Royalty Thread#12 Tiaras, Palaces & Gilded Cages

[Judy]

It is easy for me to say it. But the reality is we all have choices. They have made theirs. Not one of us on this good earth gets everything we want from every situation we encounter.

For the record I am not a Sussex naysayer. I am firmly a supporter. I'm a black british woman who was relieved to see Meghan apparently welcomed into the Royal family (early Christmas invite etc) whilst being apprehensive about how some sections of the British public and press would react and treat her. And about how she would be treated within the RF once the public smiles and hand-waving were over.

I was horrified by the disrespect shown by some members of the RF during their wedding. I have been disgusted by the tone of a significant amount of the press coverage of Meghan and Harry since their wedding. I have argued with people (including in earlier version of this thread) about the inherent racism in some of the criticisms being levelled at Meghan and about the covert racism in Britain in general.

Seeing the two of them quite clearly being used as "cover" for Andrew's transgressions turned my stomach. Seeing the way Meghan has been treated by some people, publications and broadcasters has been distressing, depressing and a whole host of other things.

I have been disappointed but not surprised by a lot of things that have been said and done where Meghan is concerned.

I think the choices they are making are in their best interest and believe they have anticipated the fact that Charles's expected "slim down" of the RF will mean their services will only really be relevant until William's children grow up and have chosen to take matters into their own hands and attempt to cut their own paths. I respect that hugely.

None of that means I cannot also have a view on them meeting their own security costs.

I am not disdainful of any of Meghan's experiences, as much as anything because I was born a black woman in Britain and I have no illusions about what that means. And Meghan has had to play her role in the full glare of press and public. So don't presume to use terms such as "bitchy" and "disdainful" in reference to anything I've said about Meghan.



I have no idea why you find the idea of financial independence equating to meeting their own security cost so offensive. Because at its root that was the main message in my original post.

You keep telling us how they are both wealthy in their own right (despite the fact that as you say we all already know it). My saying so wasn't any more a "dig" than you saying so. It's a statement fact regardless of who said it.

I'm not perturbed by the idea that they desire to be independent. If I were in Meghan's shoes I'd want to be far away from the treatment she has been subjected to. I'm perturbed by the use of the phrase "become financially independent" because (per my original post) Harry already is (or at least has the means to be so as a result of inheritance etc) and so is Meghan. By the way that's not a jab. It's just a fact.

I respect and support their decision to break away and really hope it works out for them. Because that will be the best "finger" they can give to the British press, those online trolls who have behaved so badly and indeed anyone within the RF who contributed to them feeling their position was untenable.



Thank you for your advice, patronising as it might be. However, believe me I already know exactly where to go and do plenty for my part to make my voice heard on any number of topics including taxes, the NHS, Brexit, racism in the UK and Andrew amongst many other issues. Not that my representations will make any difference.

The fact that you consider my having a view regarding funding of security to be "perpetual moaning" only shows how blinkered you are on this topic.

And my @ to Zemgirl was a joke which she will I'm sure have understood.

As soon as a high profile member of the RF gets married italways seems to be an attack on the wife. The fact she wasn’t British and black gave extra ammunition.

I have never visited the U.K. and I am white but I am sorry that you experience racism. You are also entitled to express your opinions and beliefs. At the end of the day we are all people.

 

[MacMadame]

Seeing the two of them quite clearly being used as "cover" for Andrew's transgressions turned my stomach. Seeing the way Meghan has been treated by some people, publications and broadcasters has been distressing, depressing and a whole host of other things.

I just clicked on a click-bait headline about some supposedly serious transgression Meghan did. (I couldn't believe it so I wanted to see WTF they were talking about.) It was all about how her Vogue cover "copied" a book cover of a book that she was somewhat involved with and published earlier. The supposed copying? Having rows of women's pictures. Because, you know, no one has ever done that before.

I think this is an example of how certain parts of the public behave when they want to drag on someone. Not only is everything they do micro-analyzed looking for fault, but they will make the most ridiculous accusations based on actually nothing.

Also to your entire post to aftershocks.

