Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[antmanb]

Monarchies provide stability and for example British elections are cheaper.

What the hell does the cost of our elections have to to do with having a monarchy?

 

[mella]

On the point of the monarchy being a political or otherwise I'd be interested in your take on something @antmanb - my view is that the last 4-5 months has been the most clear example in my lifetime of how much the monarch and monarchy are political tools. I cannot recall such a sustained period of visibility of members of the royal family and their "good deeds". Previously such levels of interest in them have been reserved for the scandal of the day. Not good but the reality I believe.

I was saying to a friend in Aus that I feel like they have very much been used by the government as a tool and shield to shape public opinion.

And if the press could throw in a line about how Harry wasn't there to help "rally the country" with the other senior royals all the better...

I've actually found the whole thing really jarring and somewhat distasteful... guys look at who W&K/C&C/the QUEEN (and even Prince Philip) are doing over there... don't worry about the government's track record on public health over here!

 

[antmanb]

@mella i hadn’t really thought about that at all but now you mention it, it does seem like they’ve been used as somewhat of a distraction but then Charles did catch it early on.

As to how political the royal family are - some things do piss me off a lot - like in the past when the younger generation has said anything that could be perceived as supporting gay rights they are blasted by the right wing media for being political but other things a allowed to slide. We are never privy to exactly what is discussed in the PMs weekly meetings with the Queen or why indeed such meetings have to happen if the Queen truly is a-political and doesn’t actually have a hand in what happens.

 

[mella]

@mella i hadn’t really thought about that at all but now you mention it, it does seem like they’ve been used as somewhat of a distraction but then Charles did catch it early on.

Yes I guess it's possible that him having caught it has made a difference.

I found the knighting of Captain Tom particularly nauseating. Not because he didn't deserve it (he did a great thing no doubt) but because of the hastily arranged special socially distanced ceremony (rather than waiting for the NY honours or whatever). It just felt completely orchestrated to capitalise on the fact that the country got behind him and the Queen could add some extra mileage to that so called "feel good" factor.

As to how political the royal family are - some things do piss me off a lot - like in the past when the younger generation has said anything that could be perceived as supporting gay rights they are blasted by the right wing media for being political but other things a allowed to slide. We are never privy to exactly what is discussed in the PMs weekly meetings with the Queen or why indeed such meetings have to happen if the Queen truly is a-political and doesn’t actually have a hand in what happens.

Yes agreed. It generally winds me up that anything to do with equal rights is classified as "political" in the first place! And that to be then used as grounds for criticising someone who happens to be born or married into the royal family is gross.

The sly suggestion that MM commenting on the racial tensions in the US following GF murder was a bit too political but maybe alright as she doesn't represent the queen anymore was completely

And total agree ref PM meetings. I personally think the idea that she has no sway whatsoever is somewhat laughable for that very reason.

 

[MsZem]

On the point of the monarchy being a political or otherwise I'd be interested in your take on something @antmanb - my view is that the last 4-5 months has been the most clear example in my lifetime of how much the monarch and monarchy are political tools. I cannot recall such a sustained period of visibility of members of the royal family and their "good deeds". Previously such levels of interest in them have been reserved for the scandal of the day. Not good but the reality I believe.

I found the knighting of Captain Tom particularly nauseating. Not because he didn't deserve it (he did a great thing no doubt) but because of the hastily arranged special socially distanced ceremony (rather than waiting for the NY honours or whatever). It just felt completely orchestrated to capitalise on the fact that the country got behind him and the Queen could add some extra mileage to that so called "feel good" factor.

I figure it was more about him being 100 - a longer wait given his age and the current reality is not ideal.

We saw people looking for some sense of purpose this past spring, whether through clapping for health professionals, balcony concerts, etc. it doesn't strike me as farfetched that the royals would feel the same, or that others would be drawn to what the royals represent during a difficult time.

 

[allezfred]

What the hell does the cost of our elections have to to do with having a monarchy?

