Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,634
So you'll bleat on and on about how horrible some celebrity -- whose choices impact you not at all -- is and how they are entitled and should pay for their own security (which they are, btw) but it's okay for Trump to waste taxpayer's dollars on security for people who aren't entitled to it -- something that directly impacts you.
But abortion! :D
 

Polaris

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,250
Hypothetically, if a monarchy perpetuates systematic racism, hate, and classism (among other things), why shouldn't outsiders have an opinion on it? Should we not care about something just because it isn't within our borders?

And it's not like it precludes caring about things within our borders.
There's a difference between having an opinion and calling for ABOLISHMENT, which assumes that you have the right to call for action to be taken against an institution (and in this case a foreign one). All monarchies perpetuate systematic racism, hate, and classism (they're monarchies), but I don't see Americans hollering about other monarchies the same way. Americans have a really strange obsession with royalty (despite being poo-pooing it), and when it comes to the British monarchy in particular, that obsession reaches its zenith.
 

FiveRinger

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,361
OMG, as a black woman I have so many feelings about this, none of them particularly good about any of the people involved. I'm not in a position now to do a lot of typing.

But I have a serious question. As an American I really don't understand, so I need someone to give me a basic explanation. What is the purpose of the monarchy? In 2021, what purpose does the British (or really any) monarchy serve? The answers might change my perspective.
 

michalle

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,345
OMG, as a black woman I have so many feelings about this, none of them particularly good about any of the people involved. I'm not in a position now to do a lot of typing.

But I have a serious question. As an American I really don't understand, so I need someone to give me a basic explanation. What is the purpose of the monarchy? In 2021, what purpose does the British (or really any) monarchy serve? The answers might change my perspective.

I was talking about this with someone this morning; this was basically her question, and I came it from the perspective, not very enlightened or noble, that while the British monarchy doesn't appear to me as an American to have a substantive purpose, and as an institution it's pretty anti-democratic just by existing, at the same time, it has a sort of emotive quality, like it makes the world more interesting in the same way an important building or piece of art might. I think I would find the world mildly less interesting without it but I can't really justify that it should continue to exist just to provide me with some form of fascination; that's why this debate/discussion is so intriguing to me. I have read that it has economic benefits to the UK, in that it brings in more money than it uses up, contrary to what you might think, but I'm frankly too lazy at the moment to go look and see if I can find a source to confirm that. Maybe Americans have the luxury in a way of finding it interesting without really being impacted by it?
 

manhn

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,686
Same!

And I don’t really care if it’s abolished or not.

If the British people want it, go right ahead.

I just want Canada out of it.

Exactly! Brits, you do you.

I get changing the Constitution is not exactly easy, so I will be patient. At the very least, get their faces off our money. Replace them with faces of Viola Desmond, Josiah Henson, Drake.
 

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
8,126
Exactly! Brits, you do you.

I get changing the Constitution is not exactly easy, so I will be patient. At the very least, get their faces off our money. Replace them with faces of Viola Desmond, Josiah Henson, Drake.
Yes! And Barbara Ann Scott.

I do have one of the commemorative $10 with Viola Desmond on it.

Re. The constitution

I was impressed that Trudeau didn’t say it’s completely off the table.

I could see Trudeau saying that he will open up a discussion as a campaign promise for re-election.

It would play well in Quebec for sure.
 

jadingirl

Active Member
Messages
230
I wish someone would calculate how much money from tourism they would make opening up all the private homes and palaces to tourism where the royals live.

I know Buckingham Palace is open to tourists for the summer months while the Queen is away and we went to Windsor to tour it but then the Queen was there so we were only allowed on the grounds, St George's Chapel and to see the dollhouse.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,428
I wish someone would calculate how much money from tourism they would make opening up all the private homes and palaces to tourism where the royals live.

I know Buckingham Palace is open to tourists for the summer months while the Queen is away and we went to Windsor to tour it but then the Queen was there so we were only allowed on the grounds, St George's Chapel and to see the dollhouse.

Here you go:

It would also be interesting to know how many tourists come to the UK specifically to see Royal-related sites, rather than just going to those sites as well as other attractions (museums, galleries, stately homes, etc.)
 

