As Meghan might have realised had she not prided herself on not doing any research.
Where did you learn that she "prided" herself on this?
If she said she had googled Harry, she'd be derided for that. And what should she have read? And how should she have known to read it? It's obvious that she didn't know what she was getting herself into, but I don't see how she could have known.
Meghan seemed to think it was a good thing that she hadn't googled Harry before getting involved and while she was dating him from what she said in the interview, as reported. (No, I haven't watched it, but I have read a report.) But had she googled, she might have known something about Diana, Princess of Wales and that whole can of worms, or some of the stuff we all grew up knowing.
We have all absorbed a lot about how dysfunctional the Windsors are as a family, heard the repeated racist epithets from Harry and Prince Philip in particular, heard comment on how stuffy the Queen is for etiquette, how the media here puts anyone involved with them into a goldfish bowl and that the royals' normal response is to ignore it, no reaction, so no rebuttals will be forthcoming; all just from living in this country.
Any and all of which might have made her life easier if she had known in advance.
On the Lord Protector tangent: it was used as a title for regents ruling on behalf of child kings. For example, Jane Seymour's eldest brother was Lord Protector for Edward VI. Cromwell didn't just pick the title out of thin air.
And Richard III - or Duke of Gloucester as he was then, I think, was Lord Protector during Edward V's reign (what there was of it).
One would think, though, that Markle (having already achieve celebrity status in US culture, might have been better-prepped as to what she was getting herself into in joining this "tribe."
I wonder if she thought she was prepared enough -- experience as a celebrity, a few sessions with the equery, we're all good to go, right?
As an American with no particular stake in the outcomes of this mess, I'll just point out that Americans tend to peculiarly individualistic notions about marriage and culture. That is, many of us consider the marriage alliance to be primarily about the two individuals involved, and very little about the conjoining of their respective "tribes."
When I was in my 30s I had a wonderful friend at church in her 70s, who asked when I started dating someone new if we came from the same background. I was startled, as this was something I'd never thought to consider.
On BBC News today there was an interview with the chairman of the John Lewis Business Partnership. I noticed that the said chairman was (a) female, (b) black and (c) a Dame of the British Empire. Was it sexist and racist of me to notice this ?
One would think, though, that Markle (having already achieve celebrity status in US culture, might have been better-prepped as to what she was getting herself into in joining this "tribe."
I wonder if she thought she was prepared enough -- experience as a celebrity, a few sessions with the equery, we're all good to go, right?
"Dysfunctional relatives? Oh, tell me about it, I know all about that ..."
On BBC News today there was an interview with the chairman of the John Lewis Business Partnership. I noticed that the said chairman was (a) female, (b) black and (c) a Dame of the British Empire. Was it sexist and racist of me to notice this ?
Some would say that it was, though I don't really understand why that should be so, even after having it explained to me.
Which reminds me, oddly, of the time when My Old Mum (who would have been 109 today!) asked me if I would ever consider marrying a *coloured* woman...
On BBC News today there was an interview with the chairman of the John Lewis Business Partnership. I noticed that the said chairman was (a) female, (b) black and (c) a Dame of the British Empire. Was it sexist and racist of me to notice this ?
Some would say that it was, though I don't really understand why that should be so, even after having it explained to me.
FWIW I don't think that was what was being explained to you (if you are talking about earlier in the thread).
I still find it hard to believe that M had heard nothing about the royal family. Did she never read newspapers or watch TV? The whole thing about the royal family is that if one of them so much as farts, endless columns are written about it. And I know that North America is just as fixated as the UK. Just stand in the supermarket checkout queue and count how many magazines on the rack have royal family related headlines.
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
It would be tempting to think that life should be a bit like those shit Hallmark style films where anonymous European Prince falls in love with New York waitress. And for an hour and ten minutes the path of True Love is slightly impeded while European Prince reveals true identity and struggles slightly with NY waitress's working class family. While NY waitress struggles with the Queen, who is Julie Andrews; and some posh grey-haired Ben Kingsley-type factotum back at the palace who doesn't approve, until feisty New York waitress wins hearts of plebs; and Julie Andrews says 'it's okay, son, whatever makes you happy makes me happy'. And the 'royals' are frozen, repressed snobs until they learn how to let their hair down and have fun because aforesaid feisty New York Waitress teaches them how to skateboard or wear jeans or something suitably non royal. And the wedding looks like it's been catered by Disney, through a Dynasty filter.
