 sj |
||
|
||
BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
|
|
|
Subject: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 07 Mar 21 - 11:22 PM OPRAH with Meghan & Harry Sunday 7 March 2021 As Steve Colbert said: "It's incredible when you get to meet royalty, and now it's Meghan's and Harry's turn!" I told my friends I would not get sucked into watching this bit of onlooker's orgasm. And here I am, watching Oprah, who I have enjoyed watching, meet Meghan, who I enjoyed when I was watching "SUITS". I am enjoying it. I will worry about what that means about me later. Much later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:19 AM It was a fascinating interview. I think they did a remarkable job of illustrating not only how difficult things were in that situation, but by extension, how difficult it was for Diana and how she had the foresight to leave her money to her son/s. Did she leave money to William also? Probably, but as the heir, I wonder how it worked out. At any rate, she made it possible for them to walk away and for Meghan to get out alive. This really does all hark back to Diana and what Harry saw and learned of her experiences. His ability to walk away from it is because of her example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:33 AM I'm picking up so many different references and places these subjects could go: Palace infrastructure management of the publicity given to the institution of the Royals. Communication between Harry and his father probably severely affected by the relationship between his father and his late mother. Racial overtones throughout the institution. And some of those overtones seem to be related to what a GOOD idea it is to have a bit of color to show from the royal family itself. And the question of: How do we learn from the past? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:52 AM The decision to not extend protection to a woman of color who entered the family, and to not make her son a prince, when there are so many others in the family of that generation, is stupefyingly racist. The "prince" part meant his safety, as far as she was concerned. And the point made again and again by Twitter users is that Prince Andrew is such a cretin and still draws his salary. Friend of Jeffrey Epstein, no problem. Black woman, Hell no! For those who missed the interview, here is a good summing up in Forbes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 11:59 AM I'll not be watching this - but seriously - she took the pet because her little darlings aren't to be made wee princes and princesses??? When most folk worry about just getting them into a good nursery and feeding them and things like that. What planet are folk on???? I don't imagine after first Edward's offspring then Harry's that any baby will be made a prince or princess again apart from the actual person of that generation who is directly in line! So Charles, William then the eldest of his brood when they have kids. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:10 PM No, Allan, but I can understand how you'd get it wrong, having not watched the interview. I suspect they're happy their children aren't trapped in that situation. Speaking only for myself, I (possibly most Americans) don't understand how royal succession works. The comment by SRS was as interpreted by SRS. It sounded to me like they had more of a problem with the denial of security. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:26 PM Ok Jeri undertood!! It was SRS suggesting that it was racist that her children were not made princes or princesses so I assumed that was on the prog. The children of Edward and Sophie weren't made princes or princesses either. Nothing racist about it. Neither were the children of Princess Anne though that was down to an 'ism' at the time but it was 'sexism' not racism. The truth of it is there is a move towards a slim downed royal family and they were big news just now because they are a young glamorous couple but their offspring through time would perhaps become middling royals at best. There is a spoof show in the UK called the Windsors where the lot of them are lampooned and castigated. It can be pretty silly but every now and again it hits the nail on the head. In one episode the actress playing Meghan says to Prince Charles "Oh haven't things come along when I am accepted for marrying Harry when I am an American when the Wallace Simpson thing caused such an outrage" Charles looked at her and said "You have to remember dear that Mrs Simpson was marrying the heir to the throne but neither of your or Harry's arses will get anywhere near the throne!" It was a funny scene but strikingly true. But no I avoid anything to do with the bunch of them anyway. Apart from spoof comedy shows. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:31 PM Well we've read snippets this end but we haven't seen it yet. We're all sitting here with bated breath and massive sacks of popcorn... I'm going to love indulging my confirmation bias and every scrap of naked prejudice I can muster whilst siding with Meghan before I've heard even a word of it, even though I intensely dislike the whole damn shower... (...Or should I learn the ukelele instead...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:37 PM Aye the world would be better served by you grabbing a uke! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: The Sandman Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:43 PM i do not have a television so i might play some music instead |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:43 PM Harry and Meghan don't, of course, mind the huge income from their association with royalty & the Oprah interview. Capitalism produces revoltingly unfair inequality & monarchism is even worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 21 - 12:45 PM They weren't paid anything for the interview. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Charmion Date: 08 Mar 21 - 01:06 PM When her eldest was born, Princess Anne herself announced that her children would be commoners (i.e., have no title). That is consistent with the British tradition of assigning children to the social rank of their father. Mark Phillips was then, and is now, not an aristocrat, let alone royal. Prince Andrew's rank passed automatically to his daughters, Eugenie and Beatrice. Prince Edward is the rebel of the family, having opted his children out of the system. Being the youngest, and waiting to marry until years after the death of Princess Diana, he was allowed to do what he thought best. Harry had his example to follow. I believe that the denial of much-needed security services did not arise solely from Meghan's perceived racial otherness. Both Harry and Meghan were resisting the long-standing Buck House way of doing things, so withholding security was a way to bring them into line. The American and Canadian variants of racism are nasty enough, God knows, but the UK kind is extra-specially nasty. I'm not sure if it's the class component, or the way the news media can apparently publish libellous and childishly offensive material with impunity. I'm too Canadian to figure it out and I don't think I can stand to try. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 02:11 PM My understanding is that Harry and Meghan's son has not actually even really been denied the title Prince. He doesn't as yet actually qualify for the title. It is something granted to sons and grandsons of monarchs with that only stretching another generation for the sons of the person directly in line for the throne. So the only one of the new generation that actually qualifies automatically as a Prince at the moment is George who is the son of William who will be heir to the throne once his father becomes king. Harry's children would only actually qualify as Prince or Princess when the Queen dies and Charles takes the throne. The Queen gave the title by special dispensation to the other children of William and Kate I take it because William is directly in line to the throne. They are the kids of someone who is destined to be, and is being groomed as, a future king. Whether folks in America like it or not. William and Kate have the nuclear family that will one day sit around the throne. Not Harry and Meghan who are the also rans of the family like Anne and Edward were - and Margaret before that. I find it hard to have sympathy for the idea that one incredibly spoiled family unit thought themselves slightly less spoiled in the way of receiving titles than the older sibling and his family. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 02:33 PM Re the security thing. That is a red herring too. It is 10 years since Andrew's girls, both princesses, were told they would have to pay for their own security except on occassions when they were officially carrying out royal engagements. These families are wealthy and the wider family can pay for their own security. Don't see why we UK tax payers should pay for it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Charmion Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:05 PM Canadians still have skin in the game, Allan, and we are part of North America, too. But thanks for explaining how the titles of royal descendants get iffier as the generations go by. As for the issue of paying for security, I rather think it would be less expensive if the British media were less rapacious in their pursuit of royal tittle-tattle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:12 PM Here in Scotland we are less pro Royal than the UK as a whole (personally I am not a royalist) so I find it a bit hard to understand why we put one family on such a pedastal. Find it even harder to comprehend why other countries still accept them. But we're all different I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:25 PM This is just one of the places this could go: Meghan is an American and not a part of the blood royal: But she has married into it and her kids are a part of it in some context. So where is her royal privilege? In other words, it is part of human nature to exploit an advantage, and the concept of 'unfair advantage' changes with one's, er, vantage. Just sayin'... Another place this could go: Meghan said, if I understood correctly, that she did not get the most basic of instruction in behaviour. As in, "you know how to curtsy, right?" Well she did not know how to curtsy. This apparently happened when she and Harry were dating, so it comes off as delightfully impromptu as narrated. But then she actually is married into the family and all at once she needs to be educated on a lot of ceremony and formal behaviourisms. She claims she got no help on this. So we're beyond impromptu at this point. I'd guess there is as much detail and history on this sort of thing that one can get sucked into a rabbit hole in no time. So she needed someone who could figure out what actually mattered and also what would matter most to Meghan. That is a tall order which apparently didn't get filled. And it is different but related to the depth of press coverage and that added coverage of tabloid sensationalism and stuff-made-up-ism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Rain Dog Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:28 PM Not seen the programme but according to one of the news reports Megan was not asked any questions about her relationship with her own family. