Meghan and Harry vs the Crown

Eric

Mama's lil stinker
Vaccinated
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
8,431
Reaction score
16,463
Location
California
Instagram
Main Camera
Sony
It's been entertaining to watch this play out, rich people vs rich people squabbling about their family differences and all but of no real consequence one way or the other. However, most people are taking sides so I thought it worth bringing up here.

One one hand I'm no fan of the royalty over here but the argument was enough to get Piers Morgan to storm off the set for defending them and he's a giant douche nozzle so I call that a win. Also, when you have the whole of Fox News defending you it can't be good. On the other hand I do have a problem with Megan's story being genuine, if true of course it's sad but if feels more like we're getting played. We have to take her at her word on the accusations of racism and either way it puts those on the other side in a position they cannot possibly defend, if you're going to ruin them all with zero repercussions that's how you do it.
 

Edd

It’s all in the reflexes
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
1,622
Reaction score
2,393
Location
New Hampshire
I’m glad you started this; curious about takes from our Brit members.

Piers Morgan‘s appeal eludes me completely.
 

Apple fanboy

Elite Member
Vaccinated
Posts
1,485
Reaction score
2,752
I’m glad you started this; curious about takes from our Brit members.

Piers Morgan‘s appeal eludes me completely.
As a Brit I can say I couldn't care less. I have no time for any of them. The sooner it disappears from my news feed the better. I didn't watch it and would sooner watch my beloved West Ham lose 5 nil than have to endure 5 minutes of it!
 

Eric

Mama's lil stinker
Vaccinated
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
8,431
Reaction score
16,463
Location
California
Instagram
Main Camera
Sony
As a Brit I can say I couldn't care less. I have no time for any of them. The sooner it disappears from my news feed the better. I didn't watch it and would sooner watch my beloved West Ham lose 5 nil than have to endure 5 minutes of it!
I have a British friend here and he said the same thing, he also said that a lot of people over there just tune it out and don't really pay as much attention to royalty as they do here for some reason.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,359
Reaction score
9,095
As a Brit I can say I couldn't care less. I have no time for any of them. The sooner it disappears from my news feed the better. I didn't watch it and would sooner watch my beloved West Ham lose 5 nil than have to endure 5 minutes of it!

Agreed.

Completely.

To my mind, this is one of those cases where both sides are unusually - and equally - unpleasant.

You can view the Self-Exiled Pair as insanely self-regarding, publicity mad, entitled narcissists, who are exceptionally adept at manipulative PR, (and I think that they are), see Harry as a damaged and wounded person who has never fully recovered from the manner of his mother's life (and especially, the trauma of her death), - and I do - while also, simultaneously, accepting that the Royal Family are outrageously arrogant, entitled, a feudal anachronism, who are addicted to archaic traditions of deference, monstrously wealthy, disgracefully racist (yes, of course), but are also snobbish, sexist, elitist, and disgusting parasites, who view democratic norms and principes with benign bewilderment, at best, but, more usually, with barely disguised distaste.
 
Last edited:

Joe

Elite Member
Posts
1,542
Reaction score
2,736
Location
Gilead
I honestly have not paid attention to it at all. I keep seeing all the memes, but I don't know enough about the situation to laugh at them.
 

Eric

Mama's lil stinker
Vaccinated
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
8,431
Reaction score
16,463
Location
California
Instagram
Main Camera
Sony
Agreed.

Completely.

To my mind, this is one of those cases where both sides are unusually - and equally - unpleasant.