The reality, sadly, is that institutionally Monarchy is a hard-nosed corporate monster (however commendable the individual sovereign) which can only operate successfully when it expects and receives 100% commitment to its intrinsic right to exist, from those within its ranks. There must have been a serious mis-alignment of expectations prior to and after the wedding ceremony. Perhaps the fault then was on both sides.
On BBC News today there was an interview with the chairman of the John Lewis Business Partnership. I noticed that the said chairman was (a) female, (b) black and (c) a Dame of the British Empire. Was it sexist and racist of me to notice this ?
Some would say that it was, though I don't really understand why that should be so, even after having it explained to me.
FWIW I don't think that was what was being explained to you (if you are talking about earlier in the thread).
You may be right. I'm afraid I got a bit confused over that exchange, but perhaps it's better to let it lie. Least said, soonest mended!
I suppose if I were marrying into a prominent family I might look at what happened to others who married in, or ask my girlfriend/boyfriend are there things you think I should know ?
It was all over the press, for example, that Diana Spencer was required to call Prince Charles sir up until they were married.
There are entire books on British etiquette and the palace has formal advisors.
The queen is a woman who chooses to be woken up by a military bagpiper on a daily basis ...
I think this sort of thing provides the most compelling argument for abolishing the monarchy. It's a kind of state-sponsored regime of familial abuse. Nobody should be born into this weird shit and be expected to endure it as some kind of national "duty".
I completely agree, it’s one of the reasons I’m a Republican.
On BBC News today there was an interview with the chairman of the John Lewis Business Partnership. I noticed that the said chairman was (a) female, (b) black and (c) a Dame of the British Empire. Was it sexist and racist of me to notice this ?
The reality, sadly, is that institutionally Monarchy is a hard-nosed corporate monster (however commendable the individual sovereign) which can only operate successfully when it expects and receives 100% commitment to its intrinsic right to exist, from those within its ranks.
But this current situation is successful operation, isn't it? It's main function is to provide entertainment to the masses, and it's working perfectly.
The ethical problem is that this isn't being done with actors or even wannabe celebrities, it's being done with an actual family. These people are messed up specifically because of their position; it would be a kindness to let them just be an ordinary fucked-up family without the press and public rubbernecking at their humiliation.
It would never have occured to me to ask when to curtsy to the Queen - I'd have assumed that it was strictly for public affairs if you're a member of the family.
It is well known that it isn't, although I'll grant that it's probably not well known by Americans. But if you've seen, for example, "The King's Speech" - a film that attracted a certain amount of critical acclaim - you'd have seen that kind of formality on display in private.
The queen was the patron of my 6th form college and she once visited. What made the biggest impression on me was the armed police everywhere, the snipers on the roof and them sealing all the manhole covers. (That and persuading the police to let me share some of the beer they’d been provided after she’d gone even though I was underage.) But we were also given various points of etiquette. We weren’t required to bow or curtsy but we knew the speak when spoken to and don’t try and shake hands etc - you could wear what you wanted, in my case jeans and a sweatshirt. The police had lists of who everyone was etc.
But my point would be, given how many events the royals do, most Brits have seen them at a distance and a surprisingly large number will have met at least one or know someone who has. More than 30,000 people are invited to palace garden parties every year in normal circumstances. And that’s without accounting for the constant press coverage.
The result being every Brit has an opinion, even if it is that we should get rid. Its one of the reasons there have been such strong reactions, I suppose.
A thought about the issue of passport, keys, etc.: Royalty have staff to take care of these things. Nothing sinister about it. She had no idea what she'd got herself into. No wonder she was scared and lonely. Yes, probably all this was explained to her. I doubt if she understood half of the things said to her in a funny accent.
