Meghan and Harry vs the Crown

[Huntn]

It's an interesting question. According to various articles I've read over the years the amount of money they bring into the country (via tourism etc) is reportedly far higher than the amount we put in, so the UK government makes a return on the investment. I was going to use this as a line of reasoning for a debate about getting rid of the royal family, but it's not a particularly strong argument.

@Scepticalscribe touched upon the "we just want privacy" aspect. This reminds me of a book called "The boy who cried wolf". They keep saying they want privacy but they clearly don't. This is why people don't believe there is a wolf, I mean they don't believe they really want privacy. If they wanted privacy they would not be selling the details of their private lives for money. I really wish the press would come together on this and respect their wishes... total media blackout on Harry and Meghan. Simply do not report anything further on Meghan and Harry. We would then see just how much they really want their privacy.

On the racist allegations. I have no doubts that people within the family would make such comments. You have to understand these are people so far out of touch with what others would consider normal everyday lives that I would be surprised if they didn't make ignorant comments on a daily basis. I do always enjoy people who fly in private planes to "fight poverty" and "raise awareness". A tremendously busy and harrowing time, as one would imagine, being flown to a selected village via a luxury helicopter, posing for some photos with the selected peasant folk before retiring to one's luxury hotel for some champagne and local delicacies. My favourite is people who use helicopters to travel 100 miles to speak at an environmental conference about the pollution of air travel and the importance of planting more trees.

My take is that it would be Charles and not William who made comments about the skin of a future baby. I don't believe that there is much affection between Harry and Charles. It's quite obvious to even a partially blind person that Harry is not Charles' son. It's also quite obvious whose son he really is. I believe that Harry blames Charles for his mother's death and I think their relationship has been very strained ever since Harry was a teenager.

On a side note this is the most I have ever "said" about the royal family, because I think the whole royal family side show should be thrown away in the dumpster where it belongs. But I know that many Brits are besotted with it all. To me, I find their antics to be as important as what Kim and Kanye are up to this week. I don't really get celebrity idolisation, but it clearly makes some people happy and fills some kind of void in their lives that I'll never understand.

Over at MRs, a very hostile anti-Monarchist railed about the Royal Family and the TV show, The Crown as candy coated and wished for a French Revolution for them before he got his posts removed through moderation.


Personally I don’t follow the royals that much, other than what I hear on the news, and I have enjoyed The Crown, which if it can be taken as accurate spends much more time pointing out the blemishes of Queen Elizabeth’s family than regaling them. A common theme is the Crown interfering in the lives of family members about who they should have or not have in their lives for appearances sake, by I assume withholding privileges from them, making for unhappy people. I assume the next season with Diana will be grim.

I can imagine someone saying something about Harry and Megan’s child as it might be said in any white family, with a mixed ethnic person who has married in, not that it is ok, but that is just not that uncommon. And here we have a very famous family constantly under the spot light. I don’t know enough about Megan to judge her as a reasonable person, a publicity hound, or a mentally ill narcissist as she was accused of by the person I mentioned at MRs. I did not listen to the Oprah interview because it was not high on my priorities. It’s possible she was mistreated by someone, maybe staff, but I just don’t know the why of it for certain. My guess is that Harry, distancing himself from the Crown for her sake has diminished his capitol so,wwhat with the family, but I think I can understand why a person would want out, if they thought they could adapt to a completely different lifestyle.

Just found this to read: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-...and-nothing-at-all_n_60463e1cc5b660a0f38a6b44

 

[User.168]

.

 

[User.168]

.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Meghan Markle Reveals Royals Worried Her Son Wouldn’t Have Family’s Sickly, Rancid Skin

MONTECITO, CA—Revealing concerns within the British monarchy that a child in line to the throne might inherit a noticeably healthy glow, Meghan Markle said in a prime-time TV special Sunday that some of the royals had worried her son would be born without the family’s sickly, rancid skin. “When...

www.theonion.com

MONTECITO, CA—Revealing concerns within the British monarchy that a child in line to the throne might inherit a noticeably healthy glow, Meghan Markle said in a prime-time TV special Sunday that some of the royals had worried her son would be born without the family’s sickly, rancid skin. “When I was pregnant with Archie, Harry was approached by a member of his family who expressed apprehension that our baby might not have the disgustingly translucent and putrid complexions they are known for,” the Duchess of Sussex told interviewer Oprah Winfrey, explaining that the unease stemmed from the fact that her son would be the first Windsor in history not to be so pallid and heinous that even stepping foot in the sun would cause his fragile skin to blister and boil. “This person reminded Harry that it had taken centuries of intermarriage between the British peerage and other reigning families of northern Europe to produce a bloodline with remarkably thin, pigment-free dermal layers that crack, bleed, and bruise at the slightest contact. They asked what would happen if the people of the United Kingdom were to one day look upon a royal and not immediately want to retch at the sight of veins pulsating beneath gray, decaying skin.” As the interview ventured into emotionally difficult subjects, Markle was often seen holding Prince Harry’s revoltingly cadaverous hand for support.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The prime minister is the leader of the elected party. How to become a leader of a party differs from party to party, but it boils down to a vote within the party (not open to the public)

