<snip> some of the Ruperts I had the misfortune of meeting the infantry couldn't so much as boil an egg.
I have vivid memories of a contemporary trying to heat a tin of bully without piercing it first 😂 Amazing how far the contents of an exploded tin can be flung.
Nothing to do with class, those things. Egg boiling is not as easy as frying them. And a programme on people living as if back in the past showed quite common people not knowing how to open a tin even given a tin opener. It's the expecting someone else to do it for you that exposes class.
My parents in Cirencester had contacts in Tetbury, where the Highgrove estate is, and they thought Charles was well thought of in the area. My parents and their friends were not in the upper strata of society.
Honestly, they probably are awful, but in ways that are entirely different to the portrayal of them in The Crown.
Churchill is often depicted as a waspish drunkard, as opposed to a blundering genocidal imperialist. While I don't think Prince Charles is quite that bad, I imagine the stories of him not being able to carry out mundane tasks like dress himself are closer to the truth - some of the Ruperts I had the misfortune of meeting the infantry couldn't so much as boil an egg.
Given he went to boarding school, he certainly can carry out most activities of daily living. Whether he does, is a different matter.
Though to be fair I'm sure Republic would say the same thing about our lot.
I have no idea whether they bring in more than they cost (althouth I doubt they do); I just find the idea of treating a particular family as special as simply silly.
A lot of it is basically playing Pretend, albeit mostly in the mind. For women, it also includes the princess meme I mentioned upthread. And that runs pretty deep in American culture, and shows up frequently in books, TV, film--and, of course, fairy tales.
This us true. I like state pageantry as much as anyone, but the functions of a Head of State who isn't a head of government could also be performed by a painted stick. It would probably.be easier on the royals.
It might make things livelier if, at each time of succession, eligible princes and princesses could joust for the Crown. I suspect that Anne could take most of them by lunchtime, but we could end up with a Queen Zara or a King Ivor by the time the dust settles.
Who jousts nowadays, with all the concussion awareness? How about a double knockout round-robin polo match of everyone covered by the Act of Settlement? The Commonwealth Realms can sponsor minor royals.
Prince Charles has a small team of valets, apparently. One of them is the great-nephew of our elderly neighbour over the road. I haven’t asked her precisely what his duties involve but she’s very proud of him.
They look after his clothes, particularly uniforms. Don't mock, as @Doc Tor can confirm, No 1's are fiddly and time-consuming to get/keep in good order.
So did all those who went from boarding prep school to boarding senior school to Sandhurst to their first posting.
There is a limited skill set required to survive that environment.
True. I don't think even modern boarding schools provide the opportunity for their pupils to do more than make toast. I am certain that Gordonstoun back in the day would not have taught the boys to cook.
I suspect, however, that the story of HRH being confused about why his toothbrush wasn't foaming ('cause the valet had always applied the toothpaste) is made up.
I find it barely watchable. There are some (small) areas where I know it is untrue which makes me distrustful. Then there are many areas where they simply can’t know what we said or done, and my lack of trust prevents me from accepting the narrative.
.......
On top of all that, however right or wrong it may be in terms of truth and accuracy, it seems to me to be a cruelty to living people who have little or no opportunity to defend themselves or the memory of their now dead family members.
My knowledge of the royal family is minute, but particularly in this last series I find it difficult to believe that Charles went into his marriage with Diana whilst still so deeply enamoured with another woman, also it grates that Diana is being portrayal as someone quite so artless and stupid. (Like her behaviour when she first meets the family, or first goes to a state banquet...)
I also agree with your last paragraph.
Charles and Camillas ongoing relationship have never been denied. Diana was perhaps the last example of the requirement for a Kings bride to be a virgin, and bit divorced. Both reasons why Charles was not allowed to marry her initially.
Also please tell me what 19 year old is not a bit artless?
As others have said, it is a soap opera. I should point out that I have not seen an of it, as I don't have Netflix. But I have seen all the stuff around it.
It draws from known - publicly available - information, and drawing these details out as much as they can.
I have very mixed feelings about the royals. I think they have a place, but I also think they sometimes - oftentimes - get it wrong.
It should be constitutionally impossible for the Queen to be wrong. Its not her decision. It's the Prime Minister who is wrong. Any private decision she might make is irrelevant. The job of the Monarch is to sit down, shut up, and sign where indicated. The job of the monarch's family is to be invisible.
But since they are human beings, it doesn’t quite work out that way does it.
Ultimately it is psychologically indefensible to place an expectation on someone that they will be this figurehead, and embodiment of the constitution , and have sweet FA choice about it. Yet still it goes on. Currently three in direct line of succession. A disgrace.