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:35 PM As I understand it, they're not getting any income from being a royal. They got money from Princess Diana, and William has a company. It also seemed to me that the racism, apart from an un-named member of the family, was mostly from the tabloids, and William thought it looked like history repeating itself. The tabloid-fueled hatred certainly reminds me of what's been happening in the US. Hatred is popular these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:56 PM Robomatic what privilege do you think the royals should have? And perhaps more significantly why should they keep any privileges they have once they walk away from the job? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Backwoodsman Date: 08 Mar 21 - 03:58 PM William, Jeri? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 08 Mar 21 - 04:03 PM Wrong prince -Harry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Backwoodsman Date: 08 Mar 21 - 04:03 PM And this is nothing more than opium for the masses, a distraction for the dullard cap-doffers, forelock-tuggers, and flag-worshippers. In simple words, it’s a pile of horse-shit, and best avoided. IMHO, of yourse, and YMMV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 21 - 04:12 PM I've ended up watching Masterchef instead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Mar 21 - 04:20 PM We're on the last two episodes of 'Engrenages'series 4.called "Spiral" in English. A Parisian cop series. Good if anyone wants to binge watch something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Senoufou Date: 08 Mar 21 - 06:06 PM It seems to be on numerous channels but I refuse to watch it, not a bit interested. I'm watching 'Classic Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' and being insufferably smug when I know the answer and the contestant doesn't. The bloke on earlier this evening didn't know in which US state is Death Valley. Duh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:20 PM For someone who didn't watch it. Allan has an incredible amount to say about it. And quite a few red herrings flying through the commentary as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Malcolm Storey Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:24 PM Should the whole of the current royal family be wiped out by the lurgi or covid - whichever comes first - then a German postmistress will probably be the next queen or maybe Trump - who knows? Our succession system makes about as much sense as the American election system. By the way it is reported that 17+ million watched the programme. That means nearly 50 million didn't - nuff said! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:41 PM Fewer people sit down in front of a television to get their news today. There will be multiple outlets (the interview also streamed on the "O" channel on cable, for example). The numbers will grow over time. From the Wall Street Journal: Whether the interview will cause a more sympathetic light to be shone on Ms. Markle and Prince Harry for their decision to leave England for California remains to be seen. But it reaffirmed Ms. Winfrey’s status as America’s grand inquisitor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:44 PM Stilly, folks who "don't care" are proving their apathy by making some fairly vehement commentary. Like "the interview was stupid, the thread is stupid, so I'm going to post a bunch to it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:50 PM I think it was good to get their side of the story out. The only thing we've been getting is tabloid crap and rumors, which is likely all what some people want to hear, but... Oprah's interviewing was bothering me a bit. She'd interrupt, and I think "Let him/her finish!". But she's the professional, and the questions went good places. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 21 - 08:55 PM I note that Mrs Steve has recorded it. Most of the juicy bits have been flooding the news bulletins all day. There appears to me to be a goodly dash of insincerity running through the whole thing. It's the spectacle, stupid! The theatrical pause from Oprah when Meghan stiltedly made the skin colour claim, then "...Wow...". The laughably leading line of questions about the suicidal feelings... Still, to be fair, and before the yank ultra-analysts go for my throat, I suppose I'd better stop there until I've watched it end to tedious end. Maybe. I shouldn't judge, even though I appear to be viscerally on Meghan's side. But I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when some of those alleged adverse comments about skin colour, etc., were made. Context is everything.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Rapparee Date: 08 Mar 21 - 09:01 PM Frankly, I don't know either of them or any of their family and will probably never meet any of them. And, frankly, I don't give a rodent's rectum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Mar 21 - 09:06 PM But it leavens the dull flatbread which is life, as does your rodent's rectum point. I hope you haven't copyrighted that... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 09 Mar 21 - 02:19 AM Steve hits the nail on the head. If comments were made suggesting the hope that a baby was not too dark skinned then yes it would be racist. And that of course is far from impossible. Though as yet it is a very vague someone said something from a one sided staged interview. On the other hand if the comments were of the type "I wonder if the baby will look more like Meghan or Harry" then it is the kind of comment every family makes before the arrival of a baby. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jack Campin Date: 09 Mar 21 - 02:39 AM Haven't seen any of it, and won't, but it seems a common reaction from UK viewers was not to the interview but to the adverts - UK viewers never ordinarily see American TV advertising. Ads for prescription drugs? WTF??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: The Sandman Date: 09 Mar 21 - 03:28 AM I agree with jack. ah, the pharmaceutical industry. In the USA, it is more obvious what goes on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: The Sandman Date: 09 Mar 21 - 03:43 AM mean while the attention is off prince andrew, its all very clever |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 09 Mar 21 - 06:02 AM I agree with Sandman. The real royal scandal at the moment is not that a pushy mum hasn't seen honours thrown at her wee darling or that they are having to actually pay for their own security - it is that Andrew hasn't been forced to go to the US and answer these very serious accusations and help the US law authorities with their investigation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 06:19 AM Wading through the froth of outrage from both sides of this argument is quite entertaining (you know me: entertainment is the only useful thing I can ever extract from the royal clownery). Here's a great example taken from the Guardian website, penned by a chap called Archie (would you believe) Bland: "Among the public, too, the split in opinion appeared to align with familiar dividing lines, with 71% of Brexit supporters viewing the interview as inappropriate against 37% of remainers, according to a snap YouGov poll..." Heheh. Who'd have thought it! Who'd have thought of even asking! The piece also points out that sympathy for Meghan is easier to find on the US side of the Atlantic and among the young generally. I think I might be slightly more on her side meself but I'm not up for too much dwelling on it. Then there's always Piers Morgan of course... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 06:23 AM I've just had a great idea. Let's do a thing akin to a prisoner swap: Anne Sacoolas for Prince Andrew! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Backwoodsman Date: 09 Mar 21 - 07:23 AM ”Among the public, too, the split in opinion appeared to align with familiar dividing lines, with 71% of Brexit supporters viewing the interview as inappropriate against 37% of remainers, according to a snap YouGov poll..." Mmmmm, very appropriate...I quote from my earlier post - ”A distraction for the dullard cap-doffers, forelock-tuggers, and flag-worshippers”. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Howard Jones Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:09 AM My thought was where was Harry in all of this? Why did he apparently not prepare her for what to expect as part of the Royal Family? Was he afraid he'd lose her if she knew what she was getting into? And who was preventing her from seeking treatment when she was feeling suicidal? Harry had therapy without the roof falling in, and it would be even less remarkable for an American, who we believe are all in therapy anyway. Had he no authority in his own household to call a doctor for her? Her other grievances seemed to be largely insignificant, and showed no understanding (still) of how things work. The Palace's response to newspaper tittle-tattle is to ignore it, except in the most egregious situations - a tale about a pre-wedding tiff between future sisters-in-law (surely a common enough occurance) would not merit a denial. Archie was never entitled to be called a prince. Whilst Harry may be the son and brother of future kings, he is now some way down the pecking order, and his children even further. Having a title would have no bearing on the provision of security. It must come as a shock to have to start bearing so many costs themselves, but they'll just have to get by like ordinary mult-millionaires. My biggest question is, what did they expect to achieve by it? It may have done them no harm in the US, but any reconciliation with the family must now be a long way off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Charmion's brother Andrew Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:12 AM "There is nothing to see here, folks. Move along." This whole thing is bait for people who cannot operate computers, and clickbait for those who can. I do not click on the links. They point to the foetid offspring of Robin Leech's "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" that polluted the media in the 1980s with the advent of cable news networks. When it comes up in a BBC, CBC, CNN, or MSNBC teaser, I turn to the Weather Network and check out information that I can use. I can live with Canada being a constitutional monarchy, but Canada's Royal Family is necessarily a more limited set than that supported by the Civil List in the U.K. I was saddened that Megan and Harry found that they could not make life on Vancouver Island work for them, but they would have been private citizens, and the costs of their security requirements could not be imposed on the community there nor on the Canadian public, as they learned after trying to settle in there. (Time spent in reconnaissance would not have been wasted.) I wish them well and hope they find a modus vivendi--modus non vivendi?