Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Grey Matter, Feb 20, 2021.
Apologies for not reading the article ... Was this the Queen's decision or Harry's decision?
I'm shortening this story to almost a criminal degree, but ultimately the decision was Harry and Meghan's and the Queen is just following thru on their decision to split. There was something of a cultural firestorm when Harry and Meghan wed and while there may well be a racial element to it - Meghan being black and now - horrors! - a member of the Royals. I kinda think it was more a class element that was opposed to her - "How dare this American C-list Hollywood actress marry OUR prince!" Probably a mixture of both although the members of Brit-Cit that I know seem more like classists than racists to me. They haven't objected to knowing me at any rate. In any event the tabloids were virulently against the couple. Workshy Will and Kate Do-Little spent quite some time gaslighting them or at least engaging in some passive-aggresive "defenses" of them, and they just said screw it, we're leaving.
Just settle with the short version because if you actually read the whole story of the royals from beginning to end the only take-away you'll get is that the entire lot are nothing but a group of in-bred trash with more money and better clothes than us, and emotionally at the level of pubescent girls.
You mirror my thoughts exactly. Harry needs to show me he has his balls in his hands, and not in the hands of that cheap actress. At worst Edward's Yank had something going for her and the least of that was extreme (selfish that may well have been) loyalty. I have my serious doubts about this Yank of Harry's who is at extreme arm's length with her own Family. It is still in the back of my mind.......'Harry, I am going back to the USA with Archie. Your choice, me + your Son or your heritage and way of life.'
The Windsors are by definition among the most entitled humans on the planet. The fact that for some members of the family this comes with what many would consider to be exhausting responsibilities does not in anyway mitigate the fact that they are all quite perfectly the definition of entitled.
Serving in the military a few short years or even a decade does not usually result in a lifetime of luxury with one's only responsibility to make public appearances and volunteer one's time as a figurehead for services to the sick and the young and miscellaneous charities.
I find it interesting that the Sovereign has failed to make any statement regarding the "unfortunate" debacle Prince Andrew has created for the Royals. I lied to my mom way more convincingly than he lied to the BBC in his now infamous interview. What a tool. Was he preparing to represent the NSPCC when he showered his kind affections on sweet young Virginia? Not a peep from the Queen or any public comment from the Commonwealth's Head of State about her son, the Duke of York's unfortunate proclivity to "learn" things from his association with Jeffrey Epstein. Head of State of the Commonwealth: Sometimes We Do Bad Things? QEII on behalf of the Church of England: We do not answer to Rome, Our men Prefer Girls and We make no apology for this!?
The Duke of York:
I would also add that being spoiled is perhaps generally a certain consequence of being entitled. And regarding lazy, well, almost certainly not, but they are largely financially independent. What are their schedules this morning? William and Kate I assume are having breakfast at 8, prepared by staff that are either all or in part paid from the Duchy of Cornwall, tax free I believe to William and Kate, but not likely to their staff.
The wealth of the monarchy has been built over centuries and although most of it has been established as the Crown Estate, the currently accepted heirs to the monarchy have retained substantial private personal wealth, not to mention extraordinary public deference, from inherited holdings not part of the Crown Estate. This is wealth and position which they personally never acquired or achieved by benefit of any significant contribution to productive commercial success.
Duchy Estates and holdings established over centuries are held by the Sovereign in trust. What is Andrew's cut? A shame we all can't fly around in jets to shag young girls as part of our birthright.
The benefits of having a politically independent head of state are of substance why? I think the value proposition falls short. The Royals did nothing to save the UK from the foolishness of Brexit. What value is there in a head of state void of making any significant commentary on matters of public interest? The Monarchy is only a figurehead of state. Boris is currently the real Head of State. It's ridiculous really this notion of the Commonwealth with the Queen as its head of state. Sure she is. We listen to her all the time on matters associated with Jamaica, Canada and Australia. Always going on about India, isn't she? Pfffttt....