During the time her passport and driving licience etc were confiscated, she went on 13 foreign holidays. Yet another lie from Ms Markle
I attended a certain church service back in 1984, at which the Queen was also present. Security/police everywhere, even in those days.
My sister-in-law was presented to the Queen twice at various University gigs, and she (s-in-l) and her parents attended a garden party at Buckingham Palace. My Pa-in-law was a high-ranking Civil Servant, and my Ma-in-law was pals with the Duchess of Devonshire, of Chatsworth House. Ma-in-law was also acquainted with Princess Diana.
Mrs BF was most put out that she herself was not included in the garden party invite...possibly The Palace knew of my republican/left-wing views...and the fact that I was one of Red Ken Livingstone's GLC lads...
I still find it hard to believe that M had heard nothing about the royal family. Did she never read newspapers or watch TV? The whole thing about the royal family is that if one of them so much as farts, endless columns are written about it. And I know that North America is just as fixated as the UK. Just stand in the supermarket checkout queue and count how many magazines on the rack have royal family related headlines.
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
It's not "nothing", it's simply not the knowledge that you have, at the level that you have it. Consider, how much do you know about, say, American celebrity families, say the Kardashians? I know that there are some sisters who did a TV show and I think a parent was rich from the hotel business. And someone is married to a rap singer and if I paid attention, is getting divorced recently. In another generation, I do know who Humphrey Bogart is, though nothing about his personal life. Don't really care.
I did meet my wife's parents and her immediate family before we married. I didn't know the opinions of them nor if they were secretly axe murderers or not who they nicely presented themselves to be. I focused on her, and that floated our boat. Perhaps love comes differently to others.
The British royal family is, for many, merely another part of celebrity culture. Rich and spoiled and believing than money means you know things and should be listened to because of their status and you can pay people to agree with you. I know people from the UK and some others think that they're "special", but they're not really. I do know that Diana died in a car crash and had a rich boyfriend at the time, that her husband was pretty stodgy and awkward when they married, that they had 2 kids, and the British tabloid press is mostly responsible for her death, that she cut herself and had an eating disorder which her husband and his family are responsible for creating the conditions for. I know next to nothing about the others. Shall I presume The Crown is accurate.
Meghan’s idea of ‘happy ever after princess’ clearly came from too much early watching of Disney animation films.
Well, she got the wedding. 🤷♀️
I dunno, I think Frozen would have been a good introduction.
Elsa attempts to 'just be herself' and plunges the country into eternal winter, while Anna attempts to marry for love and thereby puts the country in the hands of its enemies. Meanwhile the (male) love expert gives utterly shit advice and gets off scot-free, while it's also perfectly reasonable to cut yourself off from your closest partner in trade and call them weasels because of a personal slight.
A thought about the issue of passport, keys, etc.: Royalty have staff to take care of these things. Nothing sinister about it. She had no idea what she'd got herself into. No wonder she was scared and lonely. Yes, probably all this was explained to her. I doubt if she understood half of the things said to her in a funny accent.
During the time her passport and driving licience etc were confiscated, she went on 13 foreign holidays. Yet another lie from Ms Markle
Or, just possibly, Royal staff insisted they deal with things like passports rather than letting her do so herself.
It would never have occured to me to ask when to curtsy to the Queen - I'd have assumed that it was strictly for public affairs if you're a member of the family.
It is well known that it isn't, although I'll grant that it's probably not well known by Americans. But if you've seen, for example, "The King's Speech" - a film that attracted a certain amount of critical acclaim - you'd have seen that kind of formality on display in private.
The idea that they could be so useless parents without film exaggeration is hard to believe, but it was the 1920s.
Expecting others to believe that they would be so absolutely pathetically desperate for affirmation to consider that something to emulate nearly a century later is not exactly complimentary about them.
Meghan’s idea of ‘happy ever after princess’ clearly came from too much early watching of Disney animation films.
Well, she got the wedding. 🤷♀️
And, in fairness, she seems to have got a devoted husband who puts her wellbeing above all else. I, and I suspect Meghan herself, would consider that coming out ahead.
Or, just possibly, Royal staff insisted they deal with things like passports rather than letting her do so herself.
