I wasn't suggesting reading tabloid press coverage, there are reference works that are less sensationalised And it still sounds unprofessional. Surely if you are working in promotional type events, where you are meeting new people, most professional workers in that field are at least checking biographical details, from say Who's Who, in advance, so at least they have a few questions to ask someone if seated next to them to start a conversation. The queen has someone doing that for her at events so she is primed with a question to ask. It suggests Meghan is going into things assuming she is the prime attraction and conversations are based on her personality or others asking about her.
And still incredibly stupid not check out the Royal family before getting involved to the point of marriage.
...except they *didn't* "attack the monarch". H loves his grandmother very much. M gets along well with her, and the Queen did various things to make her welcome--like inviting her to share a lap blanket.
I'm just going off the UK press reports, but I can't see how she isn't criticising the monarch, even if she says she isn't.
e.g. Whether or not Archie gets a princely title is the Queen's personal decision. If the decision was racially motivated, then either the Queen is personally racist or she doesn't care enough about it to override her racist advisors.
Likewise, the Sussexes' royal duties are whatever the Queen delegates to them. The Queen is perfectly capable of rearranging duties depending on health (e.g., Prince Philip's jobs got reassigned not too long ago). So if Meghan wasn't allowed to take a few months off due to stress, then that would be the Queen's responsibility.
(To be clear: I've no objection to her attacking the monarch if she feels wronged by the monarch.)
Being saved from becoming a republic? I have no love of the monarchy - it’s at the root of our hopelessly unequal class ridden society. But the thought of having an elected president is worse, looking at the government we have elected.
Lots of countries manage with an elected figurehead head of state.
This may be a bit nitpicky, but I think the truth is that most democratic republics don't have a figurehead at all, in the sense of a human being who is supposed to embody the nation in the way the Queen does.
If they have an executive president (e.g. France, the US) then the president isn't a figurehead because they have actual power. If their president is non-executive (e.g. Germany, Italy) then their main purpose isn't to be a Queen-like figurehead, it's an extra line of defence to give the machinery of government a kick when it gets stuck. Proof: how many people could name the President of Germany without Googling?
In the church yes. On the island no - it's illegal.
With the new allegations of a private service before the public it looks like the AofC now has his neck in the noose with the Lord Chancellor. Which wedding - if any - is valid?
Does the private service mean that the public one was simply a show?
Being saved from becoming a republic? I have no love of the monarchy - it’s at the root of our hopelessly unequal class ridden society. But the thought of having an elected president is worse, looking at the government we have elected.
Lots of countries manage with an elected figurehead head of state.
This may be a bit nitpicky, but I think the truth is that most democratic republics don't have a figurehead at all, in the sense of a human being who is supposed to embody the nation in the way the Queen does.
Yes, that's very nitpicky. And given we don't have a figurehead head of state, but one that actively interferes with parliamentary legislation, I'll allow it...
But the point is still active. We don't need the Queen or the any of the royal family to conduct our democratic affairs, and state duties could be carried out by a 5-year old in a paper crown if that's what we wanted.
Having a ceremonial president is very popular in Mid and East Europe, and there are outbreaks across the world, including the world's largest democracy, India.
So did the Archbishop of Canterbury really perform a fake wedding in front of the TV cameras? After marrying Harry and Meghan for real in a private ceremony three days before?
Welby has broken Canon law whichever way you look at it. A case for the new CDM?
In fairness I think there was a hope / expectation that William and Harry would 'modernise' the monarchy; I can imagine Harry feeling like a vicar whose elderly church wants him to attract the young people and then bitterly opposes every change he proposes to do so ...
Modernising the monarchy should be left to those in the Royal family, not anyone who has deserted it.
Well, let's allow them to mark their own homework shall we/ Just like it's always been - who are the likes of us to complain? (Tugs forelock)
So did the Archbishop of Canterbury really perform a fake wedding in front of the TV cameras? After marrying Harry and Meghan for real in a private ceremony three days before?
It's not like the vows were between different people or otherwise contradictory.
Being saved from becoming a republic? I have no love of the monarchy - it’s at the root of our hopelessly unequal class ridden society. But the thought of having an elected president is worse, looking at the government we have elected.
Lots of countries manage with an elected figurehead head of state.
This may be a bit nitpicky, but I think the truth is that most democratic republics don't have a figurehead at all, in the sense of a human being who is supposed to embody the nation in the way the Queen does.
Yes, that's very nitpicky. And given we don't have a figurehead head of state, but one that actively interferes with parliamentary legislation, I'll allow it...
But the point is still active. We don't need the Queen or the any of the royal family to conduct our democratic affairs, and state duties could be carried out by a 5-year old in a paper crown if that's what we wanted.
Having a ceremonial president is very popular in Mid and East Europe, and there are outbreaks across the world, including the world's largest democracy, India.
Yep - I wasn't disagreeing with you; I was just going slightly further - I'll admit to a sentimental attachment to the monarchy, but realistically, if we got rid of them, we wouldn't need to replace them with anyone, presidential or not. We could just formally transfer all the reserve powers to the Prime Minister (who, in practice, is the one exercising them now), and our system of government would trundle on pretty much exactly as it's supposed to do now.
(I say 'supposed to do' to steer round questions of interference in Queen's Assent.)
