What it means to be born into public service

Started by In All I Do, September 15, 2014, 02:23:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Curryong

They can opt out now. If the Queen woke up at Balmoral tomorrow and said to Philip "I just simply can't carry on as monarch any longer." or if Charles had an epiphany and decided he didn't want the throne, then their wishes would be carried out. Neither would do it (except perhaps in the case of longterm debilitating illness) because they are driven by a sense of duty and a feeling of obligation to the nation and the position into which they were born.

Nevertheless, no member of the royal family is a slave. Harry could, if he wished, go and live in Africa tomorrow and never undertake another royal engagement. He loves his army career and, in my opinion, has a sense of duty and obligation towards his grandmother, father and brother, so he won't take that route.

There is no need for anything to be codified should a senior royal wish to opt out for some reason. There would be a great deal of consultation with the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader and with church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, should the Queen or Prince Charles choose to opt out. Close members of their family would be called for several discussions. Abdication documents would be drawn up in the case of the monarch and this would be introduced into Parliamentary session.  I cannot imagine the Queen or the Prince of Wales doing such a thing. However, in theory it's possible.

Macrobug

It would be wonderful if they were able to sit down as a group and figure out who wants the job and who doesn't.  Then declare so and so the next in line.  But that is a dream world.

There are aspects to the job that could be quite rewarding.  Meeting some incredibly interesting people, having those amazing historical palaces completely available to explore.  Access to information that is classified.  But does that make up for all the rest. 
GNU Terry Pratchett

In All I Do

Quote from: Curryong on September 15, 2014, 11:02:41 PM
They can opt out now. If the Queen woke up at Balmoral tomorrow and said to Philip "I just simply can't carry on as monarch any longer." or if Charles had an epiphany and decided he didn't want the throne, then their wishes would be carried out. Neither would do it (except perhaps in the case of longterm debilitating illness) because they are driven by a sense of duty and a feeling of obligation to the nation and the position into which they were born.

Nevertheless, no member of the royal family is a slave. Harry could, if he wished, go and live in Africa tomorrow and never undertake another royal engagement. He loves his army career and, in my opinion, has a sense of duty and obligation towards his grandmother, father and brother, so he won't take that route.

There is no need for anything to be codified should a senior royal wish to opt out for some reason. There would be a great deal of consultation with the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader and with church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, should the Queen or Prince Charles choose to opt out. Close members of their family would be called for several discussions. Abdication documents would be drawn up in the case of the monarch and this would be introduced into Parliamentary session.  I cannot imagine the Queen or the Prince of Wales doing such a thing. However, in theory it's possible.

Do you see a difference between:

1) the feeling of obligation that a given member of the RF feels and
2) the the sense that the public feels that family member is obligated


wannable

William knows exactly what he's doing, got a public service job, whilst the Queen lives. When Charles takes over after her death, he will be able to get the duchy of Cornwall, have his own annual report of income, and spend it in royal duties. Meanwhile he can't, he has to do something semi permanent whiling away. 

Harry will be major and is vying to go back, a significant position within the military until retirement or when William calls him.

The monarchy has money issues.

HistoryGirl

Quote from: Macrobug on September 15, 2014, 11:06:44 PM
It would be wonderful if they were able to sit down as a group and figure out who wants the job and who doesn't.  Then declare so and so the next in line.  But that is a dream world.

There are aspects to the job that could be quite rewarding.  Meeting some incredibly interesting people, having those amazing historical palaces completely available to explore.  Access to information that is classified.  But does that make up for all the rest.

Obviously, if they keep doing it.

cate1949

on the privacy/scrutiny issue some thoughts

I don't think their privacy is intruded on as much as it appears - if it was we would know everything there is to know about the nature of Kate and Will's relationship - we do not.  We would know everything there is to know about Kate and the rest of the family's relationship - we do not.  Charles and Di led separate lives for some time and we did not know that.  There are huge chunks of time when we do not know what they are doing - where is Kate right now?  Is she really sick? 

As for scrutiny - we are all scrutinized - by our parents our neighbors our co workers etc.  Count on it - when you went to work in that orange dress all your co workers talked about you behind your back!!!  They get scrutinized by a larger audience than the rest of us. 

Now I am not minimizing how destructive that scrutiny and intrusive press coverage can be - especially for someone not prepared for it - but escaping the RF would not mean an end to the normal scrutiny that we all endure.

I had a course in grad school on professional confidentiality and privacy rights - one of the perspectives we learned about is that ALL behavior is public or the consequences of all behavior are public.  I may not see Will masturbate - but I know he does.  To anyone who is observant and a student of human behavior - the fact that someone leaves work and goes home and knocks off a quart of whiskey is apparent even though done on private.  In that sense we have no privacy and especially nowadays with video security cameras and cell phone cameras everywhere.  So it is a thought worth considering.