So, no statements whatsoever from the Commonwealth's Head of State about her son's proclivities for hanging out with billionaire class pimps but we do have a statement released about her grandson's censure for daring to leave the fold. I think I've missed the posts where anyone has addressed this particular aspect of my OP.
Ah, and then we have some folks responding here throwing shade at Meghan. Harry is lucky to have had her say yes. Holding a bachelor's degree from Northwestern she is exceedingly better educated than most of the Royals who have no equivalent of a college degree, Prince William's MA in Geography being among the exceptions. The shade of tossing her success as a C level or cheap actress is amusing since such success earned her enough money to put her just shy of being in the 1% of top incomes in the US. Harry has escaped the Royals thanks only to Meghan Markle. I think he has made an excellent choice.
Nice. What makes you think this isn't a bigger balled move than letting his Grandmother keep control of them? What makes you think Harry was held hostage by this type of alleged threat to make such a move? Maybe, just maybe, Harry doesn't really want any part of being a Royal given that together with Meghan they will very likely establish a sufficient income independent of the Crown and the Duchy. Not to mention that Vegas is a lot closer now.
Because he did. I may well be very wrong. Leopards/spots and all that. Harry included.
Meghan is a catalyst. She knows it, I say. Harry is being walked down her primrose path. Yes, all of that is subjective, likely (in some weird way ~ possessively) malicious without intent, yet I believe accurate.
My tea leaves told me, of course. Blame them, not me.
The tea leaves, amusing. Calling her a cheap actress, not so much.... Likely she made more money in her cheap six years on Suits than you or the rest of the planet will make in a lifetime.
Great post. Hard to disagree with anything in it apart from maybe the preference for a non political head of state.
The royal family are certainly privileged but being a royal is also a life sentence. Anyone who would envy their lives is not well informed.
I wouldn't swap my life of freedom and choice for their predetermined lives under total scrutiny.
So I agree that Harry has made the right choice and I'd have done exactly the same in his position.
Thanks, a bit surprised you agree with it given that you've offered a few posts in this thread that are substantially defensive of the Crown.
I wouldn't want any part of it either, but whether you or I would want any of it surely has nothing to do with the fact that there are many who would and are at least educationally better qualified to serve the Commonwealth in such capacity.
I can somewhat appreciate your affinity for having the Crown as a non-political figurehead of state. A perpetual fire-side chat, minus the warmth, so to speak. Cold, stiff upper lip and all that. Keep calm and carry on. It's really quite a lot of hassle though for something that amounts to almost nothing. Neither the Sovereign or its delegate attend summits, or conferences, doesn't have representation at Davos or the UN or any of the Gn stuff. What do they do? Participate in ceremonies related to their own figurehead positions, births, and coronations, and weddings and what, at most half a dozen times a year proceed over Parliamentary Ceremonies of State?
The cost of it is not really significant, aside from the plight of the vast majority of folks, in the Commonwealth, that could live almost a lifetime on a single month's stipend paid to the Royals, and certainly live a lifetime on a year's stipend to them. Surely there is a small clinic somewhere in the Commonwealth with medical doctors and nurses that could directly benefit more people than these stipends currently benefit.
Okaay then, Stu. Tell us what you REALLY think!! Thank you for the answer to my question and for the context. Harry's mum and wife have both been the targets of media fascination and worldwide obsession.
At least Diana was adored. Meghan's portrayals range from glamorous celebrity turned Duchess to controlling vixen responsible for Harry becoming a rogue royal. Both are refusing to appease the Queen by carrying out their duties according to the traditions of the monarchy, as expected.
However, Lady Diana exceeded expectations and she took her last breath as a result of a paparazzi induced death after enduring years of numerous royal rituals that must have also been suffocating. Perhaps Harry has dreamed about escaping from royal life for many years, and his marriage to Meghan has become the excuse, rather than the catalyst, that made it happen.
It's the curse of pragmatism. While I'm ideologically opposed to inherited power and privilege, in practice when considering the possible alternatives I'm drawn to the conclusion that sometimes you should be careful what you wish for.