FiveRinger

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,361
Piers Morgan is the British equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.
He was such a vile man. My dad told me that he was buried here. I had no idea. I forgot he was from Missouri, buried in St Louis. They should have buried him at Maralago

ETA: I didn't realize Piers stormed off the set after Alex called him out for being a b*tch, unable to handle MM's ghosting him. 🤣🤣🤣
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
It is so deeply weird that the Duchy of Cornwall is a modern day serfdom.

I agree. It's weird to a lot of us. It's also why it's weird to me that Harry seems to think he is entitled (to the point of whingeing on international television about it) to vast vast amounts of the money from it being sent to the USA to fund his private lifestyle.

As for republics, after watching the train crash that has been the presidential system in the US, I don't exactly see it as something I want to emulate in my own country. At least in the Westminster system, a Prime Minister is simply a party member who is chosen to lead the party. As such, this person has had to be voted into an MP role, advanced to cabinet and been elected as leader by the party - usually this takes a couple of election cycles. The politician therefore has to prove themselves over extended time and face questions in parliament on a regular basis. There is also an opposition party that is there to provide a different perspective and challenge them. Also if the person goes crazy, they can be removed in a morning by the party and replaced. The system of just parachuting a politician or someone politically motivated into the head of a country based on populism and no direct opposition doesn't sound like something I like too much. Politicians are awful and I don't think I want another layer of them in our political system. And certainly not a partisan politician who individually claims to be the face of our nation (ackk).
 
Last edited:

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
42,612
There's a difference between having an opinion and calling for ABOLISHMENT, which assumes that you have the right to call for action to be taken against an institution (and in this case a foreign one).
How dare us! Btw, I was against apartheid too. Even though it wasn't happening in my country. I know. I have such gall to have opinions about other countries. :drama:
 

mella

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,732
OMG, as a black woman I have so many feelings about this, none of them particularly good about any of the people involved. I'm not in a position now to do a lot of typing.

But I have a serious question. As an American I really don't understand, so I need someone to give me a basic explanation. What is the purpose of the monarchy? In 2021, what purpose does the British (or really any) monarchy serve? The answers might change my perspective.

As far as I have ever been able to determine there is very limited purpose. See @morqet's posts above for a decent summary of my thoughts too. For me it's mostly the :watch:. They are as fecked up as any other family i know they just do it all in public so the rest of us don't feel so bad :rofl:;)

There is a narrative that they bring income and more than they take out but who knows. You can make the numbers tell any story you like when you're dealing with intangibles.

One personal gripe of mine is this idea that somehow the Queen or any of the royals have served any useful purpose in bringing the UK through the ********* (or any other national crisis). They are a useful PR tool... want people to stay at home roll the Queen out for a special Easter speech to tell us its our duty to stay home. Want people too stay at home a bit longer? Wheel her out for a war commemoration and invoke the blitz spirit. Need at bit of variety wheel out Charles, Camilla, William, Kate for some zoom calls. Need some feel good - show the children clapping outside their country home. Want people to take the vaccine get the queen to say its everyone's duty to take it. Its very well and very carefully executed but ultimately its PR and its led by the government and the optics and message they want to project. As someone wrote into one of the papers today "please explain to me what the queen has done to lead us through the *********, more than my own granny"?

This idea that the BRF are now somehow innocent bystanders being rolled over by Harry and Megan is ridiculous. Buckingham Palace controlled the narrative for months regardless of the handful of statements released by H&M over the last 15months or so.

Personally I think Harry and Megan wanted to tell the story their way and they've done that. 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". The British media will close rank on the Royal family I've no doubt and the Royal family will close rank and protect their own. I would say Harry and Megan put themselves outside that circle but its been clear from not too long after the wedding that they had already been put outside it.

As a black woman in the UK i wish I could say that anything that's been said has surprised me. It hasn't and I've said in previous iterations of this thread I had discussions with family and friends when H&M announced their engagement that "called" some of the stuff that happened with the press and on SM in the past as being very likely. I'm sad to say that includes the fact that there would be people in royal circles hoping that their children didn't end up with darker complexions resembling their maternal grandmother. Sad but not surprised. The fact that people want to discuss the "context" of those comments pretty much sums up the gaslighting that black people in the UK deal with regarding racism on the regular.