In the BBC's rolling coverage, a "source" is quoted as saying that what happened in the back yard a few days before was "an exchange of vows". Many other religions and secular traditions can have their own form of ceremony in which they exchange their vows etc., and then go off to a registry office for the legal bit.
In this case, they seem to have made a private exchange of vows and then gone to church for the legal bit. Some people might be a bit sniffy about it but I can't see that it's illegal. Has Welby broken some CofE rules? I'm not CofE, but I would imagine he's fairly well up them...
So did the Archbishop of Canterbury really perform a fake wedding in front of the TV cameras? After marrying Harry and Meghan for real in a private ceremony three days before?
If the private ceremony was literally just them and the Archbishop, then no, that would not be a legal wedding, due to the absence of witnesses.
ETA: another possible cross-Pond cultural difference.
I think you need witnesses in most US jurisdictions as well. At least going by movie portrayals of Las Vegas weddings, with the comic trope of some local hobos being roped in to serve as witnesses to an otherwise unobserved wedding.
I'm surprised at how sympathetically I'm seeing this young couple and family. Note: micro-aggressions about race are commonly expressed by those who haven't examined their attitudes and biases. The suggestion that Meghan could deny half her family and not express that she's mixed race is one of these aggressions. It's racist.
...except they *didn't* "attack the monarch". H loves his grandmother very much. M gets along well with her, and the Queen did various things to make her welcome--like inviting her to share a lap blanket.
Respectfully, I think some people are assuming things that weren't said in the interview. That's understandable, since I'm guessing a lot of non-US folks haven't seen it yet. But it's probably available online, or will be.
It looks like you can see it at the network's site, CBS.com. It will probably be on YouTube, and elsewhere.
This wasn't remotely a "celebrity sideshow". Might be worth checking out.
FWIW, YMMV, etc.
Of course it was a celebrity sideshow. It was an interview with Oprah Winfrey, a person who made a career from interviewing celebrities. What is the purpose of agreeing to be interviewed by Oprah Winfrey? Why would they do it? If it was to bring themselves to the attention of the public in order to make money in the future, they shouldn't talk about the past in the manner that has been reported.
The purpose of the Monarch in Australia is to do her constitutional duty. Most of her duties are carried on by a Governor-General and state Governors anyway. The job of the family is to support the Monarch in the performance of their duties. Their personhood is to be expressed in private, their complaints in private, and their disputes are to be aired in private so as to support the continued existence of the institution.
The very fact of this heinous interview is damaging to the monarchy, if they talk about things that happened or how they felt during their time as members of the Royal Family. The Duchess ought not have disclosed her suicidal thoughts on television in an interview with a person who interviews celebrities for a living. If she needs to talk about her mental health, she should choose an appropriate forum, like for example taking on a role as an advocate for mental health awareness; talking to a counsellor; or talking to a trusted friend. Talking about her mental health is a good thing, but not in such a staged spectacle. Such a disclosure in such a forum can only be an attack on the institution of the Monarchy, which includes the Royal Household and other members of the Royal Family.
The disclosure that "somebody" was concerned about the shade of their child's skin is an obvious attack on the Monarchy. The disclosure and its manner puts the question of who said it in the hearer's mind. It is a teaser, in its effect, and it calls into question not just the integrity of Prince Philip, surely the Royal with the biggest racist rap-sheet, but the Queen, the heir to the throne and Prince Harry's brother. What did the Sussex's think would be the outcome of such a disclosure. Are they without any guile?
An attack on the Monarch weakens the Australian system of Constitutional Monarchy, gifted to us by the British, and graciously paid for, in the main, by the British people. Long may the system continue.
I don't know about an attack on the monarchy. Its dysfunctional nature is hardly news. The whole Oprah thing is daft really, but then R and H seem naive to me.
And the actual practical outworking of this "attack" and "weakening" will be what, beyond the 14th root of bugger all?
Gah. The whole thing reeks of the pointlessness of the whole charade of placing people on pedestals because of accidents of birth. It's 2021 ffs, not 1421.
I don't know about an attack on the monarchy. Its dysfunctional nature is hardly news.
Given that it has of late been the subject of serious debate whether or not the Duke of York raped underaged girls, I'd say the horse known as "damage to the monarchy" has already left the barn.
Yes, it's quite boring really. The worst thing for me is that ITV are running a mental health campaign, while Piers Morgan on their morning show says Meghan is lying about feeling suicidal.
This business about the *Queen's Consent*, and her use of it to prevent damage to her already obscene personal wealth, may be the little cloud the size of a man's hand, as in the Bible...(1 Kings 18).
I can imagine Harry feeling like a vicar whose elderly church wants him to attract the young people and then bitterly opposes every change he proposes to do so ...
But isn't that part of the problem? Harry isn't the vicar. He's an assistant curate at best.
I can imagine Harry feeling like a vicar whose elderly church wants him to attract the young people and then bitterly opposes every change he proposes to do so ...
But isn't that part of the problem? Harry isn't the vicar. He's an assistant curate at best.
Yeah, it wasn't the best analogy. A better one might be that the vicar asks the assistant curate to think of ways of making the church more attractive to young people, and then vetoes every single one on the grounds that the existing congregation won't like it.