Once a party has won the elections the queen then invites the leader to be appointed as the prime minister. The leader may choose to not take the position. This is a mere formality in reality to confirm the public vote. She is also the "final approver" of legislation, but again this comes after the votes in parliament and a tradition rather than doing anything of use, or reversing legislation.The PM does meet with the queen for tea and a chitty chat on a regular basis. This is where her true power lies... influence and advice.

@Huntn, just to further clarify what @theSeb has written.

In the UK - which does not have a written constitution - parliament, not the people (and not the monarch) - is where sovereignty lies. And, unusually, these days, in Europe, British people are still "subjects" (of the monarch), rather than "citizens" of a state. You can consider it an incomplete revolution, to a certain extent.

Thus, the party - or parties (for there have been coalition or multi-party governments, administrations, as recently as the past decade) - that wins the general election, - where the population votes - gets to nominate their leader for the position of PM. You cannot beocme PM without a parliamentary majority, and subsequent Royal Approval (which is a formality, but one that is observed).

As @theSeb points out, parties (not the public) select their respective leaders, but the public elects - sends - the members of parliament to parliament, and that is where the political power of the PM (and government) resides, although the monarchy does enjoy considerable informal power and extraordinary wealth.

The Crown - although beautifully produced, with impeccable production values - is not history.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Before the interview I had some interest in seeing it, but then I missed it, got the jest of it from the countless news articles and at this point I'm pretty damn tired of it still being a front page story in one form or another. I don't think it's all that shocking and I really despise "If it could happen to rich/famous people then it can happen to anyone" narratives. Existing with people who have wealth or fame shouldn't suddenly make scenarios have more validity or weight.

 

[Huntn]

Meghan Markle Reveals Royals Worried Her Son Wouldn’t Have Family’s Sickly, Rancid Skin

MONTECITO, CA—Revealing concerns within the British monarchy that a child in line to the throne might inherit a noticeably healthy glow, Meghan Markle said in a prime-time TV special Sunday that some of the royals had worried her son would be born without the family’s sickly, rancid skin. “When...

www.theonion.com

I read that and said Holy Crap until I looked at the source, then laughed out loud.

 

[Huntn]

@Huntn, just to further clarify what @theSeb has written.

In the UK - which does not have a written constitution - parliament, not the people (and not the monarch) - is where sovereignty lies. And, unusually, these days, in Europe, British people are still "subjects" (of the monarch), rather than "citizens" of a state. You can consider it an incomplete revolution, to a certain extent.

Thus, the party - or parties (for there have been coalition or multi-party governments, administrations, as recently as the past decade) - that wins the general election, - where the population votes - gets to nominate their leader for the position of PM. You cannot beocme PM without a parliamentary majority, and subsequent Royal Approval (which is a formality, but one that is observed).

As @theSeb points out, parties (not the public) select their respective leaders, but the public elects - sends - the members of parliament to parliament, and that is where the political power of the PM (and government) resides, although the monarchy does enjoy considerable informal power and extraordinary wealth.

The Crown - although beautifully produced, with impeccable production values - is not history.

Not disagreeing with you, but I’d love to see a point by point article comparing where the show is accurate versus not representative of history. I do realize that most of the conversations are created to try to match the history.

 

[Huntn]

A bit off topic, but I’m watching The Royals on Reelz, covering the Charles/Diana years. The Crown TV show appears remarkably accurate in this regard.

Anyway, I would not be surprised if Megan’s accusations and hurt feelings are accurate, while acknowledging that everything we get is hear-say and third party sources.

 

[Eric]

A bit off topic, but I’m watching The Royals on Reelz, covering the Charles/Diana years. The Crown TV show appears remarkably accurate in this regard.

Anyway, I would not be surprised if Megan’s accusations and hurt feelings are accurate, while acknowledging that everything we get is hear-say and third party sources.

It's definitely a he said vs she said anecdotal trial in the court of public opinion. I could very well could be off base here but I'm speculating that the royal family released info about how she treated staff/personal assistants and Meghan came back with the whole racism charge to counter punch.

To me, it was the way she came across, it seemed vindictive while playing a victim card. It's a charge that seems very unlikely they can prove so we have to take Meghan's word for it. Well played on her part really because either way she leaves royalty in an untenable position.

As for the accuracy of The Crown, I honestly couldn't say one way or the other. I've heard that even members of the royal family themselves have said it's very close but that's all I know.