Regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury, the brou-ha-ha about the private ceremony may be an example of a change to the ABC's role that I think is long overdue. Is it absolutely necessary for the ABC to be the senior chaplain of the Royal Family?
I can understand the ABC as the prelate that crowns the Monarch, that is a long standing tradition, but why is it his or her role to preside at royal baptisms and royal weddings? No one cares about who the officiant is at a royal wedding, so why can't for example, the Dean of Westminster Abbey or the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral preside at these royal functions?
I'll do it. I volunteer. I can say a blessing - wouldn't it be great to have a Non Anglican.
It's not lazy to not know the rules of titles in a foreign country.
No, but it's lazy to assume that the different treatment of the children of the Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge is because of racism, which is what you did.
Harry has never been the sharpest knife in the box. He had to be given 'special help' to pass 2 A levels so that he could go to Sandhurst .
Special help in his case is allegedly someone helping him beyond mere guidance.
I think I’ve sorted out the nested quotes mess here. BroJames, Purgatory Host
Regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury, the brou-ha-ha about the private ceremony may be an example of a change to the ABC's role that I think is long overdue. Is it absolutely necessary for the ABC to be the senior chaplain of the Royal Family?
I can understand the ABC as the prelate that crowns the Monarch, that is a long standing tradition, but why is it his or her role to preside at royal baptisms and royal weddings? No one cares about who the officiant is at a royal wedding, so why can't for example, the Dean of Westminster Abbey or the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral preside at these royal functions?
I'll do it. I volunteer. I can say a blessing - wouldn't it be great to have a Non Anglican.
I second you - but only if you promise to wear a Cope...though a Geneva gown (with Bands) would do...
Regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury, the brou-ha-ha about the private ceremony may be an example of a change to the ABC's role that I think is long overdue. Is it absolutely necessary for the ABC to be the senior chaplain of the Royal Family?
I can understand the ABC as the prelate that crowns the Monarch, that is a long standing tradition, but why is it his or her role to preside at royal baptisms and royal weddings? No one cares about who the officiant is at a royal wedding, so why can't for example, the Dean of Westminster Abbey or the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral preside at these royal functions?
I'll do it. I volunteer. I can say a blessing - wouldn't it be great to have a Non Anglican.
I second you - but only if you promise to wear a Cope...though a Geneva gown (with Bands) would do...
If you have institutions, protocol will develop. It's a necessary evil. If you try and do away with protocol you get "call me Tony" and "call me Dave" and studied informality that hides even greater evil. Some realities are symbolic.
Citation needed. There is plenty of institutional evil to go around, some of it greater than either Blair's or Cameron's.
I've been in informal, allegedly protocol-less environments, in which the unspoken protocols were all the more powerful, evil, and unchecked for being unspoken.
That sounds a fairly strong argument for a written constitution with well sign posted checks and balances rather than current unwritten mess in which one person rubber stamps the informal decision of a bunch of largely unseen people (a system that has often been responsible for evil on a scale that makes Blair and Cameron look like rank amateurs).
One of the challenges of a nation like Britain with an extremely long and hugely complex history is its huge inheritance of at least 1800 years worth of rulership and sovereignty. In other words, the roots of the plant go down a long way and will not be easy to dig up; even should it be wise to do so.
Again, no one is suggesting we dig up the plant. Only that it is cut down to a stump, and the old, creaking gnarled thing has a republican graft which can then grow gracefully on towards the sunlight sky, its branches providing cool shade against the harsh summer heat and shelter against the cold winter storms.
But where and what is the republican stem that you would graft onto the royal stump?
GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.
What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.
No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.
GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.
What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.
No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.
But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.
What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"
Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.
This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.
That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".
These are very disrespectful posts. That's all I need to say
Well to get a consensus candidate to be ceremonial head of state, you could ask the each of the party leaders to propose 2 people and allow each of them to veto upto 3 candidates from the amalgamated long list.
Then either just the commons, or the commons and the lords together to vote in a secret ballot with a single transferable vote - till someone got more than 50% of the vote.