(Granted, both analogies depend on the idea that 'the younger generation will modernise the monarchy' came from the monarchy itself rather than media speculation.)
I find it hard to think of Meghan as *brown*, or *mixed race*, or whatever, even though the tabloids obviously think her as black-skinned, and black-hearted, as Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord of Mordor.
What the hell is the fuss about? She's a pleasant-looking young woman, with what appears to be the sort of colour many pale women spend £££ on in tanning salons to achieve, at the risk of bankruptcy, skin cancer etc.
Given Harry's wish not to repeat his mother's experience, I guess things could hardly have turned out worse. Diana's poor mental health was clearly off the scale, with her bulimia, unhappiness, isolation etc, and Meghan says she, too, had suicidal ideations. And the 'revelation' that a racist comment about their child was directed towards them from within an institution that is historically built on colonialist and often racist principles - well, it's hardly a revelation. We don't know from whom this comment comes; whether a passing remark from family, or a department-headed memo from security. But could anyone have doubted that the colour of their children's skin would not raise comment in that way?
As soon as it was known Harry was seriously dating a woman of colour - and one thoroughly able of handling for herself her own life and high-profile career in showbiz - could anyone have doubted that warning bells wouldn't have been sounding in the cobwebby, creaky workings of the Royal Machinery? And of course the tabloid press - famously racist in the UK - would be having their best time ever over the spectacle. This interview alone is big bucks to them.
And now - just like Diana - a hugely divisive interview that will serve to harden opinions and set back the possibility of reconciliation or conflict resolution.
I feel sorry that she (and I expect he) felt isolated, desperate etc. Did they really not have access to support and resources for how they felt, and what was happening? Do all the royals always follow all the advice they receive from their advisors? I can understand a single mum trapped in a bed and breakfast with her two kids, for 14 months, living off benefits, having difficulty accessing help to get by. I'm wondering what hope any of us have if the privileged, wealthy and elite are complaining about having no agency.
As ever, the question that occurs to me is 'so how did they prepare for life in the Royal institution'? I understand that one doesn't know how it will feel until you're going through it. But given everything that went before, what were both the couple and the Institution itself doing in the run-up to the marriage? What could have happened after the wedding that was so radically different to what they could've expected before the ceremony? Maybe they had hoped to introduce something a bit more 'normal' to the way the Royal Family operate, and maybe that was naive. In which case I understand their disappointment. And maybe the Royal Family have missed a trick in 'losing' Meghan and Harry like this. It's such a shame that it seems all the same old mistakes have been made, including, in my opinion, going down the celebrity interview route.
Was Meghan asked about the problems with her family ?
Was Harry asked why he has never met her father ?
Was Harry asked why he didn't warn her what would be expected of her and what it was like to be a royal ?
I haven't seen it and don't intend to bother when it comes on UK TV this evening. But her family aren't the Windsors, and nor are they the only other family that seems to be that famous, the Kardashians. So the fact that her family members, who nobody has ever had reason to have heard about, didn't really get a look in is hardly surprising.
As for what Harry told, her,it seems pretty well documented that he was bored of royal life well before they were an item, so perhaps he always intended to walk and his family's treatment of her merely hastened it.
In this case, they seem to have made a private exchange of vows and then gone to church for the legal bit. Some people might be a bit sniffy about it but I can't see that it's illegal. Has Welby broken some CofE rules? I'm not CofE, but I would imagine he's fairly well up them...
It could be that the couple wanted to make their own vows to each other, but that's not an option in a C of E wedding. But a couple are perfectly at liberty to make promises to each other in the presence of a clergyman.
It isn't just Presidents. How many Brits could name the King and Queen of the Belgians ?
or the names of the Scandinavian monarchs.
My brain is saying Baudoin for the King of the Belgians, following Leopold's death, but I think he's dead. Actually, didn't his brother succeed him, and isn't his brother dead, too? And the current king is relatively young (by which I mean more like 40 than 80)?
For the Netherlands, I think both Queen Beatrix and Queen Julianna abdicated / retired. Present King is Willem-Alexander.
The Scandinavians? King of Sweden is Carl something-or-other Gustav, can't remember Norway offhand, but IIRC, Haakon is crown prince. Queen of Denmark is Margrethe. Finland is a republic, as is Iceland, and I can't remember the name of their current presidents.
I find it hard to think of Meghan as *brown*, or *mixed race*, or whatever, even though the tabloids obviously think her as black-skinned, and black-hearted, as Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord of Mordor.
What the hell is the fuss about? She's a pleasant-looking young woman, with what appears to be the sort of colour many pale women spend £££ on in tanning salons to achieve, at the risk of bankruptcy, skin cancer etc.
Ah - jealousy and envy, of course!
This is what I posted about above. Because she looks to like a white woman people want her to deny the black woman who is her mother and that half of her family. That's racist. It's not in-your-face name calling racism but it is racist. Because it indicates that people want her to deny "inconvenient" African heritage. Because black and brown are of less value, she should pass for white.
The present King of Belgium is Philippe, who succeeded his father, Albert II, when the latter abdicated in 2013.
