Why Are The Windsors More Popular Than Other Royal Families?

[Lumutqueen]

Maybe they're not that popular;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...otten-US-magazine-cover-The-New-Republic.html

 

[jodeofoz]

In my opinion it is because they seem far more aloof and not as approachable as the lesser European royal houses. Gilded birds in a cage I guess.

 

[COUNTESS]

Most European Monarchies don't waste time nor money on the "Show". Americans love "Show". They could care less who is in it. Most Americans don't know who any royal is, British or otherwise, except for Elizabeth, Philip and Charles. And Charles, because of Diana, otherwise, he'd be another stuffy nobody. Camilla who destroyed the "perfect" picture. Kate and William are "stars" here, too. She is lovely and he is Diana's son.

 

[miche]

Charles was well known by Americans or the Americans network before Diana came along

 

[Meraude]

The question is are the Windsors more popular than the other royal families, or is it that they are more well-known/more familiar to people outside their own country than the other royals? Today English is the "lingua franca" for most people and if you do a search for "royal family" the number one hit is the homepage for the British royal family, and there are a lot of information, news and gossip that people can find easily about them, so why should people who are not very interested in royals "bother" trying to find information about other royal families when they have easy access to the Windsors.

 

[Tyger]

Most European Monarchies don't waste time nor money on the "Show". Americans love "Show". They could care less who is in it. Most Americans don't know who any royal is, British or otherwise, except for Elizabeth, Philip and Charles. And Charles, because of Diana, otherwise, he'd be another stuffy nobody. Camilla destroyed the "perfect" picture. Kate and William are "stars" here, too. She is lovely and he is Diana's son.

Maybe in your neck of the woods - not in mine. People are a little more savvy and worldly wise than to have 'fallen' for that picture. I live in a micro-culture of little Diana's in some respect. Trust me, very few were fooled by any of it.

I do agree that Americans are woefully fuzzy about who is exactly in the Royal Family - but they have an idea. PBS is airing a whole bunch of British documentaries on the BRF these days. I think because of the Jubilee. People generally do know about the Queen, Philip, Charles, Diana (of course), Camilla (of course), William and Harry. They probably also know about Princess Anne. Anyone else they are a little more challenged.

Americans also know about the Royal Family of Monaco - because of Grace Kelly. They for sure are aware of Prince Albert - and they know about Princess Charlene, now.

One more leap, Americans will know about the Swedish Royal Family, too. They know about the King recently because of his troubles but more particularly generally because of the Nobel Prize - and as a result they are familiar with Queen Sylvia, CP Victoria, Prince Daniel and now Princess Estelle.

Charles was well known by Americans or the Americans network before Diana came along

Absolutely. In fact, Diana was who she was to anyone globally because of Charles. Charles was as much tabloid fodder in the 1970's as Prince William was before his marriage and Prince Harry is now - even more so, because he was the heir.

 

[COUNTESS]

Charles was well know as the heir to the throne and an a good marriage catch. Many thought they could marry a prince. Yes, when Diana married into the family, it was because she married the heir that she became overtly popular. But as time wained on, she was the tabloid fodder. Albert is known because of Grace, yes and is very American. The Swedish royal family, although, delightful, I can bet that almost no one knows two of their names, including that adorbale Princess Estelle. And my neck of the woods may look provincial to you in LA, but it is not where I am from and I will bet you, across this nation, including the large cities, very few people care about any of them.

 

[Tyger]

And my neck of the woods may look provincial to you in LA, but it is not where I am from and I will bet you, across this nation, including the large cities, very few people care about any of them.

My meaning was never about provincialism. I don't know where you hail from, Countess. Your location is unknown to me. My reference was to the sentence in your text that I bolded in which you used a word to describe Camilla - which I see has been deleted, both from your post and from my 'quote' of your post, so I assume the deletion was done by a moderator.

I am on TRF because I do not find anyone in my milieu who would want to discuss royalty. It's not a burning issue - and while my people would be fine with me mentioning them, they would be humoring me rather than really participating if I insisted on discussing them. They are unlikely to 'care' about them, its true, I agree - but they would know about them. They'd also know the names of the main players but with no particular emotion or judgment attached - and as I said, most of them would know about the Swedish Royal family because of the Nobel Prize - the awarding of which is followed with interest.

Just as it's hard not to know about certain celebrities in this celebrity driven media world even if you have no interest - I will bet that many people do know who the BRF are - though I agree that few 'care' about them.

And Charles, because of Diana, otherwise, he'd be another stuffy nobody.