--with Harry's relations. When that happens, I doubt I will click on the links then, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: gillymor Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:22 AM If these people were truly concerned about the security of their young family perhaps they should be keeping a lower profile and not potentially piquing the interest of all the whackjobs that seem to be running loose in this country at present. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:22 AM Well, Howard, it's as well to remember that we got half the yarn and very little context for the allegations. As I've said before, a friend of a friend of a friend who knows Harry very well thinks that he's, er, not the sharpest knife in the drawer... As for who's entitled to be a prince, etc., I know nothing of the rules and don't give a damn. What's in a name...? They've got more than enough dough to get round any restrictions that not being a prince might impose (I wish I had). I once worked with a bloke who was an important African tribal chief. We all had a lot of fun with that, including him... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Nigel Parsons Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:52 AM Good timing for the release of the sequel: "Coming 2 America". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Big Al Whittle Date: 09 Mar 21 - 09:25 AM I hope you will all lend generous financial support to my projects Harry and Meghan - The concept album Harry and Meghan - the opera If I can raise a couple of million quid, i will book Abbey Road Studio and Covent garden Opera House immediately and start writing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Mar 21 - 10:20 AM The royal gilded cage Meghan found herself living in involved "The Firm" dictating her comings and goings - at one point she had friends in town and wanted to go to lunch but was told she'd been "out too much" already - apparently any public appearance might outshine some other royal members of the family? And she'd been stuck in the house for four months with two outings the entire time. Popular attractive young women have that effect. Her passport, her keys, her driver's license, personal items that one would normally hold onto were held by The Firm. Kate must really love Will to tolerate all of that after growing up outside of the fishbowl. As Meghan said, the "prince" part, whether her son becoming one or her husband continuing to be called a royal prince, had to do with their safety. She was unwilling to do public outings and put a baby "out there" for photo opportunities with no security to protect them. As for the ads during the program - it's odd they would show in another country. And the drug ads are just as annoying here as they are anywhere else. It used to be they couldn't do that, I forget what law now changed, but the advertisements on US TV are getting worse as they are filled with drug and personal care products with a real "ick" factor. It still is forbidden to advertise cigarettes, but just about everything else seems to be out there. That's what the mute button is for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 10:36 AM The ads are why Mrs Steve recorded it - we can just fast forward through them. We make a habit of that. But guess what - no ads if it's the BBC (which this one isn't). As I understand it, security is provided, or paid for, for them by some benefactor where they live now. I don't doubt that the royals are manipulative, mean-spirited and feeling entitled, which is why I have this visceral feeling of sympathy for Meghan. Nothing to do with her devastating good looks, of course. I'm far too ancient to be harbouring such sentiments... ;-) I don't swallow the guff about her not knowing what she was letting herself in for. Surely love isn't that blind... God knows why I'm talking about this. It's probably because I know I have to cut my nine-inch-high grass today... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Mar 21 - 10:41 AM They stayed at a house on Vancouver Island for a while, but when the security was pulled and the COVID crisis was shutting things down, they raced for the border to get to safer digs. As it happens, the actor and producer Tyler Perry set them up in his California mansion/compound for several months while they looked for a house of their own. The night of the interview there was a lot of glee on Twitter that, in effect, Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey decided it was time to tear down the British Monarchy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 09 Mar 21 - 11:14 AM It's getting somewhat difficult to fill people in on what was in the interview, when people want to talk about it without having watched it. I understand some folks just haven't seen it YET, but "it's stupid, I won't watch it, but here's what I think about what I didn't watch." Not you, Steve. Nine inches, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 09 Mar 21 - 11:22 AM The idea that having the title of "prince" would make them more safe though is nonsense. Just because someone says it is so in an interview does not make it fact. They either have the security paid for them or they don't - regardless as to if Archie is a prince or not. It doesn't even make sense!! Harry is a prince so if being a prince guaranteed they didn't have to pay for their own protection then they already would have that guarantee - irrespective of Archie's lack of a title. Re this story from almost 10 years ago in connection with general security not being provided out of the public purse for royals apart from the very nearest to the throne. Seriously if folks in the US who have watched this programme think the couple should get free round the clock protection then why don't they crowd fund it instead of somehow implying people in the UK are bigoted for not providing it??? https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/angry-prince-andrew-pay-three-778240 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Pamber Date: 09 Mar 21 - 11:26 AM I haven't watched but could you tell me whether there is any increased chance that the royals will fold up their ents and go forth and multiply. Sorry but I want ot live in this century Paul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 09 Mar 21 - 11:53 AM Good point Pamber ;-) Plus it is bad enough paying for royals who do their job without being expected to pay for ones who don't want to do their job anymore. You'd think she'd be happy that her son would have inherited the title Earl of Dumbarton - but were folk in Dumbarton actually asked of they even wanted an earl? I suspect that none of the lot of them know the first thing about Dumbarton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Dave the Gnome Date: 09 Mar 21 - 11:55 AM Fold up their ents? What do you know that Tolkein didn't? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: meself Date: 09 Mar 21 - 12:16 PM I find it odd how readily grown-up adults will accept unquestioningly what someone they don't even know tells them about their life. I've had people tell me in the most sincere tones things about their experiences that I knew for a fact were not true, or were at best only half true - am I unusual in that respect? I have no particular feeling for Harry or Meghan one way or the other - but I would be no more inclined to take everything they say at face value than I would what I was told by some talkative stranger sitting beside me on the bus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 09 Mar 21 - 12:19 PM I am kind of on the same line as Paul. And it is ironic how folks in some other countries seem to be so worried about the rights of the royals etc when they long kicked the royals out of power in their own country!! I think the end of royalty is some way off yet mind. Though their popularity is less in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. In a pre-royal wedding poll it was found that only 41% of Scots actually support the monarchy - as opposed to 55% in England, 52% in Northern Ireland and 49% in Wales. There were a lot of people who just didn't care one way or the other though!! The numbers who oppose the monarchy were a bit less. 28% in Scotland though that is double the numbers who oppose it in England. I do think though that a lot of support is directed specifically towards the Queen herself. I mean I am 60 and she has just always been there so I suppose to many it is comforting. The next generation went through some real troughs though - and it looks like the new generation may well do the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: SINSULL Date: 09 Mar 21 - 12:26 PM Meanwhile 6,200,000+ deaths worldwide from COVID-19 and vaccine shortages distract most of us from our in-laws nastiness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Mar 21 - 12:45 PM Allan continues to speak about an interview when he didn't listen to what they had to say about their concerns, WAV walks in with is racist BS and I think this thread has run it's course. This is just setting up a battle scene now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Mar 21 - 04:56 PM It has been requested that this be opened again, but fair warning, I will delete off topic and racist posts and it still may be closed if it doesn't stay civil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 06:32 PM I made a mistake yesterday when I posted this: "The theatrical pause from Oprah when Meghan stiltedly made the skin colour claim, then '...Wow...'" She actually said "...What?!...". I didn't get this second-hand. I was watching the news without my hearing aids in. Sorry about that. I have to contest the assertion that we needed to have watched the whole thing before commenting. Jeri, the telly and radio stations were awash with the saga yesterday, and it's still rumbling on today. I should think that every bit of it that has been pointed up as controversial or sensational has been seen by the people posting here, whether we've endured the whole thing continuously or not. Not quite as good, maybe, but we should not be regarded as disqualified. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 09 Mar 21 - 07:32 PM Thanks for reopening. I had commented on another thread that it had been stated I was commenting on an interview that I hadn't watched and I had no way to respond to that. It may be true that I did not watch the actual interview but highlights from the interview have been shown non stop on news channels since it was on and reporting has also been pretty non stop. I think I've seen and hear more than enough to make my comments relevant enough!