I also think that we must take into account that we have allowed to emerge in our society a huge multi billion dollar industry that preys on the violation of other people privacy to flourish and that even by being on this board we are participating in that - the whole gossip industry.  While that has always to some extent existed it has become totally nuts of late - no prior monarch was ever exposed to the constant presence of prying eyes and forums for discussion that the current royals are exposed to now.  So part of this issue is the public developing a sense of restraint over just how much gossip we should consume or just how much we should scrutinize.  There are people who get furious when Will seeks to set limits around things like when you can take a picture - some people clearly think in the case of the Royals that they the public have a right to see and know all.


In All I Do


Macrobug

A little off topic but here is an article about a Canadian political figure and how much right to privacy should he and other public figures expect.
Rob Ford tumour diagnosis: Do politicians have a right to medical privacy? - Politics - CBC News

Now more on topic.  Do the royals, especially the monarch, have the right to medical privacy? 
GNU Terry Pratchett

Curryong

^^I believe that members of the British royal family (and other royal families) are driven by a sense of duty and obligation to the nation and to their dynasty. I think that trying to make a difference in people's lives fuels some members. Charles and his Prince of Wales Trust is a prime example.

As far as the British public's feeling that the royal family is obligated to the people, I think it ebbs and flows. I go back to Britain quite often, though I live in Australia, as relatives still live there. You get those members of the public for whom the royals will never do enough ever, because 'They live off our taxes, don't they, and they should get a proper job!' You see a lot of this attitude in the comments in the online Daily Fail and similar papers.

I agree with an earlier post that many people felt passionately at the time before Diana's funeral that the Queen was somehow letting her people down by not being in London, not showing that she cared, that Prince William and Prince Harry should be 'on show' because Diana was 'our Princess' and we, the people, want to show our sympathy to 'her boys'. Whether that was a form of mass hysteria, whipped up by the Press and confined to some Londoners and those who loved Diana, I am still in two minds about.

I was in London then and wandered about among the crowds. I'm not sure how much of it was Press-driven (foreign commentators were getting quite excited that the Queen and Charles were the focus of so much resentment) but it was certainly a strange mood. If ever anyone feels that the British don't feel invested in their royal family and how they behave, should time-travel back to 1997.

In All I Do

 :goodpost:

Great observations, thank you Curryong.

Do you see any identifiable differences between people in the "they live off our taxes, don't they" group, vs the adoration group vs the largely indifferent?

cate1949

some people are the glass half full type some are the glass half empty - that is what I think distinguishes the "love the royals" from "get a job" types - some are embittered and resentful some are more positive in their outlook

One thing I find touching is - see this more among older people - the faith they have in the Queen.  Talk about some sort of problem in Britin and they'll say - don't worry the Queen will take care of that and I'll say she has no constitutional power to take care of that and then get this response  oh she has her ways -  such faith in her.  Someone  once told me he adored the Queen because she always made him feel proud to be British.  What a legacy HM has.  And do note - she maintained rather strict standards re: access never doing an interview.

Curryong

^^There are certainly differences between those who absolutely adore the BRF and those who complain about them constantly. It's probably a cliche but I do think the adorers tend to be older females. Remembering Diana and before her the Queen Mum, perhaps, I don't know.

The complainers are in all walks of society. However, those who rush off at a moment's notice to rattle on at the Daily Fail about 'parasites' etc., might be found (going to get my head cut off for this) among readers who are slaving away at quite mundane and dull jobs for not much money. Therefore the resentment factor is probably quite high. (This is just a guess. I haven't done a survey!)

For most people the royal family is 'just there', a quiet presence in the life of the nation. I don't think there's much debate about the amount of service the royal family  gives to the nation when people are sitting around the dinner table after work. (For instance, unlike posters on this and other forums, I have never heard complaints from those Britons I've met about Kate's work ethic. I don't think people can be bothered to look up the figures.)

Limabeany

I agree, in general, but one has to be pretty indifferent to what is going on around and self absorbed to believe the royals are a quiet presence in the life of a nation, but that is what most people are, nowadays, isn't it? Hence, why people who work and kive normal lives just accept their existence and status as normal.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

TLLK

Quote from: Macrobug on September 16, 2014, 12:46:41 AM
A little off topic but here is an article about a Canadian political figure and how much right to privacy should he and other public figures expect.
Rob Ford tumour diagnosis: Do politicians have a right to medical privacy? - Politics - CBC News

Now more on topic.  Do the royals, especially the monarch, have the right to medical privacy? 
IMHO I believe that the monarch and an adult heir have limited rights to medical privacy. The monarch as head of state must keep the head of the government informed of their major health issues especially if it would leave them temporarily incapacitated. Likewise the head of the government must also inform the monarch in their role as head of state. IMO the heir falls under the same rules as the monarch/head of government.  Mothers of future heirs will always attract attention especially if their child is a direct heir. No break for them from relentless press coverage.

As for the rest, yes I do believe that they have a right to privacy like everyone else.