[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Yes Jet but far fewer people are interested in any of that in 2023 than in 1953 - hence my point. If they were different to what came before then there could have been a modernisation of the monarchy that might keep the general public - who are not staunch royalists like yourself - somewhat interested and thus keep the monarchy relevant. And it looked like William and Kate might be those people. But now he looks like someone who fits the mould, more of the same, and it's not going to be as popular. It just isn't. The queen had the benefit of being for want of a better phrase, "part of the furniture" of Britain. Fewer and fewer people are going to maintain an interest int he traditional monarchy now. It's already happening and she's barely cold.

Lets see what the turn out for the Coronation is like....

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Yes Jet but far fewer people are interested in any of that in 2023 than in 1953 - hence my point. If they were different to what came before then there could have been a modernisation of the monarchy that might keep the general public - who are not staunch royalists like yourself - somewhat interested and thus keep the monarchy relevant. And it looked like William and Kate might be those people. But now he looks like someone who fits the mould, more of the same, and it's not going to be as popular. It just isn't. The queen had the benefit of being for want of a better phrase, "part of the furniture" of Britain. Fewer and fewer people are going to maintain an interest int he traditional monarchy now. It's already happening and she's barely cold.

Goodness, the new reign has barely started, we don’t know how it will shape up in the coming few years and what is being discussed and planned behind the scenes. Charles is a totally different character than the late Queen, and Prince William isn’t like either of them. William is all for bringing the Monarchy more in line with the times, he has said so, maybe you haven’t been listening? There is talk about his ‘zeal’ for certain changes; his present and future plans and projects and egging his father on in the changes Charles is already making but at the same time they know the value of tradition and the stability that many want from the Monarchy. It’s a tricky balancing act and they can’t please everyone, but I think he and Kate will do brilliantly.
Everywhere they go they show their genuine warmth and connection with people, just like Diana did before them whilst behaving with dignity and maturity, which you say people don’t want anymore, that it’s ‘more of the same’, as if those positive qualities are a bad thing for senior Royals to possess.

How would you have them behave in public then to be the 'different' that you think they need to be?

[bitontheslide]

what people get angry at, is a privileged rapist being given a 31 bedroomed house for free and then has the audacity to complain when a smaller 10 bed property is awarded to him. What people get angry at is H&M saying their eviction from that property is cruel, when they have their own mansion and millions in the bank, handed to the on a silver plate.

Does anyone want royalty like that? i sure don't and Charles and Camilla, and William and Kate are no different no matter how much they smile in front of people

[Jordan.]

No one wants to perform at King Charles' coronation: All the artists who declined

Artists including Adele, Elton John and Harry Styles have reportedly turned down an opportunity to perform at King Charles III’s upcoming coronation.

The Spice Girls and Robbie Williams are among the other acts who have declined invitations to put on a show at the momentous ceremony, Rolling Stone reported Wednesday.

While most of the musicians declined to explain why they would not take the stage, a rep for John confirmed to the magazine that the legendary Piano Man, 75, had been asked but could not attend due to scheduling issues.

Reps for the artists did not immediately respond to Page Six’s requests for comment.

Experts believe no one wants to perform because they therefore would be associated with the scandal-scarred monarchy.

“The royal family has faced a number of PR disasters in recent times, and anyone performing at the show would have to consider whether there would be a backlash from appearing amongst their fans,” Simon Jones, a publicist for Little Mix, Niall Horan and Louis Tomlinson, told Rolling Stone in the article.

Others feel that aligning with Charles, 74, would not benefit their careers at this time.

“For them right now, storytelling is really important,” Meg, a head of a leading British music PR company who asked for her full name to be withheld, said of Adele, 34, and Styles, 29. “These big symbolic associations carry a lot of weight and literally go down in history books in bold and underlined. I can understand why there’d be a big PR discussion around artists doing it or not.”

Meg added, “With [Queen Elizabeth II], she was fab and glamorous to some people. Charles doesn’t add anything — there’s not a legacy of his that anyone would want to align with. It’s televised, so a lot of people will hear your songs, sure, but in terms of long-term PR strategy, I don’t know if performing would add positively to an artist’s narrative unless they were staunchly pro the monarchy.”

https://pagesix.com/2023/03/02/artis...site%20buttons

No wonder the Palace are running with the "low key" narrative

[jet]

Elton John and Harry Styles are both on big tours at the time of the Coronation…..
It’s a big stretch to say ‘no - one wants to perform at the Coronation’. Of course there will be artists who DO want to perform. Not all artists have to like the Monarchy, it's not compulsory.

[jet]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

what people get angry at, is a privileged rapist being given a 31 bedroomed house for free and then has the audacity to complain when a smaller 10 bed property is awarded to him. What people get angry at is H&M saying their eviction from that property is cruel, when they have their own mansion and millions in the bank, handed to the on a silver plate.

