BS: Harry and Meghan

Subject: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Senoufou
Date: 13 Jan 20 - 04:43 PM

I haven't seen anything about this here, so thought I'd start a thread to see what people are making of the situation.

There are so many differing opinions all over the Internet and on TV.
Personally, I feel that the couple should be allowed to choose their own path through life, but the question of funding is rather a moot point. Also paying for Security, which will be needed wherever they go.

I do pity the poor Queen at this stage of her life having to deal with such an unprecedented decision.
Anyone have any views about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Jan 20 - 04:50 PM

Pity, mostly.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 20 - 04:58 PM

I hear they will winter in Canada and summer in Saudi Arabia. ;^/

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Jan 20 - 05:01 PM

I was just about to start a similar thread using the name I've heard it called on the BBC: "Megxit"

Comes now this royal kerfuffle about the young prince and his young bride and their baby. Sounds like they want to make a living on their own, although I dont think I'll see Harry belcoming a Walmart greeter or pump jockey. The subtext I'm getting from reading between the lines is they expect to make a comfortable living suing tabloids. There are worse ways to make a Pound or a Dollar. Maybe they've been transfering their savings to Euros and they expect the European currency to rise.
I read this great little book some time ago about a Frenchman who exchanged his title for a regular name and became American.

Ted Morgan, the former Sanche de Gramont On Becoming American

also at Goodreads:
On Becoming American

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Mossback
Date: 13 Jan 20 - 05:24 PM

Who in their right mind gives two sh**s??

This is like following the non-exploits of the several worthless Kardashians.

Now the Cardassians would be a different story entirely, and much more worthy of attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Senoufou
Date: 13 Jan 20 - 05:39 PM

What I find distasteful is the number of people writing to newspapers and posting online commenting about the couple's characters and the tone of their relationship. Some are saying that Meghan is 'controlling' or 'too obsessed with being a celebrity' etc.
This is ridiculous, as they've never even met either Harry or Meghan.
It's impossible to know what they're really like.
I also think that the fact the young lady is American and of mixed race is completely irrelevant. Xenophobia and racism seem to be rearing their ugly heads somewhat.
What with Brexit, Trump and his aggression, the poor Australians and those terrible fires, climate change etc one is left hoping for some nice cheerful news. Maybe in the Spring there'll be something to smile about...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 20 - 05:50 PM

Who on Earth hasn't had problems with inlaws and/or inherited business dynasties? Common problems but with 'celebrites' is an olde gossip subject.
Harry doesn't seem as ideological as the Frenchman.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jan 20 - 06:29 PM

He had two tours in Afghanistan as a helicopter gunship pilot/co-pilot. While there he was personally targeted by the Taliban. He's been in the spotlight since he was born. His marriage and his wife have been extensively followed and criticized. Why wouldn't he want "step back"?

I hope he changes his name to "Smith" or something and goes to live in Nunavut.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 20 - 06:44 PM

I don't give a rat's arse about the Queen, Charlie and his paedophile-loving brother and all the other parasites, including that useless 98-year-old racist thicko. You know me. But I'll surprise you here. I have mucho sympathy for this couple and I think that Harry, though not the sharpest knife in a drawer full of very blunt knives indeed, has seen the danger that ruined his mother (who I also had no time for, but she WAS his mum for chrissake...). Taking a step back is a good move and yes he needs to "protect his family" (with all the crypto-misogyny that that term invokes...). On the money front, no, don't make 'em pay stuff back. And we have bigged them up and exposed them so much that I think we should pay for their security. But no more civil list dough. If Charlie decides to give them dough out of his vast fortune, then that's what rich guys do with their kids. I know that BigEars didn't exactly earn his fortune and that, like all squires, landlords, earls and the rest, he makes his money by doing nothing and making the peasantry do the hard graft. But that isn't unique. If he has money that this country misguidedly regards to be legally his, i.e., not taxed anywhere near enough, then he has the right to do what he likes with it.

That's as far as it goes with me. I find it ironic, and not a little amusing, that Harry's near-ruin has been brought about by precisely the same gutter press that ruined Corbyn and which dumped us in the brexit disaster. In order, I'd control the press first, insisting that papers wishing calling themselves newspapers actually reported NEWS, with the royal parasites coming a distant second.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: keberoxu
Date: 13 Jan 20 - 06:45 PM

Harry also had a mother who was both beloved and controversial,
and who remains so long after her premature passing.