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:21 PM Steve, if you listen to Piers Morgan's take on the interview you won't be getting anything substantive about the interview. If people are going to talk about it, they should give it a listen first. Common Sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Donuel Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:27 PM There was no mention of Archie having a vestigal tail and horns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:38 PM Well in deference to Jeri and Maggie, I've just watched the whole thing end to end. As I said, and I can also confirm this to Allan, all the shocking and controversial bits have been abundantly aired in snippets on our screens. It was quite instructive to watch Oprah teasing things out of the couple in a gentle, friendly yet quite penetrating way. There was more than a hint of leading questioning at times but that served to keep them going, and Meghan stood up to the interrogation very well. A thread running through the whole thing was that we were hearing one side only. However, it wasn't easy to pick out any real inconsistencies (waffle, especially from Harry, was a different matter). The way they characterised the diseased relationship between the institution and the tabloid press was fairly shocking and pretty believable. Another first impression was Harry really ought to have called Meghan by her name, not "my wife," "she" and "her", often with a wave of the hand in her direction, which he did nearly all the time. So I can talk about it now. I feel like I've been punishing myself this evening. One thing I can say is that nothing I've heard has helped convince me that our royal family is anything other than a rigid and unpleasant throwback that really ought to have had its day. Won't happen, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:40 PM I can assure you, Maggie, that if I ever listen to anything Piers Morgan has to say it will be (a) a complete accident, (b) will last no more than twelve seconds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:49 PM I much enjoyed the treatment given by Stephen Colbert . I think it ran a fine line staying clear of accusing anybody of either race prejudice OR claiming a right to princehood rampant. I figured there would be people in this thread who might know off the top of their heads whether there are simply matters of marriage between a prince of the blood royal and a commoner which transcend race? That did not come up in the Oprah interview. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 21 - 09:06 PM Well if you enjoyed that piece of crap you must have a strange sense of humour. I mean, don't you just love the way he says something he thinks is witty, then waits for the reaction... It was quite clear to me that Harry and Meghan had a prior agreement with each other, though not with Oprah, who tried her best, that they were not going to name names apropos of the most damaging accusations, and were not going to directly criticise individual royals. Had they done that, they would have lost sympathy and respect, as those individuals were not there to have the right of reply. Your man clearly hasn't got a grip on that. Glad you enjoyed it. I think we can do better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 09 Mar 21 - 09:44 PM If 'my man' is Stephen Colbert, he very much had a grip 'on that'. He played with the interview without taking it seriously, which I think was justifiable. As for his waiting for a reaction, maybe you'd understand if you saw more of what entertainers are going through from the land of Zoom. He usually has someone, maybe a member of his family, off in the outfield. They can usually be heard off-mike reacting to his sallies. As to the Oprah interview I believe at the beginning she and Meghan brought up that there had been no pre-interview understanding, but that doesn't mean that each party had done their research and had specific goals that were to make them look good. I still have a question as to whether or not the kids would have titles regardless of race, because the issue is not necessarily race, but being a muggle, er, 'commoner'. And I'm not normally given to ghost sighting, but the spectre of Diana loomed large Sunday night. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Donuel Date: 09 Mar 21 - 10:09 PM Muggel, touche' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Mar 21 - 10:31 PM Stephen Colbert is a multi-talented comedian who worked with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show then had his on show on Comedy Central before moving to host a late night talk show. That up until early 2020 was taped in front of a live audience. Enter COVID-19. Everything is paced differently now with these talking heads working from home. For the same reason the Oprah interview was conducted out of doors under the pergola of a property belonging to a mutual friend of both women. So much is being done outside or very well-spaced. I agree, "muggle" is a good term to use here. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: meself Date: 10 Mar 21 - 12:47 AM I would be content to see the monarchy of Britain and the Commonwealth gradually gear down to the scale of some of the remaining European royals - more or less ordinary people who are dusted off and hauled out for special occasions and then left to go about their business. I don't suppose that would be possible, though, even if they wanted that themselves ..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: mg Date: 10 Mar 21 - 01:04 AM it is my understanding that archie would not get a title until charles or william becomes king. one obstacle is irregularities in the reporting of the pregnancy and birth which leads to speculation that he was born of a surrogate..fine with everybody most likely but then they can't receive a title unless the law is changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 10 Mar 21 - 02:16 AM I agree, "muggle" is a good term to use here. :) so is 'pergola'! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 10 Mar 21 - 03:14 AM You are absolutely spot on MG in that Archie does not qualify, as yet, for the title prince. Since 1917 the only people who qualified to take the title Prince or Princess have been the children of monarchs (ie like Charles, Andrew, Anne and Edward) and the children of the sons of monarchs (like William, Harry, Beatrice & Eugenie) and the eldest living son of the son of the Prince of Wales (ie George). George's siblings Charlotte and Louis did not themselves qualify. It is unusual for the children of a direct heir to the throne to not qualify as Prince or Princess because monarchs don't normally live as long as the present monarch has. So she stepped in with a Letter Patent to specify that all of the children of William and Kate will be Princes and Princesses. If the Sussexes feel their family are being treated as not so important - then that is because they are actually not so important. The whole edifice of the monarchy is built on the idea of one person and his immediate family being deemed more important than all the others. She married into the royal family but she did not marry into an heir to the throne. They are the B Team if you like. Harry is/was A Team as the son of an heir - but through time they will become even more B Team as William's three grow up. Just step back the generations. Princess Margaret's two children (not given the title Prince and Princess) were at one time fifth and sixth in line for the throne. But how big a percentage of the British public would even recognise them now??? Whether Harry's kids are given the title once they would normally qualify for it would be up to Charles in the end - and he seems to be pushing for a more slim downed monarchy anyway. It is being modernised gradually. Charlotte now keeps her place in the succession despite having a younger brother. Things change all the time so maybe Charles has intimated that Archie would not be offered the title of Prince come the time. That is perfectly possible - but whether it is down to racism or just a modernising and further scaling back of the royals and concentrating on the main family (ie William and Kate's) is a different thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Mar 21 - 06:16 AM It wasn't clear to me from the interview quite how concerned she was about whether titles were in the offing. It sounded more like she was worried about no security without the titles, that their ultimate safety would be compromised as the tabloids made bloody sure that we all know where they are. How genuine that was is moot. Although the line of questioning about her mental state jarred with me, the picture she painted about the several years of entrapment, restrictions as to her freedom and the absolute refusals to offer her help, all leading to the desperate feelings she described, was very plausible. I've railed against the royals all my life and I'm trying to examine my conscience here as to whether the interview confirmed my bias. I have a visceral feeling that it was easier to avoid that because she was not identifiable as a traditional royal. Wrong accent, wrong colour, unsnobby and very personable, and coming across as a damn sight more intelligent than any royal I've heard recently. Not sure about grounded. Am I absolutely sure that her urge to possess the regal kudos didn't override what should have been her worldly common sense about what she was letting herself in for? Not sure about that. I mean, all that Diana history... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Mar 21 - 08:07 AM "He played with the interview without taking it seriously, which I think was justifiable." Well I was piqued by some of the comments here into watching the whole thing, which I wouldn't have done had I not wanted to take it seriously. What he was doing with it (yeah, playing with it) was far worse than what some of the non-watchers here have been accused of saying. His remarks were scathing and unmeasured. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Howard Jones Date: 10 Mar 21 - 08:58 AM Her concerns about Archie being a prince seemed twofold. Firstly, she seemed to think he was being treated differently from other great-grandchildren of the Queen, with the implication that this was because of race. However none of the great-grandchildren have titles, with the exception of the Cambridges' because they are in the direct line of succession. Secondly, she seemed to think that if he were a prince he would automatically be entitled to security, which is simply wrong. Security is decided by the Home Secretary and Metropolitan Police and based on itelligence-based assessments of risk - in any event, a baby would not get separate protection. How could she be so so staggeringly misinformed? Surely she had carefully planned what would and would not be revealed, and this did not come out by accident. Harry must be familiar with the intricacies of royal protocol, if she is not. I can't believe she was too stupid or too lazy to make sure of the facts beforehand. Was it arrogance that only "her truth" mattered, regardless of the facts? Or was it deliberate, knowing that the allegation (especially with hints of racism) would be damaging and the target American audience would sympathise with her and not know or care about these details? The whole interview seemed to me to be a brand-building exercise, aimed at establishing a narrative of her as a victim of Old World snobbery and racism. Oprah let her get away with it, and only occasionally challenged her or asked probing questions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Mar 21 - 09:28 AM Then we weren't watching the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 10 Mar 21 - 09:36 AM I didn't think she had a problem with Archie's not having a title. I think I already said it, but I think they both were rather happy about that. It was the lack of security, and it does seem like he should have had that. There was ONE person in the royal family who brought up Archie's skin tone, and it was quite clear he has a good relationship with the Queen. Mostly, it seemed like it was the tabloids that were the real problem. Thankfully, I don't have to read them, other than what I see on the internet. I think we, meaning humans of all nations, can be a race of busy-bodies, and minders-of-other-people's-business. We all KNOW what's going on, even if we're nowhere close to any of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Mar 21 - 10:01 AM Well, Jeri, we give the royals the most amazing start in life, best schools, best hospitals, best palaces, best estates, luxury travel, etc., and pay them big mazumas on top of that to keep them in the lifestyle they think they're entitled to. But then it's none of our business...