You can view the Self-Exiled Pair as insanely self-regarding, publicity mad, entitled narcissists, who are exceptionally adept at manipulative PR, (and I think that they are), see Harry as a damaged and wounded person who has never fully recovered from the manner of his mother's life (and especially, the trauma of her death), - and I do - while also, simultaneously, accepting that the Royal Family are outrageously arrogant, entitled, a feudal anachronism, who are addicted to archaic traditions of deference, monstrously wealthy, disgracefully racist (yes, of course), but are also snobbish, sexist, elitist, and disgusting parasites, who view democratic norms and principes with benign bewilderment, at best, but, more usually, with barely disguised distaste.
It seems there are similarities to Edward VIII in that he abdicated over his love for another and was basically never forgiven for it, treated like an outcast and regularly groveling for state salary. Of course in his case it was a shame that such stupid rules led him to such a life of isolation over simply wanting to be with the one he loved.

However, the difference here is they're choosing it when they didn't have to. I just don't find Megan to be a genuine person, she comes across more as someone who would play you and Henry seems quite infatuated with her, you get the feeling that she's calling all the shots.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,359
Reaction score
9,095
It seems there are similarities to Edward VIII in that he abdicated over his love for another and was basically never forgiven for it, treated like an outcast and regularly groveling for state salary. Of course in his case it was a shame that such stupid rules led him to such a life of isolation over simply wanting to be with the one he loved.

However, the difference here is they're choosing it when they didn't have to. I just don't find Megan to be a genuine person, she comes across more as someone who would play you and Henry seems quite infatuated with her, you get the feeling that she's calling all the shots.

Re Edward VIII, yes, the reason for the abdication (she was divorced, while he was Head of the (Anglican) Church of England - something that dated from Henry VIII's break with Rome - when the Pope was replaced by the monarch as Head of the (State) church - in the 1530s, and, so, Henry VIII's peculiar love life notwithstanding, the individual who is Head of the Church of England was not supposed to be in favour of divorce, or want to marry someone who is already divorced), would, normally, render me sympathetic to their situation, (for, of course, you should be able to marry whomsoever you wish) but...

But:

The "but" here is that the Abdication (in the long run) was probably A Very Good Thing, as Edward VIII was unusually sympathetic to the German Government led by Adolf Hitler, and, there seems to be some evidence which suggests, that, had Hitler's forces defeated Britain in 1940, (that) Edward might have found his way back to his abandoned throne, restored to it under a German occupation, or an administration sympathetic to German hegemony in Europe.

As a teenager, I used to side with Edward, but, when I read more of the murky stuff that he seemed to be sympathetic to - his actions in France in 1940, his clear sypathy for the Nazi regime - I am less well disposed.

Agree re Megan - in that while I have small doubt that the Royal Family were racist (and sexist, obnoxious and everything else - and their tolerance of - and indulgence of - the appalling Andrew's behaviour is in stark, depressing, and striking contrast to how Megan claims she was treated), I don't believe - or credit - her claims that she wants "privacy", not when, her actions, (and Harry's actions), since they quit the shores of the UK, suggest a desire for remaining in the public eye (but exclusively on their terms, i.e. without any accountability), yet lavishly bankrolled by others, or at someone else's expense.

Notwithstanding all of that, I think that Harry sees her as a version of his mother (who, for all of her charity works, also had a peculiarly symbiotic and quite mutually destructive relationship with the media, one which cut both ways, one where they each needed yet despised and detested the other), and is clearly besotted with her.

I also think that - since he left the Armed Forces in 2015 - he (the classic dilemma of the "spare" in any such system) lacked focus and direction in his life (he wasn't the heir, and had no clear role), and, I suspect that he never fully processed or came to terms with the circumstances of his mother's life or death.

If they really wanted privacy, (a matter on which I would have complete sympathy for them), there are ways of ensuring that, and granting interviews to Oprah on prime time TV is not how you set about creating a new (and private) life for yourself. They strike me as seeking to create a brand.

Moreover, while I don't doubt that the disgraceful remark about the possible appearance of their first child may well have been said, - for the family is famous, actually, infamous, notorious, for its retrogade attitudes - it is manifestly untrue (and Harry should be more than well aware of this by birth and background) that their son was deliberately deprived of the use of the title "Prince" (or HRH) on account of his possible racial or ethnic background.