Then your elected head of state would serve, say, 10 years unless impeached. They would then get the same functional powers as the current head of state, with a no political meddling requirement, and the equivalent of a sovereign grant.
(Point of the system being to ensure fairly broad cross party support for whomever was elected, and that being elected by parliament avoids an additional expensive electoral process.)
Also, speakers of the lords and commons act as joint regents during interegenums.)
We have plenty of examples, some of them indigenous, some of them enjoyed by our nearest neighbours. We don't have to create the thing from scratch. But one of the joys of a republic is that we the people can decide how it grows and is shaped.
Yes, as long as we really believe in the thing that we are creating. One of the things I love about the USA is the winningly earnest way Americans respect the Constitution and the American way of doing things, much as we sneer at them for doing so sometimes. OK they fall massively short sometimes. But at least they aspire to doing the right thing. If any future British republic is to stand a chance of working we need to be at least equally earnest and committed (and united behind it).
GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties. End of.
I'm sorry if that seems inhumane. But there are compensations. Just don't effing well talk to people like Oprah Winfrey, James Corden, or any other of those people whose job it is to "entertain" us.
It may be just me, but in 2021 I more or less automatically assume that any institution insisting on an omertà-style secrecy surrounding its inner workings is covering up some pretty sketchy stuff. I mean, how many Catholic officials thought it was their only job "to support the Queen [ Church ] in the performance of her duties [ its ministry ]. End of."? A whole lot, we eventually learned. A code of silence where people can't even talk about their own lives is an invitation to abuse.
GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.
What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.
No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.
GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.
What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.
No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.
But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.
What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"
Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.
This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.
That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".
These are very disrespectful posts. That's all I need to say
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.
Having first hand experience of mixed race couples and children, this tangent is bit bizarre.
Grandparents of all ethnic backgrounds are interested in how their grandkids will turn out, the family nose, curly hair, brown skin and all. And in my experience the most direct questions and discussion usually come from the non-white grandparents who don't feel the cultural need to tip-toe around the issue.
Of course "I hope they won't be too brown" would be an indicator of a problem.
As a grandparent of mixed-race children, thank you for this bit of sanity.
The skin color thingy gets complicated when it's people on the browner side of the family who are hoping for pale skin. (Been there, done that, still not clear on what exactly I should have said to them)
The skin color thingy gets complicated when it's people on the browner side of the family who are hoping for pale skin. (Been there, done that, still not clear on what exactly I should have said to them)
I don't think there's a rational way to respond to people expressing their hopes about your baby's features, whether those hopes are racist or not. It's not like it's a choice...
I remember (apparently it was in 2009) royal boot lickers were having a collective moment of frenetic excitement because Michelle Obama put her arm round the queen. At some point after that I saw an interview with Charles in which he said the queen wasn't remotely bothered. You do have to wonder who actually gives a toss about all of this royal protocol.
But the Queen was very pissed when the Trumpster walked in front of her during the military review. You could see it on her face. Almost an "off with his head" look.
ANYBODY would be pissed under those circumstances. I would be pissed if the man were within eyeshot, personally.
The skin color thingy gets complicated when it's people on the browner side of the family who are hoping for pale skin. (Been there, done that, still not clear on what exactly I should have said to them)
I don't think there's a rational way to respond to people expressing their hopes about your baby's features, whether those hopes are racist or not. It's not like it's a choice...
It's true. But behind the comment "Oh, I hope he looks like YOU" (with obvious glance at skin of arm) is something else, probably several something elses, and I'm not sure which ones. Internalized racism? A simple desire for my child to have an easier life than they have had? A heartfelt belief that my skin color is beautiful (hah. I could give pointers to a ghost, which is rich, as my father looked full-blood Cherokee)?
I think I usually fell back on "I'm hoping he looks a lot like his Dad" (and left them to figure out an appropriate subtext for that one).
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.
Having first hand experience of mixed race couples and children, this tangent is bit bizarre.
Grandparents of all ethnic backgrounds are interested in how their grandkids will turn out, the family nose, curly hair, brown skin and all. And in my experience the most direct questions and discussion usually come from the non-white grandparents who don't feel the cultural need to tip-toe around the issue.
