N
neophyte
Guest
I certainly appreciate leaders who are are prudently slow to speak their thoughts, but this is a very recent bit of despicable nonsense that I hope is never repeated.
Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex
- Thread starter Emeraldlady
- Start date
- Status
T
TK421
Guest
The thing is: the role of the monarchy in modern life is highly questionable and highly confusing. It’s not just in the British Commonwealth. Denmark and Japan have dealt with the same issues.
Modern monarchs and royals in democratic countries are suppose to be walking automatronic robots without viewpoints that embody the state and fly around visiting hospitals and shelters and saying encouraging and stately things. They’re not actually suppose to be people. They’re suppose to be objects attached to puppet strings.
Apart from the debate of why we need such people in the first place, it’s an expectation that is absolutely bound to fail. Megan grew up in a different environment and wasn’t raised from an early age how to act, but even royals trained a certain way from a young age struggle with it. Harry definitely does.
I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about Britain keeping its monarchy and it’s not really my business, but I’m not entirely sure what it’s suppose to do or how it’s suppose to fit in with modern life without being awkward, and frankly neither do most Britons.
Last edited:
L
Lou2U
Guest
She said it best herself - “I never thought that this would be easy, but I thought it would be fair and that’s the part that’s really hard to reconcile.”
She has had a barrage of unfair criticism, and now she’s decided to step back, she’s being criticised by the press for that too. Most of it conveniently ignores the fact that her husband has been vocal about struggling with being in the royal family even as a child, and how much he would love to live out of the spotlight.
IMO, it only works if you don’t think about it too much. I think that’s why when something very good happens, it boosts support for the monarchy (like the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee) and when something very bad happens, support drains away (like immediately after the death of Diana). Most of the time, the royal family doesn’t enter people’s thoughts at all, I think.
A
ATraveller
Guest
Japan’s has no power at all.
But for the Commonwealth, at the very least in Canada, the monarch isn’t just an ornament. The monarch has reserve powers that can be used in “emergencies”.
W
Wesrock
Guest
That’s precisely the issue. The monarch is nothing more than a figurehead and symbol of unity, of the nation, of the people. Perhaps the hardest part is not saying anything when there’s lots to be said. The royals are supposed to stand above it regardless of their personal opinions. They don’t exercise any political or even judicial clout.ATraveller:
That’s a very silly expectation, if you ask me.
It reminds me of Supreme Court Justices in the US and how they are allegedly “neutral”. Seriously: please spare me such a ridiculous notion. Some people might be better pretenders than others, but there is no such thing as neutral. It doesn’t exist.
M
Maximian
Guest
I don’t understand your premiss. She was overwhelmingly popular in the press until she and Harry walked out, claiming (with great exaggeration) to have been hounded by the press.
The criticism has come after that - I wouldn’t call it hatred - because they seem to want to have their cake and eat it. They want to opt out of royal responsibilities (which are quite tough) but make a business out of being royal .
The criticism has come after that - I wouldn’t call it hatred - because they seem to want to have their cake and eat it. They want to opt out of royal responsibilities (which are quite tough) but make a business out of being royal .
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
I’d have to go with causing even more coverage of inane British royalty in the american press.
:crazy_face:
(but, seriously, she takes up space on what is supposed to be a page of links to news stories, leaving less room for news)
I was scratching my head about the conversion of an uninteresting minor character into a second tier lead . . .
I pointed to our president at the time, using his office to get girls. And then the Australian governor vetoed (for the first time in decades) something inane (that made no sense to me as an american).
He decided he’d rather stick with the governor business . . .
hawk, who truly doesn’t get the US media wasting time on this stuff
:crazy_face:(but, seriously, she takes up space on what is supposed to be a page of links to news stories, leaving less room for news)
Well, there’s that, too.
I was scratching my head about the conversion of an uninteresting minor character into a second tier lead . . .
yet those of us who read news for, well, news (rather than celebrity worship) can’t avoid the number of headlines about her asking to be introduced to British nobility in the years ahead of meeting her royal . . .
I had a conversation in grad school with an Australian friend. He supported replacing the governor with an elected president.
I pointed to our president at the time, using his office to get girls. And then the Australian governor vetoed (for the first time in decades) something inane (that made no sense to me as an american).
