Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Purple Mountain

retro:electro wrote: »

Exactly. A tiara like that represents a fortune in diamonds. Looking after it would be a big responsibility and it needs its own security. You wouldn't want to release it into an uncontrolled situation where anyone could get at it. Kate tried on a plastic tiara for her hair trial

It's more than the astronomical value too, it's about respect.
Like it or loathe it, you need an appointment to go to Buckingham Palace, if you meet the Queen, you're granted an "audience".
Some nobody hairdresser rocking up unannounced looking to paw heirlooms that are in the Royal family for maybe 200 years is just disrespectful.
If that story is true, they were absolutely right to deny Meghan and entourage access to the tiara.

Leg End Reject

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently its worth 2 million pounds. And people seem to think Meghan and whoever else should be able to just waltz in to Buckingham palace willy nilly and take it? Talk about delusional.

I believe they are also part of the crown estate, as in the queen doesn't personally own them. So her children can't divvy them up and pawn them after her death. Charles will get to decide who wears what in time, but won't own them.

FileNotFound

Purple Mountain wrote: »

It's more than the astronomical value too, it's about respect.
Like it or loathe it, you need an appointment to go to Buckingham Palace, if you meet the Queen, you're granted an "audience".
Some nobody hairdresser rocking up unannounced looking to paw heirlooms that are in the Royal family for maybe 200 years is just disrespectful.
If that story is true, they were absolutely right to deny Meghan and entourage access to the tiara.

It was quite literally borrowing the crown jewels for a hair dressing rehearsal.

walshb

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently its worth 2 million pounds. And people seem to think Meghan and whoever else should be able to just waltz in to Buckingham palace willy nilly and take it? Talk about delusional.

They’re worth nothing. They’re above money.

They have no monetary value. They are pure symbolism..

And they are nobody’s and everybody’s...

Meghan wouldn’t understand this; wouldn’t grasp the symbolism and meaning and importance of these type things.

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

All this just cements the point. The woman was completely unsuited for royalty and all that it entails..

she was perfectly suited to royalty, but to a modernised version and a less tabloid intrusive version.

meghan was exactly what the royal family needed, a moderniser and renewer and forward and future thinker with new ideas for a new generation.

Leg End Reject

end of the road wrote: »

she was perfectly suited to royalty, but to a modernised version and a less tabloid intrusive version.

meghan was exactly what the royal family needed, a moderniser and renewer and forward and future thinker with new ideas for a new generation.

Only the monarch can modernise and make changes, so Meghan would never have been in a position to change anything. All she was ever going be was the wife of the Queen's grandson, and in time, the wife of the son/brother of 2 future kings.

The fact that she seemed to think she could and would change things is testament to her arrogance.

Sardonicat

end of the road wrote: »

she was perfectly suited to royalty, but to a modernised version and a less tabloid intrusive version.

meghan was exactly what the royal family needed, a moderniser and renewer and forward and future thinker with new ideas for a new generation.

What is a 'modernised' royalty? The term is an oxymoron, if royalty modernised it would cease to exist because to truly modernise it would need to abolish itself. There should be no place for such automatic privilege in a modern democracy.

JoChervil

FileNotFound wrote: »

It was quite literally borrowing the crown jewels for a hair dressing rehearsal.

But allegedly Meghan is confused and take rehearsals for real things

Leg End Reject

JoChervil wrote: »

But allegedly Meghan is confused and take rehearsals for real things

Larbre34

Sardonicat wrote: »

What is a 'modernised' royalty? The term is an oxymoron, if royalty modernised it would cease to exist because to truly modernise it would need to abolish itself. There should be no place for such automatic privilege in a modern democracy.

Is not public support for a Monarchy a democratic choice in itself?

A huge amount of Britain's identity is its royal family and Constitutional Monarchy system. If taxpayers are prepared to foot the bill for that then so be it.

I think though, that soon the British Crown will come to resemble a continental model, that of a very small royal family with next to no hangers on and only one heir having any status after the Monarch and Consort. Off the top of my head I can think of 10 palaces and royal residences in the UK. Thats nonsense by any yardstick.