Like it or not, Charles was never and will never be a 'nobody' - he's the heir to the British throne. He was born into a role that makes him somebody. Whether he is stuffy is your opinion. In point of fact - you know about Diana because of Charles - because he chose her - because she stood by his side as his wife. Once she was separated and then divorced from him, interest in her began to wane.

 

[casualfan]

Sorry, Tyger, but I have to disagree as well. Most Americans don't know many royals. They know the BRF, they know Monaco (to a limited extent), they know there are other kings and queens, but that's about it. When significant numbers of people polled can't even identify their own elected leaders, I doubt they know foreign dignitaries.

The US and Britain share a "special relationship." I think that accounts for more interest in the BRF, in large measure.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

That's why we love the Forums so much. It was set up for people who "know" or want to know about royalty, worldwide.

This place is basically educational. There are some people who use the Forums for "gentle" bullying of others, but all in all, it is adjunct to the vague history we all learned in school (as least I did). If people don't want to be interested in royalty outside the BRF, that's OK with me. My world would be poorer if I didn't know about the royals of Tonga, Japan, etc. and the currently deposed royal families.

 

[Osipi]

The US and Britain share a "special relationship." I think that accounts for more interest in the BRF, in large measure.

The more I thought about it, I started to realize that perhaps interest in the British royal family may have started because of alliances formed in both of the world wars. I think historically up until that time, there really wasn't an abundance of international reporting available but as the nations were drawn into global conflict, (more so in WWII than WWI), news of what was happening became a priority. I can still remember my mother talking of going to the local theaters during WWII for the Pathe' newsreels that were shown before each feature. No longer was the UK who the US triumphed over for its independence, but a hand in hand comrade in arms. Winston Churchill was a figure that became instantly recognizable and with the newfangled invention of television, the wedding and coronation of Queen Elizabeth was viewed globally.

As the world shrunk in size to the instant global commications we have today, the lifestyle that is the world of the British royal family has remained a big draw for a lot of people in the US.

 

[Tyger]

Sorry, Tyger, but I have to disagree as well. Most Americans don't know many royals. They know the BRF, they know Monaco (to a limited extent), they know there are other kings and queens, but that's about it.

Then we actually agree - because that is exactly what i said, too. They don't know many but they do know some - and its the 'usual' ones.

The more I thought about it, I started to realize that perhaps interest in the British royal family may have started because of alliances formed in both of the world wars.

I agree. Plus there is the fact of Mrs Simpson - we all know about her and the abdication. Anytime an American gets involved in a royal family our interest gets pulled there - like with Lisa Halliby to Jordan and Grace Kelly to Monaco - as well as Mrs Simpson.

 

[casualfan]

I was disagreeing with Tyger's assertion that Americans would know the Swedish royals. Sory, should have made that clearer.

People know the Nobels, but the media here never associates them with the royal family in Sweden.

 

[Osipi]

People know the Nobels, but the media here never associates them with the royal family in Sweden.

I would hazard to guess that if you poll the American populace about the main facts they would know about Switzerland, the #1 response would be "its a neutral country". Almost equal after that would be the Nobel prize, chocolates, swiss army knives and cuckoo clocks. I do have to admit that as an American that was the extent of my knowledge about Sweden until I joined TRF. On top of that, Lumutqueen can attest to the fact that I still get countries such as Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden terribly confused at times. Its a flaw to my education that I'm hoping my time at TRF will correct.

 

[Tyger]

I was disagreeing with Tyger's assertion that Americans would know the Swedish royals. Sorry, should have made that clearer.

People know the Nobels, but the media here never associates them with the royal family in Sweden.

Not sure about that. My academic friends - and that would include folks in the sciences - generally are aware of the Swedish royal familiy - not in detail, of course. There are always pictures of the Nobel Prize Ceremony with the presentation - usually includes snaps of the King, anyway, and Queen occasionally and family. Winners of the Nobel Prize get interviewed and talk about going to meet the King of Sweden. It's pretty hard not to be aware of the Swedish royal family - though I'm sure there are those who are happily oblivious.

 

[casualfan]

Not sure about that. [bold] My academic friends - and that would include folks in the sciences - [\bold] generally are aware of the Swedish royal familiy - not in detail, of course. There are always pictures of the Nobel Prize Ceremony with the presentation - usually includes snaps of the King, anyway, and Queen occasionally and family. Winners of the Nobel Prize get interviewed and talk about going to meet the King of Sweden. It's pretty hard not to be aware of the Swedish royal family - though I'm sure there are those who are happily oblivious.

