19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 20, 2020 0:03:05 GMT
I think the Royal family is an odd one these days. Hands up the people who think that the royals are inherently better than us and ACTUALLY should be ruling over us? Literally in charge, what they say goes no questions asked? Ok, so no-one then. I’m struggling to think of an example of something, anything that the royal family are ruling over us on. Or are in charge of. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 1:25:03 GMT
I think the Royal family is an odd one these days. Hands up the people who think that the royals are inherently better than us and ACTUALLY should be ruling over us? Literally in charge, what they say goes no questions asked? Ok, so no-one then. So why do we have a royal family? Tradition? To greet other head’s of state/royals? To “bring in money to the country”? To have someone we can wheel out when a disaster happens so we have someone to “represent” something? I think Charles III the play hit the nail on the head really....there is a huge dichotomy at the heart of the whole thing...they have huge power but only if the agree not to use it...and if they did use it we wouldn’t like it. So what are they? PR? If that’s the case we keep looking as a nation as to whether they “give” us enough ....money wise and entertainment wise. Royal weddings, baby pictures, smiles, access...we are doing the mental sums all the time as to worth. I think Harry and Meghan are doing the only sensible thing they could do....get as far away from a toxic situation where they can’t win (soap operas always have sad bits or they are boring!) ....Princess Anne had the right idea....perhaps they could all have a pact to make all the children commoners and stop being royal! British monarchs haven’t ruled for a few hundred years now. People forget we tried getting rid of them once - chopped a head off for good measure too - and it didn’t work. As a nation we are better as a whole for having it, whether you’re a fan or not. You only have to look at the way the public looks to The Queen in times of trouble, or the way we chose to celebrate her milestones - even over the last few weeks, look at the way people (not just the media) have discussed how disrespectful this whole Harry thing has been to her. We could function quite happily without her but I don’t think it would be as fun. British politics has no real pomp or ceremony about it (outside of The Queen opening parliament). If you become Prime Minister it isn’t a celebration like it is around the world: it’s very much a case of getting the keys to Downing Street and having to explain 24 hours later why the NHS hasn’t been fixed since you won the election. We tend not to respect our Prime Ministers and we don’t treat them like gods, say like in the USA. The best any of them can expect is for the public to say ‘well, you hasn’t messed up yet... but we’re watching’. I don’t think people tend to dig into why they like the monarchy or why it works for us as a country. We are a country built on tradition and history, and throughout all that the monarchy has been there. Anyone old enough (or interested enough) knows the role the old king and Queen played in WW2 (Hitler even calling Queen Elizabeth the most dangerous woman in Europe) and as much as I hate to say this so bluntly, Diana dying re-invigorated interest and loyalty in the whole institution... allowing it to modernise and find a way to connect with the public in a way it hadn’t been. Because let’s face it, who on earth would have thought Camilla could ever turn things around and become rather popular? There is something to be said I suppose for consistence and familiarity. Most of us have never known anyone on the throne except The Queen. We all learn about kings and queens at school and over the last few years, the Queen has celebrated a number of milestones that put her into the history books too - in essence, we’re witnessing living history and things that will probably be taught and known 100, 500, possibly even 1000 years from now. Just look at the sheer volume of people who decorate The Mall on such occasions. There is a bond between Queen and country. Constitutionally The Queen has no real political power (as per King Charles III) but that doesn’t mean she has no power. We are talking about a head of state that commands the uttermost respect from all others around the world. Just look at the fuss cause when Michelle Obama happened to dare touch her: no one questioned the actual rule, just the fact Michelle had broken it. Then there’s the fact The Queen asked the commonwealth to appoint Charles as her successor as its head (which isn’t an hereditary position) which they did in unison. Not bad for a powerless woman in her 90s that has never voted in a single General Election (which legally, yes, she is allowed to do). |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Jan 20, 2020 5:34:37 GMT
We have this national grievance culture in fact, one that has been stoked by media shovelling this stuff into people’s brains to deflect from reality and they’ve seemingly managed to push people’s ills into a silent corner. Regarding the Harry-and-Meghan story, too, it’s useful to remind ourselves that some of the most vehemently nasty stuff about them in the media comes from people who are (deservedly) being sued by them. The media have been out for their blood for a while now. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 20, 2020 8:53:27 GMT
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jan 20, 2020 13:05:39 GMT
I think the Royal family is an odd one these days. Hands up the people who think that the royals are inherently better than us and ACTUALLY should be ruling over us? Literally in charge, what they say goes no questions asked? Ok, so no-one then. If it would stop the endless political bickering then I wouldn't mind an absolute monarchy! |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 20, 2020 16:47:27 GMT
I think the Royal family is an odd one these days. Hands up the people who think that the royals are inherently better than us and ACTUALLY should be ruling over us? Literally in charge, what they say goes no questions asked? Ok, so no-one then. If it would stop the endless political bickering then I wouldn't mind an absolute monarchy! It's very easy not getting caught up in political bickering, especially once you reach a certain age. I may indulge in it occasionally on the internet, but in real life I always pull out the old 'back in my day it was rude to discuss religion or politics in the company of others' which usually ends the conversation in its tracks lol |
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jan 20, 2020 17:30:23 GMT
If it would stop the endless political bickering then I wouldn't mind an absolute monarchy! It's very easy not getting caught up in political bickering, especially once you reach a certain age. I may indulge in it occasionally on the internet, but in real life I always pull out the old 'back in my day it was rude to discuss religion or politics in the company of others' which usually ends the conversation in its tracks lol I don't get involved in political bickering myself but it's difficult to avoid overhearing/overseeing others doing it. Ever since the Brexit vote Twitter has been awful. I have so many words muted but some stuff still gets through. I also cannot entirely avoid political news & arguing on the TV & radio as my mother watches/listens to it a lot & I can't always leave the room instantly! |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 20, 2020 17:58:32 GMT
I'd love to see the data on tv license uptake at the beginning and end of Tony Hall's leadership of the BBC. If he hasn't killed the golden goose entirely he's overseen the destruction of any sense of impartiality, and therefore trustworthiness.