I gave up watching The Crown as I disliked all the characters, even the young Princess Margaret. Tbh, I think that most have some good qualities and most have some good, much like the rest of us - but I doubt that any of them come out well from the Charles/Diana debacle. (By the way, my understanding of Royal titles would have had 'HRH Diana, Princess of Wales', not the archaic 'HRH Princess Charles'. )
Also, as a cleric in the Church in Wales, I give thanks for our disestablishment a century ago (however incomplete) which means that we are not governed by any members of the House of Windsor.
Yes, but think how much better the Royal Family would have fared, if you in the CinW had continued to pray for them twice daily, as we in the CofE most obediently, reverently, and unctuously, do...
So did all those who went from boarding prep school to boarding senior school to Sandhurst to their first posting.
There is a limited skill set required to survive that environment.
True. I don't think even modern boarding schools provide the opportunity for their pupils to do more than make toast. I am certain that Gordonstoun back in the day would not have taught the boys to cook.
Well my boarding school had facilities for us to do at least an omelette or fried breakfast back at the turn of the 1960s/1970s.
The chap I recall trying to heat an unpierced can of bully beef was from a day school.
No. The position was more like a personal dresser who organised the supply of washing water, towels, etc, and (remember what clothes were like) helped the monarch to remove/rearrange clothing during the day.
It's hughly unlikely a GotS wiped the royal behind - it would have been a level of intimacy too far.
No. The position was more like a personal dresser who organised the supply of washing water, towels, etc, and (remember what clothes were like) helped the monarch to remove/rearrange clothing during the day.
It's hughly unlikely a GotS wiped the royal behind - it would have been a level of intimacy too far.
"No" is a guess, not a certainty. Whether any ever had to wipe the royal rosette is debated, not discounted completely. The position was sought after because of the intimacy allowed, and therefore access to power. This would have negated the otherwise menial nature of some tasks. At one time, monitoring the royal poop was part of the job.
<snip> The job of the Monarch is to sit down, shut up, and sign where indicated.
Which is what ER II does.
The job of the monarch's family is to be invisible.
Not really. Since WWI it has become the established norm for members of the RF to visit communities, hospitals and charities to highlight good work and give encouragement.
My position in the Australian debate over the Monarchy is Royalist minimalist, but I acknowledge the work that the Royal Family does in charities. The difficulty is the Press, really. For that reason, I wish they were all more like Prince Edward.
I gather Pr. Edward has managed to carve out a life for himself that's more his own?
IIRC, he's also the one who stood up to his dad about not wanting to join the military. Impressed me at the time, and still does. (Made the news over here.)
The Culture Secretary in the UK has suggested that The Crown ought to carry a fiction warning. It's a bit depressing to think that ought to be necessary, but there we are.
Presumably he's biased, being a member of her majesty's government.
I gather Pr. Edward has managed to carve out a life for himself that's more his own?
IIRC, he's also the one who stood up to his dad about not wanting to join the military. Impressed me at the time, and still does. (Made the news over here.)
Yes, well. All sorts of rumours and stories about why he didn't want to join the military. Mind you, all sorts of stories about the company he kept/places he frequented whist a student at Cambridge.
I know he had a bodyguard who used to go to his lectures and trail behind him in Sainsbury’s carrying the shopping basket (he was two years above me and I knew people who went to lectures with him) but haven’t heard about anything more newsworthy.
Prince Edward is mostly employed by his dad's Duke of Edinburgh Award, and bits and pieces of ribbon cutting on behalf of his mum. He's worth 45m quid, so he must be very good at it: ribbon cutting, I mean.
My point is that Edward's an exemplary royal. He has expressed no pique at sliding from third to eleventh (and descending) heir to the throne, a rather relentless attempt at being a documentary film producer, and poses no threat to the status and popularity of his royal superiors. It's a rather sad role that the institution of monarchy cossets and condemns him.
In the recent series of the Crown, I think we get the clash between a pre-1960s upper class British world view exempified by the Queen, Prince Philip, and the Queen Mother, and a post-1960s world view exempifed most of all by Diana.
I do think one thing that the Crown gets right is that Her Majesty is not very touchy-feely, not even with her own children. That stems partly from her role and also partly from growing up in the midst of World War II, the old "put your feelings aside and get on with it or the Nazis will kill you" mindset. The whole scene where Diana calls the Queen "mama" is cringeworthy, first of all, she isn't your mother, second of all, she isn't going to be a loving, tender mother in law, she is first and foremost, your Queen.
I think everyone knew before, that Charles and Di were not madly in love with each other, when they married at St Paul's. But a pre-1960s mindset did not necessarily see being passionately in love with one another as a prerequisite for a good marriage. It was hoped that with work and commitment, Charles and Di can grow to love each other, which to be fair, is the belief that prevails in cultures with arranged marriages (the results, as with everything is mixed).