No elections in North Korea so let’s all get hereditary dictatorships! Think of the savings!

 

[taf2002]

I am not pushing Andrews daughters never said they should have a larger role I think Charles is right to want slimmer monarchy.

They aren’t responsible for their parents and have done nothing to embarrass their family something Harry cannot say.

Except for the fact that Camilla was doing a speech on domestic violence. Kate an early childhood initiative.

It is what it is. There are problems and issues with the monarchy and issues without it. There are benefits to having a non political king or Queen handling state affairs. If Meghan and Harry don’t believe in the royal family they shouldn’t be a part of it.

How asinine! 1st-how could you possibly know what they believe in? And you can't have it both ways - Meghan wanted to be the "people's princess" or "Diana2.0" but doesn't believe in the royal family. Do you see the contradiction? 2nd-my family & I don't always agree. Should I withdraw from the members who are trumpists? /shakes head

 

[canbelto]

I think essentially the BRF while not "political" are actually upholding conservative political values. The most hardcore royalist boards sometimes read a bit like Phyllis Schlafly -- it's considered scandalous when Kate wears jeans, for instance. Many of them are convinced the Queen is a bastion of conservative values. How the BRF actually feels about political issues is neither here nor there -- people project onto them conservative, traditional values.

 

[Vagabond]

No elections in North Korea so let’s all get hereditary dictatorships! Think of the savings!

But will we ever get to see Kim Yo Jong in a tiara?

 

[becca]

How asinine! 1st-how could you possibly know what they believe in? And you can't have it both ways - Meghan wanted to be the "people's princess" or "Diana2.0" but doesn't believe in the royal family. Do you see the contradiction? 2nd-my family & I don't always agree. Should I withdraw from the members who are trumpists? /shakes head

Well there is the institutional royal family and the private one.

I don’t know what Meghan is thinking but someone here said why should she take Lesser place due to birth order.

I in that sense was replying to them.

Well it’s birth order that gives Harry a higher place than Andrew’s daughters and Herediary that makes the royal family happen.

So if there is a problem with it don’t accept the title. In this case Meghan unlike Diana didn’t marry the heir and so if she was going to be a working member of the royal family she was going to need to take a step back. Marrying Harry was meaning eventually being a Sophie not a Diana.

Once again I don’t know how she feels but I don’t think you can accept a title Based on hereditary and then complain if someone gets a higher title based on hereditary than you.

 

[becca]

I think essentially the BRF while not "political" are actually upholding conservative political values. The most hardcore royalist boards sometimes read a bit like Phyllis Schlafly -- it's considered scandalous when Kate wears jeans, for instance. Many of them are convinced the Queen is a bastion of conservative values. How the BRF actually feels about political issues is neither here nor there -- people project onto them conservative, traditional values.

Well a royal family is kind all about tradition no? Don’t know how it can be progressive. For record I see good and bad aspects. The pants thing is stupid.

 

[becca]

No elections in North Korea so let’s all get hereditary dictatorships! Think of the savings!

Very true U.K. still has elected government though cost used in our elections here is horrific billions spent.

 

[canbelto]

I don't get this whole "UK has a monarchy so there's less politics" argument. I happened upon a FB argument about the UK's handling of crud recently and the arguments were very much like the ones here. Masks vs. no masks. Lockdowns vs. economy. Healthcare system sucks, testing not adequate. Boris Johnson is the hero/Boris Johnson is the devil. The only difference is that the UK has flattened the curve much more than the U.S.

 

[taf2002]

Well there is the institutional royal family and the private one.

I don’t know what Meghan is thinking but someone here said why should she take Lesser place due to birth order.

I in that sense was replying to them.

Well it’s birth order that gives Harry a higher place than Andrew’s daughters and Herediary that makes the royal family happen.

So if there is a problem with it don’t accept the title. In this case Meghan unlike Diana didn’t marry the heir and so if she was going to be a working member of the royal family she was going to need to take a step back. Marrying Harry was meaning eventually being a Sophie not a Diana.