Of course "I hope they won't be too brown" would be an indicator of a problem.
As a grandparent of mixed-race children, thank you for this bit of sanity.
It's a complicated issue. A friend of Dutch-Indonesian heritage told me that in her family the first question when a child was born, before even "boy or girl?" (when that was still a question until birth), was "how dark?" Being dark was not regarded as a good thing by the people in the generation before hers, and the hope was that the child would be light-skinned. This is understandable, given that they rightly thought the child's life would be easier with lighter skin, but it comes from a long history of colonialism. My friend doesn't blame her elders for asking first what color her children were, but she also sees it as colorism and internalized racism.
When a person of color has married into an otherwise entirely white family, I think it is very hard to see any questions from that white family about the possible color of an unborn child as neutral. If the person of color sees such a question as racist, I take their word for it.
Having a queen as head of state is like having a pirate or a mermaid or Ewok as head of state. What’s the logic? Bees have queens, but the queen bee lays all of the eggs in the hive. The queen of the Britons has laid just four British eggs, and one of those is the sweatless creep Prince Andrew, so it’s hardly deserving of applause.
GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.
What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.
No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.
GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.
What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.
No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.
But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.
What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"
Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.
This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.
That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".
These are very disrespectful posts. That's all I need to say
When a person of color has married into an otherwise entirely white family, I think it is very hard to see any questions from that white family about the possible color of an unborn child as neutral. If the person of color sees such a question as racist, I take their word for it.
One of the challenges of a nation like Britain with an extremely long and hugely complex history is its huge inheritance of at least 1800 years worth of rulership and sovereignty. In other words, the roots of the plant go down a long way and will not be easy to dig up; even should it be wise to do so.
Again, no one is suggesting we dig up the plant. Only that it is cut down to a stump, and the old, creaking gnarled thing has a republican graft which can then grow gracefully on towards the sunlight sky, its branches providing cool shade against the harsh summer heat and shelter against the cold winter storms.
I did get a distinct impression that some posters were keen to see the Monarchical Weed well and truly dug up and thrown on the fire? No?
Well, as for the perfection of the republican graft, no harm in dreaming of better things. I'm working my way through a history of the Medici. Republican democracy in action there aplenty.
Sadly, I'm a cynic. Whatever the ruling plant, it's going to be infested with greenfly!
The monarchy is deeply rooted into our history, and denying that to be true plain daft. Obviously, a national reassessment of their record would be easier if we could do so by examining the full set of tree rings.
Rooted indeed. From the link I previously posted: "House of Windsor meets the House of Celebrity: their critics accuse them of being money-hungry careerists for this, but that’s hilarious coming from sycophants to hereditary tax-suckling grifters. Arranging a Netflix deal that the couple actually have to work for is pretty benign royal behaviour when you compare it with conquest and general parasitism.
Are they right that in this FamilyFeud™, the Netflix™ celebrities will win?
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that far too many people are dividing into two opposing camps: We Believe That Meghan & Harry Are Completely Truthful versus We Believe That Meghan & Harry Are Completely Lying.
The reality is almost certainly somewhere in the greyish middle area. Some things they have said may well be true; some may be exaggerations or even made up; and some things may be what they passionately believe but actually arise out of misunderstandings. We (the readers/viewers/media) really haven't got much clue working out which parts belong in which categories. All I can say for sure is that WBTM&HACT and WBTM&HACL are both wrong.
Cross-pond language difference tangent. Are Gramps49 and Lamb Chopped suggesting that the Queen looked drunk when Trump marched in front of her?
We would, of course say 'pissed off' rather than 'pissed' in that context. 'Pissed' would mean she'd had a drop taken, as it were. I think I'd be tempted to do that if I had to meet Trump.
Meanwhile, I can quite understand Americans and others getting confused with our arcane systems of aristocratic and royal titles but I must admit I am finding Gramps49's assertions about a system he clearly knows diddly-squat about rather tiresome.
As has been said upthread, 'Lord Protector' has nothing to do with the 'Supreme Governor' thing with the British monarchy and the Church of England.
