Harry & Meghan

[Owlswing]

 Her only interest in service to others seems to be based on whatever PR she can wring out of it for herself. Seems Harry has also adopted the same attitude.

Harry is, in all probability, the only one, other than the perpetrators, who really understand exactly what was said and done (really and not made up by the press) to make his wife so unhappy.

If, as appears to be the case, he agrees that she was kept at arm's length and various people decided to try and make sure that Harry and she did not get married.

I give Harry points for, effectively, telling his family that he was not going to stand for the way he saw his wife being treated and shot the Rigid Digit at them!

YES - I feel the Monarch and the monarchy and their staffs have done the monarchy no good at all. Seventy-plus years as a staunch supporter of the monarchy, including military service, has gone down the drain and I am sorry to say that I would rather believe Harry and Megan than the stuff being issued from the Palace by the Monarch or those speaking for the Monarch!.

Owlswing

)O(


 

[Spud]

But ensuring that the first born (rather than first born son) is both heir and a prince/princess doesn't require extending prince/princess to all children. That is an entirely distinct matter and clearly not linked to primogeniture because it (by definition) does not impact the first born child. So for example - Louis - absolute primogeniture doesn't affect him regardless of the of the birth order of George/Charlotte. However under the old rules he would not be Prince Louis - under the new rules he gains the title - a new Prince is created where one wouldn't otherwise have existed.

One wonders, why give even just George the title, why not wait until Charles is king? I don't know but I'd guess it's to demonstrate that he is third in line to the throne. So in that case, why not give the title to his siblings, to demonstrate their position in the line also?

[ProfessorDavey]

One wonders, why give even just George the title, why not wait until Charles is king? I don't know but I'd guess it's to demonstrate that he is third in line to the throne. So in that case, why not give the title to his siblings, to demonstrate their position in the line also?

Not that I'm a monarchist, but to me it seems sensible to restrict the titles and 'working' royals just to those in the direct line to the throne, plus their spouses.

The notion of the 'spare' really is anachronistic in this day and age - realistically how often is the 'spare' likely to need to step in, and even if they had to, to do so from a broadly normal life would be rather refreshing.

For several generations now the 'spare' has been lost in terms of role and has proved problematic to the royals - Margaret, Andrew, Harry. So much better right from the get-go to make it clear to the 'spare' that they wont be a senior working royal and they'd be expected to make their own way in life.

Now it is too late for William & Harry's generation, but not so for the next generation down. But this would mean no titles for Charlotte and Louis and them being brought up to recognise that they wont be senior working royals and will need to live a basically normal life (or at least as normal as a royal can). Now although they look high up in the line to the throne, they'll drift lower as George has kids. Let's not forget that we now see Margaret (before she died), Andrew and Harry as being no-where near to the top of the tree yet they were once 2nd, 2nd and 3rd in line.

It is the notion of the 'spare' which has been really problematic for the royals over generations but they seem not to learn as they seem to be making the same mistake for a further generation in not recognising that that Charlotte and Louis are just Margaret, Andrew and Harry but just in a different generation.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Harry is, in all probability, the only one, other than the perpetrators, who really understand exactly what was said and done (really and not made up by the press) to make his wife so unhappy.

If, as appears to be the case, he agrees that she was kept at arm's length and various people decided to try and make sure that Harry and she did not get married.

I give Harry points for, effectively, telling his family that he was not going to stand for the way he saw his wife being treated and shot the Rigid Digit at them!

YES - I feel the Monarch and the monarchy and their staffs have done the monarchy no good at all. Seventy-plus years as a staunch supporter of the monarchy, including military service, has gone down the drain and I am sorry to say that I would rather believe Harry and Megan than the stuff being issued from the Palace by the Monarch or those speaking for the Monarch!.

Owlswing

)O(


 

I wouldn't get too invested. Like most people, members of the RF probably spend a lot of time lying to themselves and re-writing their personal narratives. The respective PR people are also busy earning their high fees by adding spin before comments are released.

Harry can stick 2 fingers up to the RF but let's face it, the effect is kind of diluted by him whining about daddy cutting him off financially while he sits in a large mansion in an expensive, exclusive celebrity neighbourhood in the middle of a pandemic. His own special narrative about his mother's dysfunctional relationship with the media also doesn't help his credibility. The whole "we want privacy we want to be in the media oh but wait we need to protect Archie from the media but wait we want to be in in the media" flip-flop to try to squeeze money from his dad just looks daft coming from 2 adults in their his 30s. 