Seems quite likely to me. My default assumption would be to assume that staff would make all the travel arrangements, including things like potentially saying "no, you can't visit your friend in place X at the moment because of such-and-such a political consideration". Mr. Biden doesn't make his own travel arrangements either.
A thought about the issue of passport, keys, etc.: Royalty have staff to take care of these things. Nothing sinister about it. She had no idea what she'd got herself into. No wonder she was scared and lonely. Yes, probably all this was explained to her. I doubt if she understood half of the things said to her in a funny accent.
During the time her passport and driving licience etc were confiscated, she went on 13 foreign holidays. Yet another lie from Ms Markle
It would never have occured to me to ask when to curtsy to the Queen - I'd have assumed that it was strictly for public affairs if you're a member of the family.
It is well known that it isn't, although I'll grant that it's probably not well known by Americans. But if you've seen, for example, "The King's Speech" - a film that attracted a certain amount of critical acclaim - you'd have seen that kind of formality on display in private.
Sure, I saw it -- and I don't remember a thing about the formality between members of the royal family. If I did remember it, absent other knowledge I might have assumed such formality was no longer required. The events in that movie took place 80 years ago, and we've been told for the last 40 years at least that the monarchy is modernizing (whatever that means).
I still find it hard to believe that M had heard nothing about the royal family. Did she never read newspapers or watch TV? The whole thing about the royal family is that if one of them so much as farts, endless columns are written about it. And I know that North America is just as fixated as the UK. Just stand in the supermarket checkout queue and count how many magazines on the rack have royal family related headlines.
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
It's not "nothing", it's simply not the knowledge that you have, at the level that you have it.
There are no "endless columns" about the British royal family in the publications I read; if they actually do something news-worthy, they'll show up in the news, but if you don't read the celebrity gossip magazines or the tabloids here, you can go ages without reading or hearing anything about them. Even with all the publicity this interview got, on the front of the LA Times website right now there are just two pieces connected to it, one news article and one opinion piece, both about Alex Beresford, the weather guy who stood up to Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain (a TV show I didn't previously know existed). And of the the major papers it's probably the most gossipy, since Hollywood is right here.
As NOprophet_NØprofit says, the British royals are just another part of celebrity culture in North America. The people who have been into that sort of thing for 40 years might know Diana called Charles "sir" till they got married and that the royals curtsy to the Queen in private (which just seems unbelievably fucked up to me), but the rest of us don't. When the video re-surfaced of John Oliver talking about the marriage before it took place, I remembered seeing it at the time and thinking it was funny, not realizing he was serious:
She might be marrying into a family that could cause her some emotional complications. ... They are emotionally stunted group of fundamentally flawed people doing a very silly pseudo-job. That's what she's marrying into. So I hope she likes it. It's going to be weird for her. (Youtube)
If anyone can explain the British royals to someone like me, it's John Oliver, but I didn't hear the "Run! Run for your life!" warning that was heavily implied.
Benson & Hedges could take the blame for both George V1 (lung cancer) and the Duke of Windsor ( laryngeal cancer); both 60 a day enthusiasts.
Not B&H.
Georges V and VI smoked Player's Navy Cut.
Prince Philip's mother, Princess Andrew of Greece, smoked Woodbines.
Princess Margaret smoked Chesterfields
It would never have occured to me to ask when to curtsy to the Queen - I'd have assumed that it was strictly for public affairs if you're a member of the family.
I would have assumed this too, and I DO have cross-cultural cross-national experience.
I still find it hard to believe that M had heard nothing about the royal family. Did she never read newspapers or watch TV? The whole thing about the royal family is that if one of them so much as farts, endless columns are written about it. And I know that North America is just as fixated as the UK. Just stand in the supermarket checkout queue and count how many magazines on the rack have royal family related headlines.
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
Not speaking to her experience specifically, since I don't follow her stuff. But speaking as a person who does have an interest in certain widely-written-about issues, the first thing I learned is that 99% of what was out there was pure bullshit. I would never dream of googling on a subject like the UK royals--I'd expect more misinformation than truth. But having access to one of the family and being still completely in the dark, that isn't so good.