It was the title Oliver Cromwell took during the Interregnum when the country became a Republic - or, perhaps more accurately, a military dictatorship with theocratic pretensions. Not that the system it briefly replaced was any better of course, but at least they had mince pies at Christmas.
The first question my grandfather asked about his future Mexican daughter-in-law was, "Is she dark?" The second was, "How dark is she?"
He wasn't idly speculating what his grandkids would look like and I'm heartily sick and tired of all this whitesplaining.
No one on this thread has said that inquiries about skin colour can't be racist in intent. Just that it ain't necessarily so. Accusations of 'whitesplaining' are a just fancy way of shutting down conversation and ignoring the lived experiences of the other people on this thread, whose personal circumstances you know absolutely nothing about.
I think he didn't immediately become Lord Protector; they tried to do without a head of state at first didn't they? It just became fairly rapidly clear than only Cromwell was able to hold things together.
Yes, and he did apparently toy briefly with the idea of becoming 'King Oliver I'.
To all intents and purposes, though, it was the army that was running things. They did try to experiment with different models but without much by way of precedent other than classical texts, they ended up with the pragmatic expedient of Cromwell holding things together because he was the one with fellas armed with muskets and pikes.
Ok, it was more complicated than that but that was the gist.
Cross-pond language difference tangent. Are Gramps49 and Lamb Chopped suggesting that the Queen looked drunk when Trump marched in front of her?
We would, of course say 'pissed off' rather than 'pissed' in that context. 'Pissed' would mean she'd had a drop taken, as it were. I think I'd be tempted to do that if I had to meet Trump.
[Colonial Post] From this side of the Pond it is interesting that this thread has generated 1.3k posts in so little time. In Canada, "pissed" can mean angry or drunk. The meaning is usually clear from the context. I hear it more often used to mean the former rather than the latter.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that far too many people are dividing into two opposing camps: We Believe That Meghan & Harry Are Completely Truthful versus We Believe That Meghan & Harry Are Completely Lying.
The reality is almost certainly somewhere in the greyish middle area. Some things they have said may well be true; some may be exaggerations or even made up; and some things may be what they passionately believe but actually arise out of misunderstandings. We (the readers/viewers/media) really haven't got much clue working out which parts belong in which categories. All I can say for sure is that WBTM&HACT and WBTM&HACL are both wrong.
The problem is that she has no evidence to back up any of her claims and we know that she lied about her son not being a prince. It would have been carefully explained to her that it was nothing to do with his skin colour and that it was to do with the fact that he was a great grandson of the monarch, not in direct line to the throne.
She made a big issue about keeping her son safe but they chose to have official protection removed when they left the country.
I am unable to accept her allegations on face value without any corroboration.
I fail to see how judges in the UK 'report' to the Queen (or the Crown) in any meaningful sense. What @Doc Tor says above applies.
Your point is not entirely clear to me, but even if the scenario you outline stopped here, in practice there were a number of powers the monarch has/had on the basis that they would never exercise them. ISTM that those who stress the 'advise' angle don't ever deal with the situation where the monarch regularly departed from that advise, or what kind of state we would have if they did.
She either signed on the dotted line to formally determine the appeal to her, or a delegated person did so on her behalf. I wrote what I did in direct answer to the post I quoted.
Fixed quoting code, I hope. BroJames, Purgatory Host
The problem is that she has no evidence to back up any of her claims and we know that she lied about her son not being a prince.
Lied is a strong word. We know she's wrong, given that we're pretty certain that George V wasn't in possession of a crystal ball, but that doesn't mean that the Duchess is telling intentional falsehoods.
The problem is that she has no evidence to back up any of her claims and we know that she lied about her son not being a prince.
Lied is a strong word. We know she's wrong, given that we're pretty certain that George V wasn't in possession of a crystal ball, but that doesn't mean that the Duchess is telling intentional falsehoods.
If she was told exactly why he wasn't a prince, she lied when she offered her own explanation.
It did in Australia in 1990, and that's why the Monarchists won the referendum. People got scared of the detail. Scared people means rising prejudice means ripe for manipulation by tories or worse, fascists.
