Too busy to write a 5k essay it deserves but neither the audience nor Wilhelm saw the actual monarchy as an institution worth fighting for or at least worth considering it.
The monarchy was completely absent from the show. You could replace it with a billion-dollar publicly traded company and it wouldn't change the plot. Concerns about public image? Check. Out of control sense of privilege? Check. Spoiled children of rich parents? Check.
No one from the unrealistically small royal family was given a chance to demonstrate or explore the gravity and the positive influence a thousand-year-old institution can have. Does the queen have causes she particularly cares about? Does she invest her time into fundraising for them? Does she think certain problems are overlooked by the society and does she use her celebrity status to draw attention to them? We have no idea, we only have been shown her caring about the public image of the institution she represents.
Same with Wille: in the show he was never given a chance to explore how his status could be used for good. Were there young people for whom his coming out meant a lot? Definitely, but we never heard about them. Would it be equally important for others if the crown prince started openly talking about his struggles with anxiety? For sure. This list is potentially endless but the creators were never interested in showing anything positive about the monarchy.
Honestly this post is so funny. And demonstrates perfectly why this is all bullshit. Monarchy has no benefits. Because the "charity" causes and celebrity platforming do not need monarchy to exist. It's a system based on the concept that some people are inherently more worthy than other people just by circumstance of birth. Monarchy doesn't perform any useful service to the people, it's an institution that exist solely to leech of off people and it concerns itself solely with looking good. And it silences anyone who dares criticise it. Just like you disabled all ways you possibly could to engage with criticism of this post.
Young Royals or Lisa does not owe you to pretend monarchy makes sense so your own racist, classist and homophobic fairytale would be kept alive. As a queer person, I know that monarchy is incompatible with queerness because it's existence depends on heteronormative biological determinism. There is no way for Wille to have a legitimate heir if he marries a man. Also most European monarchies even today are inescapably intertwined with Christianity which is also problematic when it comes to queerness.
Monarchy is a horrible, racist, outdated ruling system and yes, it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy because circumstance of birth dictate who holds positions within the system and not the actual people.
Leaving it here as a reminder of why YR fandom is what it is.
About the point I think this person is trying to make: anyone who studied history, knows that old institutions weren't created perfect. Let's think of any parliament just a hundred years ago — chances are, it was comprised exclusively of upper class men and those men were adopting unfair laws. And yet, no one is advocatig for abolishing parliaments.
Institutions are nescessary. Abolishing them is rarely a good solution. But they must evolve and reform to stay functioning. Wilhelm is exactly the person who can bring changes to the monarchy.
As a historian, who has a literal degree in this (primarily British monarchy with some French so a lot of my examples will come from them), I am begging you if you’re going to be anti-monarchy, at least know the facts so you’re no sprouting the same tired rhetoric over and over.
Or in other words, OP is right (about the fandom and the monarchy)
Rants like the reblog from hotaurea make me so mad because the world and institutions are not black and white. The world, people, and the things we create like institutions have both good and bad and most everybody exists in gray. That’s just a fact.
I agree with the OP. No institution is perfect and evolve. Wilhelm could have been the lynchpin to help his institution evolve. Because, believe it or not, the monarchy does do some good. First, hotaurea is right in a way., Anybody can advocate for issues and charities but the monarchy has something you and I don’t. A platform. Their tags about correctly exposing that particular part as ‘bullshit’ is quite literally wrong. Every royal has a cause. Whatever you think of King Charles of England, he has for years been a champion of the environment, highlighting farmers and natural causes. Do you honestly think that the reporters and press would give a shit if he didn’t show up. Same with Queen Camilla of England. She champions and works quite a lot with domestic abuse charities. Prince William, Princess Catherine, and Prince Harry all constantly give attention to mental health issues. And Prince Harry has his veterans work. Now, we all can go and help each of these very important issues but our impact is going to be nil to theirs. Why? The same reason everyone demands celebrities speak up about issues. Platform. People listen. Now we can have a debate on ‘worthiness’ certainly. That’s a fair debate. But the truth of the matter is as the royal family, they have the reach and the interest from the press to bring more attention to the issue. Please no not negate that impact.
As for the ‘homophobic’ accusation, tell me you’ve never done actual research on the monarchy, any monarchy. I can name FIVE LGBTQIA+ monarchs or members of their family right off the top of my head:
Queen Anne of Great Britain (1700s)
Philippe I, Duke of Orleans, brother of King Louis XIV (a known cross dresser as well, actually openly wore women’s clothing at Versailles)
Edward II of England
Ludwig II of Bavaria
And my personal fav:
James VI of Scotland and I of England.
James is a particular favorite because the man was at least bi-sexual and literally commissioned the fucking King James Bible. You know, the one that all the homophobes use as “proof” of homosexuality being a sin. Pull that out at your next party/family gathering. I love seeing people’s expressions when they learn that.
Anyway, if you think monarchies are homophobic, you have no idea of the history. Y’all, historically, royals are fucking wild. Many straight monarchs actually had lovers both male and female. Some did marry and have children while others never did. But here’s my point, they NEVER hid them. These affairs or favorites were paraded with pride throughout courts. Lovers were given prominent roles in households, on councils, were advisors. It is a very modern assumption or concept really that monarchies must be straight and private. Did some hide them, yes. But go back through history and you’ll find countless stories of favorites being paraded around in from of wives, husbands, and courts. And by repeating that concept, you’re propogating conservative rhetoric is trying to hide LGBTQIA+ history. It’s that simple. And let’s not even talk about sex parties and the actual proclavities of some of these royals. Seriously, look them up. You’ll find out the true meaning of truth is stranger than fiction.
Now we can have debates over finances (reminder royals are not actual leeching off of citizens. They do have their own inheritance wealth, as well as I believe real estate is a big one. Again, the origin of the that is certainly cause for criticism but they’re not getting paid by your taxes) and actual worthiness as hotaurea put it but can we please have a non-extremist discussion on monarchy. It’s not either/or. There are good sides and bad sides to it, even in modern times. Actually, I would say modern monarchies are actually more relevant than their colonizer and blood thirsty ancestors. Modern monarch/royals devote their lives to charities and causes. They have no say in most governments and are definitely not sending troops out to war. But I digress.
Anyway, this is getting too long. I just wanted to point out the flaws in hotaurea’s little rant and add that OP was right. Wille could have been the son of a CEO of a big corporation and the story wouldn’t have changed one bit. It made his decision less impactful because we are never shown the actual struggle Wille could have had. Because you will never convince me, a good PR person would not have seen the potential in Wille after his speech and would not have let him champion a LGBTQIA+ cause. Imagine if Fatima would have been like okay, but Wille chose to go the safe route? That makes Simon’s reaction and his own work more impactful in the series. He even tried to tell Wille but it was WILLE who did not want to listen. In the end, maybe if they had shown the good side of the monarchy, it would have made Wille’s decision even more impactful instead of it looking selfish and impulsive. Or he could have stayed and shown what having a platform for good actually is but OP is right. And believe it or not, there is such a thing as IVF where Wille could have had a biological child. Shocking I know. Or a surrogate. Stop ignoring these possibilities.
Lisa was too stuck on the same rhetoric above instead of creating an institution that would have been nuanced and more realistic instead of a one-dimensional villain twirling their mustache.
