Debate: How do you perceive royalty today and why?

[Orchid]

With permission from SandraDee (naturally :happy: ) I'm starting a thread based on a discussion we were having privately.  In the context of the modern day image and perception of royalty, SandraDee made the following comment which I thought raised some very interesting points about the social and cultural influences on our idea of monarchy and royals:

I think, the first thing that comes to mind when you say 'royalty' is still the fairy tale images of prince and princesses that we get to know as young children. Then you think of the abundance of wealth, the celebrity, the comfort, and it leaves regular people(who don't know much of the details of how royalty today actually functions) in awe. And probably respect because when you say 'royalty', you automatically associate the royal living today with his/her ancestors, who actually ruled. :shrug: It's the pure awe-factor that garners such praise from the press, methinks.

... And so, in the spirit of our chat we both felt it would be a nice idea to extend this particular strand of discussion into the public boards for one and all to put their ideas forward. 

So what do you think?  Is our perspective of royalty today based on medieval notions of romanticism and infinite rule?  Do we still posses (knowingly or not) the ideology of fairytale princes and princesses who are beautiful, dashing, supreme and elegant as carried froward from our childhood story books?  Or conversely, do we see them in a more clinical, institutional light whereby their actions are self-serving and political in nature: far removed from the fairytale illusion of awe inspiring castles and gowns as taught to us as children.

On a final note, what are your thoughts about the way monarchy operate today in terms of propaganda and self-promotion?  Do you simply accept the pomp and pageantry in the name of tradition and justify this as such - or - do you draw more strategic parallels between renaissance masques which aimed to exalt the power and supremacy of those who were involved and portrayed?  Do you see the theatrical performances of coaches, carriages, military displays of force and castles and palaces as a basic heredity right of monarchy not to be questioned or distrusted or conversely do you see it as propaganda: illusory performances of wealth and power which aim to separate them from the majority while asserting their right to continue in the same vein as their ancestors?

Go! :teehee:

[Lady of Hay]

I can not believe that I missed this post.

Yes, the perspective of royalty today is based on medieval notions of romanticism because everyone wants to believe that there is such a thing as "Happily Ever After" and love conquerors all blah...blah...blah. Which in the real word it does not happen very often if at all. If it did all the time then we would not need fairly tales in the first place because we would be living them daily. Everyone wants to live a life where they have loads of money, security, someone to love them, where their every want is fulfilled and attention, attention, attention. Who honestly wouldn't? The titles are just a nice bonus to make a person sound pretty.

As for infinite rule, I would hope that in today's day and age people are smart enough to know that these are simply human beings living off the success of their ancestors and the good graces of the public; not ordained nor protected by any God. If the public decides to no longer support and break away from them as America did then they are done. Clearly, no God was protecting their empire when America became independent or the monarchies that fell in various countries after. That is not meant to be a dig it is simply an example of no human being has divine right over others nor is any divine bring going to step in.

Human beings are social animals and some are sheep. They need someone or something to look up too in order to feel complete. Some people constantly need to be where these people are and where they perceive the action is because they do not want to be left out or feel like they are missing something. Putting aside my American views, it would be pretty hard even if I were a citizen of the United Kingdom to be impressed or in awe by people who I share close ancestors with, myself.  The blood of many of the same distant ancestors who got them where they are today flows in my veins too. That can change your view on them slightly.  :P

I think monarchies today are simply figure heads who give good theatre and have gotten good at the propaganda and self-promotion that the public falls for daily. Are they necessary anymore to run a country? No. If all the monarchies disappeared from the world tomorrow would the Earth stop spinning? No. Would the Universe end? No.

[Orchid]

Human beings are social animals and some are sheep. They need someone or something to look up too in order to feel complete. Some people constantly need to be where these people are and where they perceive the action is because they do not want to be left out or feel like they are missing something.

That's an interesting point.  Mixed with the idea of monarchial performances being a modern day extension of Renaissance masques, it would be fair to interpret aspects of royalism as, like you say, a desire to participate in the glory and drama that is feigned for our consumption.  If we participate in it, we facilitate it and thus validate what monarchy do.