If I were going to resent the wealth and privilege of some people on the planet and juxtapose it with someone else's extreme poverty I'd probably use someone like Joey Essex or Piers Morgan as an example instead. While at the same time uncomfortably questioning why a simple quirk of fate that led to me winning life's lottery and being born an Englishman was any different in the eye's of a Mogadishu street urchin.
It's just too easy to complain that someone, through no fault of their own, has more **** than someone else due to who their parents were.
If the royals were actively exploiting others in order to enrich themselves like a Texan electricity provider or Donald Trump I might feel differently but I consider what they do to be an overall net benefit to the country. It's actually quite difficult to come up with an example of a harm that they are responsible for.
Maybe Charles will prove more divisive with his environmentalism and desire to protect our architectural heritage and I'll have to reconsider my position but you'll still have to put forward a better alternative to convince me.
Since most people's objections seem to revolve around the cost then Charles's proposals to drastically scale back who receives taxpayers money should help.
Also, differentiating the cost of maintaining Crown properties from what the royals actually earn for themselves might help.
There doesn't seem to be as much fuss about the three billion quid being spent on restoring the Palace of Westminster for Parliament to hang around in ruining our lives.
So does he remain such if he doesn't do anything. Isn't he abdicating?
Actually, Diana wasn't universally adored until after her death. She was seen by many as a self promoting media whore. Only in hindsight was she seen as a saintly People's Princess. A look at her place in satirical works such as Spitting Image or Private Eye is a good reminder of how many perceived her at the time.
I think Craig Ferguson had him pegged
Trouble is, if you remove Harry and his children and some horrendous accident kills off Charles, William and his children then Prince Andrew is next in line. Best to keep Harry and his line as a buffer between randy Andy and the throne.
Good call, AU.
That was some of the Funniest Stuff of of All-Time.
Always peppered with the obligatory "Camilia looks like a Horse" reference.
From what I read, he is still a prince and 6th in line to the throne, but not much else.
Yes, as but one example of the downside, unwinding the Monarchy would almost certainly result in an overall loss of revenue to the UK as well as the loss of some forms of patronage it supports to various degrees in its Commonwealth nations. Although it might actually be quite simple to accomplish, eliminating the Monarchy, I agree that there should be a careful account of what that would entail, at least financially for the government. The burdens placed upon the Royals they are of course free to relieve themselves from through abdication I guess, I'm not sure of the details and don't feel like Googling it at the moment. It would certainly be interesting for them all to step away, eh? What a concept. Nope, no thanks. We'll take our private holdings and call it quits, thanks, and have a nice day.
However, absolutely, the Royals commitment to bear the burden of continuing the Monarchy is a net revenue gain for the UK. The Crown Estate and the two Duchies would not likely earn the interest and income they do were they to become merely historical, heritage, museum quality entities. Certain premiums of the real estate holdings may likely be due to the cachet they receive from being associated with Royalty. However, the Crown Estate receives significant credits from the designation that offshore resources belong to it, stuff that has little historical merit, in my opinion, to assign to the Crown Estate and therefore subject to 15% Royalty tax, now currently at 25% to pay to refurbish Buckingham Palace. Curious, doesn't this include the North Sea Oil and Gas properties as well? Or if they are greater than 12mi offshore then do they not still have to pay pipeline transit fees to the Crown?
Apologies, my boredom leads me to this, but at least I am quietly sitting in my chair, although I think the concept of being alone is somewhat subject to analysis given the communication tools we now have.
Browsing data about the UK Royals, ugh. What a frivolous distraction and use of my finite lifespan, and yet....
I do somewhat resent their inherited wealth and privilege, particularly I resent that they have a platform that potentially offers implicit authority to their opinions, which, as luck would have it, they are not fond of using. That's both a pro and con for the argument that they offer a "non-political" service as a platform neutral Head of State. I pretty firmly believe that I will win a debate between whether or not the Crown or the Prime Minister is the actual effective UK Head of State. I'm not sure I'm committed to such a discussion though, so that would perhaps preclude my winning one.
