But TYL is right there was a very impressive flypast, horses (lots), soldiers, many, many police in dress uniform, 21 gun salutes and the utterly amazing presidential Lancia Flaminia which dates from 1961.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
tbf you never actually gave any proof as to why they're wrong you just said you're italian so you know best.
TYL159 you intrigue me so much. Are you on the payroll?
I think they’re going for the fewer charities angle but I’m not sure I agree with it. I think one thing that made The Queen so popular was the amount of engagements she did and in turn the amount of people she met, similar to Princess Anne. The British love that hard working attitude, but I think if you’re someone that’s a bit indifferent to them and then met one of them and they said hello, asked how you were and a few pleasantries, you’re more likely to leave with a higher opinion of them. If they’re meeting less people and they’re less visible, those indifferent voices may get bigger. I think that’s one thing that maybe impacted Meghan, she joined the family and wanted to focus in on a couple of projects so didn’t necessarily get out meeting thousands of people, so when the press then started writing articles about her there isn’t a large enough group of people to say “hey we met her and she was really nice so this is maybe a lie”.
Picking just a few charities can also isolate you a bit if they’re not things people really care about in large enough numbers, again with Meghan I don’t think people care enough about getting women in to work, or just women in general. I think Harry picking wounded veterans works because people in the UK just have a generally strong sense of respect for the military. William picking something as generic as homelessness could work because it’s such a widespread problem everyone cares about it, but whether it can be executed well is a different question. But if it’s not something people care about and you’re not meeting people, then why would people like or respect you?
Unfortunately not. Just an an unpaid royalist
The Queen's mantra of 'I must be seen to be believed' was very clever - and the rest of them should follow suit. Without the visibility what is there? Charles is good at still being out and about as he always has but the next generation - no way.
They're wrong because they claim the Italian president gets a ceremony comparable to the coronation when that is blatantly not the case
---
In what parallel universe Italy did this happen?
Look guys, it's very simple. If an event comparable to the coronation in size, importance and cost took place last year in my country I think I'd be aware of it. I'm telling you nobody cared, it wasn't a thing, and whatever happened certainly cost a lot less than any coronation or presidential inauguration or whatever. I'm done arguing about it with people who think they know more after 30 seconds of googling lol
Last edited:
So you’re okay with the current wealth disparity?
How the autumn statement brought back the ‘squeezed middle’ | Economics | The Guardian
Respected thinktanks say Jeremy Hunt’s policies will shock Middle England, with higher taxes here to stay
The idea of God putting them over others is actually not specific to the BRF. Not even specific to a monarchy in general. But has been part of history for even smaller aristocratic lieges. And of course some people believe(d) God put the the ____ race/class/caste (fill in the blank) to rule over others and therethey deserve better everything.Sure, but every other rich family’s privilege and wealth is not based on the idea that God said they deserved it.
---
Those gun salutes man, cost a fortune. Just about as much as a 37 million GBP wedding I hear
And it doesn’t really matter if it’s part of the history, the ceremony or their own belief. Not even people in the 60s believed God put the RF to reign over them. At least not in a sense of being subordinates but more in the way most people accepted institutions. Deus lo vult has not been an acceptable argument since medieval times.
I would also argue that quite some rich people believe their wealth is absolutely granted by God and they achieved it through living a godly life. The Protestant work ethic is basically exactly the same.
I think it’s pretty obvious the coronation will not be as grand as the one over 70years ago. The BRF is just an outlier in that we don’t see the gradual lowering other RF had. The world has changed. Inaugurations have changed. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be cheaper. While pomp has been reduced other costs have risen. Security has changed a lot and is a much higher number on the bill nowadays. Same for technical stuff and staff. I think it’s cheaper to put 75Lords in full ornate up to swear an oath than having a modern broadcast. Would be interesting to play old ceremony numbers through for several countries. I hope Charly finds a good balance.
Last edited:
Yes! It’s called prosperity gospel and loads of Protestant churches teach it. The idea that if you tithe and pray God will reward you with riches and being poor is a personal failing. Basically the opposite of Jesus!
