Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[AxelAnnie]

I can't believe no one has commented on the absolutely brilliant statement from BP in response to the interview. "Recollections may vary" might become my signature line here. Love love love it.

I agree - brilliant. My daughter used the same line in mediating an incident between three 10-year-old boys........well actually with the parents of the boys. At some point, that is all you can do.

 

[starrynight]

And you have to be kidding. Everyone is interested! Best drama in years. And with shutdowns everywhere - gives ut something to do!

Oh of course. This is a giant soap opera precisely engineered to get as many people talking as possible. The interview was aired across 70 countries!

The whole world has been invited into Harry and Meghan's personal life and dramas and encouraged to dissect and gossip about it. This is their springboard to super celebritydom. And look we are all talking about them.

 

[jenny12]

Thinking the British monarchy shouldn’t exist doesn’t mean you support troops on the ground obviously.

The problem is the monarchy is used as a shield a very specific type of racism and classism. The concept of royalty just shouldn’t exist in the modern age, even if it exists mainly for show. It’s existence reinforces inequality and has emboldened voices like Piers Morgan’s for too long.

 

[mella]

Unvarnished opinion: Because a lot of people in the UK still want to believe the country is an empire/global superpower.

Ding ding ding!!!

Especially now that it's been decided that the commonwealth will once again be useful to the UK as we've left the EU - but that of course belongs in a different thread.

 

[Deleted member 221]

A bad monarch is there until they die.

The reverse is also true. I admit that being raised in the U.S. gives me a built-in bias against any form of monarchy. It's ingrained in us from birth that it's wrong, even immoral, worth fighting a revolution over, etc.

That said, having lived in the UK over the past six years, I have a new appreciation for the monarchy and for this particular monarch. If you really push me, I'd still say I was a republican (am I allowed to admit that?), but I feel less strongly than I did in the past.

Throughout the deep divisions of Brexit, several political elections, and now C-19, the Queen has been a unifying figure in the country (as she has for 65+ years). She, and the monarchy, are something that virtually all Brits can agree to respect even during the darkest days -- and we've had plenty of them. She has the ability to calmly inspire public order, trust, and common good, even among warring political and other factions of society.

When I compare Britain to the U.S., which was dealing with parallel dysfunction, the UK seems to have weathered the various storms with less extremism and more social cohesion. In part due to the monarchy, which provides a common thread in society that the U.S. just does not have. (In part also due to the BBC and less biased media.) There are other, perhaps better, ways to achieve the same outcome than a monarchy. Like I said, I'm still a republican. But I really get the point of a monarchy in a way I did not before living here, and before living here through various sustained crises.

 

[starrynight]

The change to install a republic would completely alter the entire image and fabric of the UK.

If there is a shift to the republic system, does the family keep their land and houses and just be fabulously rich private individuals? (To be honest, I think plenty of them wouldn't mind). Or is there a full scale revolution where all the aristocracy are thrown off their land and out their houses, French Revolution style? All the coins would need to be changed, the anthem changed and everything about the nation 'Royal this' Royal that' removed.

It's a big question that goes entirely to the core fabric of an entire nation. And it's probably asking for monumental and historic unrest. The majority of people just want to live quiet lives and I don't know if that kind of massive social change is on peoples agendas when they live in a very stable, safe and prosperous nation like the UK.

Usually when there is massive unrest - think the Arab Spring, or French Revolution, it comes from a position of total desperation.

It would take a lot more than an Oprah interview to get a whole nation to completely change it's entire foundation.

 

[Deleted member 221]

Especially now that it's been decided that the commonwealth will once again be useful to the UK as we've left the EU - but that of course belongs in a different thread.

If I can dare to criticize the Queen , I am disappointed that she asked the Commonwealth to "pre-agree" to name Prince Charles as its leader after her death. It could have been an incredibly powerful statement to encourage a leader of the Commonwealth from the developing world, to suggest rotating leadership, or anything other than Charles for that matter.

 

[PRlady]

Thinking the British monarchy shouldn’t exist doesn’t mean you support troops on the ground obviously.

The problem is the monarchy is used as a shield a very specific type of racism and classism. The concept of royalty just shouldn’t exist in the modern age, even if it exists mainly for show. It’s existence reinforces inequality and has emboldened voices like Piers Morgan’s for too long.

Nobody seems to mind the royalty in Scandinavia and the Low Countries (bicycle kings I think they're called....). Even Belgium, whose monarchy has an absolutely foul history in Africa and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Africans in Congo, gets a pass on its current-day monarchs. But nobody is overly fascinated with them either.