Beg to differ. The referendum was not on whether we were to become a republic or remain a monarchy. The question was whether we were to become a republic with a president chosen in a particular manner. Little Johnny Howard made that the question as he knew that there were republicans strongly opposed to the particular manner of choice. As it turned out, that was a correct assessment; there were sufficient to ensure that the proposal failed to gain a majority in any State let alone the majorities required for constitutional change. We will never know what the answer to a simple question of becoming a republic would have been.
The Queen is technically the head of the Anglican Church. Remove the monarchy no more head of the church. Lord Protector is a title that has been used in British constitutional law for the head of state. It is also a particular title for the British heads of state in respect to the established church. It is sometimes used to refer to holders of other temporary posts; for example, a regent acting for the absent monarch.
Remove the monarch, the archbishop can carry on without a Lord Protector.
BTW, I don't think the Lord needs any human protector.
This is so confused that it's hard to know where to start. HM is not head of the Church of England, nor is she Lord or Lady Protector. She and her predecessors back centuries have been the Supreme Governor on Earth of the CoE. She has no say over the activities of the other churches in the Anglican Communion. FWIW, there have been 2 Lords Protector - Oliver Cromwell and his son.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that far too many people are dividing into two opposing camps: We Believe That Meghan & Harry Are Completely Truthful versus We Believe That Meghan & Harry Are Completely Lying.
The reality is almost certainly somewhere in the greyish middle area. Some things they have said may well be true; some may be exaggerations or even made up; and some things may be what they passionately believe but actually arise out of misunderstandings. We (the readers/viewers/media) really haven't got much clue working out which parts belong in which categories. All I can say for sure is that WBTM&HACT and WBTM&HACL are both wrong.
The truth or otherwise of the assertion is of ephemeral importance. That the allegations were made in the way they were means that the Monarchy is damaged, in the same way that Diana's allegations damaged the Monarchy and are remembered with passion.
When we all pass, the damage to the institution will pass too. But in the meantime, we have to put up with misguided leftists who don't realise that the Monarchy is a gift that can be used to neutralise the conservative working class as a tool for the Tories to defend the tattered remains of the Aristocracy and the system of unholy privilege that supports them.
Tear down the aristocracy (and the faux aristocracy of the Borisian type, and the Oligarchs of the Russian and other exploiters type who all use London to launder and store their stolen fortunes) and the conservative working class will go "wa-hey! get rid of those bastards! Lock them up! Lock them up!" like they are the heirs of the Jacobins.
We do know that the Queen was so anxious that Meghan understood what she was getting into that she assigned a senior equerry to give her a crash course in family history, protocol, succession, etc. The equerry was from the same regiment that William and Harry were in and was in Afghanistan with Harry during H's first tour there - this is the chap.
When a person of color has married into an otherwise entirely white family, I think it is very hard to see any questions from that white family about the possible color of an unborn child as neutral. If the person of color sees such a question as racist, I take their word for it.
Yes, at the very least I'd take it seriously.
Thought: Harry had a learning curve about forms of racism, bias, etc. (And has both acknowledged and worked on it, AIUI.) I wonder if that incident, whoever was involved, was one of the things that helped him see?
And AIUI from the interview, Harry said that The Firm's issues about Meghan's race and that of any future children with Harry started as soon as their relationship looked serious.
I'm not sure anyone outside of Britain really understands the ambivalence and tenacity of feeling around the monarchy. My aunt, who is black British-Zimbabwean and who has lived in the UK for 45 years, has always voted Labour and supported the Stephen Lawrence Family Campaign, loves the Royal family and will not hear a word against them. She's always out there in the streets for Royal weddings, waving and cheering as the carriages go past.
The ghost of Empire still lingers in the Commonwealth countries. In South Africa, a great many watchers sat down to watch the Oprah interview, then became bored and switched off the TV. For many of us the hereditary monarchy is an embarrassing anachronism associated with slavery, colonialism and class privilege.
