William the Conqueror to become Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister.

I'm not going to go any further, OP. You used two exclamation marks so I've taken you as seriously as you deserve.

Dear KGT: we see you trying to open truly yawn-inducing threads in which you can vent your hatred of all things British, particularly its monarchy.

You might want to try a visit some time. Brits haven't been obsessed with class, titles, and the monarchy in decades.

Try a ride on the Tube someday - suggest a ride to, say, Notting Hill Gate. Both the Circle and District Lines will get you there.

See how many people are talking about the monarchy.

Why are Americans so obsessed with RACE, money and celebrity?

If DL is any indication, elderly American homosexuals are much more obsessed with this shit than the Brits themselves.

The only information most of DL has about the UK was learned from Downton, Keeping Up Appearances and Absolutely Fabulous which they believe are accurate depictions of modern British life akin to documentaries.

OP I shall lend you a topper.

The British? DataLounge is way more obsessed with them then an average Brit is. Every third thread here is about some British royalty

Most British people are deluded enough to think class 'doesn't matter'; of course they obsessess about it.

They express it gingerly out loud, but are filled with rage with their glum acceptance of their 'place' in British society. Something most Americans would never consciously accept. They key concept here being anthropocentrism.

The British as savages only civilised by looted wealth of older civilisations and the veneer of politeness. Don't be fooled by their accents.

Labour (except for Blair) has largely been effective at exploiting the notion of class inequality, as if Downton Abbey still exists, while a good number of them send their kids to private school. But stoking the fires works.

OP seems to be posting from the late 30s, when he was in his late 30s.

OP, you type peasant.

Outdated sentimentality. A desperate clinging to "power" and "image" as the world around them continues to change. Obsession with status.

Should clarify that my comment refers to anyone, including and perhaps especially, dipshit Americans who idolize the BRF or the concept of hiearchal status based on bloodlines and wealth.

OP, tl;dr. Interesting topic. OP too long-winded, what's your point in a nutshell?

There is no point, R19. He doesn't like them and takes a long fuckin' time to tell us that. Would it not have been easier - for it and us - to say "I don't like them?"

OP has no point, just like his posts.

OP has the writing and cognitive ability of a six year old with Down Syndrome.

The British Monarchy has become little more than a tacky tourist attraction. The Queen, Charles, and William are trotted out for grocery store openings for pity sake. The rest of them are akin to D list & lower Hollywood celebrities signing autographs for $5.00 a pop at a strip mall in Pacoima.

[quote] OP has the writing and cognitive ability of a six year old with Down Syndrome.

Funny, he doesn't look Mongoloid.

They're all inbred, anyway. I dont understand the fascination.

R22 why is it always Pacoima? I've heard it used as the butt of so many jokes - in real life as well as online. BTW I'm not critiquing just interested. I was out there recently enough (just passing through mind) and it's not cute but it didn't stand out from the rest of the valley as being especially not nice.

It's only Americans and the readers of four UK tabloids that care about royalty.

You can spend months in the U.K. and not hear even more than a fleeting reference to the royal family, but go to some old queen's house in the U.S. and fucking hell, it's a rabbit hole of no escape. Worse yet, get the older American gays started on Wallis and Edward.

The royal family exists as a tourist attraction: to Americans. Royal weddings generate extra income and more shit souvenirs and sales receipts for teas at Fortnum & Mason's and hotels with palm courts.

R22, you just trolling or do you believe your own bullshit? Because the Queen doesn't open grocery stores. Neither do Charles or William. Trumpy of you, though. Hope you're proud.

The old gal sure as hell didn't just pop into the market for a takeaway Tandoori!

So nice try but that is plainly not the opening of a supermarket. That's the Queen visiting a Sainsburys, a significant player in the British economy, marking its 150th year in trade. Sainsbury paid for an entire wing at the National Gallery so it's about it bit more takeaway Tandoori. Nice try, though. I admire your comfort with looking like a fool.