Sorry, I thought we were referring to the general populace, not people who generally have an interest in the areas most likely to be related to/associated with the Swedes and the Nobel foundation.

In contrast, I would wager that the general population doesn't have a clue about what exists outside MTV and their own borders.

 

[Tyger]

Casualfan, I see you were trying to bold some text - just to help -

You wrote: [bold] My academic friends - and that would include folks in the sciences [\bold]

The code is actually: [b*] My academic friends - and that would include folks in the sciences - [/b*] WITHOUT THE ASTERISKS. I put the asterisks in the code to disable the command.

If I put in the code without the asterisk I get: My academic friends - and that would include folks in the sciences

 

[Osipi]

BTW: Thank you all for letting my ignorance pass by.

Somewhere, somehow in my own addlepated way, I mixed up talking about Sweden and Switzerland in my post. Just proves the point of my post though as an "average" American eh?

 

[Mirabel]

I was disagreeing with Tyger's assertion that Americans would know the Swedish royals. Sory, should have made that clearer.

People know the Nobels, but the media here never associates them with the royal family in Sweden.

Very true! I noticed that at the time of William and Kate's wedding, practically none of the other royals were identified by the American newscasters (except for Albert and Charlene).

They just kept the camera panning over Elton John and (a very little) on the Beckhams. I don't think they knew who anyone else was!

 

[KittyAtlanta]

The American newscasters and their crews no longer do their homework...that's why they did all those camera shots of Elton John at the wedding. He was the only one they recognized.

 

[Molly2101]

A lot of the American newreaders don't know who Edward and Sophie are, so I doubt they will know any European royal families. I have to admit that I did not know of any until I joined this forum. It has educated me a lot on European royalty!

I think Diana gave the Windsor a lot of publicity in America, though not all of it was positive. Of course, Fergies toe-sucking incident when the Texan added to the Windsor fame. It seems they are famous due to negative press...

 

[cepe]

to be honest, vast numbers of "royal" UK reporters can't recognise more junior members. Not one paper in the UK (I think - hedging my bets lol) recognised Lady Sarah Chatto walking beside DoC at the THistle ceremony. And the Glos. would not generally be recognised either. It's a great pity.

 

[Osipi]

The American newscasters and their crews no longer do their homework...that's why they did all those camera shots of Elton John at the wedding. He was the only one they recognized.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that but during William and Kate's wedding ceremony wasn't the televised feed limited to only the BBC (I think it was their cameras) which was then shared around the world? In other words, there were no American newscasters responsible for the shots.

 

[COUNTESS]

What you have to realize in they are, basically, unimportant to the world scenario. No one here cares, except for us few who are historically interested. I, too, am not interested in Elton John, but, that, too, is a personal preference. They add nothing nor detract anything from the world stage. The paegent that the UK royals present is showtime for us. Nothing else.

 

[Osipi]

What you have to realize in they are, basically, unimportant to the world scenario. No one here cares, except for us few who are historically interested. I, too, am not interested in Elton John, but, that, too, is a personal preference. They add nothing nor detract anything from the world stage. The paegent that the UK royals present is showtime for us. Nothing else.

One thing I remember too on these forums, a lot of us noticed the lack of showing the foreign royals arrivals at the Abbey. For the most part, most viewers wouldn't even have noticed their lack of coverage. As it was a British royal wedding with all the British pomp and circumstance that they do so well, all focus was on the main players in the BRF.

To be honest, I could have very well done without Elton John or the Beckham shots as they really mean nothing to me although I do suppose to a lot of people they're very well known Brits. But that's just me.

 

[COUNTESS]

Of course. I do know who Elton John is, but have no idea about the Beckhams and don't care. People watch to see the huge spectacle, which would be something of a large show. Kate is lovely and William is Diana's son, part of the popularity. The rest was theatre and well done.

 

[Tyger]

As it was a British royal wedding with all the British pomp and circumstance that they do so well, all focus was on the main players in the BRF.

However, I recall at Charles' and Diana's wedding (at least) one camera was trained on the arrival and the seating of the continental royals. I know because I recall seeing Princess Grace and Prince Rainer of Monaco, in particular - was always looking out for them, as I now am always looking out for Prince Albert and Princess Charlene of Monaco.