Why not Vancouver, though?
The married couple, and Vancouver, are already acquainted with each other,
and I didn't hear anything negative about their visit there.
That way they are not far from California,
where I believe Meghan's mother is located;
and they are still within the U. K.
Vancouver is a happening place,
no small amount of television shows are from studios there.

The Queen's official pronouncement, stating that
she would have preferred that they stay as they were,
gave me something to think about.

I'm not surprised at accounts of discomfort or discord
within the family ranks, although
the two brother princes surely respect each other.
The royal family has never lacked for internal conflict.
I recall when William and Harry, still enrolled in school,
had to break the news to their father
that their uncle Edward intended to make and distribute
some sort of film footage about them --
"incandescent" was the word used to describe
Prince Charles's understandable expression of temper.

Although change is so uncomfortable for certain people, or groups of people, concerned,
I think time and distance could actually be healing here.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 03:12 AM

”The married couple, and Vancouver, are already acquainted with each other,
and I didn't hear anything negative about their visit there.
That way they are not far from California,
where I believe Meghan's mother is located;
and they are still within the U. K.”

No they aren’t - Canada is not a part of the UK. Shoulda paid more attention in your geography class. Perhaps you meant ‘The Commonwealth’? That is a very different thing.

On the topic of the thread, I echo completely everything Steve said. The Royals are a big part of the modern-day version of ‘bread and circuses’ - the mind-control system maintained by the elite establishment to keep the hoi-polloi distracted, while they run things for their own benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 03:22 AM

Lets face it, this useless pair will never get an honest job or be able to support themselves and their offspring, they know full well that Queenie will support all of them them for the rest of their lives.


Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Senoufou
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 03:43 AM

I used to be so fascinated by and delighted with Royalty. (I remember watching the Coronation in 1953 on a tiny TV set in a neighbour's house) But I'm afraid I now regard them all as a gigantic anachronism, and after the Queen passes on, I'd like to see the end of it.

I've actually 'met' Prince Philip (he was Chancellor of Edinburgh University) and found him extremely arrogant and dismissive.
My father met and consulted with Princess Margaret about a telephone system in Kensington Palace, and she was absolutely horrible.

If Meghan has come across this sort of snobbish, cold and rude attitude within the Family, she may understandably have decided she couldn't accept it. And her husband is being loyal to his wife in agreeing to create a distance for her.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 04:33 AM

How nice of the leftwaffe to spout their predictable spite and hate!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 04:38 AM

”How nice of the leftwaffe to spout their predictable spite and hate!!!!!!!”

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 04:49 AM

I have often said that the royal family should be run like a Disney franchise. Leave them where they are for those that want to visit and get involved but make it self funding. Disney would make it far more profitable:-)

As for the couple in question, I don't see anything wrong with them going their own way and becoming self sufficient. I echo the sentiment about the press entirely.

Bonzo. Senafou doesn't like the royals much. Are you saying she is left wing?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meg
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 06:18 AM

The Royal family is like having a vestigal organ like an appendix.
Having one doesn't make you better but when they get infected you could die unless its removed.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 07:13 AM

Dunno about Disney, Dave, my wife and I have long regarded the Royals as a kind of long-running soap-opera - a sort of ‘Eastenders’ but with a cast who can speak proper English.

Perhaps ‘Azza ‘n’ Meghan could make a few bob by getting one of the BBC’s competitors to put on a rival soap - let’s call it ‘West-Enders’ - with the central theme being a story about a dysfunctional family, living on benefits despite having a stash of cash in the lock-up dahn the arches. ‘Azza could play the grandson who’s not quite as accepted as he should be because The Fammerlee suspect his mum was ‘playing away from home’ and he’s the product. Meghan could be the foreign incomer, mistrusted by ‘Azza’s family because “She dahn’t look and talk like us!”, who persuades ‘Azza that he could do like many of the other 60-odd-million British people, get a bloody job and get off benefits (at least in part).

