Are the royals on the rocks?

1679111242

Comments

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The thing I remember about Diana's death was the public's demand for a royal funeral. Initially, the queen resisted but eventually gave permission for a "unique" funeral--not exactly a royal funeral but (at least in the eyes of this American) close enough.

    This seems to show that the monarchy can bend to public demands. What would have happened to the Windsors if the queen did not compromise then?

    I do wonder if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spark a renewed interest in the royals in Canada.

    You may well be right, but I don't remember any fuss about the nature of the funeral. What sticks with me is the "public" (that is, the media) demanding that the Queen grieve in public, that the flag be flown at half past over the Palace, and such like. At the time, and to this day, I was never sure how much of all that was genuine emotion, and how much was hype.
  • In any case, they appear to have resigned - or as good as.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The thing I remember about Diana's death was the public's demand for a royal funeral. Initially, the queen resisted but eventually gave permission for a "unique" funeral--not exactly a royal funeral but (at least in the eyes of this American) close enough.

    This seems to show that the monarchy can bend to public demands. What would have happened to the Windsors if the queen did not compromise then?

    I do wonder if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spark a renewed interest in the royals in Canada.

    You may well be right, but I don't remember any fuss about the nature of the funeral. What sticks with me is the "public" (that is, the media) demanding that the Queen grieve in public, that the flag be flown at half past over the Palace, and such like. At the time, and to this day, I was never sure how much of all that was genuine emotion, and how much was hype.

    My gut feeling is that when Diana died, the Queen was ambivalent in much the same way any one of us would feel ambivalence about someone who is a divorcee of your child who died. Yes I think the Queen did admire Diana as she publicly stated for her work, but I cannot help to keep in mind that Diana did hurt Charles in the marriage (without excusing Charles' own faults in the marriage). What I thought was unfair to the Queen is the implicit assumption by the public that she must adore Diana as a saint and demonize her own son.

  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    In my (admittedly limited) experience of Canada it seems the monarchy still enjoys popularity in some quarters. I was quite shocked to find several people in Newfoundland actually had pictures of the Queen on the walls in their houses - even my card-carrying Tory in-laws in the Home Counties didn't have that.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The thing I remember about Diana's death was the public's demand for a royal funeral. Initially, the queen resisted but eventually gave permission for a "unique" funeral--not exactly a royal funeral but (at least in the eyes of this American) close enough.

    This seems to show that the monarchy can bend to public demands. What would have happened to the Windsors if the queen did not compromise then?

    I do wonder if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spark a renewed interest in the royals in Canada.

    You may well be right, but I don't remember any fuss about the nature of the funeral. What sticks with me is the "public" (that is, the media) demanding that the Queen grieve in public, that the flag be flown at half past over the Palace, and such like. At the time, and to this day, I was never sure how much of all that was genuine emotion, and how much was hype.

    My gut feeling is that when Diana died, the Queen was ambivalent in much the same way any one of us would feel ambivalence about someone who is a divorcee of your child who died. Yes I think the Queen did admire Diana as she publicly stated for her work, but I cannot help to keep in mind that Diana did hurt Charles in the marriage (without excusing Charles' own faults in the marriage). What I thought was unfair to the Queen is the implicit assumption by the public that she must adore Diana as a saint and demonize her own son.

    In the period leading up to her death Diana was not particularly popular. As in the case of many celebrities, her death was a great career move.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The thing I remember about Diana's death was the public's demand for a royal funeral. Initially, the queen resisted but eventually gave permission for a "unique" funeral--not exactly a royal funeral but (at least in the eyes of this American) close enough.

    This seems to show that the monarchy can bend to public demands. What would have happened to the Windsors if the queen did not compromise then?

    I do wonder if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spark a renewed interest in the royals in Canada.

    It was not The Queen who wanted a private funeral but the Spencer family; all HMQ wished was to give the Spencers what they wanted and what would be best for the children. It was the public - here and abroad - that demanded a public funeral.
  • Statements have been issued by The Queen and the Sussexes. As predicted, they're not going to be semi-detached, they're out.