On the one hand I think caused based work will allow them to have more actual impact E.g William launching Earthshot and awarding grants to the projects etc
On the other hand cutting down the amount of patronages has the knock on impact of them just not meeting as many members of the public, which as others have said, one thing that helps them to keep going is the “I met X once and they were lovely” cohort.
It’s interesting though because whilst Kate and Wills and to some extent Camilla (literacy and domestic violence) and Sophie (violence against women and eradicating blindness) have opted for a more cause based approach, you have Anne and Edward who seem to go anywhere
I don’t think there’s much rhyme or reason with their visits.
This is the thing, whilst Anne may be classed as the hardest working royal this is true in terms of engagement count but has she ever actually done anything behind the scenes? Has she ever launched anything with real impact to help? I’m not even sure I know of a particular area of interest that she works with.
Then you have the other end of the scale with Will and Kate whose engagement numbers are LOW but they seem to do some more behind the scenes stuff launching initiatives, campaigns etc.
I’m not really sure which I think is the best approach, I can’t help but think the royals will always be judged on engagement number and other than those who read up on it, nobody knows about the projects they launch. If they want the public to think they’re worth the money, I think Anne’s approach is perhaps better.
On the other hand cutting down the amount of patronages has the knock on impact of them just not meeting as many members of the public, which as others have said, one thing that helps them to keep going is the “I met X once and they were lovely” cohort.
It’s interesting though because whilst Kate and Wills and to some extent Camilla (literacy and domestic violence) and Sophie (violence against women and eradicating blindness) have opted for a more cause based approach, you have Anne and Edward who seem to go anywhere
I don’t think there’s much rhyme or reason with their visits. This is the thing, whilst Anne may be classed as the hardest working royal this is true in terms of engagement count but has she ever actually done anything behind the scenes? Has she ever launched anything with real impact to help? I’m not even sure I know of a particular area of interest that she works with.
Then you have the other end of the scale with Will and Kate whose engagement numbers are LOW but they seem to do some more behind the scenes stuff launching initiatives, campaigns etc.
I’m not really sure which I think is the best approach, I can’t help but think the royals will always be judged on engagement number and other than those who read up on it, nobody knows about the projects they launch. If they want the public to think they’re worth the money, I think Anne’s approach is perhaps better.
In which case why on earth would we want to swap our globally recognised royal family, with a coronation in May that will attract tourists from around the world to the UK for a nonentity ex politician ceremonial President like you Italians have. Who has a grand inaugration even most Italians don't care about but as taxpayers have to pay for anyway?
I never claimed it was in any way the same as the coronation, or that ot cost the same. It was very formal, quite elaborate and some people obviously enjoy it or presumably it wouldn't happen. Your rather rude assumption about google is wrong. I asked a couple of my Italian friends who were more than happy to tell me about it and point me at some pictires. I have always loved Lancias so that particular aspect was most enjoyable
To be fair to Princess Anne, she became president of Save the Children in 1970 and is now Patron. She does a lot heck of a lot for them and actually refused to do a speech for about 10 years until she felt she knew what she was talking about. I think she also does work with a Carer’s Charity (which she set up?) and disabled riding as well.
You're quite fixated with 'nonentity' heads of state aren't you?
I think Charles has done well with this, launching The Princes Trust, his work in Cornwall and still turning up to random towns and cities hundreds of times a year to meet people. It’s borderline frustrating that the “Diana was the real peoples princess” brigade overshadow Charles work. I still think he’ll leave behind a greater legacy than The Queen if people look at his work.On the one hand I think caused based work will allow them to have more actual impact E.g William launching Earthshot and awarding grants to the projects etc
On the other hand cutting down the amount of patronages has the knock on impact of them just not meeting as many members of the public, which as others have said, one thing that helps them to keep going is the “I met X once and they were lovely” cohort.