Prince Edward is mostly employed by his dad's Duke of Edinburgh Award, and bits and pieces of ribbon cutting on behalf of his mum. He's worth 45m quid, so he must be very good at it: ribbon cutting, I mean.
Given the money held by the Royal Family, that's a bit like saying that Donald Trump has done really well with his father's inheritance...
And Edward DID join the military - he was enrolled in the Royal Marines but either failed or didn't take the physical endurance test. It was only after that that he joined Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Group as a runner, I believe.
Prince Edward is mostly employed by his dad's Duke of Edinburgh Award, and bits and pieces of ribbon cutting on behalf of his mum. He's worth 45m quid, so he must be very good at it: ribbon cutting, I mean.
Given the money held by the Royal Family, that's a bit like saying that Donald Trump has done really well with his father's inheritance...
And Edward DID join the military - he was enrolled in the Royal Marines but either failed or didn't take the physical endurance test. It was only after that that he joined Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Group as a runner, I believe.
He completed the first third of training with the Royal Marines, which included the physical endurance tests which he passed with flying colours. It wasn't the physical but he couldn't hack, it was the whole military schtick. (My source was once High Up at Lympstone, the RM training base.)
I know he had a bodyguard who used to go to his lectures and trail behind him in Sainsbury’s carrying the shopping basket (he was two years above me and I knew people who went to lectures with him) but haven’t heard about anything more newsworthy.
Having stayed in Cambridge to work I recall that the Student Newspaper was about to run a story on him but received a visit from the Police. Nothing more was said - publicly at least.
Prince Edward is mostly employed by his dad's Duke of Edinburgh Award, and bits and pieces of ribbon cutting on behalf of his mum. He's worth 45m quid, so he must be very good at it: ribbon cutting, I mean.
Given the money held by the Royal Family, that's a bit like saying that Donald Trump has done really well with his father's inheritance...
And Edward DID join the military - he was enrolled in the Royal Marines but either failed or didn't take the physical endurance test. It was only after that that he joined Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Group as a runner, I believe.
He completed the first third of training with the Royal Marines, which included the physical endurance tests which he passed with flying colours. It wasn't the physical but he couldn't hack, it was the whole military schtick. (My source was once High Up at Lympstone, the RM training base.)
My understanding too. Training for 'the best of the best' (of no use to Iraq and Afghanistan) is not for everyone.
Doe they need to be this rich? Like how many "houses" does one family need? Apparently they own beaches and seabeds too.
The queen gets some 12 millions of £ as a "stipend" also. Which seems ridiculous. No doubt the rest of them drink from the public tit too.
It's worth noting there is a distinction between property that is part of the Crown Estate (effectively state owned and managed for profit that goes to the treasury), property that the monarch has use of (Buckingham Palace, St James' Palace etc) and the private property owned by the current monarch which was inherited as any wealthy private individual might (Balmoral, Sandringham).
...property that is part of the Crown Estate (effectively state owned...
Wikipedia indicates that much of Canada (actually most of it, but presumably mainly the parts where few people live) is owned by the Crown in that kind of sense, so it's not just the UK.
...property that is part of the Crown Estate (effectively state owned...
Wikipedia indicates that much of Canada (actually most of it, but presumably mainly the parts where few people live) is owned by the Crown in that kind of sense, so it's not just the UK.
Yeah, the constitutional setup is a kludge held together with chewing gum and gaffer tape. The words attached to things don't necessarily indicate much about their current function. See also: royal perogative.
I am a little confused. Upthread there is some indication that the Royal Marines have been of little use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Haven't their units been sent into those countries? American Marines certainly have been sent in. Why not their brothers and sisters in arms across the pond?
Yes, the Royal Marines have been in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other troops. In fact they are still prividing "consultancy" and training services in both countries.
...property that is part of the Crown Estate (effectively state owned...
Wikipedia indicates that much of Canada (actually most of it, but presumably mainly the parts where few people live) is owned by the Crown in that kind of sense, so it's not just the UK.
Yeah, the constitutional setup is a kludge held together with chewing gum and gaffer tape. The words attached to things don't necessarily indicate much about their current function. See also: royal perogative.
Comments
I have vivid memories of a contemporary trying to heat a tin of bully without piercing it first 😂 Amazing how far the contents of an exploded tin can be flung.
My parents in Cirencester had contacts in Tetbury, where the Highgrove estate is, and they thought Charles was well thought of in the area. My parents and their friends were not in the upper strata of society.
Given he went to boarding school, he certainly can carry out most activities of daily living. Whether he does, is a different matter.
There is a limited skill set required to survive that environment.
Ha Ha Ha! You might find this report of interest.