    HMQ's statement stresses they'll always be part of royal family. Sussex statement says they're dropping HRH (both of them), his military appointments, and won't represent queen in public.

    I hope this is what they wanted because it all sounds pretty absolute and final.
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    And it will be interesting to see the reaction when it is pointed out to them that in Canada, titles are not used. If they are not representing the Queen (or King) they will legally be Mr.. and Mrs. Mountbatten Windsor. People may still choose to refer to them as Sussex, as a matter of politeness, but any documents -- any application for citizenship for example -- will have to be filled out not as Sussex but as MW. Lord Thompson of Fleet made this point when he said"in London I'm Lord Thompson but in Canada I'm Ken". The current Marquess of Ely -- like his father and grandfather before him -- is Mr. Tottenham. (and his aunt - I think his aunt - is a retired bishop, but was never known as "Lady Ann Tottenham" )

    Personally,I wonder what happens when the two of them realise that their celebrity (his at least) is because he is royal, not because of his no doubt many merits, which are like those shown by many hundreds or thousands of people. And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.

    Even when they were royalty, who cared?
  • Anglican BratAnglican Brat Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Personally,I wonder what happens when the two of them realise that their celebrity (his at least) is because he is royal, not because of his no doubt many merits, which are like those shown by many hundreds or thousands of people. And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.

    My understanding is that in Canada, we recognize the monarch as sovereign, but we do not, unlike the UK, have an aristocracy, and therefore Harry and Meghan, if they do reside in this country, are not any more important than any other person living here who come from abroad.

  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    Gee D wrote: »
    And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.

    Even when they were royalty, who cared?

    Far too many people, IMO, but it seems clear they did care.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.

    Even when they were royalty, who cared?

    The evidence of the tabloid press, magazines, and clothing retailers is "a lot of people cared".
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    You think people will stop caring what a prince and an actress do?

    Pull the other one.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Plus I see no reason why he won't continue doing the Invictus Games, which in recent years gave him one of the biggest profiles of anyone in his family.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    You think people will stop caring what a prince and an actress do?

    Pull the other one.

    Right. They are probably about to enter the worst of both worlds: still a draw for paparazzi attention with accompanying annoyance to neighbors wherever they settle, but no more "cushion" of titles, privileges, or public cash.
  • Perhaps he already realized that he's just ordinary. He was The Spare, now that's Charlotte. He's not getting anywhere near the throne, and his go at normality in the British Army got squashed by the brass because of his relations. Best to get out while he still has a life ahead of him and is able to enjoy it. He was going to get cut, it was just a matter of time.

    Perhaps he saw the writing on the wall before most other people did.

    I'm sure he'll be able to volunteer with the Militia in British Columbia if he wants to stay in service.
  • JH--

    Personally,I wonder what happens when the two of them realise that their celebrity (his at least) is because he is royal, not because of his no doubt many merits, which are like those shown by many hundreds or thousands of people. And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.

    Ummm...I suspect they know it's (mostly?) his royalty. Also the whole saga with his parents and extended family. He does do charitable work, AIUI, though.

    Errr...why would you think they wouldn't know that???
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Errr...why would you think they wouldn't know that???

    Not speaking for JH, but is there some magic spell which renders American actresses and British royals any more immune to self-delusion than the rest of us?


  • I hope this is what they wanted because it all sounds pretty absolute and final.

    I suspect they have no idea whether what they want will be what they get. Presumably they had a fairly clearly idea of what they wanted when they married, probably heavily focussed on having a family. What they got was constant sniping at Meghan, to a point where there was nothing she could do that would not be viciously criticised, and no end in sight. Meanwhile, the press dropped its previous vicious criticism of "Waity Katey" "Duchess Dolittle" etc etc and suddenly started describing the Duchess of Cambridge as "regal" (i.e. not an actress) and an "English Rose" (i.e. white).

