Harry and Meghan not returning as working members of Royal Family

He does seem to be the best candidate; far superior to his father. However I'm unclear whether any monarchy can actually be a woke monarchy. It seems to me that ends with William turning over Buckingham Palace to the "natives" or some such.

 

Heh, somebody's buttons got pushed!

"Trump Trump TRUMP! Yada yada yada!"

LOL!

Look no offense to the queen. I don't think anyone's really said a bad word against her. Merely that the entire institution seems on a collusion course with bitter reality. Other European nations have managed to tone down their royals.

 

I would describe that as a hobby.

 

Would you mind if I give her your contact info so you can listen to her talk about them for hours on end?

 

Well the trouble is, when I look around the world and see the alternatives to having a non-political head of state loved by all, a constitutional monarchy gets more and more attractive.
An elected or politically appointed head of state inevitably ends up hated by at least half the population for sticking their noses into politics.
So, although the idea of someone being placed above me due to nothing more than being born into privilege is abhorrent, in practice it actually works quite well.
Like you say, it is very difficult to find anything unpleasant to say about Her Majesty and she has devoted herself to the nation for her whole life. She came to the throne aged 26 and is still working at the age of 95.
So when some uninformed edge lord makes some lazy ignorant comment about Britain not being able to afford the Monarchy I feel it necessary to point out that they don't know what they are talking about.

 

Well I didn't make any comments about the affordability of the monarchy, nor do I particularly care. I don't think my critique is a fiscal one. Your argument for a constitutional monarchy, "having a non-political head of state loved by all," isn't a bad one and is one that is probably the most commonly made for the pro-monarchy side. Contrast that with one (of many) more classical critiques of democracy, that eventually every aspect of civil life becomes politicized, and you can see that the US is well mired in that, with the other Western democracies close behind.

But that's also exactly why the monarchy isn't likely to survive the Queen. She came to power in the fifties when the cultural and social landscape was closer to the 1890's than the 2020's. Royalty now seems to regard themselves as celebrities in the American sense, with a lot less of the obligation and service that was typically expected of royalty in particular and the upper classes in general in an earlier age. Meghan is merely the canary in the coalmine. She was a C level American celebrity who seems to have saw the royal family as just another type of celebrity, like the Kardashian family, and wanted to expand her brand with it. Whatever Harry's original thoughts on his obligations as a royal, they quickly became overwritten by Meghan's ambitions to the point where it seems his views and hers match.

Of course, they quit when Meghan realized her role as a Duchess was going to be more about opening hospitals and visiting schools and sick kids and less going to awards shows. This was obvious from the beginning when Meghan wouldn't give up her American citizenship for the role; she never took it that seriously. It was just an acting gig.

They are not an aberration, they're a vanguard. That's why I don't think the monarchy, as currently configured, can survive the Queen. Or at least that's one "Edge Lord's" opinion.

 

Good post.

Besides, the whole "do away with the British Monarchy" thing has been floating around for decades.

In fact, as far back as 1969 (over a Half-Century ago), Time Magazine ran a cover story (with artwork by acclaimed Pop Artist Peter Max) Titled:

Is Prince Charles Necesary?

 

Well clearly, my comment about edge lords saying nonsense about not being able to afford the Royal Family was aimed at the person I quoted saying it. Get over yourself.
Pretty much everything else you have said sounds like it comes from some trashy gossip mag's as they are clearly not things that you or anyone else who doesn't actually know the Royals would know.
I prefer to judge people on the words and actions of the people themselves rather than what other people have said and the motivations others accuse them of.
Charles, for example, has stated that he wishes to modernise the monarchy and reduce it to the direct bloodline. He intends to cut out the ''hangers on'' such as his brothers and sister and their parasitic spawn (my words not his). If he does as he says I see no reason the monarchy can't survive long into the future.
It will be a huge moment of massive importance to the UK when the Queen dies. There are not many British people left who remember her father being on the throne and most of those who do were only children at the time. A shake up and major changes are inevitable but to blithely claim that the monarchy won't survive her death is as ill-informed as the poster who thinks the British can't afford a monarchy.
Over a thousand years of history, minus the 11 years of terror under Cromwell's Commonwealth, ought to be proof enough of the monarchy's staying power.

 

The British Royals' tribulations: First World Problem.
I couldn't care less for those people, the whole lot of them.
I pay as much attention to those people as to the Kardashians. That is, none.
With so much going on and a freaking pandemic killing people and causing economic turmoil, even mentioning those people is just wrong.

