The House of Windsor and The Press

[grandduchessella]

Well, I think these images were something that became popular because the people depicted in them were of interest. I don't think they became popular because of the fact of images, but more because of the people depicted. I think the invention of photography was going to make any royals seem better known, and when they were as important as the British royals, they were better known, as a result, and less abstract. Britain in the 19th century was a very important country, and thus Queen Victoria and her family were well known figures. They certainly became more familiar through photos and the like, but none of them were very photogenic, etc. So, that isn't ''why the windsors?'' to me.

I haven't read this yet but I remembered it when thinking about QV and the royal family and the media:

Queen Victoria - First Media Monarch
Book Description
The nineteenth century saw the arrival of the mass media: high-volume illustrated newspapers and magazines, photography, and the telegraph which connected every part of the Empire. From the beginning, royalty was an essential subject for the media; Victoria's reign was documented in a detail never known before: her accession and coronation, her very public marriage, her travels at home and abroad, her Jubilees, and ultimately her death and funeral. John Plunkett's book is the first to study the role of the media in Queen Victoria's reign. He argues that the development of popular print and visual media in the nineteenth century helped to reinvent the position of the monarchy in national life. He reveals how the royal family was one of the principal beneficiaries of the growth of cheap newspapers and illustrated periodicals and the advent of new media. He brings to light a wealth of previously unexamined material, including a detailed account of the emergence of royal journalism and the role of functionaries like the Court Newsman, and shows how photographs of Victoria were routinely retouched and manipulated in the latter decades of the century.

[ilyala]

That's okay, IA -- it's not obligatory on this board -- yet!   

Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip were considered a "model family" in the early days when their children were young.  It was the behaviour and later the divorces of those children which tarnished this image.

In some way, I think that the children in a royal family are what keeps the public interested.  In Victoria's day, obviously without the mass reproduction of photos, the children were considerably less known than today's royals, but people like to watch children grow and develop in pictures and in articles.  By the time Bertie came to the throne, his children were well and truly grown up and, therefore, he and Alexandra did not have the same cosy domestic image of Victoria and, later, Georges V and VI.  Their children were still comparatively young when they came to the throne.  I think this is what creates the most genuine public interest in the British Royal Family.  I think that the interest in their scandals and misbehaviour is largely created by the press, the public is not always clamouring to know...

i don't think bertie's unfitness in the whole domestic image had anything to do with his age rather than with a lot of mistresses, habbits of gambling and other simmilar activities. i honestly do not think that if queen victoria would have died with her husband (another interesting what-if), he would have been a part of a model family. i think the mistresses and the gambling would have still been there - maybe the public would have been less informed - but they would have been there.

[Grace]

I agree with you -- Bertie was not into domesticity at all.  But, had he come to the throne whilst his five living children were young, he would have had a more domestic image than he did by becoming king late in life. 

[ilyala]

the interesting part is that he was a popular king despite all that. i sincerely think this is what monarchy needs - a person, a king/queen, that would posess the qualities to make him/herself loved enough for people to forget his - after all - human flaws. i personally don't think any of these princes held under scrutiny did much worse things than their subjects, but people tend to think that because these people are royal they should be superhumans or something. a person like that could - maybe - make people accept the monarchy in all its humanity while a person like queen elizabeth - admirable as she may be - only sets the stakes higher for those who follow. and among those who follow one is bound to be human.

for example - a not royal but fitting example - bill clinton, in my view, was a good president. i personally don't understand how the woman he sleeps with - whether it's his wife or his mistress - could change that. yes, there have been rulers that have let themselves be dominated by their mistresses - but a true ruler does not let that happen. a strong person will know where the bed ends and the ruling business begins. i think people should stop expecting their rulers to be anything but humans. after all, no-one is hiring me on my job as a statistician based on my personal life - and no-one will fire me if i cheat on my boyfriend. why should a president/royal/ruler's ability to rule be judged based on who he sleeps with?

[Romanov_fan]

I think you have a good point, but it seems people, some people anyway are always going to care about things like that. Our society is increasingly secular, etc, but it seems some people still care about stuff like that. But maybe it's not the whole morality side of it, but rather somebody in the office of president, or in who is the ruler of England, people see in them, whether it is there or not, a figure of duty and tradition. And, in tradition it seems these things didn't happen, although they often did, they were just covered up. 