 

[Rosapru]

In France everything related to the Jubilee was live on many TV (with Karl Lagerfeld on the comments on channel 2). The pageant, the concert at night and at St Paul. The Trooping the colour is live since maybe 15 years. With commentaries before the queen arrives, the horses, the history. Each year on Channel 1 (the most important and viewed). I cant remember events from other countries with a monarchy live on TV. Kate and William are regularly on tv in the news (much more than Albert and Kate). A few years ago, the Grimaldi Family had a huge importance in my country. On tv, on magazine covers, now Kate and William beats easily Albert and Charlene. Except the cover Charlene did for Vogue, etc... in France before her wedding. On the site of YAHOO FRANCE there is a page/menu dedicated to William and Kate feeded everyday with news. So it's not only in US...

 

[Daria_S]

Sorry, I thought we were referring to the general populace, not people who generally have an interest in the areas most likely to be related to/associated with the Swedes and the Nobel foundation.

In contrast, I would wager that the general population doesn't have a clue about what exists outside MTV and their own borders.

You're being too generous, because I've met people who had no idea what the name of the US Vice President was. I think it's very sad that so many in the States could care less about what goes on in the world, or their own nation. They have their reality TV, the celebrity gossip, trash like the Khardashians, and they're happy as clams. They indeed could care less about royals, Swedish, or British, in my opinion (they could care less about culture in general, but that's besides the point). I'll never forget when I was tutoring history back in undergrad, and a student wrote an essay on the causes of WWI, stating that Serbia was discovered in 1914. When I brought up that Serbia has been around for quite a while, the person didn't believe me (the poor soul probably won't be able to find his nation, let alone Serbian on a world map ).

A lot of the American newreaders don't know who Edward and Sophie are, so I doubt they will know any European royal families. I have to admit that I did not know of any until I joined this forum. It has educated me a lot on European royalty!

I think Diana gave the Windsor a lot of publicity in America, though not all of it was positive. Of course, Fergies toe-sucking incident when the Texan added to the Windsor fame. It seems they are famous due to negative press...

Many had no clue about Edward and Sophie until their engagement was announced. At that time I was following the British royals, and therefore knew about these two. It made it much easier to get into the swing of things when I discovered this message board. I heard about the Swedish royals when I started reading about the BRF, but I know that those who are not royal admirers, won't know about them either. In complete agreement about Diana giving Windsors the 'publicity boost' if you will. I had a conversation last weekend with an acquaintance, and she said that if it wasn't for Diana, she wouldn't have even bothered with keeping up with the royals (she was ten when Diana married Charles, and remembers staying up to watch their wedding).

What you have to realize in they are, basically, unimportant to the world scenario. No one here cares, except for us few who are historically interested. I, too, am not interested in Elton John, but, that, too, is a personal preference. They add nothing nor detract anything from the world stage. The paegent that the UK royals present is showtime for us. Nothing else.

Interesting, but very true observation. My grandfather always pointed out what a 'spectacle' the Windsors could put on. He feels that much of it is quite pointless. I don't agree with him, but that's because I'm the strange Yank/Russian that actually happens to see the importance of monarchy, as well as be a supporter of the institution (my political views get me a ton of eye rolls, which I find very, very amusing).

Of course. I do know who Elton John is, but have no idea about the Beckhams and don't care. People watch to see the huge spectacle, which would be something of a large show. Kate is lovely and William is Diana's son, part of the popularity. The rest was theatre and well done.

Again, very, very true. So many keep saying that William (and his brother) remind them of their late mother, so their interest is simply for that reason alone. An acquaintance referred to Catherine as 'Diana Jr.' because of all the press attention she's getting, and I didn't particularly agree, but again, to someone who doesn't have an emotional attachment to the concept of monarchy and its' purpose (and this acquaintance certainly doesn't), it's easier to look at it that way, because it creates an association, something to refer to when hearing Catherine's name mentioned on the news. I think it's rather depressing that people view monarchy as a way of entertainment, but to those who are not interested, it's easier to grasp and perhaps ignore.

 

[EIIR]

Correct me if I'm wrong on that but during William and Kate's wedding ceremony wasn't the televised feed limited to only the BBC (I think it was their cameras) which was then shared around the world? In other words, there were no American newscasters responsible for the shots.

You are entirely correct, Osipi. The cameras within Westminster Abbey were controlled and operated by the BBC, who then sold the live pictures to foreign broadcasters.

As I said at the time, much to the chagrin of some posters here, the BBC failed to focus on the foreign royals because the British people don't know that they exist let alone who they are. With very few exceptions, the British people know nothing about foreign royals because they just aren't interested. We could argue about the rights and wrongs of that, but it's just the way it is.

Rosparu, thank you for the information on French coverage of the recent royal events; it's really interesting.