Look, the Brits are like Athens after its heyday as a colonial power -- no Empire left and much less political clout but huge soft, cultural power. (Says the woman who obediently watches PBS UK like all the time.) I'll bet not one American in 100 could name the current king of Sweden but you'd have to live in a cave not to know who QE is. I'm not paying their bills so I don't mind the entertainment value but I sure wouldn't want anyone I like to marry into that family.

 

[skatfan]

I don’t call Trumps kids creating a manifesto stating they were internationally protected people who should have security for the rest of their lives provided by tax payers.

His kids also haven’t moved overseas making these costs much worse.

Trump’s adult children traveled internationally for their own businesses on an extensive basis costing US taxpayers millions of dollars annually in Secret service details and many times any previous President’s security costs. They didn’t have jobs working for us during that time.

Trump children who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

 

[becca]

And Harry doesn't? So if William wants to use his father's money to set up trusts for his children you think that a good use of the money? I guess Archie & the new baby aren't really Charles' grandchildren, at least not the ones who count.

BTW here in Texas there are people with huge tracts of land & part of their incomes come from leases for grazing or farming. They get rents from doing this, just like Charles gets from the Duchy. I suppose you think he should let his land be used for free? As for how they got this land in the 1st place, you'd have to go back in history.

It won’t be his fathers money when William inherits it will be Williams money.

it’s not a matter of not counting. Harry got a lot more opportunities and money than his cousins and they are just as much Queen Elizabeth’s grand children.

None of them give interviews about being entitled to things. That it’s not fair that William and Harry get more. Beatrice and Eugenie would have liked to be working royals but were denied. Once again no interviews from them on how unfair.

This is the monarchy and not all of this is about being unfair or mean. Some of this is because the Crown is also thinking about the tax payers and the burden having a huge bloated royal family will be.

And so that means a streamlined royal family it’s not all about Harry and Meghan.

There are two sides to every story there is a lot of talk about the royals don’t like Harry and Meghan trading their titles for cash and also they were spending a lot. A heck of a lot.

And we don’t need to go in the details but one can point point out that moving overseas and being international global celebrity cost lots of money. And don’t you think that maybe if your wanting to have someone else foot the bills you maybe need to think about the costs?

 

[starrynight]

Look, the Brits are like Athens after its heyday as a colonial power -- no Empire left and much less political clout but huge soft, cultural power.

Oh absolutely. And I appreciate that being raised in a family where Britain was 'the Mother Country' and anything British in terms of television/culture was appreciated as superior and my father would only begrudgingly let anything American be shown on the TV in our house.

I've discussed this with my father and upon reflection he says that his world view was very influenced by his education at school in the late 40's/early to mid 50's where Britain was taught as being the centre of the universe and the origin of everything. This is in Australia btw. But probably understandable given the aftermath of the collective effort of World War 2. Even though it was actually the US effort at the Battle of the Coral Sea that stopped the invasion of Australia.

 

[canbelto]

Does anyone remember how awful Piers Morgan was on Celebrity Apprentice? He was VILE.

 

[PRlady]

Does anyone remember how awful Piers Morgan was on Celebrity Apprentice? He was VILE.

He was on it? I never watched the (Dlist) celebrity version.

 

[canbelto]

He was on it? I never watched the (Dlist) celebrity version.

I enjoyed the Celebrity Apprentice versions more than the regular seasons. But omg, Piers Morgan was vile.

 

[allezfred]

When I compare Britain to the U.S., which was dealing with parallel dysfunction, the UK seems to have weathered the various storms with less extremism and more social cohesion.

Low bar innit.....

Even Belgium, whose monarchy has an absolutely foul history in Africa and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Africans in Congo, gets a pass on its current-day monarchs.

Kind of shocking that it took until 2020 for statues of King Leopold 2 to be taken down. The accounts of the genocide in the Congo is one of the most horrific things I have ever read about.

Belgium 'wakes up' to its bloody colonial past - BBC News

Campaigners want statues of King Leopold II, who killed millions in Central Africa, to be removed.

www.bbc.com

 

[Polaris]

Nobody seems to mind the royalty in Scandinavia and the Low Countries (bicycle kings I think they're called....). Even Belgium, whose monarchy has an absolutely foul history in Africa and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Africans in Congo, gets a pass on its current-day monarchs. But nobody is overly fascinated with them either.