 

[Judy]

I just clicked on a click-bait headline about some supposedly serious transgression Meghan did. (I couldn't believe it so I wanted to see WTF they were talking about.) It was all about how her Vogue cover "copied" a book cover of a book that she was somewhat involved with and published earlier. The supposed copying? Having rows of women's pictures. Because, you know, no one has ever done that before.

I think this is an example of how certain parts of the public behave when they want to drag on someone. Not only is everything they do micro-analyzed looking for fault, but they will make the most ridiculous accusations based on actually nothing.

Also to your entire post to aftershocks.

Yup I can’t disagree. Imagine being the person targeted. No thanks!

 

[taf2002]

One thing that I've noticed is lately there seems to be many more stories about Kate than there used to be doing what I consider ordinary things & the superlatives are nauseating. All of a sudden she is a saint. I like Kate but really? The contrast between her stories & the stories about Meghan are pointed. Yeah we get it. One is a saint & the other the devil.

 

[starrynight]

Meghan's and Harry's personal money does not belong to the British nation.

The approximately $88 billion dollars the royal family is worth didn't come from them working jobs.

That's the spoils of hundreds of years of conquest and consequential land ownership and wealth flowing from birth right.

The whole system of the creation of this wealth based on ruling classes and the idea that by luck of birth an individual is superior to others is just a polarising opposite to modern concepts of equality. So yes, I do find it fascinating how people benefiting from this system happily collect the vast financial spoils and status and then get upset that the public doesn't adore them enough. In a world of true equality, the class system wouldn't exist.

I used to be a big fan of the royals, but many of them are rapidly revealing themselves to be utterly unremarkable people who have been elevated by nothing more than birth into positions of incredible privilege and 'superiority'.

 

[Winnipeg]

One thing that I've noticed is lately there seems to be many more stories about Kate than there used to be doing what I consider ordinary things & the superlatives are nauseating. All of a sudden she is a saint. I like Kate but really? The contrast between her stories & the stories about Meghan are pointed. Yeah we get it. One is a saint & the other the devil.

Wasn't the same thing done re Fergie - she was the devil and Diana the saint

 

[taf2002]

The approximately $88 billion dollars the royal family is worth didn't come from them working jobs.

That's the spoils of hundreds of years of conquest and consequential land ownership and wealth flowing from birth right.

The whole system of the creation of this wealth based on ruling classes and the idea that by luck of birth an individual is superior to others is just a polarising opposite to modern concepts of equality. So yes, I do find it fascinating how people benefiting from this system happily collect the vast financial spoils and status and then get upset that the public doesn't adore them enough. In a world of true equality, the class system wouldn't exist.

I used to be a big fan of the royals, but many of them are rapidly revealing themselves to be utterly unremarkable people who have been elevated by nothing more than birth into positions of incredible privilege and 'superiority'.

Ok, are you going to leave your estate to your family or will you have it shared with the populace? Most people who argue about inheirated wealth have no intention of turning down an inheiratance for themselves. Most peers in the UK don't own their family homes anymore & haven't for years because of thinking like yours.

 

[starrynight]

Ok, are you going to leave your estate to your family or will you have it shared with the populace? Most people who argue about inheirated wealth have no intention of turning down an inheiratance for themselves. Most peers in the UK don't own their family homes anymore & haven't for years because of thinking like yours.

I think attempting to relate the existence of regular folk to royalty is normalising that family too much. Normal people have more in common with people living in mud huts than they do to the royal family.

I personally don't have an issue with inheritance - of course people can pass along their money. But the royal concept is more than passing down money, it's about the idea that these people are fundamentally better and superior to others - for no reason other than birth. And it's not just about money, all the money in the world can't buy into that status. Which is why all the rich celebrities want in on royalty - because it's that exclusive club.

I was so struck by that image of Beyonce and JayZ standing in a queue to meet Harry and Meghan. Beyonce and Jay Z are in every single way more superior - in talent, achievement, skill, work ethic etc. But yet, they are standing in a queue because of the status royal birth and marriage bestowed on two people.

I will say that I actually threw a viewing party for Harry and Meghan's wedding and follow the royal family closely. Yet this whole thing is really turning me off them in a major way.

 

[canbelto]

One thing that I've noticed is lately there seems to be many more stories about Kate than there used to be doing what I consider ordinary things & the superlatives are nauseating. All of a sudden she is a saint. I like Kate but really? The contrast between her stories & the stories about Meghan are pointed. Yeah we get it. One is a saint & the other the devil.