R28 She was at the Sainsbury's HQ in Holborn to celebrate their 150th anniversary, not an actual supermarket.

I hope life returns to normal soon and everybody gets back to work under the beady eye of whoever supervises these geniuses in whatever it is they do in their cube or behind the counter. Because the stupid is off the charts on this site.

R6--Excellent answer to the idiot OP.

I don't understand the obsession with vilifying those of us who discuss "the Royals". I admit that there are too many redundant threads about them but, then again, how many threads are started because someone has a new brain fart about Trump or COVID-19? I'm a gay male American and a subscriber, and I don't pick fights or stalk or harass other members. and I skip over the threads that bore or annoy me. I'll happily read about a tiara before I'll read a new Corona update for Idaho.

Let's have an obsessive BRF thread where I demand to know why people are OBSESSED with the BRF!

And R29 I admire your comfort with being a Royal grifter ass licker.

The fact that you equate royalty with “celebrity” tells one everything there’s to know about you, OP.

R29 does the National gallery sainsburys sell clothes or is it just groceries? And can I use my reward card points from there at Argos? I know they’re owned by the same company.

Which, R35, again proves with enough small words and patient instruction you might be taught how to use a self check out.

R29 = Lady Colin Campbell ticked off because her surgically applied vagina is itching.

I love how OP and people like him who aren't British forget how deeply entwined the monarchy is with the evolution of Britain as a nation.

You know, little things like Henry VIII and the break with Rome and its Civil War and the Magna Carta . . .

They aren't film stars. Only cheap hookers like Meghan Markle think the BRF is there to turn one into a film star.

There days may or may not be numbered, but this is just more Brit hate.

Ffs, London has as its mayor the son of a Pakistani bus driver.

Anybody who has this question needs to watch The Crown. It perfectly explains the reason for the Windsor's existence in the modern era despite the fact that they have no real power anymore so there's no point in still have royals.

The brfs popularity is nosediving. The rightwing troll element that has taken over gossip sites and media has turned off people. One of the most repeated statements by people who were Brf fans or neutral was that they weren't really that invested until they became a victim or witnessed the trolling. Pack attacks by right-wing orientated Brf trolls are still occurring and are ruining people's enjoyment of one of the only forms of safe entertainment left. Complaints are ignored.

I don't know what universe you are living in, r42, but the BRF's popularity is skyrocketing right now. Despite Andrew and the Harkles, (who are both no longer seen as part of the Firm) they are having an absolutely banner year in terms of positive PR. One of the best in over a decade.

I don’t know anyone here in the UK who is fixated on the royal family. They have very little relevance to ordinary people’s lives. Some Americans seem to think we live in a mediaeval fayre.

Exactly, R44.

An example would be the other day when the court announced Markle's friends would keep their anonymity. There were loads of posts about it on here but it didn't even make the front page of the BBC website.

Americans seem to think the pageantry of the Queen's Birthday, Opening of Parliament or a Royal Wedding is an everyday occurrence here. Those crazed loons who turn up at such events covered head to toe in Union Flags are so few and far between it's often the same ones featured in newspapers each year.

R43 You talk like pr. Manufactured popularity isn't real. And ignoring what is really occurring is why their popularity is tanking. You can't base popularity on carefully crafted polls that use cherry picked info and are then promoted. It is like putting lino over a floor riddled with termites. The damage is still occurring even if it appears not to be. I know pr and I know media.

R46 has spoken! She knows more than all of us!

If you know PR or media, R46, you know the first rule is have something concrete to prove your message.

Still waiting.

Honestly, most Brits don't give a dam about the Royal family. Although the Queen is respected, but once she goes the rest can go to hell.

Take a look at more of R42/R44 's oeuvre.

Those of you who have it blocked are missing a treat.