Other European monarchs:
Sweden - Carl XVI Gustaf Norway - Harald V The Netherlands - Willem-Alexander (who succeeded his mother, Beatrix, when she abdicated in 2013. Juliana abdicated in favour of her daughter Beatrix in 1980, and Juliana succeeded her mother, Wilhelmina, when the latter abdicated in 1948. A pattern seems to emerge...) Denmark - Margrethe Spain - Felipe VI Luxembourg - Grand Duke Henri Monaco - Prince Jean
The President of Finland is Sauli Niinistö, and the President of Iceland is Guðni Thorlacius Jóhannesson. These countries' respective Prime Ministers are perhaps better known - Sanna Marin, and Katrín Jakobsdóttir.
This is what I posted about above. Because she looks to like a white woman people want her to deny the black woman who is her mother and that half of her family.
The splendid piece of irony in all this is that the Duchess's black mother is the sensible part of her family. The assortment of idiots she's related to are the white bits of her family.
Notice how Belgium and The Netherlands, at least, have no problem in one monarch standing down to allow the heir to at least get a look in (though I gather Albert II of Belgium abdicated mainly for health reasons).
In neither case does the monarchy, as an institution, seem to have suffered.
A stark contrast to the UK, where the heir is likely to be in his dotage before he gets a chance, and HM the Q is determined to hold onto all her squillions of £££ as tightly as she can, whilst her *kingdom* disintegrates.
She might do well to reflect that there are no pockets in a shroud, and that neither do we bury dead monarchs in a pyramid, surrounded by their earthly wealth...
I haven't got much title to comment on this. I have not seen the programme. I've no intention of doing. People airing their dirty linen in public and gushing their emotions in front of everybody else is distasteful and unpleasant. All the reports so far suggest that that is what they intended and that is what happened.
That somebody makes allegations is neither evidence nor proof either that that is what happened, or that if some of it did, their account bears much resemblance to what transpired or what motivated any of the other people involved.
... Yep - I wasn't disagreeing with you; I was just going slightly further - I'll admit to a sentimental attachment to the monarchy, but realistically, if we got rid of them, we wouldn't need to replace them with anyone, presidential or not. We could just formally transfer all the reserve powers to the Prime Minister (who, in practice, is the one exercising them now), and our system of government would trundle on pretty much exactly as it's supposed to do now. ...
Whatever your views on hereditary government, that is a truly appalling suggestion. Anything in the British constitution, whether one likes it or not, whether the Queen, the House of Lords, moaning about unelected judges or whatever, which restrains it from being an elective dictatorship, however inadequately, is better than that.
That would be so even with a decent Prime Minister, an honourable man or woman rather than the greased piglet this country is cursed with at the moment.
FWIW as Bishop's Finger tells us Philippe de Belgique who married a previous non-royal,
Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz is the King of the Belgians. Baudoin died childless in 1993 and was succeeded by his brother, Albert who abdicated when he thought he was too old to be king.
In an interesting ? twist, it was proved fairly recently through DNA tests that Albert had a daughter conceived out of wedlock. The daughter has had since 1st October 2020 the legal right to the title Son Altesse Royale,Princesse Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha. As far as I know she receives no money from the state, no security on the part of the state and no direct contact with the Belgian royal family.
... Yep - I wasn't disagreeing with you; I was just going slightly further - I'll admit to a sentimental attachment to the monarchy, but realistically, if we got rid of them, we wouldn't need to replace them with anyone, presidential or not. We could just formally transfer all the reserve powers to the Prime Minister (who, in practice, is the one exercising them now), and our system of government would trundle on pretty much exactly as it's supposed to do now. ...
Whatever your views on hereditary government, that is a truly appalling suggestion. Anything in the British constitution, whether one likes it or not, whether the Queen, the House of Lords, moaning about unelected judges or whatever, which restrains it from being an elective dictatorship, however inadequately, is better than that.
I don't think it does that in any meaningful fashion, this is magical thinking.
Those are rather serious accusations, so more information is required. Links, please.
As to my taking (occasional) part in this thread, I can do so as I choose. It's mildly amusing to read the sycophantic remarks of toadies and lickspittles, for whom HM the Q is The Perfect Monarch.
FWIW as Bishop's Finger tells us Philippe de Belgique who married a previous non-royal,
Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz is the King of the Belgians. Baudoin died childless in 1993 and was succeeded by his brother, Albert who abdicated when he thought he was too old to be king.
In an interesting ? twist, it was proved fairly recently through DNA tests that Albert had a daughter conceived out of wedlock. The daughter has had since 1st October 2020 the legal right to the title Son Altesse Royale,Princesse Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha. As far as I know she receives no money from the state, no security on the part of the state and no direct contact with the Belgian royal family.
Interesting! Naughty Albert...
So it's not just the Windsors who get up to mischief...
Was Meghan asked about the problems with her family ?
Was Harry asked why he has never met her father ?
Was Harry asked why he didn't warn her what would be expected of her and what it was like to be a royal ?
I haven't seen it and don't intend to bother when it comes on UK TV this evening. But her family aren't the Windsors, and nor are they the only other family that seems to be that famous, the Kardashians. So the fact that her family members, who nobody has ever had reason to have heard about, didn't really get a look in is hardly surprising.
As for what Harry told, her,it seems pretty well documented that he was bored of royal life well before they were an item, so perhaps he always intended to walk and his family's treatment of her merely hastened it.
