I think the jubilee may have been too much for her/emotional/overwhelming without Philip/a pressure. She seems to have a new lease of life and looks much happier in photos now. Still frail but happier. Unless she’s had treatment of some kind since then? Very mysterious!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
That's your opinion. It's not an actual fact.
Does seem odd doesn't it. First she is frail looking, missing events, then all of a sudden she's pictured on her horse and walking around ok. It's a bit odd.
Reflecting on the debate about monarchy vs elected Head of State, I’m curious as to what those in favour of it think the ACTUAL benefit would be for the UK to switch over from a ceremonial Monarch to a ceremonial/figurehead President? (Other than the inherited vs “elected” aspect). What would the pro-republic actual selling points be if the question was taken to a referendum? Or would it just be done as a coup?
For your average Jane/Joe Public would whatever benefit that was gained outweigh the cost and sheer hassle of making such a change? Would it improve our day-to-day lives? And if so, how?
I don’t think it wouldn’t be a quick/easy thing to actually change (lawyers will love it though
).
And before we got to even having the Referendum, wouldn’t we need to have an agreement about the type of President that would replace the Monarchy - that could go on for ages and has the potential to become quite acrimonious. But you can’t ask someone to vote about abolishing something, without having a firm replacement model already agreed. (Some people might be theoretically in favour of abolishing the Monarchy, but may prefer that to the actual alternative that was agreed/offered)
Would the end benefit to Jane/Joe Public really be significant enough to warrant the hassle/effort of changing one type of ceremonial figurehead to another type of ceremonial figurehead?
My personal opinion is that while I’m not wedded to the idea of continuing as a monarchy, I can’t see another model that would give enough long-term benefit to be worth the effort of changing everything.
Happy to be convinced otherwise though.
For your average Jane/Joe Public would whatever benefit that was gained outweigh the cost and sheer hassle of making such a change? Would it improve our day-to-day lives? And if so, how?
I don’t think it wouldn’t be a quick/easy thing to actually change (lawyers will love it though
).And before we got to even having the Referendum, wouldn’t we need to have an agreement about the type of President that would replace the Monarchy - that could go on for ages and has the potential to become quite acrimonious. But you can’t ask someone to vote about abolishing something, without having a firm replacement model already agreed. (Some people might be theoretically in favour of abolishing the Monarchy, but may prefer that to the actual alternative that was agreed/offered)
Would the end benefit to Jane/Joe Public really be significant enough to warrant the hassle/effort of changing one type of ceremonial figurehead to another type of ceremonial figurehead?
My personal opinion is that while I’m not wedded to the idea of continuing as a monarchy, I can’t see another model that would give enough long-term benefit to be worth the effort of changing everything.
Happy to be convinced otherwise though.
I think it's more an academic point for me. I dont think we eill ever become a Republic, unless the Royals actually decide for themselves they dont want to do it. I think for me, I that being a monarchy keeps us wedded to the past and engenders a culture of deference to our ' betters' that leads to inequality and a 'We used to rule the world' mentality that is not good for this country. But that will not change immediately if we had a Republic. I think if I lived in one of the Commonwealth realms, I'd be wondering why my HoS was someone from a different country.They should be allowed to go without having the Royals sent there on some charm offensive persuading them to stay. For me, I think conversations about the monarchy are more a distraction from actual issues, because day to day they are irrelevant to me. I don't admire them, and I don't care if my children don't know who they are. I think that that people in the Public eye need to be allowed to criticise them and say they are Republican without being seen as unpatriotic. I think Monarchists often do the Royals no favours when they treat the Royals like their very own performing monkeys standing outside hospitals waiting for women to give birth, and demanding to see grieving children.The Royals will do what they say to the detriment of their own children because they know long term their privilege is ultimately dependent on doing what these people say. I dont want them preaching about things they know little about and forelock tuggers saying they are so amazing for doing them bare minimum , for example Prince William complaining about population control when he has 3 kids with carbon footprint 100's of times that of most other children in the world and he himself doesn't curb his helicopter use, or The Queen complaining about other people not acting fast enough on the environment when she gets herself exemptions from environmental legislation or Kate pretending to be an early years expert without mentioning the decades of work done before and no mention of underfunding of early years services. I think our National Anthem is an insult, in that it is not ' national' at all, but is about one person not the country or its inhabitants. It should be changed. But do I think about the Royals day to day when I'm not reading Tattle? No.Reflecting on the debate about monarchy vs elected Head of State, I’m curious as to what those in favour of it think the ACTUAL benefit would be for the UK to switch over from a ceremonial Monarch to a ceremonial/figurehead President? (Other than the inherited vs “elected” aspect). What would the pro-republic actual selling points be if the question was taken to a referendum? Or would it just be done as a coup?