Leg End Reject

Sardonicat wrote: »

What is a 'modernised' royalty? The term is an oxymoron, if royalty modernised it would cease to exist because to truly modernise it would need to abolish itself. There should be no place for such automatic privilege in a modern democracy.

The last 'modernising' was shaking hands, inviting the public to certain events in Buckingham Palace and letting the cameras in. Small steps to make them more accessible.

I doubt Meghan would have convinced them to have podcasts or mental health talks on the balcony.

Leg End Reject

Larbre34 wrote: »

Is not public support for a Monarchy a democratic choice in itself?

A huge amount of Britain's identity is its royal family and Constitutional Monarchy system. If taxpayers are prepared to foot the bill for that then so be it.

I think though, that soon the British Crown will come to resemble a continental model, that of a very small royal family with next to no hangers on and only one heir having any status after the Monarch and Consort. Off the top of my head I can think of 10 palaces and royal residences in the UK. Thats nonsense by any yardstick.

Charles apparently is planning a spring clean and getting rid of a lot of hangers on.

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

she was perfectly suited to royalty, but to a modernised version and a less tabloid intrusive version.

meghan was exactly what the royal family needed, a moderniser and renewer and forward and future thinker with new ideas for a new generation.

This is the most inaccurate and ill informed post on this thread...

She was utterly unsuited to royalty. And that interview rammed this home..

She lacks any decorum, style, grace, manners, dignity, and humility..

Seriously, what are you seeing with her to come out with this?

The interview exposed two traits that are probably the most needed of all. Trust and loyalty...Markle showed that she hasn’t an ounce of either..

Funny, Harry showed it too.

PhoenixParker

Sardonicat wrote: »

What is a 'modernised' royalty? The term is an oxymoron, if royalty modernised it would cease to exist because to truly modernise it would need to abolish itself. There should be no place for such automatic privilege in a modern democracy.

The vision seems to be that children of monarchs are working royals, grand children of monarchs live privileged but relatively normal lives.

Margaret was a working royal, her children are not.
Anne is a working royal, her children are not and have no titles.
Andrew was a working royal, his children are not and while they have titles they have jobs.
Edward is a working royal, his children are technically prince and princess but don't use the title. It is not envisaged that they will be working royals.

Following that pattern it would be expected that Archie will have a title but not use it and grow up to live a privileged, wealthy but non-royal life.

Sardonicat

Larbre34 wrote: »

Is not public support for a Monarchy a democratic choice in itself?

A huge amount of Britain's identity is its royal family and Constitutional Monarchy system. If taxpayers are prepared to foot the bill for that then so be it.

I don't recall a choice on the matter ever being put to the British people, do you? And I disagree to the extent that Monarchy is part of British identity. It plays a large part in how they are perceived abroad, but there us a sizeable minority that want the whole thing done away with. If Diana hadn't died and been canonized, I think it would be gone now.

Itssoeasy

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Charles apparently is planning a spring clean and getting rid of a lot of hangers on.

It seems to work for the Scandinavians of which there is the Norwegian, Swedish, and danish royal family’s and there is the royal family and royal house. Actually this may be unique for the time period(I know Greece has abolished and reinstated that royal family) in that the current Norwegian royal family which was reestablished in 1905 after Norway broke away from Sweden, was voted on by the people of Norway in a referendum.

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

This is the most inaccurate and ill informed post on this thread...
She was utterly unsuited to royalty. And that interview rammed this home..

She lacks any decorum, style, grace, manners, dignity, and humility..

Seriously, what are you seeing with her to come out with this?

The interview exposed two traits that are probably the most needed of all. Trust and loyalty...Markle showed that she hasn’t an ounce of either..

Funny, Harry showed it too.

not at all, it's completely accurate.
a moderniser with new ideas, new blood and able to engage with young people.
she was very suited to royalty and is exactly what they needed.
but she couldn't stay and herself and her husband had to leave for their own sanity.
she has enough decorum, style, grace, manners, dignity, and humility so will do.