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jeri Date: 10 Mar 21 - 10:11 AM The personal stuff, yeah, it's not anybody's business. Or if they don't like it, they can just leave. Oh, they did. We do it with celebrities, too. Takedown "documentary" on Michael Jackson, for example. Mostly any tabloid, anywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 10 Mar 21 - 10:23 AM They had full police protection paid for by the British public because of their position as major players within the Royal Family. When they walked about from being full time members of the Royal Family and moved to another country then that fully funded protection was withdrawn and they were expected to pay for their own! Just as happened to the daughters of Prince Andrew a decade ago who were deemed to not be doing enough royal engagements to warrant the public funded 24 hr protection. Of course Steve is right in that British citizens have a right to an opinion when they are working supposedly for us and their protection would have been funded by us. The people in control at the Palace are not stupid - they know fine that spending on the Royals can be a thorny topic in the UK. Especially if vast ongoing funds were then lavished on a family who were no longer full working royals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Mar 21 - 11:57 AM How could she be so so staggeringly misinformed? Surely she had carefully planned what would and would not be revealed, and this did not come out by accident. Harry must be familiar with the intricacies of royal protocol, if she is not. I can't believe she was too stupid or too lazy to make sure of the facts beforehand. That's quite a pronouncement, Howard. Did you not hear her say that she didn't "Google Harry"? Why would she know all of the intricacies of the royal inner circle? She was entering into a romantic relationship, she didn't intend to apply for a high-level job, but was simply aware that there was a lot to go with the relationship (and expected to be "protected" and offered tutoring in how to get along in that environment. It didn't happen.) Your dismissive attitude toward a talented modern American woman of color speaks to more than just the interview being discussed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 10 Mar 21 - 12:13 PM Regarding Meghan not being clear about whether it was the protection or the title she was concerned with. I think that was by design. She had a concern with safety and a concern with equal treatment. Why not a concern with the trappings of power as well? She was pretty dismissive of that issue when Oprah asked her point-blank, but that is the answer for the public. That kind of hereditary power is the ONE THING she does not have already. That door is currently closed, but why put a deadbolt on it yourself? I'm sure she's seen King Ralph! As others with more knowledge have already stated, the lack of princely designation is there for historical reasons; not necessarily race. I would think that she should be informed as to these issues but she is probably aware that the general public is not. Particularly in America. I am also sure that someone with a few letters after their name has done an economical analysis of what the royals have meant to the economy of Great Britain, factoring in what they own, what they do or do not pay taxes on, what value they present in terms of tourism and possibly how they effect the Commonwealth, what value is derived from their services. I am also certain that it is far from definitive. Economists love playing the game of putting monetary amounts on things the rest of us think of as 'priceless'. English history is such a mass of everything the human race can use against itself. The English have cheerfully fought over titles, brought their sovereigns to terms, and lopped off their heads when convenient. If the broad mass of the English didn't want a Royal family, they would not have a royal family. That 'royal' label has an attraction all its own. It is its own kind of race. It promotes one out of all linkage to their ability. At pivotal points in history it has been purchasable and transferable. It is the free hall pass of the high school of the world. It is the reason that paparazzi can afford their own lunches when no one is buying. If Harry's and Meghan's kids are not royal, their need for security is far less (not absent). Meghan's concern over this is obvious, even if her motivation is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Mar 21 - 01:28 PM Maybe her motivation was not obvious, but it behoves us to start the consideration off from a neutral standpoint. The interview raised a few enigmas, and when I'd watched it, despite my anti-royal sentiments and suspicions of her claims to naivity, I formed some opinions that are full of caveats, as I've expressed. I think that's only fair, and I'm not the sort of chap who sits in front of the telly watching something I don't want to watch for an hour and a half if I've already made up my mind in advance. There's a whole nother side to all this that we haven't heard, despite how honest and plausible we thought Meghan was (and I thought she was, on the whole). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Mar 21 - 03:35 PM Interesting response from Stephen Colbert: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Mar 21 - 03:58 PM Well he didn't do it for me at all first time round, and he's incredibly unfunny, but he's damn right about Piers Morgan! Something of a sideshow, though, the Piers thang, innit... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: The Sandman Date: 10 Mar 21 - 05:31 PM my impression of Philip is that he is a snob and a racist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Murpholly Date: 10 Mar 21 - 06:14 PM Third rate actress nabs her prince and then turns petulant when has to curtsey to senior royals without receiving such obeisance herself. Hope they stay in America out or our way. We hve too many royals. from a dedicated republican who still admires the amount of work undertaken by Queen, Philip, Charles and Ann. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Mar 21 - 06:29 PM Or, actress* nabs third-rate prince whose family turns petulant... Cor, what's in a perspective! *The more enlightened among us use "actor" for 'em all these days... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 11 Mar 21 - 12:02 AM Another county heard from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jos Date: 11 Mar 21 - 03:50 AM It sounded to me as if she was surprised at having to curtsey, not petulant about it, and she seemed quite pleased at having learned to do it properly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Howard Jones Date: 11 Mar 21 - 03:51 AM SRS, you misunderstand me. By "beforehand" I did not mean the relationship (although her lack of curiosity is a little surprising) but the interview itself. If you are going to use an interview which will be broadcast to millions around the world to complain that your son has been denied the title of prince, surely it would be wise to check beforehand that he was entitled to it in the first place, and secondly to check whether that would then have entitled him to be provided with security, if that is her real concern? In fact she did let slip that she was aware of the protocol which means he is not a prince, but I suspect many people missed that as she had already got her point accross. She then suggested that he might still be denied the title when Charles becomes king, but if that is true it is probably refers to Charles' wider plan to slim down the royal family, which reports suggest was triggered by Andrew's disgrace rather than being directed at her, and which reports also suggest has been undermined by the Sussexes' departure, since they apparently were to play a key part. She seems to be asking that an exception be made for her son despite them having resigned from their royal roles. Instead the message she put across was that they are being treated unfairly, with the implication that it is because of her race. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Mar 21 - 06:16 AM (My Gawd, why oh why am I allowing myself to get enmeshed in this....) Meghan knew that Archie is not entitled to be a prince, as he is (a) not a grandchild of the Queen, (b) not the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Now there are shenanigans surrounding this. First, the Queen relaxed the protocol a few years ago which then allowed all William's brood, not just his eldest son, to be princes and princesses. Second, under current protocol Archie should become a prince as soon as Charlie becomes the big enchilada, which can't be that much longer in coming unless Her Maj becomes the world's oldest woman. There are two caveats here. First, does that still apply now that Archie's dad has flown the coop - who knows? Not I! Second, when we eventually have King Homeopath I, he's been saying vague things about "slimming down the royals," though nobody yet knows what that means. Charlie had better tread carefully there. If it's perceived that the "slimming down" has been used to prevent Archie's princitude from coming about, the whole issue of skin tone will be resurrected and we'll have yet another right royal bunch of wigs on the green. As we know, one of the chief attributes of our royals is their utter inability to tread carefully. How long does popcorn keep? Incidentally, lifted from the interview: The Sussexes indicated in the interview that they had expected Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but that they had been told that protocols would be changed - in line with Charles’s wish for a slimmed down monarchy - so that Archie would be excluded from becoming an HRH and prince. Asked if Archie being a prince was important to her, she replied: “If it meant he was going to be safe, then of course.” She added: “All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment I don’t have. I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess. I’m clear on who I am, independent of that stuff. The most important title I will ever have is ‘Mom’.” Meghan was not asking for something that would have made Archie an exception, and she knew the protocols. The couple were told during her pregnancy with Archie that the protocol would be changed when Charles got the big job, preventing Archie from becoming a prince. Nothing has been made public about that. If that actually happens, and here's me being all whimsical, I suppose the couple would have a strong case under the Trade Descriptions Act... Seems to me that Archie either becomes a prince under the current protocol once Charles is on the throne, or else there's going to be a mighty race row, and it won't be of the couple's making.