All the more reason to warn her of potential problems
BF has forgotten ? to mention the ruler of one of the smaller European states with what must be one of the longest names.
Johannes Adam Ferdinand Alois Josef Maria Marco d'Aviano Pius, Fuerst von und zu Liechtenstein, sometimes known as Hans-Adam II,but replaced since 2004 in matters of everyday governance by his son Alois.
BF has forgotten ? to mention the ruler of one of the smaller European states with what must be one of the longest names.
Johannes Adam Ferdinand Alois Josef Maria Marco d'Aviano Pius, Fuerst von und zu Liechtenstein, sometimes known as Hans-Adam II,but replaced since 2004 in matters of everyday governance by his son Alois.
Conflict makes news, and the British media feeds off it. If there is no conflict, the British media will try to generate it, imaginary or otherwise. The Sussexes are a gift to them. Much of the limited amount of content of the Whitney interview that is available here seems like a mixture of misunderstandings, half-truths and complete and utter cultural diference. The British are notoriously reserved, Americans are notoriously not. Meghan came from a background in show-biz, the Court of St James is a peculiar blend of a superior military regiment and a very old-fashioned religious order. By that I mean that it has its own rituals and traditions, its own language and its own in-jokes, some of them crass and even cruel. Meghan came into this world entirely on her own, without any close family support, acting on the basis of a relatively recent relationship as far as anyone knows, a beautiful exotic bird introduced into a cage of - choose your own analogy. And she thought she was going to be given status which, in the nature of the institution, she could not have. Whatever she may have expected, that could not happen.
William and Catherine were able to hack it. He, of course, has a settled position that gives him status in his world, she has a supportive family relatively close at hand, plus the sense to keep her head down. As a result, she and her husband are written off as dull and boring. With the advent of Meghan, the media sensed tension, and a story. And they went for it for all they were worth, with help from 'friends' and 'sources'. The Palace machine knows from expeience that the best course is to say nothing, not to react, and let the story run into the sand. Sometimes this works, sometimes it does not - as in the case of the Abdication. But Meghan did not expect that, and wanted damaging stories and lies to be rebutted officially. The Royal family cannot these days control what is written or said about them - the times when journalists lost parts of their anatomy for traducing royalty are long gone. Just as well for some of those posting on this thread, perhaps. But today I hear, on the BBC Radio 4 lunchtime news, a reporter pressing Jonathan Dimbleby: 'The Palace will have to respond to this interview, surely?' in tones of anxious longing. One hopes they do not, and that Prince Harry's hope that somehow relations with his father and brother will be 'patched up' can be fulfilled. A great deal of unhappiness will ensue if not.
Whatever some people would like, the monarchy is bound up with British identity. The country is the United Kingdom, and the Crown, not the flag, is what binds it together. 'The Queen's government must be carried on' was the watchword of the civil service, of which I once had the honour to be a minor part. 'Service' and 'duty' are perhaps unfashionable words these days. I, for one, miss them.
... Yep - I wasn't disagreeing with you; I was just going slightly further - I'll admit to a sentimental attachment to the monarchy, but realistically, if we got rid of them, we wouldn't need to replace them with anyone, presidential or not. We could just formally transfer all the reserve powers to the Prime Minister (who, in practice, is the one exercising them now), and our system of government would trundle on pretty much exactly as it's supposed to do now. ...
Whatever your views on hereditary government, that is a truly appalling suggestion. Anything in the British constitution, whether one likes it or not, whether the Queen, the House of Lords, moaning about unelected judges or whatever, which restrains it from being an elective dictatorship, however inadequately, is better than that.
Yebbut the Queen doesn't restrain the PM's use of the prerogative powers* - hence all the prorogation nonsense the other year - so removing the Queen wouldn't make them any less restrained.
I'm not saying that would be a good thing - I agree with you that there should be restraints. But I think that's a separate conversation from the abolition of the monarchy, because in practice restraint has ceased to be part of the monarch's function.
* I called them 'reserve powers' before - not sure if there's a difference.
Was Meghan asked about the problems with her family ?
Was Harry asked why he has never met her father ?
Was Harry asked why he didn't warn her what would be expected of her and what it was like to be a royal ?
I don't know, and I don't really care. You obviously do care, so maybe you could provide the answers?
You don't care yet you are taking part in this thread.
More questions that were avoided.
Harry, Why were in that Nazi uniform ?
Harry, Why did you make racist remarks when you were in the army ?
He's learned something since he was young. He said so. Marrying Meghan taught him much. He said so. He hadn't up close experience of racism until he married. He said that too.
'The Queen's government must be carried on' was the watchword of the civil service, of which I once had the honour to be a minor part. 'Service' and 'duty' are perhaps unfashionable words these days. I, for one, miss them.
It isn't the Queen's Government - we elect it and not her. Time was when "service" and "duty" meant speaking the truth to power, however unpalatable those words may be.
Time to stop perpetuating the nonsense that surrounds the relationship between the Royal Family and the nation.
Was Meghan asked about the problems with her family ?
Was Harry asked why he has never met her father ?
Was Harry asked why he didn't warn her what would be expected of her and what it was like to be a royal ?