Once again I don’t know how she feels but I don’t think you can accept a title Based on hereditary and then complain if someone gets a higher title based on hereditary than you.

Please cite your source for Meghan complaining about anyone getting a higher title than her. AFAIK she hasn't done so. FTR I think it's ridiculous for anyone to curtsy or bow to anyone else, esp one commoner to another but I accept that's their tradition & it doesn't matter what I think about it.

 

[mella]

I figure it was more about him being 100 - a longer wait given his age and the current reality is not ideal.

We saw people looking for some sense of purpose this past spring, whether through clapping for health professionals, balcony concerts, etc. it doesn't strike me as farfetched that the royals would feel the same, or that others would be drawn to what the royals represent during a difficult time.

They are all human so I've no doubt they all had similar emotional journeys to the rest of us. However I question the motives of the government and the press in how these matters have been presented and publicised because I do strongly feel that the RF has been used for political mileage during this time.

Things like the queen making a speech - when it happens, at the very least the broad content of it does not happen independently of the government.

As far as I understand it it's the government who decide/advise on honours so ultimately these things are relevant in the context of an institution purporting to be apolitical. Decisions about the knighthood were gov decisions not the queen's as i understand it. So yes there may have been some consideration to his age but frankly the government had some pretty major stuff going on that should have had it's full attention.

I personally feel we're in a time when positive and negative spin has been used around the RF to distract from other matters and I find that problematic. I'm not saying it takes anything away from the good things they've done to bring attention to issues and causes but I do think it is on us to be aware/wary of some of the ways in which the government are operating under cover of a relatively popular time in the RF cycle.

The idea that he who shall not be named is entirely protected by a doting mum seems ridiculous to me. IMO that is also a political decision. And that speaks volumes. ETA sorry I don't mean to get into a debate on him by any means. He has his own thread. It was just a quick reference in the context of this particular discusion.

 

[becca]

Please cite your source for Meghan complaining about anyone getting a higher title than her. AFAIK she hasn't done so. FTR I think it's ridiculous for anyone to curtsy or bow to anyone else, esp one commoner to another but I accept that's their tradition & it doesn't matter what I think about it.

I never said she did. But even Finding Freedom says they didn’t like things they wanted to do taking a back seat.

Canbelto said she felt they would be right to be annoyed why should birth order matter.

I said if Agreeing to join royal family it matters and you agreed to it.

Now whether Meghan wants to be in Kate’s position I don’t know?

 

[becca]

I don't get this whole "UK has a monarchy so there's less politics" argument. I happened upon a FB argument about the UK's handling of crud recently and the arguments were very much like the ones here. Masks vs. no masks. Lockdowns vs. economy. Healthcare system sucks, testing not adequate. Boris Johnson is the hero/Boris Johnson is the devil. The only difference is that the UK has flattened the curve much more than the U.S.

Of course the U.K. has politics but the point is they have institutions that are not political. So for example at War the people can hear a speech by the Queen or King that can rally then regardless of how they feel about the Prime Minister:

 

[ballettmaus]

If Meghan and Harry don’t believe in the royal family they shouldn’t be a part of it.

They are Harry's blood relatives. He will always be a part of it.

 

[MacMadame]

I never said she did. But even Finding Freedom says they didn’t like things they wanted to do taking a back seat.

I think you are misinterpreting what she said.

The way I look at it is, if I have a cause and it's important and people are very interested in it, why should the cause of some other member of my family be artificially pumped up while mine is pushed down because they are closer to the throne? Why shouldn't all the BPF members just publicize what they are doing and let the public decide which ones are most important? In the end, it's the cause that is important not the BRF and their birth order.

Of course the U.K. has politics but the point is they have institutions that are not political. So for example at War the people can hear a speech by the Queen or King that can rally then regardless of how they feel about the Prime Minister:

They do have apolitical institutions. The monarchy is not one of them. A monarchy is a form of government and therefore is political by definition.