One thing I'm disturbed about is how Kate seems to have become a "favorite" among the alt right and white nationalist interwebs. This is of course not her fault but pictues of her circulating as examples of white supremacy have been disturbing.

 

[MacMadame]

Most peers in the UK don't own their family homes anymore & haven't for years because of thinking like yours.

I don't think that's the reason. I think it's that those homes are expensive to own and maintain and the estates don't make that much money.

 

[taf2002]

I don't think that's the reason. I think it's that those homes are expensive to own and maintain and the estates don't make that much money.

No, it's death duties. I can't remember when that was established. An estate that has been in the family for hundreds of years is taxed every time the head of the family dies. At first some of the families could survive by throwing their homes open to the public & charging admission but WW2 really hit some families hard by losing more than one heir in a very short period of time & death duties were assessed each time. Most historical estates are now the property of the national trust.

 

[MacMadame]

But death duties aren't specific to royalty so I don't see how that supports your statement that they lost their homes due to thinking like @starrynight's.

 

[starrynight]

I was mostly trying to set out the crazy levels of privilege that the royal family experiences and how it’s strange to me that some people want to view them as victims. A taxation policy is a separate issue.

A relevant tweet I saw from a Canadian said ‘Why would Canada pay for the security services of a wealthy couple who has stepped out of public service while First Nations kids can't even get a proper school or a clean glass of water?’

I thought that was a pretty decent take on it.

 

[Judy]

I was mostly trying to set out the crazy levels of privilege that the royal family experiences and how it’s strange to me that some people want to view them as victims. A taxation policy is a separate issue.

A relevant tweet I saw from a Canadian said ‘Why would Canada pay for the security services of a wealthy couple who has stepped out of public service while First Nations kids can't even get a proper school or a clean glass of water?’

I thought that was a pretty decent take on it.

The RCMP was only providing intermittent support at the request of Scotland Yard (or whatever you guys call it). First Nations is much more complicated.

 

[Japanfan]

Ok, are you going to leave your estate to your family or will you have it shared with the populace?

If I had a substantial inheritance, I'd definitely give some of it to causes I care about, such as animals.

There is much joy to be found in sharing. To the contrary, greed would just make a person hard, and possibly afraid that others might find a way to steal from them.

 

[taf2002]

If I had a substantial inheritance, I'd definitely give some of it to causes I care about, such as animals.

There is much joy to be found in sharing. To the contrary, greed would just make a person hard, and possibly afraid that others might find a way to steal from them.

I agree but that is not the point I was making. Besides, you said some of it, not all of it & if it was a lot. Your "a lot" may be different than others.

But death duties aren't specific to royalty so I don't see how that supports your statement that they lost their homes due to thinking like @starrynight's.

Death duties in the UK are only assessed when the total value is over 325,000 pounds & is at 40%. That wouldn't affect most people.

 

[MacMadame]

Death duties in the UK are only assessed when the total value is over 325,000 pounds & is at 40%. That wouldn't affect most people

But it has nothing to do with being royal.

 

[taf2002]

But it has nothing to do with being royal.

But it has to do with what @starrynight was talking about: the ruling class of people whose decendants whether royal or not didn't earn their money. But that's true of everybody who inheirants anything. When both my parents died the money I got was money I didn't earn.

 

[VGThuy]

It wasn’t just death duties but many factors that showed that sort of life was unsustainable. Downton Abbey may make domestic service look like a great gig, but the truth was that it was not and it was exploited hard labor playing on their sense of class inferiority and lack of education and inability to move up in society. By the time World War II, many estates weren’t able to upkeep their properties anyway because servants were tired of working long hours for low wages and being exploited so many of them left to find jobs elsewhere. Also, education became more accessible and universal which opened more doors and opportunities for domestic workers. Like being a geisha, you wouldn’t do that work unless the other option was starving and homelessness.

