Prince Harry and Meghan

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmodrmac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
brian_custer said:
my grandmother was off the boat US catholic from belfast, chased out of her home town by royalists
Click to expand...
Genuinely sorry to hear that, but when you say “even the Irish” it sounds like you’re degrading them, like someone saying “even savages.” It just sounded insulting to the Irish, who are as fine a people as anyone else. Even I found it offensive, and I’ve not a drop of Irish blood. Or Scottish, Welsh or English.
 
Last edited:
And the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms are governed by a parliament duly elected by the people. The Queen reigns but she does not govern…
In fact, Canada and the UK, as constitutional monarchies, both rank higher than the US on the Democracy Index.
 
Decree of nullity. And true, Clement did have a pile of problems facing him at the time Henry submitted his causa, all formal and customary as it was.
 
Last edited:
For that matter, what suits some Americans doesn’t suit me. What suits me doesn’t suit some Americans. And I’m an American.

Drat.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
The Queen reigns
Click to expand...
what does “reign” exactly mean? “queen” gets a deposit in her swiss bank account every other week at the “people’s” expense for doing no work, performing no function and essentially doing NOTHING other than living on to eternity by some genetic freak trend for longevity?
 
Last edited:
Mr Custer, I won’t go into the Royal finances here, it requires too much detail, but I shall say your depiction of them is ridiculous. As to work, the Queen carries out hundreds of engagements a year, and she is in her 90s.

Why do you find it necessary to be so uncivil and insulting about the Queen? OK, you think monarchy is daft and out of date. So what? Isn’t the important thing what those of us who live in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc think? Why must you continue to insult us? I have some doubts about whether the American Constitution is fit for purpose, but I don’t shout insults at it.

And when are you going to withdraw your slanderous statement that the Royal Family are “virulently anti-Catholic”?
 
Last edited:
I’ve never really been much of a supporter of the monarchy but, as time has gone by, I’ve come to realise the advantages of having a Head of State who people seem to rather like or not dislike very much. Countries like Germany and Italy achieve this by having Presidents with little power and they’re usually inoffensive superannuated politicians not violently disliked by people from other political parties.

The alternative of countries like France and the United States, where the President is directly elected and has real power but is generally loathed by, at least, half the population seems far less attractive. In the UK, we have the Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition to loathe but, mostly, we quite like our Royal ribbon-cutting, building-opening, soap opera (or don’t dislike it very much).
 
In modern democracies isn’t the monarch supposed to be a mediator to opposing political parties? Be a symbol that has some passive power over the nation’s politics? Just a celebrity who does nothing but over time has accumulated wealth from people’s own without them ever having a say in this does not seem enough a role for the payment imho.
 
brian_custer said:
what does “reign” exactly mean? “queen” gets a deposit in her swiss bank account every other week at the “people’s” expense for doing no work, performing no function and essentially doing NOTHING other than living on to eternity by some genetic freak trend for longevity?
Click to expand...
The Royal finances and investments are unknown to any but the Royal Family; hence, Meg’s inability to receive any of Harry’s money for three years. A US tax return, which she is obligated to file for three years after moving outside the US, would certainly trigger an audit if the spouse were listed as “Henry Mountbatten-Windsor.”

And Swiss banks do not have “secret” accounts now. This I know about because I worked as a financial analyst in them for ten years. One can hide money in Austria. One can obtain a numbered account, no name. Whoever has the passbook can access the account. However, such accounts are restricted to Austrian citizens. Many Swiss have them. though. They simply pay an Austrian citizen to open one for them, then the Austrian gives the passbook to the Swiss. Some Caribbean countries have more-or-less “secret” accounts.

All that aside, the Queen actually works. One reason I am not fond of the younger royals is they are lazy about work. If you want to criticize, criticize them. At the age of 90, the Queen carried out more public appearances than William, Kate, and Harry combined. Charles came in second that year and Anne, first, as usual. The appearance of a Royal attracts attention to important matters and to charities. IMHO, it’s far worse to pay an American “celebrity” millions to hawk a product. I’ve gotten so I won’t but anything with a well-compensated “celebrity” spokesperson.