Does anyone want royalty like that? i sure don't and Charles and Camilla, and William and Kate are no different no matter how much they smile in front of people

I wouldn’t say William and Kate have the same self entitled mindsets as the spoiled brats Andrew, Harry and Meghan without any proof of similar behaviours.
On the contrary:
'William and Kate moved full time into Adelaide Cottage in Windsor Great Park last summer. It is much smaller than typical royal residences, with four bedrooms, but the Prince and Princess of Wales are said to want a simpler, more "normal" life for themselves and their 3 children while they are youngsters.
They have no live - in staff.'

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

what people get angry at, is a privileged rapist being given a 31 bedroomed house for free and then has the audacity to complain when a smaller 10 bed property is awarded to him. What people get angry at is H&M saying their eviction from that property is cruel, when they have their own mansion and millions in the bank, handed to the on a silver plate.

Does anyone want royalty like that? i sure don't and Charles and Camilla, and William and Kate are no different no matter how much they smile in front of people

If you are born into a life of luxury why would you want to live in a shed

The bit about Meghan and Harry’s cruel eviction is to crab headlines and sell papers

Andrew has been offered a place down the road you can slag him off but that’s been his home and humans get attached to their homes.

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by jet

Goodness, the new reign has barely started, we don’t know how it will shape up in the coming few years and what is being discussed and planned behind the scenes. Charles is a totally different character than the late Queen, and Prince William isn’t like either of them. William is all for bringing the Monarchy more in line with the times, he has said so, maybe you haven’t been listening? There is talk about his ‘zeal’ for certain changes; his present and future plans and projects and egging his father on in the changes Charles is already making but at the same time they know the value of tradition and the stability that many want from the Monarchy. It’s a tricky balancing act and they can’t please everyone, but I think he and Kate will do brilliantly.
Everywhere they go they show their genuine warmth and connection with people, just like Diana did before them whilst behaving with dignity and maturity, which you say people don’t want anymore, that it’s ‘more of the same’, as if those positive qualities are a bad thing for senior Royals to possess.

How would you have them behave in public then to be the 'different' that you think they need to be?

Time will indeed tell, but I think you know really that it's not and never will be the same without the queen. I'm not saying there will be poor turnout for the coronation but will every household in the country and many more across the world be scrabbling to watch it like The Queen's 70 years ago? No, obviously not. By percentage, far fewer people are all that interested.

I suspect there will have been more interest in the Queen's funeral than Charles' crowning... And that should say plenty.

Yourencaught between a rock and a hard place really because the alternative is to say that Liz II was "nothing special" in terms of a monarch... And I think that would grate on today's Royal Loyal quite a bit.

We all know she was special, and that she was the last real Royal. It became just a celebrity family/a show for the public during the final few decades of her reign but she was still firmly rooted in the more legitimate monarchy. It's gone now. That's just not UK politics any more. They're not an actual monarchy, they're just a symbolic tourist draw.

[Livia]

People who don't support the royals always purport to know the most about them and their future. Interesting...

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by Livia

People who don't support the royals always purport to know the most about them and their future. Interesting...

Why would you assume the opposite to be true? I'm not saying bias doesn't come into play but, obviously, it does for those with an interest in the royals as well. We can all make predictions, and time will tell. It seems clear to me that the validity of those predictions has absolutely nothing g to do with being a "royal supporter" or not, its just going to be a difference in levels of optimism for them.

[bitontheslide]

the first thing to go will be the colonies and that's very easy to measure. The role of royalty in our constitution and tourism make the future of the monarchy more likely in the medium term than not, but that doesn't necessarily equate to popularity either. Lets put it this way, we will still have a constitutional monarchy for our life times, whether we like it or not, so i don't think it's something that needs particular attention whichever side of the fence anyone is on

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

We all know she was special, and that she was the last real Royal. It became just a celebrity family/a show for the public during the final few decades of her reign but she was still firmly rooted in the more legitimate monarchy. It's gone now. That's just not UK politics any more. They're not an actual monarchy, they're just a symbolic tourist draw.

Of course times have changed, 70 years ago they didn't have tabloids and social media, and Royalty was held in awe. That isn't the case now, rightly so, but the Monarchy HAS changed quite a lot, for example 70 years ago, even as recently as 15 years ago there were a LOT of working Royals. Now there are 7. The rest make their own living.That is a big change to fit better into today’s world.