The reason for the rise in popularity this year in particular, is, ironically because of the way the Harkles have treated the rest of the family. It's produced an extremely protective instinct over the Queen and the Cambridges. Even over Bea and Yuge: when Meghan threw them under the bus in her lawsuit, suddenly you saw random people who never tweet about the BRF tweeting defensively about two members of the BRF whom they'd normally ignore.

Overall, the Harkles have been the greatest PR boost to the wider Firm seen for quite a while. Long may the Harkles continue their attempts to denigrate the Institution, because each time they do, they improve the Institution's prospects for popularity, and therefore, longevity.

God save the Queen.

R49 Agreed. I’m a republican, but I respect the Queen for her long service. The rest can retire quietly to enjoy their billions as private citizens.

ff..

R50 You have just proven my point. Instead of addressing the issue you started to personally attack me and the other poster attacked the Sussex. This trolling and inability to stay on topic to the point where you are making Brf topics turn into anti Sussex threads is getting noticed. Posters on any site should be able to post negative or neutral Brf comments. The fact they get attacked when they do reflects directly back on the Brf. I too don't dislike the Queen.

The BRF are popular, but that doesn't mean they're well liked. They're Britain's answer to the Kardashians.

Exactly. They are celebrities. And the one thing covid has done is open they eyes to a lot of people on just how unnecessary they are in the scheme of things.

Watch out, guys! We are BEING NOTICED!

I know you want them to be celebrities, r57. I know you desperately need that.

Sadly I must report to you that the BRF are exactly the **opposite** of celebrities (with the exception of Meghan and soon, possibly, Harry).

Sorry/ Not Sorry.

I should qualify my opinion. I don't dislike the BRF at all. I think the Monarchy serves a useful purpose (mainly tourism). But I also think that the only member of the Royal Family who should received one pence in taxpayer money is the sitting Monarch. The Monarch should be required to use that money to run "the firm" however she sees fit including paying salaries to the lesser Royals who do work for the Monarchy.

But al this Royal birthright crap business is ridiculous. IMO the Monarch should be chosen by the people, not by who happened to first in the line of succession.

SHB: "But all this Royal birthright business"

R46, I am not r43, but may I ask if you are in the UK, as you claim to have such knowledge of The Royal Family’s popularity?

I’m in Scotland, where we are currently headed for elections next year, where Scottish Nationalists are on course to win an absolute majority. Yet even here, there is no serious movement to abolish the monarchy, or to somehow curtail it.

Most people don’t pay The monarchy much attention. There is a tiny, tiny minority of mentalists who turn out to wave flags while dressed as Union Jacks, but for most people the Royal Family has a fairly benign marginal presence in our lives. At the present moment, the RF is very popular because it doing what is expected of it: calls to unity, thanking healthcare workers, visiting schools and old people. The Queen, Charles &Camilla, William & Kate, Sophie, Edward & Anne are good at his type of thing and work hard at it because they recognise the quid pro quo at the heart of the modern constitutional monarchy: the members of the RF are expected to do what is expected of them in a crisis, and that is absolutely the only reason why anyone respects anything they have to say. The Queen in particular has moral authority and is respected no because she happened to be born into luxury but because she is seen to have sacrificed part of herself to fulfil her role.

Harry and Meghan are seen as somewhat ridiculous figures because they demand the respect and attention other members of their family get, but only on their own terms. When they issue their proclamations, I think people at least in the UK just cannot see why they think they have earned the right to a louder voice than any man in the street.

The age of automatic deference to a bloodline is dead. People mocked the Queen above for opening a supermarket. I’ve no idea what the circumstances were, and I am sure she has other things she would rather be doing, but in essence any legitimacy she has comes from the fact that she does what is demanded of her. It’s a lesson she learned from her grandfather (who knew to tread a fine line, sending cash to support the families of strikers during the General Strike while at the same time supporting the Prime Minister), from her father (who kept the show on the road after his brother left, despite his own weaknesses) and from her Uncle Edward who, like Harry, abandoned his position while still believing that his personal charm and popularity would allow him to be taken seriously. He ended up a marginalised and pitied figure as a result, while Elizabeth stuck to duty and has kept her family securely on the throne through great social change over 70 years.