At the same time, there have been fierce debates about 'internalised racism' and Meghan's white family vs Doria's silence/silencing from within the Cape Coloured community, for whom light-skinned privilege remains an uncomfortable reality. In Cape Town, sales of skin-lightening creams and hair-straightening lotions are as profitable as ever and family remarks like 'Shem, he's as dark as his ouma,' are far more loaded than comments about a baby inheriting jug ears or ginger hair. Under apartheid, 'passing for white' was a strategy to escape the most brutal aspects of South African racism and many of those within the Cape Malay community (a misnomer because they didn't come from Malaysia but from Dutch Indonesia) do not identify as 'black South Africans' but as Creole diaspora. Racism is understood to operate both concretely and obviously as well as invisibly. It is never harmless or innocuous.
Harry met Meghan at a blind date in 2016, and married in 2018. There were quite a few reports in the UK Press that for that wedding to happen so fast, the planned wedding of Princess Eugenie was put back. Compared to William who met Kate in 2001 and married her in 2011, that's a whirlwind. Nor did it give a lot of time for Meghan to learn much about the British press or how things work in the Royal Family. Tobteally know ehwt she was getting into.
I can postulate a family member questioning Harry, who has not had the most enlightened past as to racism:
how will you cope in various scenarios, including how would you cope if your children were dark skinned. Not as a racist question but as "have you really thought this through?" "Do you know what you are getting into?" "Have you really planned how this is going to work?"
And AIUI from the interview, Harry said that The Firm's issues about Meghan's race and that of any future children with Harry started as soon as their relationship looked serious.
Really? I heard him refer to "a conversation" before she was pregnant. IIRC he didn't say if it was before marriage.
Comments
I'll do it. I volunteer. I can say a blessing - wouldn't it be great to have a Non Anglican.
Special help in his case is allegedly someone helping him beyond mere guidance.
I think I’ve sorted out the nested quotes mess here. BroJames, Purgatory Host
I second you - but only if you promise to wear a Cope...though a Geneva gown (with Bands) would do...
As long as it was under a cope.
That sounds a fairly strong argument for a written constitution with well sign posted checks and balances rather than current unwritten mess in which one person rubber stamps the informal decision of a bunch of largely unseen people (a system that has often been responsible for evil on a scale that makes Blair and Cameron look like rank amateurs).
But where and what is the republican stem that you would graft onto the royal stump?
These are very disrespectful posts. That's all I need to say
Then either just the commons, or the commons and the lords together to vote in a secret ballot with a single transferable vote - till someone got more than 50% of the vote.
Then your elected head of state would serve, say, 10 years unless impeached. They would then get the same functional powers as the current head of state, with a no political meddling requirement, and the equivalent of a sovereign grant.
(Point of the system being to ensure fairly broad cross party support for whomever was elected, and that being elected by parliament avoids an additional expensive electoral process.)
Also, speakers of the lords and commons act as joint regents during interegenums.)
It may be just me, but in 2021 I more or less automatically assume that any institution insisting on an omertà-style secrecy surrounding its inner workings is covering up some pretty sketchy stuff. I mean, how many Catholic officials thought it was their only job "to support the Queen [ Church ] in the performance of her duties [ its ministry ]. End of."? A whole lot, we eventually learned. A code of silence where people can't even talk about their own lives is an invitation to abuse.
We could call them the Thegn of the UK - conveniently it originally meant servant - or the Thegn of Parliament.
We’d only need to change one word of the national anthem ...
If you've got a problem you know where Hell is.
Is that pronounced "thane"? How about calling them the Big Banger. The spouse can be the "And Mash".
The skin color thingy gets complicated when it's people on the browner side of the family who are hoping for pale skin. (Been there, done that, still not clear on what exactly I should have said to them)
I don't think there's a rational way to respond to people expressing their hopes about your baby's features, whether those hopes are racist or not. It's not like it's a choice...
ANYBODY would be pissed under those circumstances. I would be pissed if the man were within eyeshot, personally.