In terms of cost - ‘the royals have an unusual agreement with the British government—an agreement that likely makes British citizens' tax bills cheaper, not more expensive. This is due to a deal originally cut in 1760 by King George III, allowing the British government to reap the revenues from the royal family's vast private property, called the Crown Estate, while giving them their taxpayer-funded stipend in return.
In total, these properties brought £486.9 million, or $671.9 million, in revenue in 2021. In contrast, the royal family's taxpayer-funded expenses, in the form of a "sovereign grant," totaled only $118.5 million that year, thus netting the British government a profit of almost $550 million in 2021 dollars. Were the monarchy to be retired, this deal would likely end, allowing the royal family to retain the whole profits from the Crown Estate.
[From ‘What would happen to the U.K. balance sheet if the monarchy were retired?’]

But really, your comment ‘They are just a symbolic tourist draw’ is so far from the reality of the sterling work the Royals are currently doing now and what they have been doing for years and seems to show you know little about the Monarchy’s actual value in terms of making the lives of many, especially the young and disadvantaged, much better. The average young demographic of today have no idea of any of this. Perhaps some research (just one example would be the Princes Trust) would give those who view the Royals as ‘just a tourist draw’ a more balanced view of their relevance and what they give back in return for their privileges.
Many republicans want a Presidential Head of State instead. I honestly don't think this would be an improvement at all. What is your view of this?

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[bitontheslide]

the guy will do or say anything for a few quid

[Cherie]

So he is saying Diana starved him of love and attention?

[Cherie]

I wonder how many paid to watch this tosh, if he genuinely wanted to help he would have done it for free

[jet]

The man Harry was collaborating with in the podcast

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pening-to.html

Self-help guru Gabor Mate has compared the murderous terrorists of Hamas to the Jewish heroes who rose up against the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943.
He has contributed to a pro-Kremlin website that defends brutal regimes around the world.
He has rushed to defend Jeremy Corbyn's Labour from charges of anti-Semitism and he has even spoken warmly of the spittle-flecked Pink Floyd star and alleged 'Putin apologist' Roger Waters.
Once hailed as the 'sainted icon of the drug-legalisation movement' — he would decriminalise all drugs, no matter how dangerous — Mate has since moved on to become the darling of the therapy-obsessed, touchy-feely California circles in which Harry and Meghan now move.

With his popularity plummeting in America and even the makers of the satirical comedy South Park savagely mocking him and his wife Meghan, perhaps the Duke of Sussex can't be too choosy about his friends these days.
Nevertheless, what's billed as Harry's 'intimate conversation' with Mate — the latest effort to promote his memoir, Spare — has appalled Jewish leaders who have questioned how the Duke felt it remotely appropriate to collaborate with such a man.

[jet]

Originally Posted by arista

Oh go away and take your bloody trauma 'service' with you, you arrogant deluded prick.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by jet

Oh go away and take your bloody trauma 'service' with you, you arrogant deluded prick.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by jet

Oh go away and take your bloody trauma 'service' with you, you arrogant deluded prick.

I love it when you talk dirty...

[rusticgal]

Is there no end to this nonsense...he really does not know when to stop.

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

So he is saying Diana starved him of love and attention?

I don't think people should be telling each other whether or not their home is "worthy" of being considered broken, honestly. I practically had a white picket fence middle class upbringing as a precious little feller until I was around 9. Then my mum's mum died and she rapidly descended into depression and alcohol and my parents relationship fell apart... I more or less looked out for myself. My parents didn't officially separate until I was 18 - from an outside perspective my teens were of a normal/comfortable middle class family as well - but behind closed doors my mum spent half her life in bed and they didn't talk to each other. And I mean sometimes AT ALL, for months on end, despite living in the same house.

My only point really is that I very much consider myself to have come from a "broken home", my teens are filled with emotional neglect and loneliness, but from any outside perspective you'd never have thought so at the time. We had a "very nice house" - looking at it from the pavement.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I don't think people should be telling each other whether or not their home is "worthy" of being considered broken, honestly. I practically had a white picket fence middle class upbringing as a precious little feller until I was around 9. Then my mum's mum died and she rapidly descended into depression and alcohol and my parents relationship fell apart... I more or less looked out for myself. My parents didn't officially separate until I was 18 - from an outside perspective my teens were of a normal/comfortable middle class family as well - but behind closed doors my mum spent half her life in bed and they didn't talk to each other. And I mean sometimes AT ALL, for months on end, despite living in the same house.

My only point really is that I very much consider myself to have come from a "broken home", my teens are filled with emotional neglect and loneliness, but from any outside perspective you'd never have thought so at the time. We had a "very nice house" - looking at it from the pavement.

Yes I do know that bad things can happen to kids in any situation...Harry lost his Mum at 12 I lost my Dad at 15 ...My Mom wasn’t particularly huggy until her later years and after my Dad died she reverted into herself for a while and struggled financially but I always knew she loved us, families display feelings in various ways...its not always the Waltons