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, it's completely accurate.
a moderniser with new ideas, new blood and able to engage with young people.
she was very suited to royalty and is exactly what they needed.
but she couldn't stay and herself and her husband had to leave for their own sanity.
she has enough decorum, style, grace, manners, dignity, and humility so will do.

So, someone who was part of the family all of a wet day and is on a trashy tv show with a puppet staged interview slating said family with unproven allegations is what the RF needed?

Forget royalty. No family needs the likes of that.

She’s actually dangerous..

Not an ounce of loyalty or trust. Simple: a very untrustworthy person.

Leg End Reject

Sardonicat wrote: »

I don't recall a choice on the matter ever being put to the British people, do you? And I disagree to the extent that Monarchy is part of British identity. It plays a large part in how they are perceived abroad, but there us a sizeable minority that want the whole thing done away with. If Diana hadn't died and been canonized, I think it would be gone now.

I think Diana's death temporarily damaged the royal family, the queen was forced to lower flags to half mast, give the televised tribute and a state funeral etc.

Overnight Diana went from the publicly mocked "Queen of Tarts" back to her self-described "Queen of Hearts". The RF was accused of being cold and uncaring, William and Harry were brought out to look at floral disputes etc.

The Queen however seems to be popular, she's in the position so long that there's a familiarity and sense of constance about her. We don't hear her speak off the cuff, just pleasantries and carefully written speeches.

Charles and William are both socially awkward, in public at least, and have been heard speak more freely. How popular they will be remains to be seen, but I don't think the monarchy will exist to see George as king, perhaps even William. If it survives it will be a much more streamlined version.

Sardonicat

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I think Diana's death temporarily damaged the royal family, the queen was forced to lower flags to half mast, give the televised tribute and a state funeral etc.

Overnight Diana went from the publicly mocked "Queen of Tarts" back to her self-described "Queen of Hearts". The RF was accused of being cold and uncaring, William and Harry were brought out to look at floral disputes etc.

The mass hysteria over Diana's death baffled me. I lived in England in the 90s and she was regarded as a laughing stock by just about everyone I knew. If the RF hadn't caved and went for all that official and public mourning, they'd be gone. By caving into public pressure the essentially canonized her officially.

Leg End Reject

Sardonicat wrote: »

The mass hysteria over Diana's death baffled me. I lived in England in the 90s and she was regarded as a laughing stock by just about everyone I knew. If the RF hadn't caved and went for all that official and public mourning, they'd be gone. By caving into public pressure the essentially canonized her officially.

It was bizarre. I remember looking at all the people crying inconsolably and the papers gushing about her. Before her death she was ridiculed and then it was if a switch was flicked.

People can be very fickle and easily swayed by those around them. Mass hysteria is bemusing to watch.

ceadaoin.

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, it's completely accurate.
a moderniser with new ideas, new blood and able to engage with young people.
she was very suited to royalty and is exactly what they needed.
but she couldn't stay and herself and her husband had to leave for their own sanity.
she has enough decorum, style, grace, manners, dignity, and humility so will do.

Lol. Talk about over egging the pudding. Saint Meghan.

JoChervil

Sardonicat wrote: »

I don't recall a choice on the matter ever being put to the British people, do you? And I disagree to the extent that Monarchy is part of British identity. It plays a large part in how they are perceived abroad, but there us a sizeable minority that want the whole thing done away with. If Diana hadn't died and been canonized, I think it would be gone now.

It doesn't have to be referendum on this. Politicians check from time to time the monarchy popularity. And if it fells below certain threshold political parties would use it for their advantage. So as long as the monarchy is supported by British people parties won't touch it not to anger their voters.

So yes, it is democratically accepted in that way.

JoChervil

I think that death itself has this power that it puts things in proper perspective.

For example prince Philip passing and all those condolences coming from all over the world from the heads of so many countries. And his humility and asking for a low key ceremony. It is in such a huge contrast to those two, who wanted all the limelight based on pretences and at the cost of others, by trashing others.

In the era of reality shows everything goes. But I think they hugely under appreciated TV audience.