I don't know, and I don't really care. You obviously do care, so maybe you could provide the answers?
You don't care yet you are taking part in this thread.
More questions that were avoided.
Harry, Why were in that Nazi uniform ?
Harry, Why did you make racist remarks when you were in the army ?
He's learned something since he was young. He said so. Marrying Meghan taught him much. He said so. He hadn't up close experience of racism until he married. He said that too.
Was he so very young when, as a soldier he called a soldier of Pakistani heritage a P*** or a Sikh soldier a raghead ?
But I don't think he's racist. I just think he's stupid
Comments
And still incredibly stupid not check out the Royal family before getting involved to the point of marriage.
Now you are selling the idea to me!
I'm just going off the UK press reports, but I can't see how she isn't criticising the monarch, even if she says she isn't.
e.g. Whether or not Archie gets a princely title is the Queen's personal decision. If the decision was racially motivated, then either the Queen is personally racist or she doesn't care enough about it to override her racist advisors.
Likewise, the Sussexes' royal duties are whatever the Queen delegates to them. The Queen is perfectly capable of rearranging duties depending on health (e.g., Prince Philip's jobs got reassigned not too long ago). So if Meghan wasn't allowed to take a few months off due to stress, then that would be the Queen's responsibility.
(To be clear: I've no objection to her attacking the monarch if she feels wronged by the monarch.)
This may be a bit nitpicky, but I think the truth is that most democratic republics don't have a figurehead at all, in the sense of a human being who is supposed to embody the nation in the way the Queen does.
If they have an executive president (e.g. France, the US) then the president isn't a figurehead because they have actual power. If their president is non-executive (e.g. Germany, Italy) then their main purpose isn't to be a Queen-like figurehead, it's an extra line of defence to give the machinery of government a kick when it gets stuck. Proof: how many people could name the President of Germany without Googling?
In the church yes. On the island no - it's illegal.
With the new allegations of a private service before the public it looks like the AofC now has his neck in the noose with the Lord Chancellor. Which wedding - if any - is valid?
Does the private service mean that the public one was simply a show?
or the names of the Scandinavian monarchs.
Yes, that's very nitpicky. And given we don't have a figurehead head of state, but one that actively interferes with parliamentary legislation, I'll allow it...
But the point is still active. We don't need the Queen or the any of the royal family to conduct our democratic affairs, and state duties could be carried out by a 5-year old in a paper crown if that's what we wanted.
Having a ceremonial president is very popular in Mid and East Europe, and there are outbreaks across the world, including the world's largest democracy, India.
Welby has broken Canon law whichever way you look at it. A case for the new CDM?
Well, let's allow them to mark their own homework shall we/ Just like it's always been - who are the likes of us to complain? (Tugs forelock)
It's not like the vows were between different people or otherwise contradictory.
Yep - I wasn't disagreeing with you; I was just going slightly further - I'll admit to a sentimental attachment to the monarchy, but realistically, if we got rid of them, we wouldn't need to replace them with anyone, presidential or not. We could just formally transfer all the reserve powers to the Prime Minister (who, in practice, is the one exercising them now), and our system of government would trundle on pretty much exactly as it's supposed to do now.
(I say 'supposed to do' to steer round questions of interference in Queen's Assent.)
In this case, they seem to have made a private exchange of vows and then gone to church for the legal bit. Some people might be a bit sniffy about it but I can't see that it's illegal. Has Welby broken some CofE rules? I'm not CofE, but I would imagine he's fairly well up them...
I think you need witnesses in most US jurisdictions as well. At least going by movie portrayals of Las Vegas weddings, with the comic trope of some local hobos being roped in to serve as witnesses to an otherwise unobserved wedding.
Haven't read your link. No need to. @Golden Key's summary above is accurate and does it complete justice. (https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/399595/#Comment_399595)
I'm surprised at how sympathetically I'm seeing this young couple and family. Note: micro-aggressions about race are commonly expressed by those who haven't examined their attitudes and biases. The suggestion that Meghan could deny half her family and not express that she's mixed race is one of these aggressions. It's racist.
Of course it was a celebrity sideshow. It was an interview with Oprah Winfrey, a person who made a career from interviewing celebrities. What is the purpose of agreeing to be interviewed by Oprah Winfrey? Why would they do it? If it was to bring themselves to the attention of the public in order to make money in the future, they shouldn't talk about the past in the manner that has been reported.
The purpose of the Monarch in Australia is to do her constitutional duty. Most of her duties are carried on by a Governor-General and state Governors anyway. The job of the family is to support the Monarch in the performance of their duties. Their personhood is to be expressed in private, their complaints in private, and their disputes are to be aired in private so as to support the continued existence of the institution.
The very fact of this heinous interview is damaging to the monarchy, if they talk about things that happened or how they felt during their time as members of the Royal Family. The Duchess ought not have disclosed her suicidal thoughts on television in an interview with a person who interviews celebrities for a living. If she needs to talk about her mental health, she should choose an appropriate forum, like for example taking on a role as an advocate for mental health awareness; talking to a counsellor; or talking to a trusted friend. Talking about her mental health is a good thing, but not in such a staged spectacle. Such a disclosure in such a forum can only be an attack on the institution of the Monarchy, which includes the Royal Household and other members of the Royal Family.