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 20, 2020 18:01:33 GMT
I’ll spare you all my 40,000 word dissertation on how the the usurpation of Richard II by Bolingbroke undermined the concept of the divine right of kings and set in motion 620 years of slow rot for the English monarchy. (And frankly Henry VII taking the throne on the weakest of all claims should have destroyed the idea of dynastic rule completely.) PM me a copy, very interested. Ta in advance  |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 20, 2020 19:11:55 GMT
I’ll spare you all my 40,000 word dissertation on how the the usurpation of Richard II by Bolingbroke undermined the concept of the divine right of kings and set in motion 620 years of slow rot for the English monarchy. (And frankly Henry VII taking the throne on the weakest of all claims should have destroyed the idea of dynastic rule completely.) PM me a copy, very interested. Ta in advance Gosh what a great thesis. Get it published. Then I’ll buy it and read it. |
|
|
|
Post by sparky5000 on Jan 21, 2020 16:35:54 GMT
It's very easy not getting caught up in political bickering, especially once you reach a certain age. I may indulge in it occasionally on the internet, but in real life I always pull out the old 'back in my day it was rude to discuss religion or politics in the company of others' which usually ends the conversation in its tracks lol I don't get involved in political bickering myself but it's difficult to avoid overhearing/overseeing others doing it. Ever since the Brexit vote Twitter has been awful. I have so many words muted but some stuff still gets through. I also cannot entirely avoid political news & arguing on the TV & radio as my mother watches/listens to it a lot & I can't always leave the room instantly! Twitter has become unbearable since Brexit. This whole “you’re either with us or you need to be cancelled” attitude is bizarre, and not reflective of real life at all, when people and families can have opposing views of but still get on perfectly well with each other! |
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jan 21, 2020 17:48:47 GMT
sparky5000 Exactly. The vitriol is ridiculous. Just because people have different political opinions - or indeed different opinions on almost anything else - doesn't mean they're evil monsters who have to be relentlessly slagged off using deeply unpleasant language.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 21, 2020 21:07:40 GMT
Twitter should be closed x
|
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Feb 26, 2021 11:22:30 GMT
Just watched Harry with James Cordon. Quite entertaining!
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Feb 26, 2021 11:56:16 GMT
Just watched Harry with James Cordon. Quite entertaining! Got a great personality, Harry not James Corden, obviously |
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Feb 26, 2021 12:01:44 GMT
The bit where the trolley fell was very funny!
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 26, 2021 14:17:52 GMT
I enjoyed that!
And boo to all the people saying ‘I thought they wanted privacy?!’ - privacy is about getting to choose what you reveal about yourself, not about disappearing and never showing your face in public again.
Of course the newspapers will be throwing another hissy fit about this.
I was so pleased when Meghan won her case - which could not have been more open and shut and it boggles my mind that anyone bought the press line that it was otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Feb 26, 2021 19:54:49 GMT
I rather like Harry and Meghan. Yes he was born into royalty, but he should also be free to choose his own path in life. And no that doesn't mean he has to go into some sort of exile or live as a total recluse. He can do things on his own terms now and not be restricted by an institution that didn't suit him.
There are still many active members of the royal family here to keep traditions going.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 26, 2021 20:38:23 GMT
Yes, and plenty of non-‘working royals’ earning a living in the commercial and business worlds without anyone batting an eyelid (or suggesting they shouldn’t live in grace-and-favour properties or be patrons or give up their titles). Beatrice works for a software company, Eugenie for an art gallery, Peter Phillips for a sports management company and was recently seen in a Chinese milk advert.