The whole class system, though still here, was going to be rocked anyway, death duties or no death duties. Also, many of those death duties were passed with support because for generations, the higher classes living on those estates didn’t pay their fair share and if anything many of them paid very little taxes in comparison to others who had less. So when they were passed it was a feeling of “about time”. The class disparity was huge and the industrial revolution made it even worse. People including children were losing limbs and being paid nearly nothing in these factories working long hours in dangerous and health-damaging conditions, so sympathy for the extremely wealthy to pay taxes especially after being brought into a society where there was a disdain from those in that class for the working poor or anyone not in their class was low.

Then there’s also a fact that many of those families weren’t having much in the way of income anyway. There were some that staved off the inevitable by trading their titles for American money and others who were able to marry other money as well, but there was always that danger lurking for those who were rich in land and title but not money would lose their estates anyways.

Circling back, the whole estate system was unsustainable for a myriad of reasons and wasn’t lasting if they kept doing what they were doing.

 

[mag]

One thing that I've noticed is lately there seems to be many more stories about Kate than there used to be doing what I consider ordinary things & the superlatives are nauseating. All of a sudden she is a saint. I like Kate but really? The contrast between her stories & the stories about Meghan are pointed. Yeah we get it. One is a saint & the other the devil.

You are comparing apples and oranges. First, Kate has recently increased her public profile and number of engagements. That has nothing to do with Meghan and has been planned out since before Meghan was even in the scene. More engagements, higher profile, = more coverage. Second, Kate has launched a fabulous initiative with the Early Years Program. It is important work that has been in development since she started as a Royal. You are seeing the results of almost a decade of effort. No one has said she is a saint. They are pleased with the work she is currently doing. What has she done that should be criticized? Should they make something up? Kate has had a ton of negative and nasty press in the past. Like Meghan there was good stuff around the wedding which quickly turned to negative nastiness about Kate being lazy and work shy. At the two year mark for Kate (which is where Meghan is) things were not all roses and sunshine. On the other side, what has Meghan done lately that the press should be praising her for? Releasing information about their cocooning with Archie and doing yoga? Really? While living in a borrowed multi million dollar house while the British and Canadian taxpayers pay to protect you? And while they pay more because you want to fly to Florida where Harry will get paid handsomely for speaking? Did they offer to reimburse the taxpayers for that extra cost?

People complain that the media “makes stuff up” yet when they report on what people are actually doing (Kate ramping up her charity work and Meghan not doing any) suddenly that is not fair? When Kate was on maternity leave and Meghan was getting all kinds of accolades for her cookbook and other charity work, was that ok? Or should the press not have reported that because it was unfair to Kate?

I really wish we could just separate and not constantly compare. If you are unhappy about the coverage of Meghan, post a article and explain why it is unfair. Kate has nothing to do with it. Same with articles about Kate. Meghan has nothing to do with it.

 

[mag]

Cute new photo of the Cambridge kids:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2020030185574/prince-william-kate-middleton-photo-has-backstroy-to-george-charlotte-louis/%3fviewas=amp

 

[canbelto]

Kate's Big 5 survey is so dumb. It nauseates me how much praise she's getting for a survey that could have been lifted from any motherhood magazine.
Also all of her questions can be answered with:
1) Having lots of money
2) Having lots of money
3) Having lots of money
4) Having lots of money
5) Having lots of money

 

[mag]

Kate's Big 5 survey is so dumb. It nauseates me how much praise she's getting for a survey that could have been lifted from any motherhood magazine.
Also all of her questions can be answered with:
1) Having lots of money
2) Having lots of money
3) Having lots of money
4) Having lots of money
5) Having lots of money

She is getting praise because of the whole program. You may not understand, but that doesn’t mean it is “dumb.”

 

[shan]

Kate's Big 5 survey is so dumb. It nauseates me how much praise she's getting for a survey that could have been lifted from any motherhood magazine.
Also all of her questions can be answered with:
1) Having lots of money
2) Having lots of money
3) Having lots of money
4) Having lots of money
5) Having lots of money

What are the questions?