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Donuel Date: 11 Mar 21 - 08:24 AM Ovweall the Royal family has challenges the average family does not have and have evolved rather well. One challenge is occaisionally changing the entire bloodline. They do learn from their mistakes. After Henry the 8th there is slightly less mysogeny, After Richard the 3rd there is less serial nephew killing and after the abdication of a Nazi sypathizer Britain seems in good hands. Perhaps introducing new blood to the Royal family may one day result in dilluting the percentage of Neanderthal genes in the family. (Even today white people have far more Neandeerthal genes >3%, than black people <1%.) Apologies to those who are offended by Neanderthal racism in these remarks. ;^/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: meself Date: 11 Mar 21 - 11:09 AM So - Neanderthal genes are bad? Please justify your Neanderthal racism ... or not ... ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Dave the Gnome Date: 11 Mar 21 - 11:14 AM One nun dead! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 11 Mar 21 - 11:49 AM That was a good update, Howard, and Steve contributed a helpful quote to the conversation. And I love that quote, The most important title I will ever have is ‘Mom’.” |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Mar 21 - 03:29 PM As William left [a London school he'd been visiting], a reporter asked him: “Is the royal family a racist family, sir?” The duke, with the duchess by his side, replied: “We’re very much not a racist family.” This is being splashed all over the media as if it's the gospel truth. Of course, William is the very opposite of Harry - he's the absolute darling of the tabloids (and of our ultra-sycophantic BBC royal correspondent, Nicholas Witchell). A throwaway remark, in stark contrast to the painstakingly-gleaned disclosures from Meghan and Harry, will undoubtedly prevail. I despair. As a not-so-amusing aside, here's a selection of "witticisms" uttered by the "non-racist" Duke of Edinburgh down the years: On a trip to China in the 1980s, he warned British students: "You'll get slitty eyes if you stay too long." During a visit to Oban in Scotland in 1995, he asked a driving instructor: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the (driving) test?" - In 1999, while on a tour of a company near Edinburgh, Scotland, he saw a poorly wired fuse box. "It looks as though it was put in by an Indian," he said. - While touring Australia in 2002, he asked an Aborigine whether they still threw spears at each other. - In 1967, he was asked if he would like to go to Moscow to help ease Cold War tensions. "I would very much like to go to Russia - although the bastards murdered half my family," he replied. - On a trip to Australia in 1998, he asked a student who had just returned from a walking tour in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: rich-joy Date: 11 Mar 21 - 05:21 PM As a Colonial from Down Under, I have had only a mild interest in the Royal Family, and their occasional scandals, just make for some amusement. However, I did feel that the introduction of Ms Markle (Foreigner, Divorcee, Person of Colour, Commoner) into the Family would be, in the long run, a Very Good Thing for helping to drag the monarchy into the modern world and to adjust to it. So, I watched That Interview, and like Steve, thought Megs came over quite well. Then I started watching News clips and YouTube clips to gauge reaction and was interested to find that I was left wondering if we had all watched the same Interview!!?? Yes, "Context is Everything"! I rather think that those who only saw the advertising and news clips, came away with a different perspective (surprise surprise :) and reacted to just what the mischief-makers amongst the media, wanted. (I come from the country that gave the world Rupert Murdoch - and yes, we're really very sorry about that :( As Meghan & Harry - and a great many others - have tried to point out, the tabloids that so many of the population are addicted to, have no interest in the concept of Truthfulness. Down Under, we have a huge market in what are sadly termed "women's magazines", which are our version of British tabloid newspaper fiction and which keep pumping out the gossip and falsehoods - but it would seem huge numbers of people actually believe their content ……… and keep buying them. If I watch a YT clip, I tend to also browse many of the Comments which, I find, can be very instructive! In this case, re most of the clips that I saw reporting the M-H Interview, I was then astounded - and completely appalled - at the quantity and level of Vitriol - Venom - Misogyny - Hate (and Racism too) that was being flung at the couple - but esp at the woman - and in more than a few comments, the view was expressed that "Poor Harry" was just really stupid in allowing himself to be snared by The Evil One. [BtW, I didn't get the impression that these were just adolescent time-wasting Trolls!] It's really quite incredible, the amount of BAD things that are attributed to her (and she’s not even made 40 yet!) - sociologists will, I feel, study this phenomenon for years to come! The Commenters also seem to feel safe in their self-righteous indignation, to use what may even be their real name (at least, it's not often an obvious coverup moniker) and there are probably more female than male - but not exclusively. Of course it's difficult to assess what country they may be from, though some do say "I'm American and I think she's evil too"!! Although, some then bring in the absolutely shocking idea of Meghan being a Woke Democrat, so you know what level of thinking and prejudice is being displayed there!! Certainly any level of compassion or empathy - or tolerance - is rare. And these people so rabidly consumed by it all, are likely Parents too .......... In the short term, I don't think this Interview has had the results they were perhaps hoping for, as it's brought out even more hatred, but a few years down the track, things could (hopefully) be different. And maybe that's their job in this lifetime : Agents of Change. So as a Colonial 'Catter, that's my 2cents worth on the controversy. If I was an avid Conspiracy Follower, I may even contend that there are Dark Forces at work, shaping our dramas and fuelling our distrust of folks who don't look or think the same as us - but that couldn't be true, could it? Coz surely we're not silly enough to allow that kind of manipulation of ourselves ...... are we??!! R-J "What the World needs now, is Love, sweet Love; It's the only thing that there's just too little of ....." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: meself Date: 11 Mar 21 - 05:29 PM Yes, the internet has been educational in more ways than one. The deep well of pure, unadulterated hatred that is out there is ... (no longer) startling. |
|
Subject: RE: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Mar 21 - 06:18 PM I think it's instructive that, at the moment, the murder (if that's what it is) of Sarah Everard is explosively highlighting the widespread harassment and physical abuse of women. It just isn't good enough to pile the responsibility on women for fixing this: don't go out on your own, be careful which route you take, don't drink, don't stay out late, careful how you dress... All this is completely unconscionable and completely unacceptable. It is disrespectful to women, of course it is, and I'm seeing a similar disrespect being shown to Meghan Markle, and I'm thinking that it's largely because she's a WOMAN who has infiltrated and poisoned the royals (yeah, as if they aren't already poisoned root and branch). Not only a woman, but a BLACK woman. And, an INTELLIGENT black woman. If women feel justifiably scared of walking the streets, they're scared because of MEN. Meghan has put her head above the parapet, and sure, much of the abuse she's getting is from women, but the MEN at the helm of the tabloid press who think that people like me are "woke" connive in this, and their papers are prime movers in promoting this disrespect of women. Meghan is ideal material for them. The whole royal thing annoys me to death and I wish that none of it existed, but I think she's being very brave and may well regret the negative attention that is raining down on her. I hope they can manage a decent private life even though I'm a bit jealous of their wealth, without too much flack thrown at them. We seriously need to educate MEN to respect women as fellow human beings. How we do that is for another time/another thread, but we really must try to get away from this male-dominated society. Society is loaded against women. Meghan has managed her life well in order to get where she is, smashed the glass ceiling. Maybe that's the cause of the vitriol she gets from many women. But the responsibility for achieving a balance in society that is fair to women falls squarely on the shoulders of us blokes. To be continued, I should think... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Mar 21 - 07:39 PM I just found this piece in the Guardian, contributed by Nadifa Mohamed, a fellow republican, which is why it chimed with me: "As Meghan has learned, the monarchy is still built on breeding, ancestry and caste" A couple of quotes from it: "It is painful for me, as a republican, to have to step out in defence of any member of the royal family but I feel as though Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is receiving the ire intended for a much larger target of young Black women who have stormed into previously closed-off institutions...." "...The conversation between Meghan and Oprah is fascinating because of the frank way they talk; a huge, global audience watches as two Black women discuss the outrageous experiences of one of them and hear all of the gory, suppressed details for the first time. Oprah gasps as she hears what Meghan and Harry have had to put up with. An ancient British institution tamed by an unprecedented level of public scrutiny from two world-famous Black women. I never expected to see it, the silenced becoming the silencer." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: rich-joy Date: 11 Mar 21 - 07:46 PM Yes indeed, Steve. I note that in Australia, with a population of only 25,702 million, one woman dies every week, at the hands of a man "in a domestic situation" - plus those killed "in general". I think that could be even worse that the UK stats??? And of course there's the pathetic example set by our own Parliament in the treatment of women, which is currently flooding our news down here. As regards Haz & Megs, I think they made the best decision to get out of the country and away from that institution, and I really hope they can continue to live in peace and love and good health. Cheers, R-J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: rich-joy Date: 11 Mar 21 - 07:52 PM cross-posted. But I had read Nadifa Mohamed's piece in the Guardian and liked her comment : ".... Breeding, ancestry, caste are the building blocks of the monarchy and aristocracy and still determine who we believe is superior and inferior. I dread to think what would have happened to Meghan if she’d had the temerity to marry the heir rather than the spare." R-J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Mar 21 - 08:27 PM Yeah, I very nearly quoted that bit as well! In the spirit of know-thine-enemy, I looked at the online front page of the Mail On Sunday on Sunday. Article after article was going straight for Meghan's jugular. But each and every one of them painfully avoided any insinuation as to her race. These scurrilous rags know exactly how to be as nasty as possible whilst avoiding saying anything that would have them bang to rights. The misogynists and would-be abusers must derive a lot of succour from stuff like that. We have a big problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: rich-joy Date: 11 Mar 21 - 09:29 PM I'm probably the last one in all of Christendom to watch this, but I got a few laughs from it!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oxlCKMlpZw An Afternoon with Prince Harry & James Corden •Feb 26, 2021 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Acorn4 Date: 12 Mar 21 - 05:21 AM Perhaps they could change Archie's name to Prince by deed poll? You know like "the singer formerly known as...." but the other way round? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Mar 21 - 06:39 AM There's a lot of guff going around that Meghan is hissyfitting because Archie is not a prince. Well she just isn't. She was and is fully aware of the protocol that currently obtains. At the time of her wedding, the protocol was that Archie would become a prince as soon as Charles takes the throne and not before. This she knew. But during her pregnancy, and only then, she was advised that the protocol was going to be changed and that Archie would not, after all, become a prince. Nothing has been made public about this, though it's known that Charles has expressed a desire to "slim down the royal family." Now Charles is not a sensitive man and is fully capable of making clumsy steps. Plenty of form there. A move which excludes Archie from a role he was fully expected by his parents one day to inherit is going to look a lot like...well, you know... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jos Date: 12 Mar 21 - 07:41 AM William could still make Archie a prince, couldn't he, once he becomes king? It could be a good move if there are still tensions between William and Harry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Bonzo3legs Date: 12 Mar 21 - 08:18 AM I would have thought it was up to the mudcatters' committee!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 12 Mar 21 - 09:28 AM What I originally posted for was because a post said that the fact Archie wasn't made a Prince was racist. That is based on misinformation as was most the rest of the post in question in all truth. So yes there is a lot of hate flies about on the net but there is a lot of false info too. Both are a problem. Jos re when William becomes king, which could be a long time off yet, the way I read it no that would not qualify Archie to potentially become a Prince. When William becomes monarch it would be his children and grand children who would qualify. His children already have the title. When Charles becomes king then Archie would theoretically qualify as a Prince. That is when the decision would be made. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 12 Mar 21 - 06:31 PM I once called in to a conservative radio talk show which was asking for liberals and moderates to call in as to whether a lot of the reaction against Obama was racist. I called in and I used the term "free-floating racism" in my attempt to explain a lot of the reaction against the President and Michelle Obama that did not specifically call him out on a political or Presidential issue. The radio hosts did not allow me to make my point and were abusive. I don't know enough of the detailed background of Harry, Meghan, the Royals, etc. But I have a sense of a kind of Kabuki theatre where most of the moves are pre-planned and understood by both sides. Why this should be is beyond me at present. One of my friends said that they always thought of Meghan as white and didn't realize there was a racial issue until the wedding. I still think the broader issue is one of family politics, inheritance and power concerns, and the racial angle is an additional playing card held by both sides. A game where the rules are still being decided between moves. More interesting than Kabuki. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Neil D Date: 12 Mar 21 - 08:34 PM Personally, I feel like the entire concept of royalty is a couple centuries beyond its use by date. I agree with Backwoodsman's comment that this is nothing more than opium for the masses," a distraction for the dullard cap-doffers, forelock-tuggers, and flag-worshippers. In simple words, it’s a pile of horse-shit, and best avoided." And I would avoid it if that were possible without living low-tech in the wilderness. As it is, I can't turn on my computer or TV without being confronted by these stories. I am especially perplexed by Americans' fascination with the very royal family that we fought two bloody wars to be shut of. So, since I can't avoid it, I'll make a couple observations. Why would anybody be surprised that one of the oldest, richest and whitest family's on Earth just might harbor a racist or two. Every family has that eccentric uncle who makes inappropriate remarks at Thanksgiving. I hate a tease. If the Markles have the nerve to make the accusation of racism, then they should be willing to name names. That way we could avoid the absurdity of Vegas bookmakers setting odds in some kind of "Who's the Royal Racist Sweepstakes". I've seen comparisons being made between MM and Wallis Simpson, both bein American, commoner divorcees who married into the royal family. But the similarity ends there. Let's not forget that Simpson was also sleeping with Nazis while she was sleeping with the king and this was well-known in the highest levels of the British government, even though it was kept quiet at the time. That had as much to do with objection to their marriage as her nationality, commonness and past marital status. Also, The D of W was herself a notorious racist, frequently referring to the citizens of the Bahamas as lazy n*****s. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: meself Date: 12 Mar 21 - 08:48 PM This whole thing seems to be getting a lot more attention in the States than in Canada, to judge by what I encounter flipping through the channels. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Donuel Date: 13 Mar 21 - 08:07 AM Let me be the first to apologize for the American invasion by Oprah for disturbing the peace in the UK more than what Russia's Putin did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Mar 21 - 09:14 AM "If the Markles [sic] have the nerve to make the accusation of racism, then they should be willing to name names." I'm not too sure about this. Don't forget that the skin colour remark was made in private. Whilst I don't doubt that the comment was made in Harry's presence, the context is not known. It's hard to imagine a context in which a comment like that to a prospective father wouldn't be offensive, but hey ho. And let's not forget, by the way, that Harry has been the victim down the years of completely unjustified and publicly-shouted doubts about whether he is actually Charles' son, specifically using his hair colour as "evidence." Ring a bell? Exposing the remark without naming a name puts the ball into the royal family's court. It's up to them to meet the racism accusation, and we know that there is form. Naming a name could result in court action for slander. His word against the alleged culprit with no ability to bring substantial evidence. Counter-productive, I would think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Mar 21 - 10:36 AM A racist remark or conjecture may be by an unnamed individual, but Meghan did name names when it came to the yellow rags that have tormented her. And she won in court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 21 - 10:38 AM In any other context, such as hair colour or height, speculating as to whether a child's appearance is likely to favour his mother or his father in looks would be seen as perfectly reasonable and inoffensive. How far speculation about skin colour should be taken as different enough to be necessarily or intentionally offensive is unclear. There could be room for misunderstanding. Pretty evidently Meghan misunderstood the position as regards royal titles, if she thought Harrys's children had an automatic right to be princes or princesses, and that Archie was being discriminated against. I'd have thought Harry might have pointed out that out. After all his cousins, the children of Anne and Edward, aren't princes or princesses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Mar 21 - 11:39 AM She did not misunderstand, as I've said a good few times. She knew that he didn't qualify to be called a prince now, but understood, as did the rest of the planet, that he would become a prince once Charles takes the throne. That protocol seems to be under threat now, as Charles has intimated that he's going to slim down the royal family. The couple were told of this only when Meghan was pregnant with Archie. The ludicrous yarn that Meghan, a sharp, bright young woman, would misunderstand all this has spread like a rash and is being used to demonise her. It simply isn't true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Mar 21 - 11:43 AM Meghan could name names when things are down in black and white. In this case the remark was made in an eminently-deniable private conversation. I think they were well-advised to hold back on the naming of the name for the time being. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Jos Date: 13 Mar 21 - 11:58 AM Being interested in the possible skin colour of a child is perfectly natural. Being concerned about it, suggesting that it could be a problem, is very different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 21 - 02:29 PM Any assumption that Harry's children would automatically be princes or princesses, even once Charles became king would have just that, an assumption. In the previous generation the only one with an automatic right was Charles, as direct heir. . A special arrangement was made in the case of Prince Andrew"s children - not a particularly encouraging precedent as it turned out, some may feel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: keberoxu Date: 13 Mar 21 - 03:22 PM Years ago -- a generation ago, indeed -- I recall John Lydon publicly speaking up to congratulate Princess Diana for starting to take down the monarchy, and I imagine he thinks the same of her son Harry at this point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Mar 21 - 05:31 PM "Any assumption that Harry's children would automatically be princes or princesses, even once Charles became king would have just that, an assumption..." At the time Harry and Meghan were married, that was the protocol established many decades ago, before this queen was queen. A son of the couple would be made a prince once Charles was in the throne. There was no hint that that protocol would be changed until Meghan was pregnant. I think they have the right to feel aggrieved. And suspicious as to the racial context of any such change.