The ceremonial function of monarchy is done in a theatrical fashion: think of the parliamentary speeches, coronations, order of the garter, open coach parades, military parades, convoys, red carpets etc.  The gowns, uniforms, medals and jewels.... they all combine to portray an image of magnificence and difference.  It is all propaganda.  If their function existed as an important role in its own right, all the trimmings which serve to embellish their function would be unnecessary. 

So are royalists supporting the frill-less function of monarchy in a political and cultural context, or, are they supporting the more vacuous theatricals because of its entertainment value and the sense of magnificence that it affords the image of the UK? 

[Lady of Hay]

So are royalists supporting the frill-less function of monarchy in a political and cultural context, or, are they supporting the more vacuous theatricals because of its entertainment value and the sense of magnificence that it affords the image of the UK? 

I have always considered the word "royalist" to be a backward term  that no longer belongs in our modern world. It is easy to take on that term in a country that has a Constitutional monarchy because there is security in knowing that you can admire your monarch from afar with the knowledge that their power over you is limited but monarchies use to be Absolute. Royalists use to believe in an Absolute monarchy as well. I can not imagen anyone in their right mind wanting a monarchy that is Absolute. Ending my opinion on that note before I alientate everyone who considers themselves one on this forum.

The monarchies that are left today, some of them have been around for centuries, so from a historical presepective it is understandable that people would want the theatricals for entertainment value and the sense of magnificence because it is a major part in the history/culture of their country. You do not have to labeled a "royalist" to appreciate that.

[no1saint]

This is an interesting topic...not sure if anyone will read or care about my opinion on the matter, but I will share my thoughts anyway.

From a New Zealand Maori perspective within a Pacific context, royalty or in a broader meaning elite families have continual and important roles to play in a modern society.

The Maori of New Zealand are structured in families, sub tribes (groupings of extended families descended from a common ancestor), tribes (groupings of sub tribes descended from a common ancestor) and historical migration areas (tribes who settled areas at the same time under common ancestors and shared ocean going vessels). These structures have ruling classes and families who have ruled for centuries under a continual ancestral line centred around seniority. Therefore the eldest of the eldest of the eldest going back centuries has a significant role to play if they choose to do so.

Our most prominent family is that now headed by the Maori King...Te Arikinui Kiingi Tuheitia, the 7th leader of the Kiingitanga movement of the Tainui people which was established formally from an existing line of aristocracy in 1858. Contrary to the title Maori King, this is not a pan tribal title in the strictest sense...it does however demand respect on a national level.



Why the long history lesson? Because therein lies our concept of royalty within a modern context. It is relevant because through it's annual celebrations and traditions it enables pan tribal dialogue and interaction. The Tainui people are the only ones to have their pre-European contact social structure in place and active today. The royal family headed by the Maori King is the vehicle of cultural preservation and enrichment.

Our royalty are not only persons to be held up for veneration, but are expected to maintain our traditions, our culture, our language and our social institutions that maintain our way of life. Yes they were born to privilege, but with that comes great responsibility. All through the Pacific you will see a similar pattern. Royal families acting as guardians of centuries old social structures and cultural heritage.

In reference to HM the Queen of New Zealand and all that comes with that territory, our leaders...our ruling class made a treaty with her ancestor and we honour that today. HM the Queen of New Zealand is a living link to an agreement forged between our leaders and her Great-Great Grandmother.

The mother of Kiingi Tuheitia Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu who ruled for 40 years had strong friendships with the family of HM Elizabeth II ever since HM visited her father Kiingi Koroki at his home in 1954...the first of many visits.





The future Maori Queen to the left next to HM Queen Elizabeth II.

HM Queen Elizabeth II and Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu

[wannable]

Great stuff No1Saint.  Always good to learn new things.

[cinrit]

Thank you for the history, no1saint.  It's always good to learn new things. :)

Cindy