He decided he’d rather stick with the governor business . . .
hawk, who truly doesn’t get the US media wasting time on this stuff
I
IanM
Guest
I think that she has also greatly underestimated the ruthlessness of the opposition. The British Establishment will now close its doors to her and her husband if only to ensure they themselves remain within the fold. Harry will learn to recognise this gradually and sit out in California wondering how his polo playing chums back home are doing as he pleads for voiceover jobs for his wife. Quite simply it`s another Edward/ Wallace affair with the same squandered opportunities.
M
Maximian
Guest
Esau; birthright; mess of potage
F
Flor
Guest
I think that Harry is honoring his beautiful late Mother by deciding to take his wife and son away from England / the Press / Royal Demands / Controlling Scrutiny — and lead a brazenly NORMAL life. Thus depriving gossips, reporters, and etc of entertainment. He’s a hero. I think his mother would be proud. And those saying ill things of Megan are disappointed the show is over.
L
LilyM
Guest
'Not lawful? It’s far from being literally illegal in my way shape.or form, although it is considered somewhat socially inappropriate.
L
LilyM
Guest
I think the Edward/Wallis comparison is key. The last time a divorced American married into the royal family it led to almost unmitigated disaster and a lot of turmoil. Historical memories are long, not only in the UK in general, but the royal family in particular. After all, the Queen and Philip are old enough to remember the abdication crisis first hand.
Last edited:
W
Weserthy
Guest
I think being an outsider is a part of it (I don’t buy into the racism part of it though), but she hasn’t helped things along with her own choices. She wanted to be a royal, but didn’t want the press attention or the scrutiny. But it doesn’t work like that. The deal is that she gets to live a life of luxury and be pampered, and in return she takes part in royal engagements and charities (which she is good at doing) and most importantly, not complain about her life - which really was her biggest misstep in all of her royal tenure. People, especially the press, have an extremely low tolerance for rich people complaining about the hardships of their life. Once Meghan gave off any hint that she was unhappy, which didn’t take long to do, that was it for her.
Then when the went to exit the royal family, it didn’t come off well. It came so soon after her wedding that it felt like she was in it just to get her big royal wedding, funded by the taxpayers, and then she wanted out. But then, she still wanted to profit off of the royal name and her royal status. It seems like the Queen has put her foot down there as much as she can though.
Honestly, I think the monarchy in the UK is on borrowed time. I think the only reason that the UK tolerates the monarchy as much as it does is due to Queen Elizabeth being such a rock and foundation for the royal family for so long. If she had died 10 years ago, my guess is that there would have already been discussions on voting for a republic. When she does pass away, I think republican sentiments will grow, especially since Prince Charles is nowhere near as popular as her. The longer he remains king when he finally takes the throne, the shorter the amount of time the monarchy lasts, I think. William might be able to stem the tide for a little bit, but I think the end of the monarchy in the UK is inevitable. Prince George will never be king, that I am sure of, barring some untimely disaster befalling William. I actually like the UK’s monarchy and wish it would continue, but I think the UK will ultimately discard it before long.
Then when the went to exit the royal family, it didn’t come off well. It came so soon after her wedding that it felt like she was in it just to get her big royal wedding, funded by the taxpayers, and then she wanted out. But then, she still wanted to profit off of the royal name and her royal status. It seems like the Queen has put her foot down there as much as she can though.
Honestly, I think the monarchy in the UK is on borrowed time. I think the only reason that the UK tolerates the monarchy as much as it does is due to Queen Elizabeth being such a rock and foundation for the royal family for so long. If she had died 10 years ago, my guess is that there would have already been discussions on voting for a republic. When she does pass away, I think republican sentiments will grow, especially since Prince Charles is nowhere near as popular as her. The longer he remains king when he finally takes the throne, the shorter the amount of time the monarchy lasts, I think. William might be able to stem the tide for a little bit, but I think the end of the monarchy in the UK is inevitable. Prince George will never be king, that I am sure of, barring some untimely disaster befalling William. I actually like the UK’s monarchy and wish it would continue, but I think the UK will ultimately discard it before long.
P
Pitcairn17
Guest
Said another way, they opted out of the “royal publicity fishbowl,” but seem rushing headlong into the “royal Kardashian” fishbowl. While others pick up the bills, especially for protection. A likely mansion in Malibu - there’s a real retreat from the press, huh?
D
do_justly_love_mercy
Guest
I think Queen Elizabeth II has actually done a pretty great job of remaining neutral. Do you know anything about her personal opinions? I don’t. Here is a list of everything I know about her personal opinions:
- Supposedly Harold Wilson was her favorite prime minister. I think this is based on the fact that she had dinner with him at 10 Downing Street. Also, it’s not that surprising that she would have thought Wilson was very likable.