It's true. But behind the comment "Oh, I hope he looks like YOU" (with obvious glance at skin of arm) is something else, probably several something elses, and I'm not sure which ones. Internalized racism? A simple desire for my child to have an easier life than they have had? A heartfelt belief that my skin color is beautiful (hah. I could give pointers to a ghost, which is rich, as my father looked full-blood Cherokee)?
I think I usually fell back on "I'm hoping he looks a lot like his Dad" (and left them to figure out an appropriate subtext for that one).
It's a complicated issue. A friend of Dutch-Indonesian heritage told me that in her family the first question when a child was born, before even "boy or girl?" (when that was still a question until birth), was "how dark?" Being dark was not regarded as a good thing by the people in the generation before hers, and the hope was that the child would be light-skinned. This is understandable, given that they rightly thought the child's life would be easier with lighter skin, but it comes from a long history of colonialism. My friend doesn't blame her elders for asking first what color her children were, but she also sees it as colorism and internalized racism.
When a person of color has married into an otherwise entirely white family, I think it is very hard to see any questions from that white family about the possible color of an unborn child as neutral. If the person of color sees such a question as racist, I take their word for it.
He wasn't idly speculating what his grandkids would look like and I'm heartily sick and tired of all this whitesplaining.
Meanwhile, this is worth a read, the most amusing thing thus far about the recent interview etc. The royals live in high luxury and low autonomy, cosplaying as their ancestors
I refer you to my last sentence
Yes, at the very least I'd take it seriously.
I love the smell of self-righteous passive aggression in the evening. Blends with the ale.
@Telford and @KarlLB if you need to take potshots at each other, do it in Hell.
Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I did get a distinct impression that some posters were keen to see the Monarchical Weed well and truly dug up and thrown on the fire? No?
Well, as for the perfection of the republican graft, no harm in dreaming of better things. I'm working my way through a history of the Medici. Republican democracy in action there aplenty.
Sadly, I'm a cynic. Whatever the ruling plant, it's going to be infested with greenfly!
their critics accuse them of being money-hungry careerists for this, but that’s hilarious coming from sycophants to hereditary tax-suckling grifters. Arranging a Netflix deal that the couple actually have to work for is pretty benign royal behaviour when you compare it with conquest and general parasitism.
Are they right that in this FamilyFeud™, the Netflix™ celebrities will win?
The reality is almost certainly somewhere in the greyish middle area. Some things they have said may well be true; some may be exaggerations or even made up; and some things may be what they passionately believe but actually arise out of misunderstandings. We (the readers/viewers/media) really haven't got much clue working out which parts belong in which categories. All I can say for sure is that WBTM&HACT and WBTM&HACL are both wrong.
We would, of course say 'pissed off' rather than 'pissed' in that context. 'Pissed' would mean she'd had a drop taken, as it were. I think I'd be tempted to do that if I had to meet Trump.
Meanwhile, I can quite understand Americans and others getting confused with our arcane systems of aristocratic and royal titles but I must admit I am finding Gramps49's assertions about a system he clearly knows diddly-squat about rather tiresome.
As has been said upthread, 'Lord Protector' has nothing to do with the 'Supreme Governor' thing with the British monarchy and the Church of England.
It was the title Oliver Cromwell took during the Interregnum when the country became a Republic - or, perhaps more accurately, a military dictatorship with theocratic pretensions. Not that the system it briefly replaced was any better of course, but at least they had mince pies at Christmas.
No one on this thread has said that inquiries about skin colour can't be racist in intent. Just that it ain't necessarily so. Accusations of 'whitesplaining' are a just fancy way of shutting down conversation and ignoring the lived experiences of the other people on this thread, whose personal circumstances you know absolutely nothing about.
To all intents and purposes, though, it was the army that was running things. They did try to experiment with different models but without much by way of precedent other than classical texts, they ended up with the pragmatic expedient of Cromwell holding things together because he was the one with fellas armed with muskets and pikes.
Ok, it was more complicated than that but that was the gist.
The problem is that she has no evidence to back up any of her claims and we know that she lied about her son not being a prince. It would have been carefully explained to her that it was nothing to do with his skin colour and that it was to do with the fact that he was a great grandson of the monarch, not in direct line to the throne.