For your average Jane/Joe Public would whatever benefit that was gained outweigh the cost and sheer hassle of making such a change? Would it improve our day-to-day lives? And if so, how?
I don’t think it wouldn’t be a quick/easy thing to actually change (lawyers will love it though
And before we got to even having the Referendum, wouldn’t we need to have an agreement about the type of President that would replace the Monarchy - that could go on for ages and has the potential to become quite acrimonious. But you can’t ask someone to vote about abolishing something, without having a firm replacement model already agreed. (Some people might be theoretically in favour of abolishing the Monarchy, but may prefer that to the actual alternative that was agreed/offered)
Would the end benefit to Jane/Joe Public really be significant enough to warrant the hassle/effort of changing one type of ceremonial figurehead to another type of ceremonial figurehead?
My personal opinion is that while I’m not wedded to the idea of continuing as a monarchy, I can’t see another model that would give enough long-term benefit to be worth the effort of changing everything.
Happy to be convinced otherwise though.
Last edited:
I’ll throw my tuppence in as a mid 30s woman who reads this thread. I’m interested in the Royals because I think Kate looks lovely and wears (usually) lovely outfits 
I don’t mind saying it’s as shallow as that. Then extending from that interest I find some of the ongoings within the royal house interesting. But I know a lot of my friends of a similar age have the same level of interest, aka Kate looks great and always seems perfectly turned out and appropriate. It’s almost aspirational ! I only have 2 female friends who “love the queen”. I don’t mind her and find her life fairly interesting, but I don’t get how you can “love” someone you don’t know and bears no similarity to you or your life. I do think William and Kate are trying to change some of the status quo as in being more casual and less formal with the “common man” when they do their visits etc. But I don’t see the point in changing from a monarchy to a republic for the reasons above regarding how long and difficult it would be.
I don’t mind saying it’s as shallow as that. Then extending from that interest I find some of the ongoings within the royal house interesting. But I know a lot of my friends of a similar age have the same level of interest, aka Kate looks great and always seems perfectly turned out and appropriate. It’s almost aspirational ! I only have 2 female friends who “love the queen”. I don’t mind her and find her life fairly interesting, but I don’t get how you can “love” someone you don’t know and bears no similarity to you or your life. I do think William and Kate are trying to change some of the status quo as in being more casual and less formal with the “common man” when they do their visits etc. But I don’t see the point in changing from a monarchy to a republic for the reasons above regarding how long and difficult it would be.Okay then 
To be honest, I’m not particularly fussed about the individual members of the RF … I’m more interested in the institution and how the History of the Monarchy is the history of the nation and how their whims and desires for a male heir of the correct persuasion has brought us to where we are now and how it will change and evolve as their overall power wanes and turns into a more personality and ceremonial driven position.
I don’t find any of them particularly aspirational … mainly because a) I wouldn’t want that life for a gold clock b) there is nothing particularly to aspire to and c) it’s all smoke and mirrors anyway … they are not ‘people like me’ and never could be so don’t Cosplay a plebeian
To be honest, I’m not particularly fussed about the individual members of the RF … I’m more interested in the institution and how the History of the Monarchy is the history of the nation and how their whims and desires for a male heir of the correct persuasion has brought us to where we are now and how it will change and evolve as their overall power wanes and turns into a more personality and ceremonial driven position.
I don’t find any of them particularly aspirational … mainly because a) I wouldn’t want that life for a gold clock b) there is nothing particularly to aspire to and c) it’s all smoke and mirrors anyway … they are not ‘people like me’ and never could be so don’t Cosplay a plebeian
Last edited:
The idea having a constitutional monarchy leads to greater inequality is of course ludicrous, most of Scandinavia has constitutional monarchies and are some of the most equal nations on earth while some of the most unequal nations on earth, including Brazil, the USA and India are Republics.
The Royals position has always been it has been for the remaining Commonwealth realms to decide their future and Australia indeed voted 55% to keep the Queen in 1999.