I think you have subverted my point about the finances though. They are paid to the Royals as a stipend from entities held as public trusts. I'm not sure though, the BBC receives government funding to some degree I suspect, and so too therefore does Piers Morgan? I suppose that if this is the case then the comparison may be apt to some small extent. Piers however wasn't born to the BBC. I sometimes have seen Commonwealth PF members post on here regarding US politics and use the pronoun "we" in the context of stating their opinion regarding what they pay for or support versus whatever they perceive to be unacceptable US leadership's positions. It doesn't happen often, but the few times I've noticed it, I've found it to represent a profound lack of self awareness. So, having said this, what are we paying for with the Royals? Eccentric hard working Anne with her vast fellowships and patronages that she can't possibly service properly? The globe trotting pedophilia of Andrew? Employment of butlers and maids? Really? That's a benefit of the Sovereign and Duchy Grants? That the Royals use it to pay for servantry?
Ah, and then you make an argument on their behalf that all of the great wide world is subject to the luck of their birth. Hmm, ah, bollocks, am I using that correctly? Greece, do they pay a stipend to their Royals? How about Germany? No? Please.....
And you're ok with restoring the palace but not the seat of government? How has UK's Parliament ruined your life? I think you may have let some of your fringe passions get the better of you in this post. No worries though, I do it myself here frequently....
If you've taken the time to read this rant, then I at least owe you this to carry on your afternoon....
For brevity I'll try to just respond to a rew misunderstandings.
As I understand it Crown properties do not belong to the Queen. They belong to the Crown which is in effect the state. The monarch couldn't just decide to retire and flog off Buckingham Palace to fund her retirement. So any money spent on its upkeep is to the benefit of the nation and those of us interested in preserving our heritage. Same goes for the money spent on the Houses of Parliament. I made the comparison not because I resent the tax money going into Parliament but to highlight that many people seem to object to the cost of maintaining Crown properties belonging to the State but are silent about much larger amounts going to Parliament's restoration. Likewise, any fees going to the Crown don't go to the Royal family. They go to the treasury and Parliament decides how they are spent.
Obviously I'm not going to argue over who actually leads the nation.
That was settled by Cromwell a long time ago. My point is that the mostly ceremonial duties of head of state are better carried out by a nonpolitical entity such as the Queen rather than a political figure who not only would be divisive due to party loyalties but also because the actual leaders have more pressing things to occupy their time with.
I personally have always felt that this was about money. The couple were confined to a small apartment which they didn't like so they got a larger house and then came the row about the money they were spending decorating and who was paying for what, on and on and on. Harry & the Mrs. couldn't live the lifestyle they wanted on a royal allowance and the royals didn't want him doing outside things to make money. I am not sure who controls the money the Queen Mother left Harry when she died. I recall reading somewhere that she left him substantially more knowing that he wasn't going to be afforded nearly the high quality life William was going to have.
The Queen alone is estimated to have substantial private wealth.
Harry is estimated to have about $25 Million in private wealth.
They could all easily afford to say f this, and, in my opinion, it's a bit of insanity that they don't.
...or you might say that it's to their credit that they choose duty over self interest.
There are plenty of mere sports stars and actors wealthier that the queen, who is not even in the top 300 wealthiest people in the UK.
Wealth is simply the wrong argument when it comes to whether the Queen should be head of state or not. How she performs her duties, how much she generates for the treasury or the economy and what the alternatives to constitutional monarchy are should be what lead the discussion.
You do realize that you just mention the private wealth of this individual being the wrong argument and then in the following sentence arguing for the wealth she generates for the public as being among the topics to lead the discussion?
Yes, because one doesn't effect me personally while the other does.
I know almost nothing about British royalty and for the most part have no interest in it but wasn't Princess Diana suppose to be low class. I thought her whole story was a lowly commoner marries a prince?
Separate names with a comma.