The disclosure that "somebody" was concerned about the shade of their child's skin is an obvious attack on the Monarchy. The disclosure and its manner puts the question of who said it in the hearer's mind. It is a teaser, in its effect, and it calls into question not just the integrity of Prince Philip, surely the Royal with the biggest racist rap-sheet, but the Queen, the heir to the throne and Prince Harry's brother. What did the Sussex's think would be the outcome of such a disclosure. Are they without any guile?
An attack on the Monarch weakens the Australian system of Constitutional Monarchy, gifted to us by the British, and graciously paid for, in the main, by the British people. Long may the system continue.
Gah. The whole thing reeks of the pointlessness of the whole charade of placing people on pedestals because of accidents of birth. It's 2021 ffs, not 1421.
Soon may it end.
Given that it has of late been the subject of serious debate whether or not the Duke of York raped underaged girls, I'd say the horse known as "damage to the monarchy" has already left the barn.
This business about the *Queen's Consent*, and her use of it to prevent damage to her already obscene personal wealth, may be the little cloud the size of a man's hand, as in the Bible...(1 Kings 18).
What positive outcome for them?
But isn't that part of the problem? Harry isn't the vicar. He's an assistant curate at best.
Yeah, it wasn't the best analogy. A better one might be that the vicar asks the assistant curate to think of ways of making the church more attractive to young people, and then vetoes every single one on the grounds that the existing congregation won't like it.
(Granted, both analogies depend on the idea that 'the younger generation will modernise the monarchy' came from the monarchy itself rather than media speculation.)
What the hell is the fuss about? She's a pleasant-looking young woman, with what appears to be the sort of colour many pale women spend £££ on in tanning salons to achieve, at the risk of bankruptcy, skin cancer etc.
Ah - jealousy and envy, of course!
Was Harry asked why he has never met her father ?
Was Harry asked why he didn't warn her what would be expected of her and what it was like to be a royal ?
I don't know, and I don't really care. You obviously do care, so maybe you could provide the answers?
As soon as it was known Harry was seriously dating a woman of colour - and one thoroughly able of handling for herself her own life and high-profile career in showbiz - could anyone have doubted that warning bells wouldn't have been sounding in the cobwebby, creaky workings of the Royal Machinery? And of course the tabloid press - famously racist in the UK - would be having their best time ever over the spectacle. This interview alone is big bucks to them.
And now - just like Diana - a hugely divisive interview that will serve to harden opinions and set back the possibility of reconciliation or conflict resolution.
I feel sorry that she (and I expect he) felt isolated, desperate etc. Did they really not have access to support and resources for how they felt, and what was happening? Do all the royals always follow all the advice they receive from their advisors? I can understand a single mum trapped in a bed and breakfast with her two kids, for 14 months, living off benefits, having difficulty accessing help to get by. I'm wondering what hope any of us have if the privileged, wealthy and elite are complaining about having no agency.
As ever, the question that occurs to me is 'so how did they prepare for life in the Royal institution'? I understand that one doesn't know how it will feel until you're going through it. But given everything that went before, what were both the couple and the Institution itself doing in the run-up to the marriage? What could have happened after the wedding that was so radically different to what they could've expected before the ceremony? Maybe they had hoped to introduce something a bit more 'normal' to the way the Royal Family operate, and maybe that was naive. In which case I understand their disappointment. And maybe the Royal Family have missed a trick in 'losing' Meghan and Harry like this. It's such a shame that it seems all the same old mistakes have been made, including, in my opinion, going down the celebrity interview route.
I haven't seen it and don't intend to bother when it comes on UK TV this evening. But her family aren't the Windsors, and nor are they the only other family that seems to be that famous, the Kardashians. So the fact that her family members, who nobody has ever had reason to have heard about, didn't really get a look in is hardly surprising.
As for what Harry told, her,it seems pretty well documented that he was bored of royal life well before they were an item, so perhaps he always intended to walk and his family's treatment of her merely hastened it.
It could be that the couple wanted to make their own vows to each other, but that's not an option in a C of E wedding. But a couple are perfectly at liberty to make promises to each other in the presence of a clergyman.
My brain is saying Baudoin for the King of the Belgians, following Leopold's death, but I think he's dead. Actually, didn't his brother succeed him, and isn't his brother dead, too? And the current king is relatively young (by which I mean more like 40 than 80)?
For the Netherlands, I think both Queen Beatrix and Queen Julianna abdicated / retired. Present King is Willem-Alexander.
The Scandinavians? King of Sweden is Carl something-or-other Gustav, can't remember Norway offhand, but IIRC, Haakon is crown prince. Queen of Denmark is Margrethe. Finland is a republic, as is Iceland, and I can't remember the name of their current presidents.
I don't think Prince Andrew did, when he agreed to that interview ...
This is what I posted about above. Because she looks to like a white woman people want her to deny the black woman who is her mother and that half of her family. That's racist. It's not in-your-face name calling racism but it is racist. Because it indicates that people want her to deny "inconvenient" African heritage. Because black and brown are of less value, she should pass for white.