A thought about the issue of passport, keys, etc.: Royalty have staff to take care of these things. Nothing sinister about it. She had no idea what she'd got herself into. No wonder she was scared and lonely. Yes, probably all this was explained to her. I doubt if she understood half of the things said to her in a funny accent.
The only member of the royal family not to have a passport is The Queen. When they go abroad an equerry presents the royal's passport, etc. If it's not an official trip they look after their own passport - no exceptions.
Meghan would have retained, or her office would have held, her passport. It would have been up to Meghan to ensure her US passport was up-to-date. (She wasn't here long enough to get UK citizenship.)
The individual members of the family are responsible for their own driving licence - again The Queen is the exception. A US licence is valid in the UK for a year, after that you must take a driving test.
If Meghan's staff had her passport and licence it could only be because she handed them over. And if she didn't have her passport how did she manage to fly to and from Canada in early 2020?
Ruth - when I mentioned that the chairman of the John Lewis Partnership was(a) female and (b) black and (c) a Dame of the British Empire I don't think that I was being sexist or racist. (I neither said whether I approved or disapproved of the situation)
I put a question out because one never knows whether one should or should not notice whether a person is male, female or genderfluid etc .Nor does one know whether one should notice whether a person is of white colour or black colour or brown colour or some other colour or mixture of colours.
In a post-colonial era one cannot always know whether one should applaud a person for having been 'honoured' (or possibly 'tainted') by having accepted the title of Dame of the British Empire.
Then I wonder whether, if not sexist or racist, I was at the very least patronising in noticing that the chairman was female,black and D.B.E. ?
I know that we are trying to eliminate undoubted inequalities but we are best to do it with our eyes open, so in the final analysis I am glad that I noticed these details of the chairman of John Lewis Partnership.
It would never have occured to me to ask when to curtsy to the Queen - I'd have assumed that it was strictly for public affairs if you're a member of the family.
I would have assumed this too, and I DO have cross-cultural cross-national experience.
I attended a certain church service back in 1984, at which the Queen was also present. Security/police everywhere, even in those days.
My sister-in-law was presented to the Queen twice at various University gigs, and she (s-in-l) and her parents attended a garden party at Buckingham Palace. My Pa-in-law was a high-ranking Civil Servant, and my Ma-in-law was pals with the Duchess of Devonshire, of Chatsworth House. Ma-in-law was also acquainted with Princess Diana.
Mrs BF was most put out that she herself was not included in the garden party invite...possibly The Palace knew of my republican/left-wing views...and the fact that I was one of Red Ken Livingstone's GLC lads...
I suspect there were two invitad: one for you Pa-in-law with a plus 1, and one for you S-i-l through the university.
Royal garden parties sound quite grand but really it's all a bit of a scrum and only a handful of people get to meet HM, if she's present.
Ruth - when I mentioned that the chairman of the John Lewis Partnership was(a) female and (b) black and (c) a Dame of the British Empire I don't think that I was being sexist or racist. (I neither said whether I approved or disapproved of the situation)
I put a question out because one never knows whether one should or should not notice whether a person is male, female or genderfluid etc .Nor does one know whether one should notice whether a person is of white colour or black colour or brown colour or some other colour or mixture of colours.
To my mind noticing something and mentioning it are two different things.
We can’t help what we notice but we can control our reaction to whatever we notice.
I attended a certain church service back in 1984, at which the Queen was also present. Security/police everywhere, even in those days.
My sister-in-law was presented to the Queen twice at various University gigs, and she (s-in-l) and her parents attended a garden party at Buckingham Palace. My Pa-in-law was a high-ranking Civil Servant, and my Ma-in-law was pals with the Duchess of Devonshire, of Chatsworth House. Ma-in-law was also acquainted with Princess Diana.
Mrs BF was most put out that she herself was not included in the garden party invite...possibly The Palace knew of my republican/left-wing views...and the fact that I was one of Red Ken Livingstone's GLC lads...
I suspect there were two invitad: one for you Pa-in-law with a plus 1, and one for you S-i-l through the university.