Look, the Brits are like Athens after its heyday as a colonial power -- no Empire left and much less political clout but huge soft, cultural power. (Says the woman who obediently watches PBS UK like all the time.) I'll bet not one American in 100 could name the current king of Sweden but you'd have to live in a cave not to know who QE is. I'm not paying their bills so I don't mind the entertainment value but I sure wouldn't want anyone I like to marry into that family.

All of this. If we are strictly speaking of European royals, the Monaco royals are plenty messier than the British royals, and don't even get this level of attention, and that's taking into account an American married into that family as the top Princess / Queen.

Your explanation makes sense.

 

[allezfred]

Harry and Meghan: The union of two great houses, the Windsors and the Celebrities, is complete

After Harry and Meghan, the monarchy looks archaic and racist. Well duh

www.irishtimes.com

Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.

Beyond this, it’s the stuff of children’s stories. Having a queen as head of state is like having a pirate or a mermaid or Ewok as head of state. What’s the logic? Bees have queens, but the queen bee lays all of the eggs in the hive. The queen of the Britons has laid just four British eggs, and one of those is the sweatless creep Prince Andrew, so it’s hardly deserving of applause.

 

[Deleted member 221]

This may be macabre, but if I were the Royal Family, I would be extra careful with letting William and his children all travel together. (Before the pandemic, they all took a Flybe flight to Scotland! )

I do think it's a legitimate issue that you have a prince who, at this point, seems to be developing stronger ties to the US than the UK. Archie qualifies for dual citizenship and is (debatably) a "natural born U.S. citizen"; their daughter will be indisputably a natural born US citizen. The children are presumably going to grow up as Americans and have American accents , with stronger ties to the US than the UK. If, through some tragic disaster (plane crash, terrorism), they somehow become heirs to the British throne... it is an issue.

(Yes, I do know about George I from history -- and the bloody Life in the UK test -- but times have changed.)

 

[barbk]

As for Harry and Meghan:

• I am incredulous that Meghan claims she didn't know what she was getting into. She is either not being truthful or has no curiosity or common sense; either one is not a great look
• I would be more sympathetic if they hadn't tried to trademark and (IMO shamelessly) profit off of their titles / status in the Royal Family

None of that, however, is an excuse for racism or bullying. I am glad Meghan and Harry seem to be in a better place now.

I can absolutely believe that she didn't understand what she was getting into. What does the British royal family do? They show up at events, make a few speeches, serve as patrons for various charitable enterprises, and engage in some travel to promote British links with other countries. She's been a semi-celebrity in the US (maybe Canada, too?) and could easily have seen those activities as not being all that far from what she had already done. I doubt she had any understanding of palace intrigue played at an expert level -- and there are many, many staffers serving various royals who have decades of experience as well as the royals themselves.

In a way, it reminds me of the naivete of new graduate students in Ph.D. programs who fail to understand the political nature of academia and academic departments. It is not enough to be good at whatever you're studying; you also need to manage the political environment.

Perhaps it would work better if those who marry into the family had options more like those used by Timothy Laurence, Princess Anne's current husband. They were married in the early 90's. He didn't take a title, but since then he's been involved in numerous military and business interests, accompanies Anne on various official outings, and chair of English Heritage.

 

[PRlady]

This may be macabre, but if I were the Royal Family, I would be extra careful with letting William and his children all travel together. (Before the *********, they all took a Flybe flight to Scotland! )

I do think it's a legitimate issue that you have a prince who, at this point, seems to be developing stronger ties to the US than the UK. Archie qualifies for dual citizenship and is (debatably) a "natural born U.S. citizen"; their daughter will be indisputably a natural born US citizen. The children are presumably going to grow up as Americans and have American accents , with stronger ties to the US than the UK. If, through some tragic disaster (plane crash, terrorism), they somehow become heirs to the British throne... it is an issue.

(Yes, I do know about George I from history -- and the bloody Life in the UK test -- but times have changed.)

I was going to say, at least Archie and sister will (unlike George I) speak English, but Rex Harrison disagrees (at 1:44) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAYUuspQ6BY

 

[overedge]

Perhaps it would work better if those who marry into the family had options more like those used by Timothy Laurence, Princess Anne's current husband. They were married in the early 90's. He didn't take a title, but since then he's been involved in numerous military and business interests, accompanies Anne on various official outings, and chair of English Heritage.

But then there's Prince Edward's wife Sophie, who had to stop her career in PR after this unfortunate incident https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/apr/08/uk.news

FWIW some of the Royals who are patrons and supporters of different organizations actually do really good work, in publicizing what those organizations are doing, and bringing them together with potential funders and other sources of support. Yes, someone who isn't royal could do that work too, but the royals aren't completely useless. Some of them just show up and cut ribbons and grumble, but others are really enthusiastic and actually contribute something meaningful.

