Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex

Status
Not open for further replies.
DeniseNY said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
But here’s the thing. If I were the Queen, I would want to offer protection for my grandson and great grandson
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
And all the arrangements made are going to be reviewed down the track it is said. It’s understandable that Harry having the linage through Charles is a more high profile royal and more a target than his cousins. It’s prudent to see how well they can slip out of that high profile space before withdrawing security for them. Zara Tindall practically lives in Australia she is here so often, and there’s barely a mention of her in the press. She gets around like any minor celeb. So that is certainly a different thing.
 
LilyM said:
40.png
IanM:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
But again, taking all the facts into account, the Queen and Prince Phillip accepted her quite happily despite a previous short marriage. The press never dug up any scandals or behaviours that were questionable. And could they really? Harry’s father divorced his mother and married his long time mistress. I remember an interview with Diana where she says he yelled at her that he wasn’t going to be the only Prince of Wales that never had a mistress. Then of course Prince Andrew was in the pooh for having dated a porn star Koo Stark and being associated more recently with a pedophile.

All these things placed in a row of facts, does not equate with reality that makes Meghan more reprehensible than the family that she is married to. To my sensitities, what Charles and Andrew did to the royal family is far more damaging that anything Meghan is alleged to have done.
 
To the best of my knowledge, all the royal saints belong to periods of history when the monarch was expected to be involved in the day-to-day running of the kingdom. Even Blessed Karl I & IV of Austria-Hungary was somewhat hands-on in fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities.

You simply cannot compare King Louis IX of France with any of the English/Scottish/Irish/British monarchs since the Glorious Revolution. The classic statement of the constitutional position of the British monarch is in Walter Bagehot’s The English Constitution (1867), chapter 3, a text that has been studied by every monarch and every heir to the throne (with the probable exception of Prince George of Cambridge) since it was published.
 
LilyM said:
'Not lawful? It’s far from being literally illegal in my way shape.or form, although it is considered somewhat socially inappropriate.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.
“Wouldn’t be allowed” isn’t automatically “illegal”. Just as “illegal” doesn’t automatically mean “criminal”.
 
Last edited:
Weserthy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Peter Hitchens argues the UK is already a de facto republic.
 
ATraveller said:
Peter Hitchens argues the UK is already a de facto republic.
Click to expand...
That goes for all the European monarchies. As an ardent monarchist I fail to see the point of monarchs who are not allowed to make political statements.
 
Maximian said:
That goes for all the European monarchies. As an ardent monarchist I fail to see the point of monarchs who are not allowed to make political statements.
Click to expand...
Can’t speak for the others but the key term is reserve powers. The monarch doesn’t have to express political opinions to remain important.
 
Last edited:
Yes but they never use them. When eurhanasia was introduced in Belgium the King refused to sign the law. Instead he abdicated for a day while the law was passed.

In Luxembourg the same problem arose, so the Grand Duke waived his right to sign laws.
 
Maximian said:
Yes but they never use them.
Click to expand...
They have. As recently as 2017, the Lieutenant Governor in British Columbia (using the reserve powers given by the Queen) denied the former Premier Christy Clark’s request for a new election when her government lost a confidence vote. Instead of making voters vote in a second election in less than a year, the opposition was given an opportunity to form the government (and still are right now).
 
Last edited:
Ok but you don’t need a monarch to act as referee. A non executive President on the German model could have done the same.

The real test is over cases where the democratic process has to be overridden because the decisions taken are immoral.
 
Last edited:
No, you can’t compare the two, because centuries past monarchs actually ruled the country and made daily decisions as a head of government in addition to a head of state.

But then it makes a person wonder why having a ‘neutral’ constitutional monarch is desirable. There’s very little to show that a constitutional monarch has kept UK politics from polarization.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
But again, taking all the facts into account, the Queen and Prince Phillip accepted her quite happily despite a previous short marriage. The press never dug up any scandals or behaviours that were questionable. And could they really? Harry’s father divorced his mother and married his long time mistress. I remember an interview with Diana where she says he yelled at her that he wasn’t going to be the only Prince of Wales that never had a mistress. Then of course Prince Andrew was in the pooh for having dated a porn star Koo Stark and being associated more recently with a pedophile.