 

[becca]

They are Harry's blood relatives. He will always be a part of it.

Well of course but I am talking about participating in it. As in taking a title etc.

 

[Barbara Manatee]

Why shouldn't all the BPF members just publicize what they are doing and let the public decide which ones are most important?

Every cause needs publicity in order to get support. Splitting the attention of the public and especially the press with overlapping appearances and announcements would dilute their impact. I understand wanting to jump right in when you have something important to say, but scheduling initiatives in turn gives each a better chance of succeeding.

 

[Lemonade20]

Expensive tax bill for H&M

 

[MacMadame]

Every cause needs publicity in order to get support. Splitting the attention of the public and especially the press with overlapping appearances and announcements would dilute their impact. I understand wanting to jump right in when you have something important to say, but scheduling initiatives in turn gives each a better chance of succeeding.

They maybe they should actively coordinate such things instead of having "secret agreements" that apparently aren't actually agreed to or just hoping it works out.

 

[Husky]

The couple has plans to produce their own tv show on inequity and feminism. At least Sun, Express and DailyFail report so. DailyFail writes they have their own film and tv production company.

This sounds like a good oppurtunity to earn a living. As an actress she knows the film industry from the inside and wasn't she married to a film producer? She probably learnt from looking over his shoulder, maybe she even assisted him. Also Harry can use his network to find sponsors and partners for their projects.

 

[Husky]

I am not very fond to be lectured on inequity by two priviliged persons though. But maybe they find their audience and sponsors, and maybe they find other topics that are less dubious. Now, the cinema in their new mansion makes more sense. It's probably needed for sponsors, film crew, and and critics.

 

[Vagabond]

Maybe they could lecture us on iniquity instead of inequity.

 

[Andora]

The way I look at it is, if I have a cause and it's important and people are very interested in it, why should the cause of some other member of my family be artificially pumped up while mine is pushed down because they are closer to the throne? Why shouldn't all the BPF members just publicize what they are doing and let the public decide which ones are most important? In the end, it's the cause that is important not the BRF and their birth order.

This. This is it.

Folks keep insisting H&M broke some grievous yet unwritten laws, repeatedly condescending with "they just have to accept their passions being less important". That's completely asinine, and imho show shallow thinking. Camilla & Kate have important events, fair, but the complaint is that it shouldn't constantly bump Meghan's work down simply on account of birth order. Marquee events trump less marquee, sure, but stop pushing this notion that the Princes & family = marquee, and H&M should be happy with scraps.

Every cause needs publicity in order to get support. Splitting the attention of the public and especially the press with overlapping appearances and announcements would dilute their impact. I understand wanting to jump right in when you have something important to say, but scheduling initiatives in turn gives each a better chance of succeeding.

Case in damn point.

Anyways, Meghan set Twitter a smidge on fire this weekend for taking part in an online summit, "When We All Vote" -- an organization chaired by Michelle Obama. Your typical fanboys chimed in:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1296790509705453568

https://twitter.com/x/status/1296879343990382592

But the only response I can come up with is:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1297107933633839110

 

[MacMadame]

I like how trying to get people to vote is considered to be against Donald Trump. Very telling.

 

[canbelto]

That's because, as I said, the "royalists" tend to be extremely right-wing and conservative. If you ever go to KensingtonRoyal's IG page you'll see the constant work that has to be done by their PR person to delete offensive/racist comments.

Maybe this will change when Charles becomes king because he identifies with some progressive political positions. But probably not.

 

[Lorac]

Well Dan Wootton and Piers Morgan are a pair of wankers anyway so I'd just ignore their hot air if I were you. Meghan is an American citizen and so is not tied by the neutrality that the BRF has in regards to the voting in the UK elections and has every right to vote in the US election and encourage others to as well. She never said vote for Biden but it is well known she isn't a fan of 45 so I can see why Wootton chose to say what he did - but as I said - he's a wanker and should be ignored!!