- Supposedly she thought Margaret Thatcher was unfeeling. I believe a lot of people thought this, so it’s not that surprising that Queen Elizabeth allegedly thought so too.
- She once hid behind a hedge to avoid having to talk to Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu. To be fair, most people would have hidden behind a hedge to avoid the Ceaușescus.
- She drove the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia around her estate in Scotland, possibly to highlight that women in Saudi Arabia were at the time not allowed to drive. Given that about 99.9% of people in the world thought the Saudi ban on women driving was crazy, this seems pretty uncontroversial. Also, she may just have been driving him around her estate with no ulterior motive.
- According to David Cameron, she was pleased that Scotland didn’t vote to leave the UK. Obviously Cameron shouldn’t have told anyone that. He was vague and didn’t actually give specifics, just that she was pleased about it. It’s not surprising that the Queen of the United Kingdom wanted the United Kingdom to remain united.
T
TK421
Guest
I applaud her self-control, but why is it desirable for a royal not to express opinions? How is remaining silent about issues a virtuous quality? How well does this mesh with Christianity? (we’re on a Catholic forum so I might as well throw that out there).
The Church has some saints who were royalty in history, but zero of them played the neutrality game. All of them would probably be labeled ‘outspoken’ today, even if it meant losing the crown. King Louis of France is the most famous among them and there was nothing neutral or silent about him. He was intensely engaged in religious life, political life, and social justice for his subjects to the point of bringing homeless people into his court to dine with them, which was extremely uncharacteristic for a monarch of the time.
edit: A good response would be that if unelected royals are going to express opinions, then why should they be supported by the state? I have zero good answer for this, other than to say that a Christian monarch ought to express Christian views no matter what.
The Church has some saints who were royalty in history, but zero of them played the neutrality game. All of them would probably be labeled ‘outspoken’ today, even if it meant losing the crown. King Louis of France is the most famous among them and there was nothing neutral or silent about him. He was intensely engaged in religious life, political life, and social justice for his subjects to the point of bringing homeless people into his court to dine with them, which was extremely uncharacteristic for a monarch of the time.
edit: A good response would be that if unelected royals are going to express opinions, then why should they be supported by the state? I have zero good answer for this, other than to say that a Christian monarch ought to express Christian views no matter what.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Depending on the topic, the monarch may or may not be able to express opinions. In a Constitutional monarchy, the monarch has specific duties which ought to be performed in an independent manner with no suggestion of favouring any side of politics, lest that favouring be suspected to betray a bias. The monarch must act as the monarch, not as an ordinary citizen. It’s also the case that the monarch is often greatly respected and revered because they are “the monarch” (ie. By virtue of the institution). It would be wrong to do anything that visibly aligns the monarch with a particular side(s) in political debate.
It can certainly be argued that the lesser royals are not so tightly bound, and of course there will be matters where personal opinions can be properly expressed.
L
LilyM
Guest
It’s not that it is a virtuous quality, but it is a very prudent and even necessary one in a Head of State who is neither elected by popular vote nor chosen (as some are) by the elected government of the day, but is in her position until death, purely by accident of birth.
An elected official is elected precisely to express opinions on behalf of their electorate. One who is chosen by the elected government similarly is presumably chosen because their opinions coincide with those of the majority of people.
The Queen is forced to deal with governments and politicians of all political stripes, not just those she happens to agree with. And her opinion is really worth no more than than of any other individual. This is why an appearance of relative impartiality is a good idea.
Emeraldlady
New member
But here’s the thing. If I were the Queen, I would want to offer protection for my grandson and great grandson. Also Meghan is an independently wealthy woman and would have afforded a mansion on her own. Wealthy people are prudent to make secure living arrangements for the safety of their family. That just wouldn’t be possible if they downgraded to a weatherboard 3 bedroom home in the suburbs.Maximian:
Said another way, they opted out of the “royal publicity fishbowl,” but seem rushing headlong into the “royal Kardashian” fishbowl. While others pick up the bills, especially for protection. A likely mansion in Malibu - there’s a real retreat from the press, huh?
All of these issues don’t rise to equate with the amount of vitriol they are getting.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice have security paid for by Prince Andrew; not out of the Sovereign Grant. Neither do Zara Phillips Tindall nor Peter Phillips. The thing here is that other non-working Royals don’t receive security, so as non-working Royals neither world PH and MM. Of course, Prince Charles can continue to pay for it out of the Duchy of Cornwall. That would be his choice.
- Status