Meg's main gripe seems to be that the Palace employees are not focusing their time on intervening to counter negative stories appearing about her in the international media. She is convinced it's all due to racism and once Meg lets it be known publicly that she has this expectation it just leads to more negative stories in the media...which she then expects the Palace to intervene to counter.

I am guessing what happened was that as she was only married to the spare, the Palace probably prioritised the main royals - the Queen, Charles, Wills, his wife and kids and for Meg that's proof of racism as opposed to a sensible allocation of limited resources on the important royals. Fergie did not get the Palace intervening to combat negative stories about her in the media. But Megs thinks she is special because she has brown skin and also playing the race card could be a good money-spinner to pay for the mansion.

[SusanDoris]

this drama is going to run and run. Can't say I'm surprised. Meg seemed like a narcissist from fairly early on who turns every issue to be about herself, her feelings and her perception of her public image over all other considerations, including family ties. Her only interest in service to others seems to be based on whatever PR she can wring out if it for herself. Seems Harry has also adopted the same attitude.

I agree. From the start I had that impression. However, I long ago learnt never to trust first impressions, so have tried to consider things impartially, but that interview was the decider, I think.

[Spud]

Not that I'm a monarchist, but to me it seems sensible to restrict the titles and 'working' royals just to those in the direct line to the throne, plus their spouses.

The notion of the 'spare' really is anachronistic in this day and age - realistically how often is the 'spare' likely to need to step in, and even if they had to, to do so from a broadly normal life would be rather refreshing.

For several generations now the 'spare' has been lost in terms of role and has proved problematic to the royals - Margaret, Andrew, Harry. So much better right from the get-go to make it clear to the 'spare' that they wont be a senior working royal and they'd be expected to make their own way in life.

Now it is too late for William & Harry's generation, but not so for the next generation down. But this would mean no titles for Charlotte and Louis and them being brought up to recognise that they wont be senior working royals and will need to live a basically normal life (or at least as normal as a royal can). Now although they look high up in the line to the throne, they'll drift lower as George has kids. Let's not forget that we now see Margaret (before she died), Andrew and Harry as being no-where near to the top of the tree yet they were once 2nd, 2nd and 3rd in line.

It is the notion of the 'spare' which has been really problematic for the royals over generations but they seem not to learn as they seem to be making the same mistake for a further generation in not recognising that that Charlotte and Louis are just Margaret, Andrew and Harry but just in a different generation.

I was reading about Queen Victoria and Albert and how they thought they could help avoid a repeat of the Napoleonic wars by having their children and grandchildren married into European royal families. This would enable them to influence the Prussians and Germans and hopefully promote friendship with them. But it turned out a disastrous plan, when WWI happened.

The practice of naming the monarch's children and grandchildren princes and princesses only became customary with George !; before that it was just the Prince of Wales, and that was a symbol of English rule over Wales, dating back to when Edward the something conquered Wales; so not a very nice title to have. Knowing all that, and assuming there isn't some other deep and meaningful rationale behind it, I'm not bothered what happens.

The notion of the spare is common to a lot of families I would suggest, with some siblings living in the shadow of others.

[ProfessorDavey]

Here is an interesting poll.

YouGov asked people:

'Imagine that Britain replaced the Queen with an elected head of state, to carry out a similar role. If you could pick anyone currently living to be Britain's elected head of state, who would it be?'

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/03/18/who-would-britons-choose-their-elected-head-state?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=elected_head_of_state

The most popular person (William) only gets 12% support, and astonishingly in a free choice just 3% of people would choose Charles, who will become Head of State when the Queen dies (assuming he survives her). More people would prefer David Attenborough, Boris Johnson, Stephen Fry and ... err ... themselves to Charles.

I think the monarchy is in for a really bumpy time when the Queen dies - realistically the groundswell of support for the monarchy is really a groundswell of support for our current Queen. Once she has gone I can see the dam burst.

[SteveH]

Here is an interesting poll.