    It would be interesting to discover the extent to which press compliments about Catherine's "peaches and cream" complexion increased after Meghan came on the scene.

    I wish Harry and Meghan well.


  • Gee D wrote: »
    And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.

    Even when they were royalty, who cared?

    The size of this thread suggests a lot of people do, even if they say they don't.
  • The whole situation is to be reviewed next year, when it's clearer how it's going to work out. That's sensible, in my view.
  • Some further thoughts:

    Prince Harry might consider emulating his distant relative, Prince Rupert ('Rupert of the Rhine'), who, during the Interregnum, enjoyed (if that is the right word) a successful career as a pirate in the Caribbean. If he cultivated that beard, he would have the looks for the part.

    On the other hand, with Meghan having quit the field, or attmepted to do so, who will inherit the role of Wicked Fairy.,Camilla or Catherine? Beatrice and Eugenie are already cast as the Ugly Sisters. Or will the Wolf Pack's fire be concentrated again on Charles?
  • And it will be interesting to see the reaction when it is pointed out to them that in Canada, titles are not used. If they are not representing the Queen (or King) they will legally be Mr.. and Mrs. Mountbatten Windsor. People may still choose to refer to them as Sussex, as a matter of politeness, but any documents -- any application for citizenship for example -- will have to be filled out not as Sussex but as MW. Lord Thompson of Fleet made this point when he said"in London I'm Lord Thompson but in Canada I'm Ken". The current Marquess of Ely -- like his father and grandfather before him -- is Mr. Tottenham. (and his aunt - I think his aunt - is a retired bishop, but was never known as "Lady Ann Tottenham" )

    Personally,I wonder what happens when the two of them realise that their celebrity (his at least) is because he is royal, not because of his no doubt many merits, which are like those shown by many hundreds or thousands of people. And absent royalty, which he has now eschewed, who cares what he, she or they do.

    A minor amendment... in my former days, I knew of two Canadians whose titles were used on official documents (passports) so it can be done-- but it usually isn't. Thompson of Fleet is a perfect example, where Lord Thompson barons it up in the UK, but is Mr Ken Thompson here. In 1982 an interpretative document was drawn up at the Privy Council Office (what we call the cabinet office) where there is a munchkin who, among other duties, signs off on the few occasions that the rare (I think there's perhaps a half dozen) titled Canadians wants to use them-- usually this unfortunate is occupied issuing rejection notices to frequent applications by persons with real or presumed Italian titles (including a former senator). They usually want: 1) a document of official Canadian government recognition of their titles (which have no legal existence, as Italy, along with Germany and Austria, have officially abolished titles of nobility) and which the Canadian government doesn't want to bother about anyway, 2) the Canadian Heraldic Authority which, on grants of coats of arms, cheerfully refuses to register a noble's supporters, mantling, and coronet-- as an example, former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff could have the shield of his ancestor Count Paul Ignatieff, but not the mantling of a noble of the Russian Empire.

    Heraldry nerds will nod with approval, while 98.45% of the world's population will furrow their brows for 2 seconds and then return to watching reruns of The Big Bang Theory.

    The question is not about Harry being a duke on his application for citizenship, but what will be on the certificate of citizenship. As Canada permits multiple citizenships, he doesn't have to renounce his UK citizenship on taking the oath to the Queen of Canada, but whether or not he uses his ducal title as a Canadian will be by arrangement with the Government of Canada at the time-- it's entirely a matter of prerogative of the Queen of Canada, as advised by her Prime Minister. Apparently Harry retains the Prince while letting go of the HRH, so that might end up being on his BC driver's permit.

    To give you an idea of the irrelevance of titles in Canada, even if they have a theoretical presence here, is that a recent Spanish ambassador stopped using his baronial title when in Canada, on the basis that it was a distraction and that titles were not used here.
  • They (Harry and Meghan) won't be Mr & Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor because that isn't Harry's surname: as a royal duke (and he stays royal, just not using his HRH) technically he doesn't have one but if he chooses/needs to use one then it is his title, so it will be Mr & Mrs Sussex.
  • It could be interesting if the citizenship form asks him to list former names.