Royal garden parties sound quite grand but really it's all a bit of a scrum and only a handful of people get to meet HM, if she's present.
It's all a long time ago, so I can't recall the details - apart from Mrs BF's chagrin at not being invited...
Royal garden parties sound quite grand but really it's all a bit of a scrum and only a handful of people get to meet HM, if she's present.
Been there, done that!
We saw HM from afar, through a thick crowd. Prince Edward was there (we'd met him before) and he was most attentive to her needs. It was really rather sweet.
The nibbles were lovely and it was fun walking around the grounds of Buck House. We also enjoyed playing "spot the sniper on the roof." Most of all, though, we enjoyed getting in a taxi to get back to the train station and have Japanese tourists take our picture as we left the Palace, presumably because they thought that anyone leaving the Palace must be Important.
<snip>and have Japanese tourists take our picture as we left the Palace, presumably because they thought that anyone leaving the Palace must be Important.
In a former life I occasionally had to go into the House of Lords for work reasons and enjoyed the same experience.
Both my parents received multiple invitations to Palace garden parties, all declined for the same reason I'd also use. Not that it's likely I'd get past the background checks.
Comments
But what a buzz.
Meghan seemed to think it was a good thing that she hadn't googled Harry before getting involved and while she was dating him from what she said in the interview, as reported. (No, I haven't watched it, but I have read a report.) But had she googled, she might have known something about Diana, Princess of Wales and that whole can of worms, or some of the stuff we all grew up knowing.
We have all absorbed a lot about how dysfunctional the Windsors are as a family, heard the repeated racist epithets from Harry and Prince Philip in particular, heard comment on how stuffy the Queen is for etiquette, how the media here puts anyone involved with them into a goldfish bowl and that the royals' normal response is to ignore it, no reaction, so no rebuttals will be forthcoming; all just from living in this country.
Any and all of which might have made her life easier if she had known in advance.
And Richard III - or Duke of Gloucester as he was then, I think, was Lord Protector during Edward V's reign (what there was of it).
I wonder if she thought she was prepared enough -- experience as a celebrity, a few sessions with the equery, we're all good to go, right?
When I was in my 30s I had a wonderful friend at church in her 70s, who asked when I started dating someone new if we came from the same background. I was startled, as this was something I'd never thought to consider.
"Dysfunctional relatives? Oh, tell me about it, I know all about that ..."
Some would say that it was, though I don't really understand why that should be so, even after having it explained to me.
Which reminds me, oddly, of the time when My Old Mum (who would have been 109 today!) asked me if I would ever consider marrying a *coloured* woman...
FWIW I don't think that was what was being explained to you (if you are talking about earlier in the thread).
It would be tempting to think that life should be a bit like those shit Hallmark style films where anonymous European Prince falls in love with New York waitress. And for an hour and ten minutes the path of True Love is slightly impeded while European Prince reveals true identity and struggles slightly with NY waitress's working class family. While NY waitress struggles with the Queen, who is Julie Andrews; and some posh grey-haired Ben Kingsley-type factotum back at the palace who doesn't approve, until feisty New York waitress wins hearts of plebs; and Julie Andrews says 'it's okay, son, whatever makes you happy makes me happy'. And the 'royals' are frozen, repressed snobs until they learn how to let their hair down and have fun because aforesaid feisty New York Waitress teaches them how to skateboard or wear jeans or something suitably non royal. And the wedding looks like it's been catered by Disney, through a Dynasty filter.
The reality, sadly, is that institutionally Monarchy is a hard-nosed corporate monster (however commendable the individual sovereign) which can only operate successfully when it expects and receives 100% commitment to its intrinsic right to exist, from those within its ranks. There must have been a serious mis-alignment of expectations prior to and after the wedding ceremony. Perhaps the fault then was on both sides.
You may be right. I'm afraid I got a bit confused over that exchange, but perhaps it's better to let it lie. Least said, soonest mended!
I completely agree, it’s one of the reasons I’m a Republican.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018083161784/the-queen-piper-role-royal-news/ Apparently she insists on a different tune every morning.