YouGov asked people:

'Imagine that Britain replaced the Queen with an elected head of state, to carry out a similar role. If you could pick anyone currently living to be Britain's elected head of state, who would it be?'

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/03/18/who-would-britons-choose-their-elected-head-state?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=elected_head_of_state

The most popular person (William) only gets 12% support, and astonishingly in a free choice just 3% of people would choose Charles, who will become Head of State when the Queen dies (assuming he survives her). More people would prefer David Attenborough, Boris Johnson, Stephen Fry and ... err ... themselves to Charles.

I think the monarchy is in for a really bumpy time when the Queen dies - realistically the groundswell of support for the monarchy is really a groundswell of support for our current Queen. Once she has gone I can see the dam burst.

Jeremy Corbyn.

[ProfessorDavey]

Jeremy Corbyn.

And Farage.

I know - non-sense isn't it.

Albeit I guess if you can vote for anyone there are a small rump of fanatics that would like to vote for the likes of Corbyn or Farage as Head of State. However in a democratic process they'd have absolutely no hope of being elected.

[SteveH]

And Farage.

I know - non-sense isn't it.

Albeit I guess if you can vote for anyone there are a small rump of fanatics that would like to vote for the likes of Corbyn or Farage as Head of State. However in a democratic process they'd have absolutely no hope of being elected.

I'd vote for Jerry C. He's a good bloke, and a true democratic socialist. Pity about his idiotic brother, but no-one can be blamed for their relatives.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd vote for Jerry C. He's a good bloke, and a true democratic socialist. Pity about his idiotic brother, but no-one can be blamed for their relatives.

Fine - that would be your choice were there to be an election for Head of State with no restrictions on who you could vote for.

I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole - his election as leader of the Labour party drove me out of the party - I couldn't remain in a party led by someone so painfully unelectable and with the less leadership experience and ability than your average slug - someone so devoid of leadership ability that his most senior leadership experience prior to be elected as Labour leader was as (I think) chair of the all party group on the Turks and Caicos islands - I kid you not.

But back to the actual topic - the poll was about a head of state with broadly equivalent role to the current Queen - so this could never be someone that would polarise on political grounds - it would need to be someone respected across the political spectrum - hence David Attenborough.

[Spud]

I can't see the point of a monarchy if they can't override a decision made by parliament - as long as the monarch is acting as 'defender of the faith'.

[ProfessorDavey]

I can't see the point of a monarchy if they can't override a decision made by parliament - as long as the monarch is acting as 'defender of the faith'.

In a modern democracy the moment an unelected monarch over-rides parliament, they are (quite rightly) toast.

And why on earth should a head of state act as 'defender of the faith' - defending it against what or who? Presumably those who don't hold that faith. A head of state needs to be the head for all of the people, not just the minority with religious belief, let alone the even smaller minority who are christians, or the tiny minority who are members of the organisation (CofE) the 'defender of the faith' refers to - which is about 2% of the population of the UK.

[SteveH]

Fine - that would be your choice were there to be an election for Head of State with no restrictions on who you could vote for.

I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole - his election as leader of the Labour party drove me out of the party - I couldn't remain in a party led by someone so painfully unelectable and with the less leadership experience and ability than your average slug - someone so devoid of leadership ability that his most senior leadership experience prior to be elected as Labour leader was as (I think) chair of the all party group on the Turks and Caicos islands - I kid you not.

But back to the actual topic - the poll was about a head of state with broadly equivalent role to the current Queen - so this could never be someone that would polarise on political grounds - it would need to be someone respected across the political spectrum - hence David Attenborough.

The bible-thumping wing of Christianity would be unhappy about the election of an atheist like Attenborough.

[ProfessorDavey]

The bible-thumping wing of Christianity would be unhappy about the election of an atheist like Attenborough.

Tough - not that there is any chance of us having an elected HofS.

And I doubt were he to be HofS that he'd declare himself to be the 'Defender of atheism' as he would recognise that to be highly divisive - yet we have a HofS that declares her self to be 'Defender of the faith' despite the fact that a majority of the people she represents do not have religious faith.

Worse still, her son wants to change that to 'Defender of faiths' - while 'Defender of the faith' can be dismissed as an ancient and irrelevant anarchism, changing it to 'Defender of faiths' places him firmly in the camp of one group in this country (those with religious faith) and against another (those without a religious faith).