    I'm reasonably sure that in the military and at school his surname was considered to be Wales.
  • Shades of Mr Snooks, who eventually became Mr Sevenoaks.

    H G Wells?
  • edited January 2020
    What does his birth certificate say? That's probably what he gets. In addition there's limited space so he's not going to get a huge string of names.

    As one of my friends noted, you don't know what you're asking for sometimes. He'll be just another guy buying a coffee at Tim Hortons. Nobody's better than anyone else, no class system.

    The other discussion seems to their "brand" and being "influencers". Which, if I understand it, means using celebrity to sell things. Which means not really giving up the royal schtick, but spinning it toward doing advertisements.

    Season 13 of The Crown coming up eh?
  • It's gonna be monogrammed tea-towels, I tell you.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 2020
    What does his birth certificate say? That's probably what he gets.

    If it's anything like William's was then in the "name and surname" section it had no surname but "His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David".

    I think if you want to use a different name to the birth cert you have to show that you have been legally using it in the country you are emigrating from? A note from Granny would probably suffice I would have thought?

    Otherwise Canada will have to give him a first name of His Royal Highness which would be embarrassing!
  • They (Harry and Meghan) won't be Mr & Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor because that isn't Harry's surname: as a royal duke (and he stays royal, just not using his HRH) technically he doesn't have one but if he chooses/needs to use one then it is his title, so it will be Mr & Mrs Sussex.

    Could he use Dumbarton or Kilkeel as well?

    I think it was last year when some of the papers realised that the Duke of York set up a company under a "fake name" that of Andrew Inverness . In actual fact it was the name of his Scottish Earldom, and as he has no sons using it for their courtesy title is well within his rights to use it.
  • Some Labour figures condemning intrusive and racist comments by the tabloids. I was wondering how Meghan feels about it, but supposedly they were unhappy with the 'rich and exotic DNA' comment.
  • What does his birth certificate say? That's probably what he gets.

    If it's anything like William's was then in the "name and surname" section it had no surname but "His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David".

    I think if you want to use a different name to the birth cert you have to show that you have been legally using it in the country you are emigrating from? A note from Granny would probably suffice I would have thought?

    Otherwise Canada will have to give him a first name of His Royal Highness which would be embarrassing!

    What does his passport say? I don't think a letter constitutes anything. Appeals to authority are no more than interesting.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    I believe the family name is technically Windsor - a formal decision was made to abandon Saxe-Coburg & Gotha owing to anti-German sentiment, and - if The Crown is anything to go by - the Queen decided to give her children her surname rather than Phillip’s.

    (UK law is just that your name is what you are called by people who know you, unless you specifically use an alias to evade the law, legal notice of name change is not required. So they could legally call themselves whatever they like - I’d be very tempted to go with Markle if I were Prince Harry right now.)
  • IIRC Princess Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor on her marriage certificate. I think Harry is technically Prince Henry of Wales, but suspect that such details will likely be approved of by Her Majesty in due course. Someone is likely occupied on a memorandum with options and timelines and etc.
  • He could just adopt the surname of Markle. That'd make granny, and the tabloids, shit a brick.
  • Merkel would be a more interesting choice.
  • Sorry.
  • Interesting article from Alan Rusbridger in the Observer which suggests that the papers behavior may be partially explained by their legal situation.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Sorry.

    Merkel as in Angela. That'd be awesome.
  • Interesting article from Alan Rusbridger in the Observer which suggests that the papers behavior may be partially explained by their legal situation.
    Which they caused themselves, so...
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    I wish them all the best with a long and fruitful marriage.

    The more children Harry and Megan have (and William and Catherine) then the further Andrew gets from the crown, which is the most important thing.
  • Could M & H get away with creating a totally new last name for their own family?

