At the suggestion of
@Lady Adams :hug:
To begin with, I'd like to explicitly exclude spouses from this discussion.
One of the things that comes up over and over is the idea that the royals are "public servants". However, every time I see that, I think "yeah, but they're 'public servants' without a choice in the matter" and I admit that makes me a bit uncomfortable. It may be that I'm a bit too "Negotiated Commitment Family", but the idea that I can say to someone "because of who you were born as, I have expectations that you will serve other people in specific ways". Maybe that's part of why I don't get really up in arms about whether William is doing enough engagements.
At the same time, I do think we all have the same basic obligations to each other as members of a society, so I'm a collectivist, but am discomforted by any specific person or persons having additional obligations that they didn't choose themselves.
However, I'm obviously only one person with my own point of view. What do people think about the idea of inherited public obligation? Is it ok if the rewards are great enough? Is it ok if there's an opt-out clause? What would the opt-out clause look like in terms of a person who's still part of a family that carries the obligation and is it practical?
(If you're interested in the origins of the term Negotiated Commitment Family and its counterpart, the Inherited Obligation Family, it's a bit of political theory that can be found here: Red Family, Blue Family (http://www.gurus.org/dougdeb/politics/209.html), but I think the article itself should be out of scope for this discussion because it could get a bit contentious)
My questions is always: at what point has the person paid back society. Is it a set amount of appearances? Who sets the number? Does the person have to give up certain rights that others take for granted? Do we, the public, own them? For example, do they have the right to expect personal privacy? How much do we have the right to know?
good questions - I did not check out the links (later) but I do think they have a choice - perhaps not an easy one but the choice is there. Edward VII made his choice for example.
At some level though none of us has a choice when it comes to the circumstances of birth. Not a single creature on this planet has that choice. Birth family is always random - just what you get. So the person born in squalor in some Indian slum has no choice either and hence why should one bother to concern themselves about a person born to great wealth and position? Life is what it is. Some things will not change. If we accept inherited poverty than we must also accept inherited privilege. Otherwise we need to forbid any passing on of wealth from one generation to the next and start the slate clean with each generation.
I also think the answers to the questions you ask depends on what point in historical time we are talking about. Notions about privacy are 1) recent and 2) not universal. Our great grandparents would be perplexed by our ideas re: privacy. People living now who share one room homes would be also perplexed. Privacy is a belief that stems from affluence hence it is largely a first world concern. Consider that a King and Queen in the 1500's in France lived their entire life in front of a court - they shared their beds with courtiers - they ate in front of the people watching them. A typical noble in the 1200's England had his "bedroom" with his wife behind a screen in a shared large room with a dozen or more other people. So there was no notion of privacy then.
Same thing with "paying back". The monarch need not pay back - they had obligations yes but they were chosen by God so to speak hence that justified their existence. They also had to be warriors and often died in battle. So their willingness to die protecting their people was the payback. Incidentally this is why I find it so peculiar that Will cannot serve in a combat zone - his forebears would have been obliged to serve leading troops. That was their job.
Just shows how ideas about monarchy have changed.
I think by our standards today we recognize that psychological health requires some privacy and we also would find it distasteful to have a monarch who had to live a 24 hour never ending reality show. So the old standards do not apply in our world - so yes the royals are entitled to a privacy around issues that do not affect the state.
How much do they need to do to pay back for their privileges? Well they clearly no longer are willing to lay down their lives. And their role in government is not so time consuming that we could say that is enough. So the only way left for them to serve is to work on behalf of improving life for the people. Personally I do not see unveiling a plaque at the opening of a senior center as a meaningful way to serve. Most of what we see Sophie, Edward, even HM and PP, Will and Kate do is not really meaningful in terms of improving people's lives. I'd look to Prince Charles and his constant work through his charities as meaningful or Harry's work with Invictus. In which case time is not the measure - impact and consistency are.
I also think the monarch serves other purposes that also improve people's lives - a symbol of higher moral standards , traditional virtues, cohesion of the society around shared values and traditions. So things like serial adultery, financial chicanery should rule them out.
I think the Brit monarchy with all its ancient and not so ancient trappings reminds the British people of the past glories of Empire. And people recognize that it is past - but are proud of that history. Since the monarch embodies that history - they are proud of the monarch. And so for some that is enough.
Outstanding topic idea Adrienne and Lady Adams!
I think you've hit on a key point about the changing historical nature of the monarchy. Certainly prior to George V, I don't think the sense of "public servant" as we see it was a concept for the royal family. Victoria, for example, withdrew from public life for years after Albert died, which would be unheard of now; in modern times, withdrawing for five days to allow William and Harry privacy after Diana died provoked a firestorm.
