[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Interest in the Royals in general has waned since Her Maj died, wouldn't you say, Jet? There's a notable change in tone. The Press isn't as charitable with Charles as they always have been with Liz and people aren't really interested in him either... and the "fresh new face" of the monarchy in William and Kate looks more tired, bald and boring by the day. It's light out at Buckingham Palace for the lot of them soon enough I reckon, which was fairly predictable.

And yes that applies to H&M too. The book era was fun, but on the whole, none of it is really very interesting now that the Last Proper Royal is gone. She was a part of history - what's left is just tiddlers nibbling at scraps.

I agree with this, Liz might have had her faults but you knew where you stood with her and she was someone to be trusted to the end....not sure you can say that about any of this lot, time will tell with William and Kate, but Charles and Camilla just dont garner the same affection as Liz

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I agree with this, Liz might have had her faults but you knew where you stood with her and she was someone to be trusted to the end....not sure you can say that about any of this lot, time will tell with William and Kate, but Charles and Camilla just dont garner the same affection as Liz

My recent impressions of William are that he's becoming a bit more jaded, frustrated and... well... Charles-like as he gets towards middle-age. It may well partly be Harry's "fault" too, certainly... it's unlikely that the rift hasn't taken a toll.

But overall he's lost that youthful vibrancy and optimism that made them seem like something new... they just feel like more of the same now.

[rusticgal]

I think given time they will come into their own….to have had 70 years with our Queen change is going to take time to adjust to.

[GoldHeart]

Even a BLM activist has turned her back on them , she clearly didn't want to look silly defending them. As now she's saying Harry & Meghan have "contradicted themselves" lol .

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

My recent impressions of William are that he's becoming a bit more jaded, frustrated and... well... Charles-like as he gets towards middle-age. It may well partly be Harry's "fault" too, certainly... it's unlikely that the rift hasn't taken a toll.

But overall he's lost that youthful vibrancy and optimism that made them seem like something new... they just feel like more of the same now.

Youthful vibrancy? he’s now a grown man in his forties who, in public, carries out his duties and responsibilities with social aplomb, dignity and maturity as befits a Prince of Wales and future King.
He’s not going to go on talk shows and talk about his penis to keep those who prefer that kind of thing entertained.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

Youthful vibrancy? he’s now a grown man in his forties who, in public, carries out his duties and responsibilities with social aplomb, dignity and maturity as befits a Prince of Wales and future King.

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.

[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....

[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 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?

[user104658]

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.

[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?