All these things placed in a row of facts, does not equate with reality that makes Meghan more reprehensible than the family that she is married to. To my sensitities, what Charles and Andrew did to the royal family is far more damaging that anything Meghan is alleged to have done.
Click to expand...
I think the first sign was that she spent Christmas at Sandringham before she and Harry were married. Up until that point, no fiancees, boyfriends/girlfriends had ever been invited She also went fairly quickly on that brief train tour with the Queen.

I do agree about Andrew, in particular. Trying to justify and brush off his involvement with Epstein was astonishing. He has not come clean. Not even close.
 
Maximian said:
Ok but you don’t need a monarch to act as referee. A non executive President on the German model could have done the same.
Click to expand...
The difference is that one is unelected and one is elected. An elected official will tend to have political persuasions and will be viewed with suspicion. Since allowing an early election can be discretionary, having a President of one party denying the PM of another an election will look bad.
 
Last edited:
She isn’t royalty. She has no idea about the culture, nuances, or skills it takes to rule a nation. Unsurprisingly her marriage ended up costing Prince Harry his place in the royal court.

She is no longer a Duchess so that title doesn’t apply to her.

Maybe she is a good person deep down, but clearly unfit for the blue blood life.
 
Racism has nothing to do with it and is a common excuse. People over using it devalues the meaning of the word. Calling someone a racist is no different than calling someone you don’t like a Nazi.
 
Elias said:
She isn’t royalty. She has no idea about the culture, nuances, or skills it takes to rule a nation. Unsurprisingly her marriage ended up costing Prince Harry his place in the royal court.
Click to expand...
She is hardly the first non-royal to marry into Britain’s royal family. Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was not royal by birth, but she was one of the most popular members of the royal family. Current members of the royal family who were not royal by birth include HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, HRH The Countess of Wessex, Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence, HRH The Duchess of Gloucester, HRH The Duchess of Kent, and HRH Princess Michael of Kent.
Elias said:
She is no longer a Duchess so that title doesn’t apply to her.
Click to expand...
Meghan is, and will remain, a Duchess of the United Kingdom. Her formal title is Her Royal Highness Princess Henry Charles Albert David, Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton, Baroness Kilkeel. When they step down from royal engagements at the end of March, Harry and Meghan have agreed that they will voluntarily relinquish use of their royal styles and titles. It is not yet clear by what titles they will be known, but all that has been agreed so far is that they will not use any royal styles or titles, i.e. Royal Highness and the titles prince and princess (contrary to common belief, Meghan is a princess by marriage, and hence is entitled to the title Princess Henry, not Princess Meghan). A dukedom is a peerage, not a royal title. The only means by which a peerage can be revoked is by an Act of Parliament. There is absolutely no suggestion that the British Parliament intends to pass legislation to revoke Prince Harry’s peerage.

It is not particularly uncommon for members of the royal family to use lesser titles than those to which they are technically entitled. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is technically the Princess of Wales, but she chooses to be known by the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall. The children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex are technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex, but they use the lesser titles Lady Louise Windsor and Viscount Severn. Harry and Meghan’s son is known as Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, but he is technically entitled to be known as Earl of Dumbarton. The Duchess of Kent, although formally styled as a Royal Highness, is known as Katherine, Duchess of Kent or simply Katherine Kent.
 
What I am supplying here is by no reason justification for any wide spread “hating” but your asking for theories, and here is mine. Many think of Meghan and Harry as another Edward and Wallis. Worse still, they think of Meghan as a selfish wannabe princess but on her own terms. The truth is we may never know for sure.

No one wants to see the crown “soiled”, but the truth is that there will always be disappointments when you place such high standards on a very human family. I feel bad for all of them. Elizabeth has given her life to the crown, and I doubt the world will ever see a monarch like her again. I am sure that this has been hard on all of them.

I can see the English being irritated by the whole affair, but in the end, I can’t judge them without being a hypocrite, given the big messes I have had in my own life. These are the things of youth. What 20 to 30 year old isn’t self absorbed on some level? Life is hard, and the Royal family of England is subject to that as well.

Anytime you put an institution or a family on a pedestal, your bound to get disappointed. At the end of the day, that is what you have here. Disappointment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top