So yes, the historical context matters, so let's talk about the situation as it is now, in the modernized, if not precisely modern, monarchy of today.
And to your point, yes, accidents of birth are the reality that we face as humans; no-one has the choice. Inherited poverty and wealth are going to be with us always, and while they may be tied to our view of inherited obligation, I don't think they're the same. We've come to reject the ideas of being born into slavery or into (for example) the untouchable caste as remnants of the past, and rightly so. So some obligations via birth are no longer acceptable, though the poverty associated with them remains.
Incidentally, the reaction after Diana's death is exactly the the type of obligation I'm profoundly uncomfortable with. "Mourn for us", "Show us your pain, because you belong to the nation, even though you're only 12 and just lost your mother". How do we feel so entitled to the interior lives of people just because of who they are. I saw a claim that George "belongs" to the nation on another forum, and fury that his parents aren't sharing him enough with the people he "belongs" to. He's a baby, for crying out loud, who can't even conceive of the duty that's been laid upon him by birth, let alone rationally decide whether or not to accept or reject it.
I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding royals and their need for privacy. I have found media coverage to be far too intrusive in Diana's death/funeral, then Princess Letizia's media coverage of her sister Erika's death/memorial and too often with the demands for photos of royal children. IMVHO all humans deserve the right to privacy during our most emotional episodes.
I think having a solid parent helps with preparing their child for public service. If the parent doesn't instill in the child that while it is a duty, it can also be a great platform, then the child will grow to see it as a burden and not the privilege that it is. Of all the problems that the majority of people in the world have, being born royal is not high on the list. That doesn't mean there aren't negatives; there are. But there has to be a realization and perspective outside of yourself and your complaints. That goes for everyone, but especially to the most privileged.
And it's perfectly fine if that kind of lifestyle is not wanted by someone because not everyone is the same. But then it would be their responsibility to make that choice and take themselves out of the public role and become a private citizen. Because there's nothing worse than someone faking interest just to get the perks, for both sides really.
Now I don't see being a royal as a privilege. Certainly they have more money and perks than other people but overall it is not a life I would want. Living in a lovely home and having exotic vacations, dressing in designer clothing means nothing when your every action, real or imagined, is splashed all over the place. The idea that the public owns you and has the right to comment and criticize is repulsive to me and I would go mad in that situation.
To me, the ones that are truly privileged are the minor royals and aristocrats. Like the Percys or Prince Micheal. There may be a bit of intrusion into their lives but for the most part they are not answerable to the public for the most part and they can live without fear of their private life being tomorrows news.
^Youre right; It's matter of personal opinion which is why I suggested the second option. And an argument that could be made against your estimation of the Percys is that keeping up an estate has a ton of stresses and responsibilities that don't get supplemented by public funds. Maybe they'd rather be royals because of that notion, maybe not; it's a matter of perception. But both of those options are better than most people in this world that can barely sustain themselves which is what I meant by looking outside yourself and realizing the reasons why you're lucky instead of the reasons why you're not.
I think this is starting to draw towards what I explicitly said I wanted to try to keep separate; being rich and titled is a privilege but being royal, in the modern sense, is a duty. Let's please not conflate them.
It's not a "privilege" to be told you're essentially owned by the state. It's a privilege to be part of a family that's fabulously wealthy because hundreds of years ago your family clawed its way to the top of the social, legal and economic heap. In the intervening years, the privilege has had a whole bunch of obligations for public service piled on top.
This isn't about sympathy, or feeling bad, or comparing the lot of one person to another. Nor is it in any way about what the royals themselves feel about their lot. It's about how we think about the idea of what it means to be born into a life of service and how that changes when that service is at the top of the heap rather than at the bottom. In fact, I wonder if attempts to pull it into comparisons with the poor of the world might be a way of rationalizing the service obligation.
Thanks for keeping on track.
Alright. Sorry, I'll refrain from posting further. But just so you know, it can't be separated since they go hand in hand.
To me, being born into a life of duty is a horrible thing. Imagine realizing at a young age that your life is destined to not belong to you. That you will be be scrutinized for every decision you make, that talking to the wrong person or saying the wrong thing may cause international repercussions.
There is a reason that Margaret said "Poor you" to QE, and that Bertie cried when he realized he was to become King.
Charles and William may have dreams that they can not realize. Charles is retirement age but he is facing taking on a full time job. I do not begrudge William doing the helicopter bit right now because pretty soon what freedom he have to be what he wishes will be gone and he will belong to the public.
I particularly feel for William. He has been brought up with more connection to the real world. He was educated with other people who were experiencing the joy of not knowing what the future held and that life will bring what you work towards. The idea of unlimited potential and opportunity is one that Williams generation has grown up with. And that is out of reach for William.