The figures of the past weren't perfect, they just had an easier time keeping their private lives private, I think. As for duty, sometimes it is seen that human frailities interfere with doing the office they are supposed to. That's not always true though... But, I think it is the office that people are associated with that makes most disaprove. I agree, it isn't realistic, but it might not change. As for royal children, I think people see in them hope for the future, and that a dynasty needs them thus, they are the next generation.

[Harumi]

Let blank intentionally.

[CHRISinUSA]

for example - a not royal but fitting example - bill clinton, in my view, was a good president. i personally don't understand how the woman he sleeps with - whether it's his wife or his mistress - could change that. yes, there have been rulers that have let themselves be dominated by their mistresses - but a true ruler does not let that happen. a strong person will know where the bed ends and the ruling business begins. i think people should stop expecting their rulers to be anything but humans. after all, no-one is hiring me on my job as a statistician based on my personal life - and no-one will fire me if i cheat on my boyfriend. why should a president/royal/ruler's ability to rule be judged based on who he sleeps with?

I would humbly disagree - (and not at all on a moral basis).  You are correct that whom Bill Clinton had sex with has nothing to do with his ability to discharge the duties of Chief Executive.  And I don't give a hoot who sleeps with whom in most cases.

But Mr. Clinton was the most senior elected official in the land, and a married man.  He had an affair - with a much younger woman who was also a White House employee.  Those facts say everything about his character.

I care very much if my President has such little self-control that he placed his physical needs ahead of his extremely important job.  And I care very much if my President places his reputation - and by extension the reputation of my country - at risk by his behaviour.  I also care that his stupid actions resulted in the waste of millions of tax dollars and legislative time that should have been spent on the country's needs (I don't care who persued the charges or why - if Bill had behaved in the first place the hearings / impeachment would never have happened).

And if all that wasn't bad enough - when he got caught, he stood before a United States federal grand jury and lied under oath.  The topic is irrelevant, the President of the United States lied under oath to a another branch of the federal government.  He should have resigned.

Everyone is human, and I know Clinton isn't alone in his human failings (JFK comes to mind).  But for every one of them, there are others who display amazing character.  I disagreed with most of what Ronald Reagan's policies were, but that man had so much respect for the office of the president that he would not enter the Oval Office without wearing a jacket and tie.  People knew instinctively - even if they disagreed with him - that they could implicitly trust his intentions and his dedication.  The same applies to the current Queen, to the late Pope, and probably others.

Why the Windsors?  Because most of them are more akin to Bill Clinton than to The Queen.

[Janet_W.]

With regards to what has been earlier mentioned, I was happy enough when former President Clinton was elected, though I told a friend who felt the same way that "we'll have to watch him like a hawk." Because I don't think any of his supporters who'd made a thorough study of Bill Clinton and his background considered him a strict, by-the-books kind of guy . . . we knew he was intellectually brilliant and imbued with a vision that we could support, but we also realized that--like most of us--he was a flawed human being, and that his flaws included an appetite for burgers & fries as well as a roving eye re: the female gender. But many men--as well as quite a few of us women--have a roving eye as well and, as another friend of mine once said, "I'm married but I'm NOT dead!" So rather than looking for a paragon of virtue--and good luck with that one--those of us who helped elect Bill Clinton weighed our options and chose him over other candidates due to his stand on certain policiies, his obvious smarts, plus his abilities to mediate, lead, and inspire.

If you've ever studied classic literature you're familiar with the concept of hubris, which has been defined as arrogrance resulting from excessive pride, and which was the downfull of many heros of classic Roman and Greek mythology. Former President Clinton--like so many other leaders of nations, corporations, and other organizations--allowed hubris to influence some of his personal decisions, and I think would be the first to admit it.

During and after the "Monicagate" brouhaha, friends of mine in various European countries expressed amusement that people in the United States would become so huffy about an extramarital involvement. In fact many people I know who've denigrated Clinton--usually acquaintances rather than friends--have been guilty of worse, should they care to think about it. And while I do not at all condone Bill Clinton's actions relating to this matter, neither do I think he was--or is--the Epitome of Evil as so many made him out to be. Instead I think it was a personal matter involving he and his wife and which needed to be addressed privately. I rue that he opted for foolhardly personal behaviors that caused himself, his family and his supporters embarrassment. Yet he demonstrated, in my opinion, the least harmful of sins typical of a high-powered, politically ambitious individual . . . an active libido directed towards individuals above the age of consent. Did he order the confiscation of  private property and turn a blind eye to the illegal trespassing that it would involve? Did he invade a nation under false pretences for reasons of family vengence and investments? Did Monicagate imperil the lives of not only his own constituents, but people in other areas of the world?  Along with the obvious "for shame" re: adultery, my other stinging comment to him would be along the lines of "For God's sakes, if you're going to stray from your marital vows, couldn't you at least select a woman who exhibits a higher level of taste and discretion, rather than such a gauche and idiotic nincompoop?"