Quite frankly the Royals are far too keen on having large families for them all to be part of the dog-and-pony show forever.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 27, 2021 5:19:21 GMT
At least the Queen has offered a olive branch for them both to heal the divide and suggest for them both going on a nice romantic weekend break to Paris.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 27, 2021 7:45:41 GMT
That video of him speaking to the Disney CEO on the red carpet, where he literally tells the guy Meghan is available for work, is just one huge embarrassment. You really think that was a serious attempt to get Meghan work? Not, you know, a joking reference to something that was already on the cards (along the lines of ‘available for Bah Mitzvah’s’) that went over said CEO’s head? Snatches of other people’s out of context overheard conversations (which is what that was) are not typically the best way to get a proper understanding of what’s really happening. Of course if you want to put the worst possible spin on everything (‘he’s pimping out his wife!’) then they’re great. As for there not being enough ‘working Royals’ - you do know that the Queen has 4 children and 8 grandchildren, right? They consciously slimmed down the pack that did Royal duties because having too many of them was diluting the brand and making it easy for the press to find ammo on them and bitch about how many of them were scrounging. It used to be the case that all of them expected to get money from the Civil List (as it was back then) and did a token amount of engagements to justify the money. They could easily add Sophie and Edward Wessex to the rotation instead of the Sussexes if it’s really about the amount of work. Beatrice and Eugenie could also do more. Of course it’s not about that at all - it’s about who the press are interested in. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 27, 2021 11:29:20 GMT
I’ve seen it and my interpretation of those exact words are that he was referring to the Disney Elephant documentary Meghan did the voice over for which was not yet announced, in a jokey way. Which is why he expected the Disney CEO to get the joke and why no-one else at the time knew what he was talking about. I don’t know why people are so determined to make him out to be awful over something so trivial.
As for the lack of working Royals in 30 years’ time... William and Kate have 3 children already. Future Prince of Wales and Duke of wherever, plus a Princess, and they are trying for another child apparently.
Honestly this is just grasping at straws. Most other countries don’t even have a Royal family and they do just fine without them!
I mean, this is one of the most dynastically secure Royal Families in history - the succession is set for the next 3 generations! The idea that they are lacking in warm bodies to do the (purely constitutionally ceremonial!!) work of monarchy is hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 27, 2021 11:49:06 GMT
It is so hard not to draw some parallels with Edward and Mrs Simpson. Not the whole divorce issue. But marrying an American and leaving the family does feel rather familiar.
I am reminded of the episode of The Crown showing the Windsors promoting soap and other products. Yes, that is a drama but it was based on what they actually did. And I know that various of the minor royals have done similar things but they weren't well received.
Everyone is allowed to live the life they want to leave. And bring in the royal spotlight isn't easy at all.
There is a difference to seeking employment and getting on with life as a semi-private citizen and setting out on a career as an international media figure. It is hard to feel that was the right move for someone who walked away to protect their privacy.
It is all very sad but Harry and Meghan have handled this in the worst possible way.
I must admit that I don't see their marriage is one that will last forever. Maybe if it does break down, it will be easier for Harry to return to the firm. But for now, there is no way back.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 27, 2021 12:16:29 GMT
You see, that it the end goal for a lot of people.
They want them to get divorced.
That is why they are purposely making their married life difficult.
There’s no constitutional reason why they can’t have the same half-in half-out arrangement as Beatrice and Eugenie other than the fact that people don’t approve of Meghan being married to Harry.
But then, at one point it was considered impossible for Camilla and Charles to marry, for Camilla to be Princess of Wales, for the Prince of Wales to have a morganatic marriage where his wife isn’t Princess of Wales, for Camilla to be accepted as a working Royal by the British public. And well, that has worked out well enough in the long run. After a while everyone just got tired of the fuss and decided to let them get on with it.
Oh and to be clear, ‘international Media figures’ are still entitled to privacy. And they never said they were retreating from the public eye, only from public funding.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 27, 2021 12:34:12 GMT
I’m rolling my eyes here - I already told you I’ve seen it and have a different interpretation. I think the attempt at a joke fell flat and turned into one of those slightly socially awkward conversations where you sorta carry on like you meant it afterwards because the other person missed the cue.
I also think it’s ridiculous that we’re even talking about it.
It’s also ridiculous to be talking about the history of royal siblings as ‘support to monarchs’ if you know anything about history. Honestly, do people not remember Margaret?!
As Royal ‘scandals’ go, Harry and Meghan are honestly tame. All they’ve done is decide to move to America and make some podcast and documentaries on ‘worthy’ subjects! They’ll probably be dull and preachy - but who cares, Netflix have paid them already more than enough to maintain their lifestyle. There will be the odd fluffy interview appearance or skit like this one with James Corden. If you don’t like it, ignore it, and they’ll gradually fade from view.
|
|