Of course Republicans like you will whinge whether the Royals do campaign or don't campaign as it suits your ideological agenda. I don't disagree we could have a UK Anthem as well as the Royal National Anthem but that is no reason whatsoever to become a Republic
I am currently reading something that was put together by someone in their 80's about their life growing up. In it she asks are we really better off now with all our "things" and different types of food etc or were we better off then when we had very little and really appreciated what little we had. This included clothes, food, cosy cinema trips and bags of chips and especially things like washing machines and fridges when they arrived. She also goes on to say how respectful people were in the old days, a man would doff his cap to a woman, children and men would stand up for a woman or an old lady on the bus, you would stand up for the national anthem in respect for the King. You could go for a picnic down by the canal or river and walk in the park without fear of being attacked.I’ll throw my tuppence in as a mid 30s woman who reads this thread. I’m interested in the Royals because I think Kate looks lovely and wears (usually) lovely outfits
The Queen says very little about what we do but when she does they are wise words.
I met the Queen as a child stood outside Buck House when she stopped on the way in and smiled down at me with an aura radiating "goodness" which I've never forgotten. She comes across as a kind, wise person. That's the kind of figurehead we need whether Royal or not.
I think people are slowly starting to realise that "things" don't make you happy, neither does being nasty. Hopefully as a result of more recent events we will learn to value what we have and other people rather than trying to destroy each other.
We do have the propensity to raise people up to worship and then find they have feet of clay as they are human.
I'm even considering one of those gratitude diaries now to help me value the "little things" I should be grateful for.....
I’m not really that interested in the royals, but I really enjoy following these threads. Mainly because I’m interested in sociology. By seeing how people view the royals, and what they do and don’t affect in daily life, and in history, you get a good insight into a bigger picture.
There are some opinions here that I completely disagree with, but I’m still genuinely interested in hearing them, you never learn anything if you only look at just one perspective.
I also like that most of the time, people on this thread can have totally different views, but the discussion rarely crosses the line into arguments and personal insults.
There are some opinions here that I completely disagree with, but I’m still genuinely interested in hearing them, you never learn anything if you only look at just one perspective.
I also like that most of the time, people on this thread can have totally different views, but the discussion rarely crosses the line into arguments and personal insults.
A lot of my interest in the royals is Kate related too. I'm not British but I like the entertainment value the British royals provide and I think they do a good job representing Britain abroad. That said, I like living in a country where I can vote for the president even if they don't have much power.I’ll throw my tuppence in as a mid 30s woman who reads this thread. I’m interested in the Royals because I think Kate looks lovely and wears (usually) lovely outfits
I absolutely dig the fashion, pomp and pageantry and the entertainment angle of all royal families.
But I am also fascinated how they are interwoven with society and the constitutional set up. And, quite honestly, I do think those ties to the past are valuable. Of course, in retrospect non of us would want to resurrect the past. We have come a long way as societies. But let’s not kid ourselves that our grandchildren won’t feel the same way about us, as we do about our ancestors and their faults. And of course there are always things that get lost along the way that are well worth remembering. The RF, to me, is a big part of it. A living link to the past that keeps the memories and discussion open.
The British, from the outside, look as if they have found a charming way to march into the future while still be able to look into the past. I think they should be proud of their journey and I wish my country would take notice (which will never happen for several reasons). It’s really not as if the other European countries are doing so much better overall. I also don’t think the British are more deferring to their „betters“ than others. Our „betters“ just look different. Brexit is obviously a hiccup along the way, but who knows. In 50years it might be a success story.
Removing them, to me, is part vanity project part principle mindset. But it won’t have any real impact on the society or the day to day lives. There will still be rich people that inherited their money and only ever have more. There will still be nobility (and even if you axe them all, those circles have a way of still finding each other). There will still be an elite that visited the right schools and universities. In theory, every citizen would be able to become HoS, in reality that’s never going to happen. It’s equality on paper only and, to me, sometimes this means it’s not worth more than the paper it was written on. I think tackling the day to day, socio-economic, environmental, energy and what not problems is much harder and a far more valuable action then actually putting work in changes around 1 job. That’s not to say, there aren’t very good arguments against a monarchy as constitutional set up. And on a mere theoretical level I am inclined to agree. They just don’t trump the realities of life. But that’s a subjective decision everyone has to make for themselves.
But I am also fascinated how they are interwoven with society and the constitutional set up. And, quite honestly, I do think those ties to the past are valuable. Of course, in retrospect non of us would want to resurrect the past. We have come a long way as societies. But let’s not kid ourselves that our grandchildren won’t feel the same way about us, as we do about our ancestors and their faults. And of course there are always things that get lost along the way that are well worth remembering. The RF, to me, is a big part of it. A living link to the past that keeps the memories and discussion open.