She made a big issue about keeping her son safe but they chose to have official protection removed when they left the country.
I am unable to accept her allegations on face value without any corroboration.
She either signed on the dotted line to formally determine the appeal to her, or a delegated person did so on her behalf. I wrote what I did in direct answer to the post I quoted.
Fixed quoting code, I hope. BroJames, Purgatory Host
Lied is a strong word. We know she's wrong, given that we're pretty certain that George V wasn't in possession of a crystal ball, but that doesn't mean that the Duchess is telling intentional falsehoods.
If she was told exactly why he wasn't a prince, she lied when she offered her own explanation.
Beg to differ. The referendum was not on whether we were to become a republic or remain a monarchy. The question was whether we were to become a republic with a president chosen in a particular manner. Little Johnny Howard made that the question as he knew that there were republicans strongly opposed to the particular manner of choice. As it turned out, that was a correct assessment; there were sufficient to ensure that the proposal failed to gain a majority in any State let alone the majorities required for constitutional change. We will never know what the answer to a simple question of becoming a republic would have been.
This is so confused that it's hard to know where to start. HM is not head of the Church of England, nor is she Lord or Lady Protector. She and her predecessors back centuries have been the Supreme Governor on Earth of the CoE. She has no say over the activities of the other churches in the Anglican Communion. FWIW, there have been 2 Lords Protector - Oliver Cromwell and his son.
The truth or otherwise of the assertion is of ephemeral importance. That the allegations were made in the way they were means that the Monarchy is damaged, in the same way that Diana's allegations damaged the Monarchy and are remembered with passion.
When we all pass, the damage to the institution will pass too. But in the meantime, we have to put up with misguided leftists who don't realise that the Monarchy is a gift that can be used to neutralise the conservative working class as a tool for the Tories to defend the tattered remains of the Aristocracy and the system of unholy privilege that supports them.
Tear down the aristocracy (and the faux aristocracy of the Borisian type, and the Oligarchs of the Russian and other exploiters type who all use London to launder and store their stolen fortunes) and the conservative working class will go "wa-hey! get rid of those bastards! Lock them up! Lock them up!" like they are the heirs of the Jacobins.
Tear down the Monarchy, and they will scream for your blood, instead of the blood of people like Gussie Fink-Nottle, Tuppy Glossop, and Stiffy bloody Byng.
We had a discussion about this back when Fr. G was on the Vintage Ship. IIRC, he said Charles wanted to go with "Defender of Faiths".
FWIW.
Thought: Harry had a learning curve about forms of racism, bias, etc. (And has both acknowledged and worked on it, AIUI.) I wonder if that incident, whoever was involved, was one of the things that helped him see?
And AIUI from the interview, Harry said that The Firm's issues about Meghan's race and that of any future children with Harry started as soon as their relationship looked serious.
The ghost of Empire still lingers in the Commonwealth countries. In South Africa, a great many watchers sat down to watch the Oprah interview, then became bored and switched off the TV. For many of us the hereditary monarchy is an embarrassing anachronism associated with slavery, colonialism and class privilege.
At the same time, there have been fierce debates about 'internalised racism' and Meghan's white family vs Doria's silence/silencing from within the Cape Coloured community, for whom light-skinned privilege remains an uncomfortable reality. In Cape Town, sales of skin-lightening creams and hair-straightening lotions are as profitable as ever and family remarks like 'Shem, he's as dark as his ouma,' are far more loaded than comments about a baby inheriting jug ears or ginger hair. Under apartheid, 'passing for white' was a strategy to escape the most brutal aspects of South African racism and many of those within the Cape Malay community (a misnomer because they didn't come from Malaysia but from Dutch Indonesia) do not identify as 'black South Africans' but as Creole diaspora. Racism is understood to operate both concretely and obviously as well as invisibly. It is never harmless or innocuous.
I can postulate a family member questioning Harry, who has not had the most enlightened past as to racism:
how will you cope in various scenarios, including how would you cope if your children were dark skinned. Not as a racist question but as "have you really thought this through?" "Do you know what you are getting into?" "Have you really planned how this is going to work?"