For some royals their destiny of public service may be exactly what they want. But for those who do not want it or are not completely suitable for it, it must be a beautiful, luxurious prison
Clearly they can't be separated, and in fact, I opened up the concept of privilege specifically as it relates to how we think about obligation.
But they shouldn't be conflated, either, because they're not the same thing; they're two related aspects that each affect how we view the other, and all I'm asking is that people talk about that, rather than focusing on why we shouldn't feel sorry for them, unless you're going to do some deeper analysis of why you feel that great privilege justifies a life of inherited obligation to the people beyond what is asked of any member of society, rich or poor.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 10:27:07 PM
Quote from: Macrobug on September 15, 2014, 10:24:45 PM
To me, being born into a life of duty is a horrible thing. Imagine realizing at a young age that your life is destined to not belong to you. That you will be be scrutinized for every decision you make, that talking to the wrong person or saying the wrong thing may cause international repercussions.
There is a reason that Margaret said "Poor you" to QE, and that Bertie cried when he realized he was to become King.
Charles and William may have dreams that they can not realize. Charles is retirement age but he is facing taking on a full time job. I do not begrudge William doing the helicopter bit right now because pretty soon what freedom he have to be what he wishes will be gone and he will belong to the public.
So do you think there should be a way to opt out, and what would that look like?
That is the argument. Plenty of rich (and untitled) people have stated they have an obligation to help society; not specifically in royal duties like shaking hands, but actually working for the common good by donating or creating organizations, scholarships. And I also refuted the idea that it wasn't a choice...it is. No one is holding a gun to their head. They're adults who have chosen that life as opposed to giving up their place in the line of succession.
Then I ask you the same question I asked MB - what does an opt out clause look like for a member of the RF?
Of course they can opt out of the job but would it be better? They still would be followed by the media, they wouldn't suddenly gain freedom, autonomy or privacy. For the BRF abdication is an ugly word. Also, it may be hard to live with the fact that you have just tossed the hot potato to another family member. William may not want the job but if he gives it up then he is dumping everything he doesn't want onto his son.
To become a private citizen and live your life like a regular person complete with your own job to fulfill their dreams. Most have private funds anyway.
And how long do you think the media would respect that? We are still debating and discussing Edward and Wallis. They never achieved privacy.
Quote from: Macrobug on September 15, 2014, 10:37:16 PM
Of course they can opt out of the job but would it be better? They still would be followed by the media, they wouldn't suddenly gain freedom, autonomy or privacy. For the BRF abdication is an ugly word. Also, it may be hard to live with the fact that you have just tossed the hot potato to another family member. William may not want the job but if he gives it up then he is dumping everything he doesn't want onto his son.
I didn't say it would be better, in fact, I said being a royal is the better end of the deal because of the privileges. However, if being a royal is unbearable to the individual (which it could be since ppl are different) then part of being an adult is making tough and sometimes unpopular choices.
Double post auto-merged: September 15, 2014, 10:43:50 PM
Quote from: Macrobug on September 15, 2014, 10:39:20 PM
And how long do you think the media would respect that? We are still debating and discussing Edward and Wallis. They never achieved privacy.
Neither do some people that are private citizens.
Certainly. I have choice and free will. I am lucky. But someone born into a position that they really can't walk away from without incredible repercussions doesn't have choice and free will.
One of my favourite scenes from The Kings Speech was when Logue facetiously asked "Mrs Johnson" if her hubbie was in indentured servitude and she answered "something like that"
It's certainly your prerogative to feel that way.
So in practical terms, here are the difficulties I see with opting out:
- still remain a target for both kidnappings and the press/paps
- the family is a business is a family is a business; the royals mingle family and their duties. Take, for example, Christmas. We see this now in Eugenie; she's clearly not a working member of the RF, but she's still expected to shake hands and accept flowers from people. If she said "I make my own money, I pay my own way and I don't have security, so I'm heading back right away for a hot toddy", the outcry would be tremendous.
So how, in practical terms, do you deal with those things?
You continue to do that or only show up for private Christmas events if that's not personally desirable. And you may pay for protection on your own dime or the Queen's private fund if she so wishes.
This is why I don't think that opting out is a viable option. Which is why being born into the position is akin to a prison. They can not escape.
Again, it's certainly your prerogative to feel that way.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Some really great points, thank you cate!
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 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rob-ford-tumour-diagnosis-do-politicians-have-a-right-to-medical-privacy-1.2766148)
Now more on topic. Do the royals, especially the monarch, have the right to medical privacy?
^^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.
: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?
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.
^^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.)
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.
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 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rob-ford-tumour-diagnosis-do-politicians-have-a-right-to-medical-privacy-1.2766148)
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.