The reason this Republican knows this you ask ? Because it was a fact on QI.
Do you think it was? Why or why not?
The ethical problem is that this isn't being done with actors or even wannabe celebrities, it's being done with an actual family. These people are messed up specifically because of their position; it would be a kindness to let them just be an ordinary fucked-up family without the press and public rubbernecking at their humiliation.
Meghan’s idea of ‘happy ever after princess’ clearly came from too much early watching of Disney animation films.
Well, she got the wedding. 🤷♀️
It is well known that it isn't, although I'll grant that it's probably not well known by Americans. But if you've seen, for example, "The King's Speech" - a film that attracted a certain amount of critical acclaim - you'd have seen that kind of formality on display in private.
https://poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-verse
The website of the John Lewis Partnership identifies the lady in question, Dame Sharon White, as "chairman".
But my point would be, given how many events the royals do, most Brits have seen them at a distance and a surprisingly large number will have met at least one or know someone who has. More than 30,000 people are invited to palace garden parties every year in normal circumstances. And that’s without accounting for the constant press coverage.
The result being every Brit has an opinion, even if it is that we should get rid. Its one of the reasons there have been such strong reactions, I suppose.
Maybe she is a gender fluid chair.
During the time her passport and driving licience etc were confiscated, she went on 13 foreign holidays. Yet another lie from Ms Markle
Yes, indeed.
I attended a certain church service back in 1984, at which the Queen was also present. Security/police everywhere, even in those days.
My sister-in-law was presented to the Queen twice at various University gigs, and she (s-in-l) and her parents attended a garden party at Buckingham Palace. My Pa-in-law was a high-ranking Civil Servant, and my Ma-in-law was pals with the Duchess of Devonshire, of Chatsworth House. Ma-in-law was also acquainted with Princess Diana.
Mrs BF was most put out that she herself was not included in the garden party invite...possibly The Palace knew of my republican/left-wing views...and the fact that I was one of Red Ken Livingstone's GLC lads...
I did meet my wife's parents and her immediate family before we married. I didn't know the opinions of them nor if they were secretly axe murderers or not who they nicely presented themselves to be. I focused on her, and that floated our boat. Perhaps love comes differently to others.
The British royal family is, for many, merely another part of celebrity culture. Rich and spoiled and believing than money means you know things and should be listened to because of their status and you can pay people to agree with you. I know people from the UK and some others think that they're "special", but they're not really. I do know that Diana died in a car crash and had a rich boyfriend at the time, that her husband was pretty stodgy and awkward when they married, that they had 2 kids, and the British tabloid press is mostly responsible for her death, that she cut herself and had an eating disorder which her husband and his family are responsible for creating the conditions for. I know next to nothing about the others. Shall I presume The Crown is accurate.
I dunno, I think Frozen would have been a good introduction.
Elsa attempts to 'just be herself' and plunges the country into eternal winter, while Anna attempts to marry for love and thereby puts the country in the hands of its enemies. Meanwhile the (male) love expert gives utterly shit advice and gets off scot-free, while it's also perfectly reasonable to cut yourself off from your closest partner in trade and call them weasels because of a personal slight.
Or, just possibly, Royal staff insisted they deal with things like passports rather than letting her do so herself.
Your hatred of the woman is showing.
Expecting others to believe that they would be so absolutely pathetically desperate for affirmation to consider that something to emulate nearly a century later is not exactly complimentary about them.
And, in fairness, she seems to have got a devoted husband who puts her wellbeing above all else. I, and I suspect Meghan herself, would consider that coming out ahead.
Seems quite likely to me. My default assumption would be to assume that staff would make all the travel arrangements, including things like potentially saying "no, you can't visit your friend in place X at the moment because of such-and-such a political consideration". Mr. Biden doesn't make his own travel arrangements either.
Wow, this hatred of yours is quite alarming.
Sure, I saw it -- and I don't remember a thing about the formality between members of the royal family. If I did remember it, absent other knowledge I might have assumed such formality was no longer required. The events in that movie took place 80 years ago, and we've been told for the last 40 years at least that the monarchy is modernizing (whatever that means).