Also everything needs balance. If someone was too harshly criticised and dies, so people feel guilty and overcompensate. They want then to catch this balance.

The contrast is especially big, when someone dies young, because this person lost the rest of their lives, so whatever mistakes they made earlier are incomparable to such a loss, so from this perspective they didn’t deserve such a harsh treatment, therefore people feel guilty, all is forgotten and hysteria starts.

I wonder if some people perspective on H&M and this interview will change now?

retro:electro

JoChervil wrote: »

I think that death itself has this power that it puts things in proper perspective.

For example prince Philip passing and all those condolences coming from all over the world from the heads of so many countries. And his humility and asking for a low key ceremony. It is in such a huge contrast to those two, who wanted all the limelight based on pretences and at the cost of others, by trashing others.

In the era of reality shows everything goes. But I think they hugely under appreciated TV audience.

Also everything needs balance. If someone was too harshly criticised and dies, so people feel guilty and overcompensate. They want then to catch this balance.

The contrast is especially big, when someone dies young, because this person lost the rest of their lives, so whatever mistakes they made earlier are incomparable to such a loss, so from this perspective they didn’t deserve such a harsh treatment, therefore people feel guilty, all is forgotten and hysteria starts.

I wonder if some people perspective on H&M and this interview will change now?

I wonder has the outpouring of support for the family after PP died taken her by surprise. Having the likes of The Obama’s come out and say such positive things about The Duke must be a bit of a blow to her ego. I get the impression she thought she could dismantle the whole thing with the click of her fingers.

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

So, someone who was part of the family all of a wet day and is on a trashy tv show with a puppet staged interview slating said family with unproven allegations is what the RF needed?

Forget royalty. No family needs the likes of that.

She’s actually dangerous..

Not an ounce of loyalty or trust. Simple: a very untrustworthy person.

if she's dangerous she's doing the worst job i have ever come across for someone so dangerous.
she is completely and utterly rubbish at being dangerous so much that she is a complete failure at being dangerous.
suggesting she is dangerous is hysterical in all honesty.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Lol. Talk about over egging the pudding. Saint Meghan.

never said she is a saint.

FileNotFound

end of the road wrote: »

if she's dangerous she's doing the worst job i have ever come across for someone so dangerous.
she is completely and utterly rubbish at being dangerous so much that she is a complete failure at being dangerous.
suggesting she is dangerous is hysterical in all honesty.


never said she is a saint.

You're right, dangerous is the wrong word, jealous, nasty, resentful and bitter should replace it.

And that's just what we've seen to date.

Itssoeasy

I think the interview which seemed to annoy people over the timing more than what was said, in hindsight given that Prince Phillip was in hospital and has now died could age very very badly amongst the British public. That’s just my opinion but given that optics count for so much nowadays, they aren’t great. I mean Prince Charles went to visit him in hospital which was surely a sign that something was up.

I know they aren’t working royals as it stands, but given that it’s obvious the senior royals will need to step up, why couldn’t Prince Andrew’s daughters not step in and fill Harry and Meghans roles ?

end of the road

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think the interview which seemed to annoy people over the timing more than what was said, in hindsight given that Prince Phillip was in hospital and has now died could age very very badly amongst the British public. That’s just my opinion but given that optics count for so much nowadays, they aren’t great. I mean Prince Charles went to visit him in hospital which was surely a sign that something was up.

I know they aren’t working royals as it stands, but given that it’s obvious the senior royals will need to step up, why couldn’t Prince Andrew’s daughters not step in and fill Harry and Meghans roles ?

i guess they don't want to and are happy as they are? would harry and meghan's rolls require filling anyway as there is plenty between charles, kate and william to go round.

Sardonicat

JoChervil wrote: »

It doesn't have to be referendum on this. Politicians check from time to time the monarchy popularity. And if it fells below certain threshold political parties would use it for their advantage. So as long as the monarchy is supported by British people parties won't touch it not to anger their voters.

So yes, it is democratically accepted in that way.

So it's democratic by not being subject to democratic process? Okay......