 

Yup. Even the Republican leaning Australians backed down from removing the Queen as head of state when offered a referendum on the matter after they were forced to consider the alternatives.
It's a similar conundrum whenever abolishing the House of Lords comes up for discussion. At the end of the day a mostly ceremonial bunch of peers and Bishops with minimal powers is far better than another partisan House full of career politicians intent on blocking any legislation offered by the career politicians in the Commons when it comes from the opposition. The Lords are actually a more diverse, less partisan lot more inclined to discuss the actual merits of a bill rather than simply toe the party line.

Reform is often a better policy than ''burn it all down'' and it's certainly a more mature approach.

 

It's on it's way to being a 'woke' monarchy:

 

Exactly, they are not much more than a soap opera with some ceremonial duties thrown in. That's not to discount them as irrelevant though. They are important to most British people as a symbol of stability and tradition in a bewildering world of constant flux and upheaval. The real difference between them and the Kardashians is that the monarchy actually contribute something worthwhile to society.

 

In a sense you could say the opposite about the Kardashians: they are entrepreneurs, who own businesses, work for the success of their enterprises, and they employ people. They are not moochers or parasites. Not that I pay any attention to them, and I find them to be frivolous. But at least they work and earn their own keep. The British Royals, unlike the Kardashians, are sustained and fed by the taxpayers. You guys (or some of you) believe that they are important to you due to tradition, symbolism, stability, etc. Sure, whatever. I think it's like having a pet. If you care for having one, you'll have to pay for the pet's vet care, will have to buy pet food and vaccines and medications, etc. Seems like the Royals are the British People's pets. No offense intended, but you can tell that I'm not at all a monarchist. I see royals as parasites.

 

The Royals are also entrepreneurs who employ large numbers of people on their estates and in their businesses. They pay millions of pounds each year in taxes.
No offence taken, you just don't know what you are talking about and your lack of knowledge is not something I'm going to be offended by.
You are just wrong when you call them parasites and say they contribute nothing.
As I pointed out earlier, most of the money they receive from the state goes on maintaining Crown properties and the expenses incurred from their public duties, state banquets for visiting dignitaries etc.

 

OK, fair enough. Given that I pay zero attention to them, it's not surprising that I do not know much about them and their finances, so I stand corrected.

 

Well we can't put it to the test until the Queen is off the table, so may that be a long time coming.

 

Let's hope so.
God save the Queen.

 

It's a common misconception.
Now if you were to argue against the undemocratic and elitist nature of the monarchy I'd have trouble countering you but to argue that they do nothing and are a waste of money is simply wrong.

 

Well I gotta give you this, you managed to defend Andrew - something I never thought I'd see anywhere.

DID nothing is not accurate but the problem here is that they DO nothing, or at least The Next Generation is. Prince Charles, Princess Anne, and to a lesser extent due to her age QE are acting as workhorses and they won't be around for much longer. Do you think Will and Kate are anywhere near that? A few years back when Phillip was still active he had made more appearances than the both of them AND (IIRC) Harry. I'm fuzzy on the math if Harry is added into the mix but someone in his 90's definitely outworking two (possibly three) people in their early thirties, maybe late twenties? Give me a break. And he was over ninety freaking years old at the time. I'm not too upset about Harry's loss as the Crown hardly needed a Nazi cosplayer, but If Kate did any less work she'd be going backwards in time.

The monarchy ain't surviving the spoiled antics of these guys.

 

When William's time comes I'm sure he will do his duty.
Until recently he worked as an air ambulance pilot which he only gave up as a result of his royal duties increasing. Before that he served as an officer in the Blues and Royals, part of the Household Cavalry and later as an RAF pilot.
The reason the Duke of Edinburgh made more public appearances was because he didn't have a full time job like the young princes.
William and Kate make hundreds of public appearances.
When Charles becomes king then William will take over the duties of the Prince of Wales.
The idea that they are lazy, entitled, spoiled brats is laughable. I wouldn't want their workload.

 

....

 

.../---/...

 

I think everyone is overheating just a bit:

 

The attacked link says the Royal Family is tax exempt and indicates many sources of revenue. You almost make her sound like some working class sod, eh what?

The symbolism of a royal family is certainly nothing a free people should desire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family
The Crown has a legal tax-exempt status because certain Acts of Parliament do not apply to it.

 

The Queen and Prince Charles have been paying tax voluntarily since 1992.