    Maybe something based on something they both care about, or a message in another language...or there's always Klingon!
    ;)

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Interesting article from Alan Rusbridger in the Observer which suggests that the papers behavior may be partially explained by their legal situation.
    Which they caused themselves, so...

    Depends on which they you mean. You can’t blame the Royals for the phone hacking scandal.
  • I believe the family name is technically Windsor - a formal decision was made to abandon Saxe-Coburg & Gotha owing to anti-German sentiment, and - if The Crown is anything to go by - the Queen decided to give her children her surname rather than Phillip’s.

    (UK law is just that your name is what you are called by people who know you, unless you specifically use an alias to evade the law, legal notice of name change is not required. So they could legally call themselves whatever they like - I’d be very tempted to go with Markle if I were Prince Harry right now.)

    British Columbia law is quite different. Under the general scheme common in all provinces in Canada, names changes in BC are governed by the Name Act. Per Section 2, name changes are not permitted except according to the Act.

    Harry's last name isn't theoretical for him as he'll need to submit it for (a) his Permanent Resident Card and (b) his British Columbia Driver's Licence. In practice the name he submits to the Department of Immigration will be the one he's stuck with. The Department of Immigration has no problem rejecting "problematic" names; they famously rejected Singh for Indian immigrant a few years ago and caused a furor in the process.
  • I believe the family name is technically Windsor - a formal decision was made to abandon Saxe-Coburg & Gotha owing to anti-German sentiment, and - if The Crown is anything to go by - the Queen decided to give her children her surname rather than Phillip’s.
    Well, the royal website says that in 1960,:
    The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V.

    It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. . . .

    For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.
    So, sounds like Harry’s surname, if he needs one, is Mountbatten-Windsor.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Idly chatting with the sales clerk yesterday as his colleague went to find my rebuilt oven control panel, he expressed his opinion that the arrival of Prince Harry would not be a problem for Canada. I suppose not, I replied, but of curiosity asked him why he thought so. It is, he assured me, because the Queen's reptilian genes had been negated by Diana's. O, I responded, wondering what the precise joke might be. No joke, he said, for he had recently seen a youtube of Vladimir Putin retailing how he had once seen the Queen emerge from her reptilian form (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENdXoV3T_w). ...
    If people really believe this crap, there's even less hope for the human race that I had thought. But if anyone is a "reptilian," it's Vladimir Putin, not the Queen.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Why would anyone doubt that they want to get away from the vicious tabloid press, considering the fate of Harry's mother? Whether they also find the royals claustrophobic, dunno. I put some distance between me and my family when I was 18.

    The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.

    Must we reduce everything down to a single cause?
    Indeed. Surely the fact that Lady Diana and her paramour weren't wearing seat belts (their bodyguard, the only person in the car who was strapped in, survived even though he was in the "suicide seat," the front passenger seat) was another cause. Had they taken the trouble to buckle up, they'd probably be alive today.
  • Re the Reptilian Theory:

    I've heard of it before. (Didn't check out the video link.) Pretty bizarre. But David Icke, one of the people who put it forth, said that modern people with heritage from space-alien reptilians weren't necessarily bad or dangerous. IIRC, he put Diana forth as one of the good ones.

    I do NOT believe the Reptilian Theory in any way, shape, or form. But it kept coming up, from time to time, so I looked into it a bit. And, long ago, I checked out David Icke's site. I *don't* recommend going there, if it's still the way it was: bizarre design as well as bizarre ideas.

    We now return you to "Reptilian II: How do I tell my family I married a human?". But, first, this commercial from the little green reptilian guy at GEICO...
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Interesting article from Alan Rusbridger in the Observer which suggests that the papers behavior may be partially explained by their legal situation.
    Which they caused themselves, so...

    Depends on which they you mean. You can’t blame the Royals for the phone hacking scandal.
    chrisstiles quote references the media, so the logical inference is that my reply also references the media. And it does.
  • In the unlikely event of William and his kids being wiped out by a meteor, would Harry revert to being the heir? Despite not being royal any longer?
Sign In or Register to comment.