Thanks R62 for keeping it polite. I am in a commonwealth country and have strong ties to the commonwealth indigenous communities through an organisation. I hear from the horse's mouth so to speak. I also am in contact with media because of this organisation. The Brf is losing the indigenous and poc base rapidly. I will give an example of what was discussed this week in next post

Well that certainly makes sense to me r63, as I’ve always assumed that Commonwealth countries must have (at best) an ambivalent relationship to the Royal Family and to the UK itself. Here in the UK thouh, I think it’s position as a convenient constitutional mechanism is fairly secure.

The Queen never really had a base of indigenous or POC people, r63, so how can she 'lose' them now?

The discussion this week was social media. The Brf was used as an example. Apparently the Brf run websites have moderation capabilities and use them. Any discussions or hints about Rose, affair and William are removed. Manually. The comments are hints sometimes so are not removed automatically by programming. Racist hate speech, violence against poc and black people, sexual innuendo, joke death threats and racism - for example, what do you expect her mum is black etc are left up to view. These are open to view to everyone including minors. If you aren't white and are reading these comments and know that they are being left up when they could be removed. What would you think. They are alienating a section of the populus that is getting larger, more vocal and more rights. 50 grinning while doing charity pics in the tabs isn't fixing or gaining them anything.

It's not just the Queen. And she had a huge base of indigenous people. Her portrait was placed in every meeting house, school and the indigenous communities I am in regular contact with used to be staunch monarchists.

R66 That's a lot of bollocks. How stupid do you think we are?

Please point me in the direction of a post containing racist hate speech that was deliberately left up on the comments section of a BRF website.

OP has Royalty-envy.

It's just tradition. All cultures, all countries have some form of it. Societies with more money can do that tradition up big time. Poorer ones like the Maori culture do it their own way.

That tradition can play a unifying role for good times and bad times in that society. The problem lies in those who fetishize it to the extreme or those who can't understand why it can be a helpful tool if used properly to help a culture/nation.

I've never been much on tradition but I don't begrudge those who are.

I’m an American who read BRF gossip on occasion and will watch the weddings yet thinks the whole concept of royalty is pretty ridiculous. And not sure what “service” the queen has provided. If The Crown is at all accurate, she seems to resent a lot of her royal duties and is uncomfortable when having to deal with national tragedies or any family muddles.

What? Who the fuck is Rose?

And I don't believe for a nano-second that they leave racist comments up on official Royal websites. GTFO with that bullshit.

Notice the Lions rarely sing the anthem during Euros.

Last time I remember the whole squad belting it out was ‘96, and it seemed a bit much then.

We have an unusual attitude to the national anthem here in the UK.

It's only really ever played or sung if the Queen is present or at a medal ceremony where GB has won. If, for example, we were in a pub and it was playing on the telly people wouldn't stand up and sing it too, really.

Any other Brits like to confirm this or is it just me?

Compare this to the US or France, for example, and everyone's up standing and singing their heart out.

Depends on the pub, r75

I don’t dislike the Queen or her family, however, I do believe that the monarchy is becoming increasingly irrelevant because the demographics of the UK are rapidly changing.

Also, I don’t feel that the queen’s children, specifically Andrew and Charles, respected their mum or her title, or the family name, as they both behaved quite shamefully toward their wives and their posts.

Monarchies aren’t modern nor are they progressive, yet I am not begrudging any of this the the Queen, as I do believe that she is from an era where she took her job seriously, while others surrounding her got away with stuff that a Queen cannot get away with when she’s coming of age at the same time televisions are popping up in everyone’s home, yet her husband and her boys, did.

I believe that what we witnessed via Diana’s evolution away from the royal family, is representative of what a sexist and misogynistic environment it is, and to claim that we’re not seeing that again with Meghan and her marriage to Harry, is complete bullshit.