Other European monarchs:
Sweden - Carl XVI Gustaf
Norway - Harald V
The Netherlands - Willem-Alexander (who succeeded his mother, Beatrix, when she abdicated in 2013. Juliana abdicated in favour of her daughter Beatrix in 1980, and Juliana succeeded her mother, Wilhelmina, when the latter abdicated in 1948. A pattern seems to emerge...)
Denmark - Margrethe
Spain - Felipe VI
Luxembourg - Grand Duke Henri
Monaco - Prince Jean
The President of Finland is Sauli Niinistö, and the President of Iceland is Guðni Thorlacius Jóhannesson. These countries' respective Prime Ministers are perhaps better known - Sanna Marin, and Katrín Jakobsdóttir.
The splendid piece of irony in all this is that the Duchess's black mother is the sensible part of her family. The assortment of idiots she's related to are the white bits of her family.
Notice how Belgium and The Netherlands, at least, have no problem in one monarch standing down to allow the heir to at least get a look in (though I gather Albert II of Belgium abdicated mainly for health reasons).
In neither case does the monarchy, as an institution, seem to have suffered.
A stark contrast to the UK, where the heir is likely to be in his dotage before he gets a chance, and HM the Q is determined to hold onto all her squillions of £££ as tightly as she can, whilst her *kingdom* disintegrates.
She might do well to reflect that there are no pockets in a shroud, and that neither do we bury dead monarchs in a pyramid, surrounded by their earthly wealth...
That somebody makes allegations is neither evidence nor proof either that that is what happened, or that if some of it did, their account bears much resemblance to what transpired or what motivated any of the other people involved.
Whatever your views on hereditary government, that is a truly appalling suggestion. Anything in the British constitution, whether one likes it or not, whether the Queen, the House of Lords, moaning about unelected judges or whatever, which restrains it from being an elective dictatorship, however inadequately, is better than that.
That would be so even with a decent Prime Minister, an honourable man or woman rather than the greased piglet this country is cursed with at the moment.
Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz is the King of the Belgians. Baudoin died childless in 1993 and was succeeded by his brother, Albert who abdicated when he thought he was too old to be king.
In an interesting ? twist, it was proved fairly recently through DNA tests that Albert had a daughter conceived out of wedlock. The daughter has had since 1st October 2020 the legal right to the title Son Altesse Royale,Princesse Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha. As far as I know she receives no money from the state, no security on the part of the state and no direct contact with the Belgian royal family.
You don't care yet you are taking part in this thread.
More questions that were avoided.
Harry, Why were in that Nazi uniform ?
Harry, Why did you make racist remarks when you were in the army ?
I don't think it does that in any meaningful fashion, this is magical thinking.
Those are rather serious accusations, so more information is required. Links, please.
As to my taking (occasional) part in this thread, I can do so as I choose. It's mildly amusing to read the sycophantic remarks of toadies and lickspittles, for whom HM the Q is The Perfect Monarch.
Interesting! Naughty Albert...
So it's not just the Windsors who get up to mischief...
All the more reason to warn her of potential problems
Johannes Adam Ferdinand Alois Josef Maria Marco d'Aviano Pius, Fuerst von und zu Liechtenstein, sometimes known as Hans-Adam II,but replaced since 2004 in matters of everyday governance by his son Alois.
Yes indeed - I stand corrected!
William and Catherine were able to hack it. He, of course, has a settled position that gives him status in his world, she has a supportive family relatively close at hand, plus the sense to keep her head down. As a result, she and her husband are written off as dull and boring. With the advent of Meghan, the media sensed tension, and a story. And they went for it for all they were worth, with help from 'friends' and 'sources'. The Palace machine knows from expeience that the best course is to say nothing, not to react, and let the story run into the sand. Sometimes this works, sometimes it does not - as in the case of the Abdication. But Meghan did not expect that, and wanted damaging stories and lies to be rebutted officially. The Royal family cannot these days control what is written or said about them - the times when journalists lost parts of their anatomy for traducing royalty are long gone. Just as well for some of those posting on this thread, perhaps. But today I hear, on the BBC Radio 4 lunchtime news, a reporter pressing Jonathan Dimbleby: 'The Palace will have to respond to this interview, surely?' in tones of anxious longing. One hopes they do not, and that Prince Harry's hope that somehow relations with his father and brother will be 'patched up' can be fulfilled. A great deal of unhappiness will ensue if not.
Whatever some people would like, the monarchy is bound up with British identity. The country is the United Kingdom, and the Crown, not the flag, is what binds it together. 'The Queen's government must be carried on' was the watchword of the civil service, of which I once had the honour to be a minor part. 'Service' and 'duty' are perhaps unfashionable words these days. I, for one, miss them.
Yebbut the Queen doesn't restrain the PM's use of the prerogative powers* - hence all the prorogation nonsense the other year - so removing the Queen wouldn't make them any less restrained.
I'm not saying that would be a good thing - I agree with you that there should be restraints. But I think that's a separate conversation from the abolition of the monarchy, because in practice restraint has ceased to be part of the monarch's function.
* I called them 'reserve powers' before - not sure if there's a difference.
Time to stop perpetuating the nonsense that surrounds the relationship between the Royal Family and the nation.
Was he so very young when, as a soldier he called a soldier of Pakistani heritage a P*** or a Sikh soldier a raghead ?
But I don't think he's racist. I just think he's stupid