There are no "endless columns" about the British royal family in the publications I read; if they actually do something news-worthy, they'll show up in the news, but if you don't read the celebrity gossip magazines or the tabloids here, you can go ages without reading or hearing anything about them. Even with all the publicity this interview got, on the front of the LA Times website right now there are just two pieces connected to it, one news article and one opinion piece, both about Alex Beresford, the weather guy who stood up to Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain (a TV show I didn't previously know existed). And of the the major papers it's probably the most gossipy, since Hollywood is right here.
As NOprophet_NØprofit says, the British royals are just another part of celebrity culture in North America. The people who have been into that sort of thing for 40 years might know Diana called Charles "sir" till they got married and that the royals curtsy to the Queen in private (which just seems unbelievably fucked up to me), but the rest of us don't. When the video re-surfaced of John Oliver talking about the marriage before it took place, I remembered seeing it at the time and thinking it was funny, not realizing he was serious:
If anyone can explain the British royals to someone like me, it's John Oliver, but I didn't hear the "Run! Run for your life!" warning that was heavily implied.
Georges V and VI smoked Player's Navy Cut.
Prince Philip's mother, Princess Andrew of Greece, smoked Woodbines.
Princess Margaret smoked Chesterfields
I would have assumed this too, and I DO have cross-cultural cross-national experience.
Not speaking to her experience specifically, since I don't follow her stuff. But speaking as a person who does have an interest in certain widely-written-about issues, the first thing I learned is that 99% of what was out there was pure bullshit. I would never dream of googling on a subject like the UK royals--I'd expect more misinformation than truth. But having access to one of the family and being still completely in the dark, that isn't so good.
The only member of the royal family not to have a passport is The Queen. When they go abroad an equerry presents the royal's passport, etc. If it's not an official trip they look after their own passport - no exceptions.
Meghan would have retained, or her office would have held, her passport. It would have been up to Meghan to ensure her US passport was up-to-date. (She wasn't here long enough to get UK citizenship.)
The individual members of the family are responsible for their own driving licence - again The Queen is the exception. A US licence is valid in the UK for a year, after that you must take a driving test.
If Meghan's staff had her passport and licence it could only be because she handed them over. And if she didn't have her passport how did she manage to fly to and from Canada in early 2020?
It doesn't add up.
I put a question out because one never knows whether one should or should not notice whether a person is male, female or genderfluid etc .Nor does one know whether one should notice whether a person is of white colour or black colour or brown colour or some other colour or mixture of colours.
In a post-colonial era one cannot always know whether one should applaud a person for having been 'honoured' (or possibly 'tainted') by having accepted the title of Dame of the British Empire.
Then I wonder whether, if not sexist or racist, I was at the very least patronising in noticing that the chairman was female,black and D.B.E. ?
I know that we are trying to eliminate undoubted inequalities but we are best to do it with our eyes open, so in the final analysis I am glad that I noticed these details of the chairman of John Lewis Partnership.
Is that just when she's at Balmoral?
Asking for a friend.
I would have assumed this too, and I'm British.
No, everywhere. (Apparently it used to give Philip's mother the heebie-jeebies when she was living at BP.)
I suspect there were two invitad: one for you Pa-in-law with a plus 1, and one for you S-i-l through the university.
Royal garden parties sound quite grand but really it's all a bit of a scrum and only a handful of people get to meet HM, if she's present.
To my mind noticing something and mentioning it are two different things.
We can’t help what we notice but we can control our reaction to whatever we notice.
It's all a long time ago, so I can't recall the details - apart from Mrs BF's chagrin at not being invited...
Been there, done that!
We saw HM from afar, through a thick crowd. Prince Edward was there (we'd met him before) and he was most attentive to her needs. It was really rather sweet.
The nibbles were lovely and it was fun walking around the grounds of Buck House. We also enjoyed playing "spot the sniper on the roof." Most of all, though, we enjoyed getting in a taxi to get back to the train station and have Japanese tourists take our picture as we left the Palace, presumably because they thought that anyone leaving the Palace must be Important.