They can't have it both ways: Seeking to be "modern liberal" types, yet claiming that they were deprived of titles expressing appropriate royal rank for their son.

Besides, while Harry is the Queen's grandson, his son is the Queen's great-grandson, and thus, is too far removed, (by a generation), in the direct line of succession to be awarded a royal title as a matter of automatic right. To suggest (or imply) that this was on account of race is - I think - somewhat disingenuous, and deliberately provocative.

On this, I have far more respect for Princess Anne's stance; she refused royal titles for her two children, - who are, after all, the Queen's grandchildren, and were thus automatically, entitled to request, or be conferred with, royal titles, instead insisting that they must learn to make their own way in the world without titles.

However, to my mind, there is no justification for such a bloated, obscenely wealthy, and unaccountable monarchy, an institution which is, by its existence, the very definition of inherited unearned privilege. Personally, I'd like to see a slimmed down version, answerable to the rule of law, the courts, and parliament, of the sort of find in some of the Scadinavian countries.
 
Last edited:

Eric

Mama's lil stinker
Vaccinated
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
8,431
Reaction score
16,463
Location
California
Instagram
Main Camera
Sony
Re Edward VIII, yes, the reason for the abdication (she was divorced, while he was Head of the (Anglican) Church of England - something that dated from Henry VIII's break with Rome - when the Pope was replaced by the monarch as Head of the (State) church - in the 1530s, and, so, Henry VIII's peculiar love life notwithstanding, was not supposed to favour divorce), would, normally, render me sympathetic to their situation, (of course you should be able to marry whomsoever you wish) but...

But:

The "but" here is that the Abdication (in the long run) was probably A Very Good Thing, as Edward VIII was unusually sympathetic to the German Government led by Adolf Hitler, and, there seems to be some evidence which suggests, that, had Hitler's forces defeated Britain in 1940, (that) Edward might have found his way back to his abandoned throne, under a German occupation, or an administration sympathetic to German hegemony in Europe.

As a teenager, I used to side with Edward, but, when I read more of the murky stuff that he seemed to be sympathetic to - his actions in France in 1940, his clear sypathy for the Nazi regime - I am less well disposed.

Agree re Megan - in that while I have small doubt that the Royal Family were racist (and sexist, obnoxious and everything else - and their tolerance of - and indulgence of - the appalling Andrew's behaviour is in depressing and striking contrast to how Megan claims she was treated), I don't believe - or credit - her claims that she wants "privacy", when, her actions (and Harry's actions) since they quit the shores of the UK, suggest a desire for remaining in the public eye (but exclusively on their terms, i.e. without any accountability), yet lavishly bankrolled by others, or at someone else's expense.

Notwithstanding all of that, I think that Harry sees her as a version of his mother (who, for all of her charity works, also had a peculiarly symbiotic and quite mutually destructive relationship with the media, one which cut both ways, one where they each needed yet despised and detested the other), and is clearly besotted with her.

I also think that - since he left the Armed Forces in 2015 - he (the classic dilemma of the "spare" in any such system) lacked focus and direction in his life (he wasn't the heir, and had no clear role), and, I suspect that he never fully processed or came to terms with the circumstances of his mother's life or death.

If they really wanted privacy, (a matter on which I would have complete sympathy for them), there are ways of ensuring that, and granting interviews to Oprah on prime time TV is not how you set about creating a new (and private) life for yourself. They strike me as seeking to create a brand.

Moreover, while I don't doubt that the disgraceful remark about the possible appearance of their first child may well have been said, - for the family is famous, actually, infamous, notorious, for its retrogade attitudes - it is manifestly untrue (and Harry should be more than well aware of this) that their son was deliberately deprived of the use of the title "Prince" (or HRH) on account of his possible racial or ethnic background.

They can't have it both ways: Seeking to be "modern liberal" types, yet claiming that they were deprived of titles expressing appropriate royal rank for their son.