 

[canbelto]

1. What do you believe is most important for children growing up in the UK today to live a happy adult life? Rank from most important to least important:

• Good physical and mental health
• Good friendships and relationships
• Access to opportunities
• Access to a good education

2. Which of these statements is closest to your opinion?

• It is primarily the responsibility of parents to give children aged 0-5 the best chance of health and happiness
• It is primarily the responsibility of others in society to give children aged 0-5 the best chance of health and happiness
• It is the shared responsibility of parents and others in society to give children aged 0-5 the best chance of health and happiness
• Don't know

3. How much do you agree or disagree with this statement? The mental health and wellbeing of parents and carers has a great impact on the development of their child(ren)

• Strongly agree
• Tend to agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Tend to disagree
• Strongly disagree

4. Which of the following is closest to your opinion of what influences how children develop from the start of pregnancy to age five?

• Mostly the traits a child is born with (i.e. nature)
• Mostly the experiences of a child in the early years (i.e. nurture)
• Both nature and nurture equally
• Don't know

5. Which period of a child and young person's life do you think is the most important for health and happiness in adulthood?

• Start of pregnancy to five years
• 5-11 years (primary school)
• 11-16 years (secondary school)
• 16-18 years (further education)
• 18-24 years (young adulthood)
• Don't know
• All equally important

 

[overedge]

A friend who works in early childhood education says that most of the questions in Kate's survey have already been answered by extensive research. So while I appreciate her bringing attention to the importance of a good start in life, I'm not sure what the survey is supposed to accomplish.

 

[PDilemma]

I don't think the point is to research those questions/answers but to see what parents's understanding of what is important for their children. That could help programs know what they need to help parents understand and then access.

And Kate didn't do this by herself. If you read the Court Circular, you'd see that she's had a ton of meetings with experts in the field of early childhood to create not only the survey but determine the programs that her initiative will support and potentially found.

 

[overedge]

I don't think the point is to research those questions/answers but to see what parents's understanding of what is important for their children. That could help programs know what they need to help parents understand and then access.

But that's exactly what some of the research has examined. What parents think or want or need, and what types of programs can best address those circumstances.

And Kate didn't do this by herself. If you read the Court Circular, you'd see that she's had a ton of meetings with experts in the field of early childhood to create not only the survey but determine the programs that her initiative will support and potentially found.

I don't believe I said that she personally designed the survey herself. But I don't know why the experts she consulted with didn't tell her that research has alreadly addressed the questions that are being asked. That research would give some very useful ideas as to what programs she could support.

 

[canbelto]

The survey is so out of touch.

Which of the following is closest to your opinion of what influences how children develop from the start of pregnancy to age five?

• Mostly the traits a child is born with (i.e. nature)
• Mostly the experiences of a child in the early years (i.e. nurture)
• Both nature and nurture equally
• Don't know

There's been so many studies done on the interaction between environment and genetics. This is not a new thing or sort of new thing. This is ancient news. There's been identical twin studies of twins brought up together/raised apart. A bunch of longitudinal studies. It's laughable that Kate thinks this is revolutionary.

This question is really a right-wing trap:

Which of these statements is closest to your opinion?

• It is primarily the responsibility of parents to give children aged 0-5 the best chance of health and happiness
• It is primarily the responsibility of others in society to give children aged 0-5 the best chance of health and happiness
• It is the shared responsibility of parents and others in society to give children aged 0-5 the best chance of health and happiness
• Don't know

Mothers who answer 2 or 3 are seen as not being able to do it all themselves, and mommy-shamed. When in fact many of the women who struggle are at an economic disadvantage. Of course the rich women with nannies will answer 1.

 

[overedge]

The approximately $88 billion dollars the royal family is worth didn't come from them working jobs.

That's the spoils of hundreds of years of conquest and consequential land ownership and wealth flowing from birth right.

The whole system of the creation of this wealth based on ruling classes and the idea that by luck of birth an individual is superior to others is just a polarising opposite to modern concepts of equality. So yes, I do find it fascinating how people benefiting from this system happily collect the vast financial spoils and status and then get upset that the public doesn't adore them enough. In a world of true equality, the class system wouldn't exist.

It's not just the Royal family that benefits from this system. There are many titled non-royal families who own large amounts of land in the UK. An estate isn't always a stately home with hundreds or thousands of acres of land around it that the family uses. It can be a relatively modest home (well, modest by titled people's standards) with most of the land leased to others, and the family can be quite wealthy from collecting the lease payments. Some of that land has been leased for nearly a thousand years, as far back as the Domesday Book.