[Janet_W.]

When it comes to my own behaviors, I do my best to uphold my ideals. But my ideals are not everyone's ideals, nor (much to the regret of my ego!) should they be. And what's important with regards to a leader is that he (or she) lead . . . not down the garden path, but in a stalwart and ethical manner. The world has witnessed many leaders who were involved with consenting adults other than their spouses but nevertheless were effective leaders. Conversely, many of us who post on this website were--and are--attracted to Nicholas II and give him exceptionally high marks as a husband and family man . . . yet would we want to live under his rule? Then consider that Oscar Schindler was not a faithful husband . . . still he risked his life to save others.

I admire Queen Elizabeth II. Like her great-great grandmother Queen Victoria, she has approached her heriditary role earnestness and devotion. Even her own sister, though--born of the same two parents--was not made of the same moral "stuff." Was it then birth order? Perhaps. As the oldest child of two oldest children, I can confirm there's a certain responsibility and duty involved. But not all oldest children accept those responsibilities and duties.

So, "why the Windsors"? In addition to the stalwart reign of Elizabeth II, it's because England has, throughout history, been a pivotal nation. And because England has depended upon pomp, pagentry and tradition more than most other nations whose royal families survived revolutions and wars, and thereby fascinates others. And because England inadvertantly helped give birth to a number of new and thriving nations, and these nations--related by language ties and other cultural influences--look back, like middle-aged children who in their youth dared to rebell against authority but now bear a certain nostalgia for their beginnings.  Because just when England's figurehead family was seeming unretrievably dowdy and dour, along came an attractive, highly photogenic young woman who made us at least half-believe in the fairy tale of Cinderella in an ornamental coach.  And because despite the soap opera that followed, and all the subsequent grief, even at its worst a modern royal family under siege was far less problematic to the average citizen of the world than an elected or appointed official who transgresses in areas of sexual probity, monetary greed, or control issues.

[ilyala]

I would humbly disagree - (and not at all on a moral basis).  You are correct that whom Bill Clinton had sex with has nothing to do with his ability to discharge the duties of Chief Executive.  And I don't give a hoot who sleeps with whom in most cases.

But Mr. Clinton was the most senior elected official in the land, and a married man.  He had an affair - with a much younger woman who was also a White House employee.  Those facts say everything about his character.

I care very much if my President has such little self-control that he placed his physical needs ahead of his extremely important job.  And I care very much if my President places his reputation - and by extension the reputation of my country - at risk by his behaviour.  I also care that his stupid actions resulted in the waste of millions of tax dollars and legislative time that should have been spent on the country's needs (I don't care who persued the charges or why - if Bill had behaved in the first place the hearings / impeachment would never have happened).

And if all that wasn't bad enough - when he got caught, he stood before a United States federal grand jury and lied under oath.  The topic is irrelevant, the President of the United States lied under oath to a another branch of the federal government.  He should have resigned.

Everyone is human, and I know Clinton isn't alone in his human failings (JFK comes to mind).  But for every one of them, there are others who display amazing character.  I disagreed with most of what Ronald Reagan's policies were, but that man had so much respect for the office of the president that he would not enter the Oval Office without wearing a jacket and tie.  People knew instinctively - even if they disagreed with him - that they could implicitly trust his intentions and his dedication.  The same applies to the current Queen, to the late Pope, and probably others.

Why the Windsors?  Because most of them are more akin to Bill Clinton than to The Queen.

well i for one would rather be ruled by bill clinton - the imorral man - than by ronald reagan - the respectful one. i would add other examples: hitler was a convinced vegetarian, didn't drink, didn't smoke and was the image of an excessively moral man. janet's example is also good - nicholas 2nd - and i would also ad louis 16th of france and charles 1st of england. all three moral family people - louzy rulers. at the other end we have people like edward 7th who was an imoral man by these standards but a good king. let's not forget about catherine the great of russia, francis 1st of france, henry 1st and 2nd of england... and the list could go on.