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 21 - 07:02 PM You're right there Steve. I had a look at the protocol from 1917 and it does indicate that. Along with other oddities, for example having the consequence that neither Elizabeth and Margaret were styled as princesses until their father became king, But I'd think it likely that when Charles declared back in 2019 his intent to slim down the Royal Family, without specifying how, that might have had a lot more to do with the fallout from his brother Andrew and family. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Mar 21 - 07:34 PM That could well be the case, but Harry and Meghan were married well before 2019. Honestly, I don't really give a rat's ass about all this, despite my rathe passionate input to this thread, but I don't like to see egregious injustices doled out by people who benefit from my tax handouts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 14 Mar 21 - 03:01 AM The idea though that a scaled down Royal Family is new (happening only since Andrew has been involved in a scandal or since Meghan came on the scene) doesn't hold water. Andrew was claiming 9 years ago that the idea Charles had of making the monarchy a more scaled down modern monarchy was pushing both himself and his daughters to the fringes! Re the Mail article below from 2012 which clearly says Charles was intent on reducing the role of all except the main players. Plus on Edward's wedding over 20yrs ago the palace released a statement saying Edward would not be a Duke (which was protocol up until then) but instead just an Earl until Prince Philip dies, and that his children would not be awarded the HRH title prince or princess. They were the first of the male line in 100 years not to be awarded it. It says though Edward and Sophie agreed to it the decision was the Queen's. Agreeing to it and going along with it is not necessarily the same as volunteering for it. Plus the 1917 Letter Patent is not written in stone and is already changed. The Queen issued a new Letter Patent in 2012 stating that all the children of the heir to the throne's first born would have the HRH title. This was in response to the change in law which stated that if the first born was female they would still be heir as they are the eldest. That is why the Cambridge's children are all HRH as shown in the second link from 2018 which again at the end of the article states Charles wanted a smaller amount of tax funded royals performing royal duties. That was just from quick google searches I am sure there is much more out there! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180012/Princes-war-How-Charles-plans-slimmed-monarchy-driven-dagger-Andrews-heart--spa https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/wessex/revealed-why-edward-sophies-children-are-not-awarded-the-title-of-prince-and-princess-15130 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Mar 21 - 07:21 AM The trouble with all this is that we are not privy to conversations that took place between "senior royals" and the couple before, during and after the wedding. We have the word of Meghan that they were told only when she was pregnant with Archie that the protocol that would eventually have him made a prince (i.e., when Charles becomes king, not before) was going to be set aside, with all the negative implications regarding his future security and safety, as she saw it. If you choose to believe her expressed stance, and I see little reason not to believe it, she is far more concerned with Archie's future safety than with pomp and status. It's up to you whether you think that this couple, very much in the public eye, victims of the tabloids and living where they can, and will, be easily pinpointed, have a point. As for slimming down the royals, you're right to point out that Charles has been rattling on about it for donkeys' years. The trouble is, his mother won't die, and he has never properly articulated his notions in public. He's just asking to have the racism finger jabbed at him if Archie doesn't get his princely position. It seems clear that her maj is lukewarm about making big moves in the slimming-down direction, having set things in train in the opposite direction decades ago. Some rather quick changes will have to be put in place once the Queen dies if Charles is to get his way, and it will look even worse if he does piecemeal things such as denying Archie as a first move... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Mar 21 - 07:35 AM Incidentally, Allan, in your Mail link (a pain in the neck as it takes ages go load) it's amusing (and instructive) to read about how, in 2012, the pre-Meghan Harry is very much in the senior royal in-crowd, the "indispensable Harry," as the paper puts it. So what's changed...? ...Oh, hang on, he married a woman of colour... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 14 Mar 21 - 07:51 AM Same as things always change Steve. I am not a royalist but I know how it works. Andrew and Archie are not the very top A Team. That is Charles then William then William's children. Princess Margaret was very much in the A team but her offspring much less so. Then Andrew, Anne and Edward were very much so but their offspring less so. So it will be with Harry. He is A Team because his father is heir to the throne. However Archie will be a grand-child to the monarch just as various lesser royals are currently grand-children to the Queen. It is less A team than William and Kate's children will be who will be children of an heir to the throne. That is nothing new. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Backwoodsman Date: 14 Mar 21 - 09:36 AM And it is a perfect demonstration of the fatally-flawed system of privilege by accident of birth to which we are all subjected. Over the past few years, I’ve become more and more convinced that the French had it right where Royalty are concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: meself Date: 14 Mar 21 - 01:17 PM I don't follow this stuff at all - other than here! - so I don't see what difference it makes if someone has the title Prince, or Duke, or Earl, or Duke of Earl. I would say, throw around the titles all you want - but get rid of any outlandish/expensive entitlements that go along with them. I'm all for certain people by privilege of birth being the only ones allowed to wear a certain type of hat - how else are we supposed to know they're special? Heck, I wouldn't even care if the cost of the hat were contributed to by my taxes - but when it comes to footing the bill for, say, exotic travel, and household staff, that's where I start getting testy ... ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Mar 21 - 03:16 PM How much of the cost of security for royal family members is covered by taxes and how much by The Firm is unknown to me, but it seems The Firm decided to stop covering Harry himself. Meghan objected to the prospect of still being in that "senior royalty" and putting her baby "out there" to be seen in public at events and not have a measure of protection to cover them like it did Harry. This isn't about hats, this is about the apparently calculated decision to stop paying for Harry's security as a way to force him to toe the line. It didn't work. He doesn't stop being known as a royal just because they say the rest of the royal family aren't going to treat him that way any more. Whoever is involved in running The Firm (and it may not be the top royals themselves, it might be like their own bizarre version of a Home Owner's Association, some one or cadre within the family they all agree knows the rules and allow to dictate to them who can do what according to the covenant they sign. It also reminds me of the senate Parliamentarian here in US Politics.) This is about The Firm hanging one or more of their own out to dry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Mar 21 - 04:22 PM Yep. It stinks. From an in-crowd indispensable royal to an outcast in a few short years. So what happened? Well, he went and fell in love and wed a person of colour, and gave the royals the shakes over skin colour when he went and got Meghan preggers... Silly boy... Am I getting warm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 14 Mar 21 - 06:46 PM Considering the somewhat indirect way Elizabeth I got to the throne, one shouldn't jump to conclusions as to exactly how unlikely progress to the Royal seat may....progress. Nobody foresaw King Ralph! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: robomatic Date: 15 Mar 21 - 03:14 PM Oh, and Stephen Colbert had this to say about the royal refutation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Allan Conn Date: 16 Mar 21 - 03:45 AM SRS the UK stopped paying for the security (and yes it is from the public purse funded by ordinary British working people) only when Harry and Meghan had stepped down from being full working members of the Royal Family and had even moved away from the UK. Just as Prince Andrew's two princess daughters had their protection withdrawn a decade or so ago because they were thought to be not performing enough duties. I am really baffled at why some non British people think us UK taxpayers should continue funding these incredibly wealthy people when they are no longer working members of the royal family? I suppose grannie could have chosen to fund their security herself instead. After all her supposed favourite son, Andrew, now has no significant income other than his navy pension and is funded directly from his mother's personal income instead! But that one is down to her - not the people of the UK. And the Sussexes seem to have been careful not to criticise her at all. One would like to think it is because Harry truly loves his grannie but I imagine a "step too far" idea might be floating about somewhere too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 Mar 21 - 12:08 AM Well, Alan, as non-British viewers of the scene unfolding, we don't know who was paying for the security and that's why we asked. It sounds like the family should be paying for it if they're not out there doing the UK version of Disneyland with all of their tourist-attracting activities. After having had a deadbeat president who spent millions of dollars on his Secret Service protection and travel to all of his golf trips, paid for by taxpayers, we certainly know the consternation of footing the bill when the party should have been more responsible (doing his job) and could have paid for some of his own way. |