 

[MacMadame]

I don't think they'll get anything out of it and I think it will come back to bite them because how could anyone attack the "poor queen".

Even though they made a point to praise the Queen and say she's always been lovely to Meghan and they have no complaints with her?

I mean it's very compartmentalized of them given that she really is in charge of everything so if "The Firm" is racist, it's on her. But they made a point not to criticize her either because she really has been lovely or because they know it will backfire.

My impression of what they said is that they will give fuel to the fire for people who say the institution is outdated and should be abolished.

I am incredulous that Meghan claims she didn't know what she was getting into.

I'm not. She keeps saying it was something you can't know until you're in there and that makes sense. It's like having kids. You have lots of ideas about what they will be like and you can even do lots of research, but then you have them and it's like "I had no idea"

 

[taf2002]

This may be macabre, but if I were the Royal Family, I would be extra careful with letting William and his children all travel together. (Before the *********, they all took a Flybe flight to Scotland! )

I do think it's a legitimate issue that you have a prince who, at this point, seems to be developing stronger ties to the US than the UK. Archie qualifies for dual citizenship and is (debatably) a "natural born U.S. citizen"; their daughter will be indisputably a natural born US citizen. The children are presumably going to grow up as Americans and have American accents , with stronger ties to the US than the UK. If, through some tragic disaster (plane crash, terrorism), they somehow become heirs to the British throne... it is an issue.

(Yes, I do know about George I from history -- and the bloody Life in the UK test -- but times have changed.)

This sounds something like King Ralph.

 

[MacMadame]

This sounds something like King Ralph.

Or The Princess Diaries where a normal California girl ends up Queen of Genovia. Though not because everyone died, just because there aren't a lot of heirs.

 

[Judy]

Well, yes, it would, but that doesn't mean he couldn't pay for it.

Royals have visited Victoria before, since the Royals usually stay at Government House where the Lieutenant-Governor lives. So it's not like they were living in an area where no one had any experience in providing security for the royal family.

Agreed, even Canada didn't want that responsibility. Is it really all security costs or is it also to cover their lifestyle costs?

Well as soon as you tell Canadians we need to pay anything (our taxes pay everything) we freak out. especially when it really isn’t anything to do with us in the first place.

 

[Judy]

PM Trudeau fielding questions today about if Canada should get out of the constitutional monarchy in light of the systemic racism.


Says he recognizes the want to have these constitutional conversations but focus right now is on the CV, vaccines and economic recovery.

Very true and no we can’t get out of it but there is more important stuff we are dealing with now re covid/economic recovery etc. Nice dodge.

 

[Judy]

Does anyone remember how awful Piers Morgan was on Celebrity Apprentice? He was VILE.

I never watched him .. I don’t get it over here. Well he is off the air now anyways.

 

[becca]

I don’t think it’s for me an American to say a monarchy is good or bad. I think there is good aspects of it. Queen Elizabeth seems to be a hard worker and really is great at remaining above it all. There can be bad ones too though.

Monarchies can provide some stability and a unifying point for a nation when they remain like the Queen above it all.

As for her being responsible for this all because she is a bad parent. She is not Harry’s parent. Harry and Charles are grown people and it’s a on them.

Considering Harry did think a Nazi uniform was a okay I do think there is racism in that family. However considering the Nazi uniform and his own racist comments (all on tape) he is also not one to be throwing stones at his family too. And I take issue with him telling the world.

There is always many sides to a story. Typically. Just because Prince Charles, the Queen, Kate and William aren’t giving interviews doesnt mean they don’t have a point of view.

In terms of Archie the Prince given Charles longstanding position on a streamlined monarchy its unfair to assume it’s about race.

 

[MacMadame]

An article about what it means to people that Meghan opened up about her mental health issues:

These women saw themselves in Meghan’s mental health struggles: It ‘really hit because I’ve been there’

Supporters of the Duchess of Sussex say her candidness could ‘save lives.’

www.thelily.com

 

[Allskate]

I can't believe no one has commented on the absolutely brilliant statement from BP in response to the interview. "Recollections may vary" might become my signature line here. Love love love it.

That jumped out at me immediately. I'm sure it wasn't lost on Harry and Meghan. I doubt they are feeling the "love" expressed in that statement, though they probably realize that one of the Queen's advisers wrote it.

I have no doubt that the monarchy is a source of money for lots of Brits. Lots of tv shows, newspapers, and other media outlets are making plenty of money covering the current Harry and Meghan drama.