This is work:

The Queen, who will be 90 in April, carried out 306 engagements in the UK and 35 abroad in 2015.

The Duke of Edinburgh, who will be 95 this year, managed 217 engagements at home and 33 abroad.

The Prince of Wales also outdid his children, undertaking 380 engagements at home and 147 abroad. (Camilla was with him.)

But even his busy schedule could not match that of his sister, the Princess Royal, who carried out 456 engagements in the UK and 88 overseas, living up to her reputation as the hardest-working member of the Royal family.

This is not carrying your load:

In contrast, the Duke and Duchess [of Cambridge] and Prince Harry managed only 198 engagements between them in the UK and 94 abroad.

To be fair, Kate had a baby (Charlotte), and William got a job. Harry was cavorting with Meg in Africa.

So, the older Royals, at least, worked. Not having to worry about money is beyond nice, but the older Royals DO work for it. I like and respect the older Royals. It’s the younger ones, who fornicate and “party hard” that I take issue with. And despite the money, I would not want that life.

 
Last edited:
Yes, I’m afraid he’s been successful as far as I’m concerned. I shouldn’t be so easily wound.
 
As to your first sentence, yes, political mediation is often the role of a modern monarchy, and was a role in Britain until WWII at least – I’m thinking of the formation of the National Government, for instance. But in Britain, while that role still applies in extreme circumstances, politicians have increasingly tried to avoid situations where such mediation might be necessary – they describe it as “not wishing to put the monarch in an embarrassing position”: embarrassing because too close to party politicking. It is noticeable, for instance, that the coalition government of 2010 was formed, and the position, during negotiations, of the incumbent Labour Prime Minister maintained, without the intervention of the Queen. The process was, instead, supported by the permanent Civil Service.

The Queen’s direct role in politics is largely confined now (except in a crisis) to the regular discussions with the Prime Minister, in which she can exercise her rights, described by Bagehot as the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn, and additionally by Halsbury as the rights to advise and suggest.

As to your third sentence, the suggestion that the Queen has accumulated wealth, no doubt from the people (where else?), is true, as it is of anyone who has inherited wealth (although it is the case that the Crown has surrendered to the State more property than it has since received, and many of the wealthy are very much more wealthy than the Queen).

As to her “doing nothing”, that is a misunderstanding. First she has the duties which fall to any Head of State: the state banquets for visiting notables, the reviews of the armed forces, the launching of ships, the presentation of medals and awards, etc, the representation of the nation at ceremonial occasions and in foreign parts, plus all those things which are the equivalent of the President’s first pitch etc. Those are clearly work duties for any Head of State,

In addition the British Royal Family extend their work much lower in the order of events: the opening of hospitals, bridges, new factories etc, the support of charities, the presence at a multitude of local events where the Queen or a Prince can make a day special by bringing national recognition to the local occasion. That’s all work, too. All in all if you add up the Royal Family’s engagements, they run into the thousands each year. That’s work.
 
Last edited:
And when the Pope refused…he invented his own church. It doesn’t seem like he cared much about the Church’s decision.

In essence the result is the same. He started a Church because he didn’t get his own way regarding the dissolution of his marriage.
 
PickyPicky said:
I fear the traditional sexism would have prevented a “Prince Anne”, but it’s a nice idea.
Click to expand...
No, because only the wife receives the rank of her husband, the husband does not receive the rank of his wife.

In other words: when a common woman marries a prince, she receives the rank (not title) of Princess.

But when a common man marries a princess he does not receive the rank of prince.

So the wife is granted the honor while the man is not.

So if it’s sexist (as you say), it would be sexist against men, as the man is not given the rank while the woman is.
 
Last edited:
That is one way of looking at it, although it is also possible (I am informed by those on the extreme of the feminist movement) to regard as sexist against women the idea that women must take their husband’s name and rank. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top