The idea that the british royal family could be an institution free of racism given previously comments of Phillip and Andrew (and the issues in other British institutions) that have been widely reported is laughable. Prince Phillip should just be left to be because he's from a different era - more than one person has suggested in this thread. Guess what? His racist and otherwise insulting jokes belong to this era when you're the target. With that attitude nothing will ever change.

Let's be brutal - the fact that Harry ever thought dressing up as a nazi was an appropriate choice tells us something about his upbringing as much as it says something about foolish youthful decisions.

So perhaps some of those in this thread could be less disparaging about the fact that he considers he has learned something and thinks that other members of his family could learn something too.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,428
I was talking about this with someone this morning; this was basically her question, and I came it from the perspective, not very enlightened or noble, that while the British monarchy doesn't appear to me as an American to have a substantive purpose, and as an institution it's pretty anti-democratic just by existing, at the same time, it has a sort of emotive quality, like it makes the world more interesting in the same way an important building or piece of art might. I

A couple of very left-wing Canadians I know are, surprisingly, in favour of the UK monarchy. Maybe not in favour of how much they cost, and the nasty history of colonialism and racism, but they feel having a royal family reduces the tendency to treat elected politicians as nobility. I.e. because there is a Queen, politicians are not seen as filling that symbolic role of leader, and politicians are rightly seen as being accountable and everyone knows they can be replaced in an election. I'm not sure I agree with this 100%, but having observed what happened in the US over the last four years with an elected leader who thought he was King, I think there's some truth in it.
 
Last edited:

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,615
Becca, the point is the complete hypocrisy of Trump Jr complaining about Harry’s dependence when he benefited for four years and now an additional six months of taxpayer-provided security while never having a government position and merely the son himself.
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.

Furthermore Harry is a British royal not a US one and so it’s perfectly fair to say we won’t pay for their security. He isn’t asking the British government to pay for his kids security. Whether it was appropriate or not Obama’s kids got extended time.

And please don’t make me defend Trump any more because if I never have to hear or see his name again it will be too soon.

Part of the issue here i am having with Harry and Meghan is the lack of responsibility takinfn
I think it might change some things. For me, the fact that Meghan was suicidal and couldn't get help changes a lot of things.


Maybe that's why she hasn't stepped down and given the crown to Charles?


So you'll bleat on and on about how horrible some celebrity -- whose choices impact you not at all -- is and how they
Obama, Clinton and Bush extended their kids secret service time. If Presidents want to do that for a limited amount of time that’s fine.

If the British people want to pay for their security or their parent does that’s fine. But I see none of the kids giving interviews demanding things
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
26,018

Furthermore Charles willl not live forever. Which means he cannot fund Harry and Meghan forever. The majority of those funds belong to the Duchy and when he dies legally the Duchy will belong to William.

Now William has his own kids to worry about to take care of and maybe be would rather use those funds to set up trusts for Louis and Charlotte.
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.
 
Last edited:

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
but they feel having a royal family reduces the tendency to treat elected politicians as nobility.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. The idea of treating a partisan politician as a symbol of a country is a very divisive thing that I don’t really want. They are simply public servants and need to be viewed as such.

The vast majority of politicians are just narcissistic sneks and need their influence constrained as much as possible.
 

AxelAnnie

Like a small boat on the ocean...
Messages
13,513
^Yeah but the Royal Family doesn't even belong to America. And we're talking about international relations here (sort of), not figure skating. Again, I find it bizarre for Americans to think they have a say in the matters of a foreign institution. Americans calling for the abolishment of the British monarchy is only slightly less baffling than Americans calling of the abolishment for the Saudi, Swedish, or Thai monarchies.
Americans realize we don't have a say. :rolleyes: We do have opinions.

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

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
16,021
What is the point of the Commonwealth?

Official answer: To promote core shared values of democracy, good government, and the rule of the law. (Says the person who just had to answer this question for the Life in the UK test :lol:.) There are a couple of countries, Rwanda and Mozambique, that joined voluntarily and were never part of the British Empire.

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

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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information