Besides, while Harry is the Queen's grandson, his son is the Queen's great-grandson, and thus too far away in the direct line of succession to be awarded a title as a matter of automatic right. To suggest (or imply) that this was on account of race is - I think - somewhat disingenuous, and deliberately provocative.

On this, I have far more respect for Princess Anne's stance; she refused royal titles for her two children, - who are, after all, the Queen's grandchildren, and were thus automatically, entitled to request, or be conferred with, royal titles, insisting that they must learn to make their own way in the world without titles.

However, to my mind, there is no justification for such a bloated, obscenely wealthy, and unaccountable monarchy, an institution which is, by its existence, the very definition of inherited unearned privilege. Personally, I'd like to see a slimmed down version, answerable to the rule of law, the courts, and parliament, of the sort of find in some of the Scadinavian countries.
There's a lot to take in here but watching The Crown they covered all of that with Edward and it sounds like it was just as much of a bombshell to the existing royalty as well, who were pretty much blindsided by it so it makes sense that many were with him until they learned that, at which point he basically became a pariah to the entire world and understandably so.

I agree about Harry seeing some of his mother in her, I do think that Daina was a bit more genuine IMO as to where Meghan seems more manipulative. I don't think this debacle is the last we'll hear from her, she will milk the sympathy card for all it's worth and I'm guessing it's not the first time and it won't be the last.
 

MarkusL

Power User
Vaccinated
Posts
128
Reaction score
333
Agreed.

Completely.

To my mind, this is one of those cases where both sides are unusually - and equally - unpleasant.

You can view the Self-Exiled Pair as insanely self-regarding, publicity mad, entitled narcissists, who are exceptionally adept at manipulative PR, (and I think that they are), see Harry as a damaged and wounded person who has never fully recovered from the manner of his mother's life (and especially, the trauma of her death), - and I do - while also, simultaneously, accepting that the Royal Family are outrageously arrogant, entitled, a feudal anachronism, who are addicted to archaic traditions of deference, monstrously wealthy, disgracefully racist (yes, of course), but are also snobbish, sexist, elitist, and disgusting parasites, who view democratic norms and principes with benign bewilderment, at best, but, more usually, with barely disguised distaste.

But Prince William said they are not racist, and if we ask him I am sure he will tell us they are also not arrogant and entitled.

87fdcffd03c741ed8bbacd04977c36fb_md.jpg
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,359
Reaction score
9,095
Maybe we should be looking at Harry.

725547_2058316_a_updates.jpg

Touché.

He's admitted that he was a "young idiot" at the time (and he was), - and apologised for it subsequently - but there are idiocies and idiocies, and, donning an Afrika Korps uniform (which is what I think was reported at the time) is spectacularly tasteless, completely clueless, and frankly, outrageous.
 

Eraserhead

Power User
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
245
Reaction score
364
But Prince William said they are not racist, and if we ask him I am sure he will tell us they are also not arrogant and entitled.

87fdcffd03c741ed8bbacd04977c36fb_md.jpg
According to twitter William is the one who asked Harry about his darker skinned child based on the theory he’s reconciled with Charles but not William and that it wasn’t Prince Philip.
 

Eric

Mama's lil stinker
Vaccinated
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
8,431
Reaction score
16,463
Location
California
Instagram
Main Camera
Sony
Touché.

He's admitted that he was a "young idiot" at the time (and he was), - and apologised for it subsequently - but there are idiocies and idiocies, and, donning an Afrika Korps uniform (which is what I think was reported at the time) is spectacularly tasteless, completely clueless, and frankly, outrageous.
I'm mostly just poking fun at it, in this incident I really have no dog in the fight one way or the other. I mean watching filthy rich people's petty squabbles just makes me want to point and laugh more than anything. They're like the Kardashians, through no actions of their own they've achieved great wealth and notoriety.

Best meme to come of the whole thing IMO...

