Panopticon for royals

[Prentiz]

No British or English monarch has claimed the divine right of kings since the Glorious Revolution of 1689. The British monarchy since that point has been a parliamentary monarchy, bound by the Bill of Rights, based on the consent of the governed in parliament and specifically in accordance with the laws made there. The Queen alone is not sovereign Queen-in-Parliament is. This is the key reason for the enduring success of the monarchy in Britain - that and the strong support from most people in the UK for the institution.

[MrMark]

There are only a few ways this can go and it isn’t just the royal family that has to deal with this. You can either become a hermit and avoid most contact with anyone or you can live a stress-filled life trying to constantly monitor yourself for every infraction or possible embarrassment or you can just say to hell with it and not care what others think.

[ocschwar]

@L_Mariachi

Or by that time the public will have become so oversaturated with daily celebrity gaffes that that currency will be devalued, and the only scandals to produce any appreciable reaction in the audience will be the most egregious or the most titillating. Nip slip?

And that will destroy the ability of royals to put anyone in awe, and kill the monarchy from another angle.

[Gyrofrog]

http://www.theonion.com/video/report-every-potential-2040-president-already-unel,27963/

[PaulXJ]

It’s the Chicago Sun-Times, one two major daily papers still left in Chicago. At the end of May, the entire full-time photography staff was laid off. It was widely reported at the time. They now use stock photography and bad iPhone images. Of course, there’s a tumblr to document it: http://suntimesdarktimes.tumblr.com/

[doctorow]

And the Governors General have dissolved elected parliaments (Australia) and prorogued others for partisan advantage (Canada), acting in the name of the crown.

[Jardine]

@doctorow

And the Governors General have dissolved elected parliaments (Australia) and prorogued others for partisan advantage (Canada), acting in the name of the crown.

That Australian situation sounds like it got really messy. The Canadian one was just Prime Minister Harper dictating to the Governor General. So that one was business as usual.

[Brainspore]

[quote=“ocschwar, post:2, topic:5188”]
This is what will kill the monarchy. Everyone before the reigning queen lived in a world where royals enjoyed more privacy than commoners, not less.
[/quote]Depends on your point of view. For example, the sex lives of commoners haven’t traditionally been the subject of intense public scrutiny and/or national importance. A person who depends on a large staff for every need and whose personal choices have Empire-wide implications can never be expected to have any real privacy.