The British, from the outside, look as if they have found a charming way to march into the future while still be able to look into the past. I think they should be proud of their journey and I wish my country would take notice (which will never happen for several reasons). It’s really not as if the other European countries are doing so much better overall. I also don’t think the British are more deferring to their „betters“ than others. Our „betters“ just look different. Brexit is obviously a hiccup along the way, but who knows. In 50years it might be a success story.
Removing them, to me, is part vanity project part principle mindset. But it won’t have any real impact on the society or the day to day lives. There will still be rich people that inherited their money and only ever have more. There will still be nobility (and even if you axe them all, those circles have a way of still finding each other). There will still be an elite that visited the right schools and universities. In theory, every citizen would be able to become HoS, in reality that’s never going to happen. It’s equality on paper only and, to me, sometimes this means it’s not worth more than the paper it was written on. I think tackling the day to day, socio-economic, environmental, energy and what not problems is much harder and a far more valuable action then actually putting work in changes around 1 job. That’s not to say, there aren’t very good arguments against a monarchy as constitutional set up. And on a mere theoretical level I am inclined to agree. They just don’t trump the realities of life. But that’s a subjective decision everyone has to make for themselves.
Great answer!!
They stopped playing the National Anthem in the cinema in about the 50's because the stampede for the door when it came on was dangerous, so I think there may be some rose coloured spectacles on that one!
It was countryside with farms around her then, lots of council housing and private housing started being built especially in the sixties. Now the only greenery I see is the odd grass verge. I expect country people were more into the Royal Family then.
Scandinavian countruesxqre equal because they have good good governance. As a result, they have an equal society It's nothing to do with them going a Monarchy. They have a Monarchy because they are stable. They are not stable because they are a Monarchy. Their Royals have adapted to that society and have moved with the tines. They have also slimmed down, done useful work and have not hoarded as much wealth as ours has. If our Royals were more Scandinavian then I'd be happier.
Re Commonweslth Reslms, why didn't William or the Royals state at the beginning of their tour that they were happy gorcJsmaica to gecome a Republic? It was hardly a secret that they wanted it to be. William only changed his tune halfway through the tour after the PM basically told they were going.
Arguably they are. The only European nations in the first half of the 1940s that were not Nazi, Fascist or Communist were Sweden, the UK, Switzerland and Ireland.
Despite the vast majority of European nations being republics by then it was the constitutional monarchies that provided half the free nations left.
The Royal family position has always been it is up to Commonwealth realms whether they keep the monarch as head of state, William and Charles' Caribbean visits just confirmed that. William also added he may not even be head of the Commonwealth in future, it could be rotated amongst Commonwealth heads of government
That’s exactly what I was wondering. They knew they were going. It would have been so easy to say this is like a farewell visit and how happy and excited they were for them. Missed opportunity for sure.
I think History does move in massive cycles........I think the Royal family were a lot less popular during the 1960s and 1970s, than they are now. there were a lot more critical comments in TV shows etc. And there have been times when the RF were a lot less popular, eg during the later Diana years. They were openly laughed at during the ''Its a Knockout debacle''.
Sadly with the popularity of shows like Downton and the Crown, I do think there is an increasing move towards accepting and encouraging the gap between rich and poor, and expecting British people to defer to their ''betters''. Look at people like Jacob Rees Mogg...(ugh) .he is the kind of person who encourages and expects this deference from the masses. The UK has lost the flexibilty for children from poor families to do better, and to end up being rich. Its part of the death of social mobility. If you are born poor, you stay poor, if you are born rich, everything is given to you on a silver platter! It is now a lot harder to escape the class you were born into!
The Royal family is sadly part of this institution that keeps Rich or well born babies at the top of the tree. I do think that the British parliament does need a constitutional change, to level up our society, but I think I would prefer for the HOC and HOL to be reformed first.
Im happy for them to stay the Head of state, but dont think the Royal family really need quite so many castles, homes and property!! Why do they need to own the Crown jewels for instance? Why not keep a couple of crowns for ceremonial occasions, then give the rest back, like the koh i noor, to places like India, where they were taken as spoils of war during the Victorian era! ........ And Im not sure why the Queen has the right to own all the beaches and all the sea beds around the UK, which is giving her massive income from things like windfarms?
- Status