I do not peruse the DM much, not do I specifically read articles and comments on Meghan. However, I have on the past, and while those times were few, I read MANY comments that portray Meghan as an actual prostitute, while suddenly embracing Kate.

Women who marry into this family are treated horribly by the press and while many will claim that Meghan deserves a beating, she doesn’t deserve the specific kind of beating that is usually reserved for women of color, here in the states, and apparently, across the pond.

To say this family aren’t promoted as celebrities is also very dishonest. They may be royals, however, they’re splashed across every gossip rag in the EU and the US, because the UK doesn’t have Hollywood, it has castles.

I asked the question, because I believe that cutting ribbons is not going to cut it any longer in the UK, within 30 years. The monarchy is stuck in the past and whether Brits want to recognize this, the scene looks like something Brits insist upon in order to hold some sort of distinction amongst the world based on class and perceived aristocracy via association.

And to the bitchy cunt who attempted to provide me with a history lesson about parliament and monarchy in the UK: I am well aware of both, their roles and their distinctions, which is what prompted me to ask the question about their relevance in modern life in the UK, in the first place.

The queen appears to be a real trooper and I believe she would have accomplished great things, had she not been reduced to cutting ribbons and wearing tiaras.

R77 Bravo!

r77 seems Bitter...

It is common knowledge that the Queen is a shy woman, and would have preferred to live quietly in the country. Instead, she has taken on a role that goes against her nature, and has mastered it without complaint. She deserves credit for that, but the monarchy’s days are numbered. I believe there will serious questions about its relevance when the Queen dies. Charles is known to have repeatedly lobbied government ministers for his causes, in flagrant breach of his role as heir to a constitutional monarchy. Once he is King, this will not be tolerated. Charles and Camilla are a bad joke, and everyone knows how they connived to humiliate Diana. They are not respected except by crawlers and sycophants.

Americans are equally obsessed with the British royalties LOL

The biggest jokes in that family are the Sussexes.

America is far more obsessed with British Royalty than the British themselves.

[quote]To say this family aren’t promoted as celebrities is also very dishonest. They may be royals, however, they’re splashed across every gossip rag in the EU and the US, because the UK doesn’t have Hollywood, it has castles.

That's not how they would have it. Media figured out they sell. So now they're tabloid fodder.

[quote]I also think that the only member of the Royal Family who should received one pence in taxpayer money is the sitting Monarch. The Monarch should be required to use that money to run "the firm" however she sees fit including paying salaries to the lesser Royals who do work for the Monarchy.

That's how it is, except for the money paid directly to the Prince of Wales, which by extension supports his children in their work. (I know, I know...)

[quote]If The Crown is at all accurate, she seems to resent a lot of her royal duties and is uncomfortable when having to deal with national tragedies or any family muddles.

That's not what The Crown depicts.

She always does her duty as she understands it. She was resentful when she was younger that this position was forced upon her and took her away from her young family, but in the last season in the episode "Dangling Man" she tells her dying Uncle David (the Duke of Windsor) she has come to think of her position as a blessing.

She is uncomfortable when she is asked to show emotion because that is not how she was raised, but when the public demands it, she eventually does what is asked (as she did with the Aberfan tragedy).

Neither should The Crown be considered accurate. Season three in particular took pretty significant creative license.

Some of you really need to fucking realise The Crown isn't a documentary.

Donald Trump will be out of office soon. Brits are stuck with the monarchs as long as they live. Can you imagine if William wasn’t the firstborn?

Had that been the case, we'd never have heard of his current duchess.

R88, I’m not much of a monarchist, but I do think it’s quite funny that you point to the US presidency as if it acts as some sort of quality control system.

Clinton, Dubya and Trump haven’t exactly upheld the dignity of the office.

OP is more obsessive than the rest of us, obviously. Knock it off.

Bloodlines are important when demanding reparations.