It’s interesting though because whilst Kate and Wills and to some extent Camilla (literacy and domestic violence) and Sophie (violence against women and eradicating blindness) have opted for a more cause based approach, you have Anne and Edward who seem to go anywhere
This is the thing, whilst Anne may be classed as the hardest working royal this is true in terms of engagement count but has she ever actually done anything behind the scenes? Has she ever launched anything with real impact to help? I’m not even sure I know of a particular area of interest that she works with.
Then you have the other end of the scale with Will and Kate whose engagement numbers are LOW but they seem to do some more behind the scenes stuff launching initiatives, campaigns etc.
I’m not really sure which I think is the best approach, I can’t help but think the royals will always be judged on engagement number and other than those who read up on it, nobody knows about the projects they launch. If they want the public to think they’re worth the money, I think Anne’s approach is perhaps better.
I don't think people will really appreciate what he's done until he's gone. Much like Prince Phillip, I remember watching the coverage of his death and reading people's own anecdotes and I learnt so much about what he had done in life, and I'm pretty clued up on what they do.
The reality is that the general members of the public see the drama, the glitzy events, the cute kids and the clothes, they don't pay much attention to the work and causes. In that sense I actually think the RF are awful at PR. I know everyone loves to say everything they do is for PR, but the reality is most people have no idea about the work they're actually doing.
I too agree that Charles will leave a greater legacy than the Queen, but I think that's largely due to whilst she spent 70 years constrained being monarch, the first few decades of which she was having to toe the line and do things how people expected her to etc. Charles however had decades as Prince of Wales where he had more freedom to get stuck into causes and effect some change.
The reality is that as monarch, the role is constitutional and they have to do all the ceremony etc. The others get the chance to actually do something. Can anyone name a cause the late Queen got behind? Yes, she supported tonnes of charities as patron and on visits, but I don't think she actually did anything to help other than visiting them, it just wasn't what royals did in her day.
I think Charles will have much to show because he had many years waiting in the wings, and genuine passion for certain things.
His work for conservation started far enough back that he was mocked for it, and he kept at it. Much of what he is now lauded for from an environmental point of view is what he was first written off as a weirdo for. Add to that the Prince's Trust and he has actually done a lot of good.
He's unlikely to have been able to do as much had he been monarch young, and been somewhat cut off from taking a stand on anything "political."
I do wonder what opinion of him would have been were it not for the mess that was his personal life.
His work for conservation started far enough back that he was mocked for it, and he kept at it. Much of what he is now lauded for from an environmental point of view is what he was first written off as a weirdo for. Add to that the Prince's Trust and he has actually done a lot of good.
He's unlikely to have been able to do as much had he been monarch young, and been somewhat cut off from taking a stand on anything "political."
I do wonder what opinion of him would have been were it not for the mess that was his personal life.
A lot of what I see William and Kate doing does seem like PR and trying to give the false impression that they are just like us. However Charles is genuine about the environment and bringing back all the old crafts that are dying out. He is not trying to bullshit us.
In her excuse- she did ascend the throne when the expectations were different. Who knows what she would have done hadn’t she become Queen for another 20 years. If you look at HoS it is actually pretty rare they pick a specific cause while in office. Because their role has a much broader expectation. It’s the spouse that picks specific causes if at all.
She might not have pursued a role like Charles even given the chance. She might have led the more carefree life of a rich aristocrat wife as long as possible. Or she might have gotten involved with something. I doubt it because I think she consciously molded herself for her future and probably didn’t see the need.
Complete speculation/interprovincial on my part: I do wonder though, if she felt as a woman, she had take on a certain behaviour to succeed. More private, less emotional- we all know that women are quickly discarded as hysteric. Same for her relationship with the children. Especially in the beginning she might have felt she had to prove she is as capable as a man and shouldn’t give up responsibilities because she is also a mother. So acting like one of the guys and simultaneously act acceptable for a women. Women still fight those prejudices today and we have come so far. Just imagine how it must have been then. So modelling herself after her father and her female predecessors was a save way. She managed to fill the position with minimal sexism and still behaved inside the role expectations of her time. To me, that must have been hard to keep up the balance.
- Status