Though to be fair I'm sure Republic would say the same thing about our lot.
I have no idea whether they bring in more than they cost (althouth I doubt they do); I just find the idea of treating a particular family as special as simply silly.
This us true. I like state pageantry as much as anyone, but the functions of a Head of State who isn't a head of government could also be performed by a painted stick. It would probably.be easier on the royals.
Certainly, if we judge by the "Princess on board" stickers that some parents put on their cars.
True. I don't think even modern boarding schools provide the opportunity for their pupils to do more than make toast. I am certain that Gordonstoun back in the day would not have taught the boys to cook.
I suspect, however, that the story of HRH being confused about why his toothbrush wasn't foaming ('cause the valet had always applied the toothpaste) is made up.
Charles and Camillas ongoing relationship have never been denied. Diana was perhaps the last example of the requirement for a Kings bride to be a virgin, and bit divorced. Both reasons why Charles was not allowed to marry her initially.
Also please tell me what 19 year old is not a bit artless?
But since they are human beings, it doesn’t quite work out that way does it.
Ultimately it is psychologically indefensible to place an expectation on someone that they will be this figurehead, and embodiment of the constitution , and have sweet FA choice about it. Yet still it goes on. Currently three in direct line of succession. A disgrace.
Also, as a cleric in the Church in Wales, I give thanks for our disestablishment a century ago (however incomplete) which means that we are not governed by any members of the House of Windsor.
Well my boarding school had facilities for us to do at least an omelette or fried breakfast back at the turn of the 1960s/1970s.
The chap I recall trying to heat an unpierced can of bully beef was from a day school.
Probably. I presume this means wiping the royal bum, or do you comb the poo's hair?
It's hughly unlikely a GotS wiped the royal behind - it would have been a level of intimacy too far.
What part of Prince Edward should they be like?
IIRC, he's also the one who stood up to his dad about not wanting to join the military. Impressed me at the time, and still does. (Made the news over here.)
Presumably he's biased, being a member of her majesty's government.
The BBC report
Yes, well. All sorts of rumours and stories about why he didn't want to join the military. Mind you, all sorts of stories about the company he kept/places he frequented whist a student at Cambridge.
I do think one thing that the Crown gets right is that Her Majesty is not very touchy-feely, not even with her own children. That stems partly from her role and also partly from growing up in the midst of World War II, the old "put your feelings aside and get on with it or the Nazis will kill you" mindset. The whole scene where Diana calls the Queen "mama" is cringeworthy, first of all, she isn't your mother, second of all, she isn't going to be a loving, tender mother in law, she is first and foremost, your Queen.
I think everyone knew before, that Charles and Di were not madly in love with each other, when they married at St Paul's. But a pre-1960s mindset did not necessarily see being passionately in love with one another as a prerequisite for a good marriage. It was hoped that with work and commitment, Charles and Di can grow to love each other, which to be fair, is the belief that prevails in cultures with arranged marriages (the results, as with everything is mixed).
Given the money held by the Royal Family, that's a bit like saying that Donald Trump has done really well with his father's inheritance...
And Edward DID join the military - he was enrolled in the Royal Marines but either failed or didn't take the physical endurance test. It was only after that that he joined Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Group as a runner, I believe.
Doe they need to be this rich? Like how many "houses" does one family need? Apparently they own beaches and seabeds too.
The queen gets some 12 millions of £ as a "stipend" also. Which seems ridiculous. No doubt the rest of them drink from the public tit too.
He completed the first third of training with the Royal Marines, which included the physical endurance tests which he passed with flying colours. It wasn't the physical but he couldn't hack, it was the whole military schtick. (My source was once High Up at Lympstone, the RM training base.)
Having stayed in Cambridge to work I recall that the Student Newspaper was about to run a story on him but received a visit from the Police. Nothing more was said - publicly at least.
My understanding too. Training for 'the best of the best' (of no use to Iraq and Afghanistan) is not for everyone.
Cheap at the price, value for money, sound investment with incalculably high return in social capital.
My "source" didn't say he fitted in, just that he could do the physical bits 😉
It's worth noting there is a distinction between property that is part of the Crown Estate (effectively state owned and managed for profit that goes to the treasury), property that the monarch has use of (Buckingham Palace, St James' Palace etc) and the private property owned by the current monarch which was inherited as any wealthy private individual might (Balmoral, Sandringham).
Wikipedia indicates that much of Canada (actually most of it, but presumably mainly the parts where few people live) is owned by the Crown in that kind of sense, so it's not just the UK.
Yeah, the constitutional setup is a kludge held together with chewing gum and gaffer tape. The words attached to things don't necessarily indicate much about their current function. See also: royal perogative.
Better yet, see royal prerogative.