Screen Shot 2021-03-14 at 6.37.14 AM.png
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,359
Reaction score
9,095
I'm mostly just poking fun at it, in this incident I really have no dog in the fight one way or the other. I mean watching filthy rich people's petty squabbles just makes me want to point and laugh more than anything. They're like the Kardashians, through no actions of their own they've achieved great wealth and notoriety.

Best meme to come of the whole thing IMO...

View attachment 3997

Agreed.

Actually, as I think I remarked earlier in this thread, it (this dispute) is not something that engages me, and, to be perfectly honest, I dislike both sides almost equally, though for different reasons.
 

Eric

Mama's lil stinker
Vaccinated
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
8,431
Reaction score
16,463
Location
California
Instagram
Main Camera
Sony
Agreed.

Actually, as I think I remarked earlier in this thread, it (this dispute) is not something that engages me, and, to be perfectly honest, I dislike both sides almost equally, though for different reasons.
It is fun to watch and get people's take on both sides though, right now we have a real lack of entertainment out there.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,212
Reaction score
4,202
Location
The Misty Mountains
Interesting reading:

My goal here is not to pick on the Royal Family or sound overly critical or harsh... If you think this belongs in another thread, I’d be happy to move it.
But by virtue of being recognized as “Royals”, what benefit does it bring to the country? My first guess is tourism and I assume the country comes out ahead. Do these people by virtue of living a posh lifestyle, bring comfort to the people?

The next question would be how much is the Royal Family subsidized annually by the Government or are they self sustaining? This article from 2019:

What important purpose does this group of people, the Royal Family perform? Would they ever be capable of winning an election in the country for a leadership position? I’m thinking no. If I remember correctly from The Crown, the Queen gets to pick the Prime Minister, or am I mistaken? Is the Prime Minister required to heed the advice of the Queen? I’m thinking no,

The bottom line is that this family is put on an official pedestal and wonder why the Monarchy has not been already dissolved? If they are collectively billionaires, you might question are they earning their keep?
 

Eric

Mama's lil stinker
Vaccinated
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
8,431
Reaction score
16,463
Location
California
Instagram
Main Camera
Sony
Interesting reading:

My goal here is not to pick on the Royal Family or sound overly critical or harsh... If you think this belongs in another thread, I’d be happy to move it.
But by virtue of being recognized as “Royals”, what benefit does it bring to the country? My first guess is tourism and I assume the country comes out ahead. Do these people by virtue of living a posh lifestyle, bring comfort to the people?

The next question would be how much is the Royal Family subsidized annually by the Government or are they self sustaining? This article from 2019:

What important purpose does this group of people, the Royal Family perform? Would they ever be capable of winning an election in the country for a leadership position? I’m thinking no. If I remember correctly from The Crown, the Queen gets to pick the Prime Minister, or am I mistaken? Is the Prime Minister required to heed the advice of the Queen? I’m thinking no,

The bottom line is that this family is put on an official pedestal and wonder why the Monarchy has not been already dissolved? If they are collectively billionaires, you might question are they earning their keep?

As I understand it the Prime Minister is chosen by parliament
Most prime ministers in parliamentary systems are not appointed for a specific term in office and in effect may remain in power through a number of elections and parliaments. ... The position of prime minister is normally chosen from the political party that commands majority of seats in the lower house of parliament.

I also watched The Crown and from what I could see they do report to the queen regularly but only in an advisory role and she basically stayed out of all political decisions. It almost seems like more of a formality than anything.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,212
Reaction score
4,202
Location
The Misty Mountains
As I understand it the Prime Minister is chosen by parliament


I also watched The Crown and from what I could see they do report to the queen regularly but only in an advisory role and she basically stayed out of all political decisions. It almost seems like more of a formality than anything.
Which leads me to believe that The Crown is a tradition or an institution that some percentage of the citizens of the UK value, but I’m not sure of the reason other than tourism.
 
Top Bottom