i for one believe, like janet, that whatever the ruler does with his/her marriage is his/her own business. the whole 'present a good american family to the world' is complete bull: george bush has a somewhat good american family but he's in my opinion one of the most disastruous presidents the country has ever had. and in the end even george bush might have family troubles - but maybe he's just better at hiding it (i remember vaguely a scandal involving his daughters and underage drinking). we will never know what these people's real status is. and maybe what they're better at is acting. and that's not relevant to being a good president either.

what i wanna see in a ruler is him doing his job. if he does it - i don't care about his family life. it's his family, his conscience, his private life. i'd rather have a divorced good president than a perfect family guy that has no idea what to do. my personal opinion. and if you take into consideration the fact that i saw a recent survey saying that somewhere around 50% of the men cheat on their wives (and those are only the ones who were willing to admit it), how can you blame mr. clinton for being a man of his times? we cannot control ourselves - why does the president have to? he's just a man after all.

(which btw, does not mean i condone cheating. i for one do not forgive cheating - i never did it, i left a boyfriend who did it, and if i were hilary clinton i would have divorced bill clinton on the spot. but since i'm not i consider bill clinton's cheating his and hilary's business - not mine)

[Romanov_fan]

I enjoyed reading all the comparisons, and thought there were some good points in ilyala and also Janet W's posts. I would think though, that things won't change in attitudes regarding those in public office and such things. The thing is, there is often such an outcry about things like this today, but way back then, these things happened, and only insiders, if that knew, and yet things went fine. I think the Windsors, past, present, and most likely future are only the more human and interesting when some scandals happen. Nobody's perfect, and when things like that happen, I would think most people can relate more. The Windsors, at any rate, have never been at the level of Monaco's royals.

[Nadezhda_Edvardova]

For me, personal moral integrity is important in a ruler.  I admit that extramarital affairs didn't harm Franklin Roosevelt's presidency (to cite one example).  However, I fundamentally cannot trust anyone to be a an even acceptable public figure if they don't honor their private commitments.  If they won't obey their marriage vows, how can they be trusted to obey any vows or oaths they take upon entering their leadership role? By extension, their personal failures weaken their public functions.  No one has ever had reason to question Elizabeth II's personal integrity, therefore her leadership is strong.  Clinton's personal integrity has always been highly questionable, and his leadership was compromised.  Time spent on the impeachment could have been well-used elsewhere.  Pax, N.

[grandduchessella]

If they won't obey their marriage vows, how can they be trusted to obey any vows or oaths they take upon entering their leadership role?

This was almost an exact quote of Harry Truman's so you're in good company in your opinion. 

[Taren]

If they won't obey their marriage vows, how can they be trusted to obey any vows or oaths they take upon entering their leadership role?

This was almost an exact quote of Harry Truman's so you're in good company in your opinion. 

I remember hearing something several years ago about how Truman was the only president (that we know of) to have never cheated on his wife. That, coupled with what I already knew about him, made me respect him more than I already did.

I believe that a president or royal's (or any person's) moral character helps to shape how they handle whatever job they do. It's not that it makes them do the job better necessarily, but it gives them better credibility in the eyes of the world. However, I'd rather have a president that does his job well but is known to be a philanderer than a president who is faithful to his wife, but has proven to have pretty bad judgement. Edward VII reminds me very much of Bill Clinton, in that both were charismatic and beloved by (most of) the people, and both weren't particularly monogomous. It's all about what kind of image you project and what the public knows about you. As far as I know, the public had no knowledge of Edward VII's infidelities until much later. Kennedy and FDR's infidelities weren't known by everyone until after their deaths and they both were and still are regarded as great men and presidents. Charles' divorce and public knowledge of his infidelity did much harm to the people's perception of him. Only now, after settling down into quiet married life with the love of his life has his image begun to improve.

[ilyala]

the public knew about edwards infidelities. long before he became king he was cited in a divorce process - a divorce that was based on infidelity. he was also caught gambling when - i believe - gambling was illegal. at that time the public really resented him for it and he didn't have a good image until he became king and he showed that he was actually good at it. and then people stopped caring what and who ( ) he was doing in his private life.

of course if i have two people who are equally good rulers and one of them is faithful while the other one isn't, i'll take the faithful one. but you'll never have such a situation because i don't think there's such thing as equal talent. considering that truman was the only president (out of 50?) who didn't cheat on his wife... and there were some great presidents in there: lincoln, roosevelt, jfk (while it lasted), bill clinton (to me he was a good one)... etc etc (i'm not very familiar with us history but i'm sure there were more). how can one discard them just based on that? most and most important is how they do their job.