[SteveH]

Worse still, her son wants to change that to 'Defender of faiths' - while 'Defender of the faith' can be dismissed as an ancient and irrelevant anarchism, changing it to 'Defender of faiths' places him firmly in the camp of one group in this country (those with religious faith) and against another (those without a religious faith).

That was big-ears making a half-arsed attempt to be modern and inclusive, and making a right pig's ear of it.

[ProfessorDavey]

That was big-ears making a half-arsed attempt to be modern and inclusive, and making a right pig's ear of it.

But it is the exact opposite of being inclusive - effectively re-invigorating an anachronism to specifically make a majority of the UK as being people with a belief (or rather a lack of belief) that needs to be defended against.

And the sad thing is that I suspect that he, and many others in the establishment, consider inclusion with regard to religion as making sure that all the organised religions are represented. Without understanding that the vast, vast majority have no meaningful involvement with any organised religion and therefore most people are being excluded, rather than included, but the approach.

[Owlswing]

I can't see the point of a monarchy if they can't override a decision made by parliament - as long as the monarch is acting as 'defender of the faith'.

If I remember rightly (and I probably don't) the Monarchy has been unable to overrule Parliament for hundreds of years!

Since Cromwell?

Owlswing

)O(

[Owlswing]

I'd vote for Jerry C. He's a good bloke and a true democratic socialist. Pity about his idiotic brother, but no-one can be blamed for their relatives.

And your Mr. Corbyn supported a terror group that murdered and kneecapped friends of mine in the military trying to protect Unionists in NI - he should never have been elected to Parliament on that ground, added to his lying about being a supporter and being a friend of the piece of slime now in the Eire parliament Gerry Adams - on that count alone he is a treasonous piece of shit!

Owlswing

)O(

[ekim]

The bible-thumping wing of Christianity would be unhappy about the election of an atheist like Attenborough.

My vote would go to Olivia Colman.

[Nearly Sane]

My vote would go to Olivia Colman.

My vote would be to that feeling you get that there is something under the bed. I.e. I am unconvinced that it is needed.

[Anchorman]

If I remember rightly (and I probably don't) the Monarchy has been unable to overrule Parliament for hundreds of years!

Since Cromwell?

Owlswing

)O(

   


I think Brandy Nan was the last monarch who came close to overruling her parliament in England.
The Scots parliament ignored Charles II a few times, and even refused James, Duke of York - the future James VII - entrance whilst he was Charles' lieutennant in Scotland.

[SteveH]

I think the monarch can overrule parliament in theory, but in practice it would cause a constitutional crisis, as in the play 'King Charles III' by Mike Bartlett.  http://culturalattache.co/2016/06/03/king-charles-iii-shakespearean-take-britains-real-life-royals/

[Anchorman]

I can't see the point of a monarchy if they can't override a decision made by parliament - as long as the monarch is acting as 'defender of the faith'.

I can't see the point of a monarchy if they can't override a decision made by parliament - as long as the monarch is acting as 'defender of the faith'.

   


That title only applies in England, Spud...it was given to Henry VIII by the Pope for being a model Catholic...he kept it when he ditched Catholicism.
The last silly idiot with a golden hat to try and impose his idea of religion in Scotland caused Scotland to rise against him, chuck him out, go to war against him, and led, eventually, to him never needing another haircut.

[ProfessorDavey]

That title only applies in England, Spud...it was given to Henry VIII by the Pope for being a model Catholic...he kept it when he ditched Catholicism.

Which is why I can't get particularly animated over the term, even though as an atheist (and indeed anyone else other than a member of the CofE) it seems deeply divisive. It is really just an anachronistic title, without meaning beyond the notion that the Queen is the head of the CofE (something that should also change).

However if a new monarch tried to make is 'relevant' by changing it to 'defender of faiths' then I would have a problem - that would be a deliberate move and one which couldn't be just tossed away as either anachronistic nor merely reflecting the monarch's role in the CofE. It would be a clear indication that the monarch feels that those in the UK with religious faith need protecting - protecting from who, well presumably those of us in the UK without religious faith. That would place the monarch as clearly 'siding' with the religious and against the non religious.