I know it sounds a bit far fetched, but it could be a go-er, don’cha fink?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Senoufou
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 07:30 AM

Hee hee Donuel and Backwoodsman! Really funny! I don't watch Eastenders particularly, but could Her Maj be a sort of Dot Cotton character?
And I reckon we do need a Royalectomy operation now.

PS I don't think Bonzo meant me, as he knows I lean more to the 'Other Side'.
(By the way Bonzo, I hope lovely Dreamy is doing well?)

Regarding little Archie Harrison, I can well see how the couple do NOT want their boy to grow up in the stultifying, overly formal atmosphere of the Royal family. I think that's why they chose his name, so unlike the traditional historical names of all the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:10 AM

Of course I wasn't referring to you Senoufou. Yes Dreamy is back to normal now that New Year fireworks have stopped!!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:16 AM

Archibald will probably take after his uncle.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 12:53 PM

Archibaldness runs in the family...

A hereditary condition caused by too many generations wearing heavy crowns...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 02:01 PM

Not since the abdication of Edward the VIII has something quite like this happened, but Harry is sixth in line, he isn't abdicating the same kind of duties. When you look at the rules involved, all of the personal appearances and such, the royals do have real jobs, just not the kind that results in a paycheck. Charles settling an annual income on Harry might help the transition, but from what I can see he has grown up to be a responsible young man and will find something to do when he's off of the royal tether. And the times that he is back for family duties will be all the more precious to everyone.

As Meghan said in that interview while in South Africa, she knew it would be hard, but she thought it would be fair, and it hasn't been. Stepping away from that tabloid cesspool is a rational thing to do. I remember over the years seeing the Duke and Duchess of Windsor appear regularly on the Merv Griffin show late at night, and I didn't know their story at the time. They will always be a novelty, but they can be contributing, productive adults at the same time. When you get a chance to look into the model farms and such that Charles and others have been involved with, you can see that there is intent to contribute, even though it isn't often appreciated.

My two cents worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 02:09 PM

Jesus criticised monarchism - my poem, from WalkaboutsVerse, AFTER PSALM 118:9 AND MATTHEW 4:8-10:

As it happens, Elizabeth Windsor is quite a good public speaker but, according to monarchism, would have the job even if she was useless; and no problem with people earning a living for public speaking but being payed millions per year?!

Monarchism also tends to make people accept the revolting inequality that capitalism produces.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: leeneia
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 05:27 PM

My theory is that Harry wants to move to a place where there is no prejudice against red hair.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: keberoxu
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 05:38 PM

I remember the account that
a young Lady Diana -- still at that point a fiancee, I believe --
had a brief, private conversation with
Princess Grace of Monaco,
who concluded the conversation with the observation:

"Don't worry -- it WILL get worse."

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 05:46 PM

All of these posts from WAV of old inane poems - circular thinking, illustrated. I do miss Amos.

Good point from Grace about its getting worse. The estates and income offer diminishing returns to royalty, especially when the leech-portion of the media latch on. Trying to get out there and do the right thing isn't rewarded very often (and sneers are sure to follow even this vague observation).

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 05:59 PM

"Inane" (SRS)...Harry is going to resurrect the Granma, gather his army mates and, via coup d'état, form a Republic of England!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:15 PM

Well I'm amazed to say that I actually agree with this sentiment from WAV:

"Monarchism also tends to make people accept the revolting inequality that capitalism produces."

On the other hand, I've heard a lot in the last few days about how unfair it is that Harry can use the royal name to promote himself, that he doesn't exactly have to finance himself from scratch, etc...
E
I'm a socialist, but I'm a socialist who has had to accept that I have to breathe the polluted air of capitalism. I even benefit from it (please don't ask: that's already an admission enough). As such, I know that thousands of young people get a leg up from wealthy parents. Bejaysus, Cameron and Johnson had clans rich enough to buy them ultra-privileged places at a "top" public school with automatic progression to Bullingdon-Oxford (I won't say "an education" because, by their actions, they've both proven themselves to be thoroughly uneducated). So I don't see the royals as any different, and if I wanted to single them out above all others for exploiting privilege I'd be well out of order. I absolutely get what this couple are saying. They want to escape the grip of a terrible family, and there's no need for us to expect them to give up all their wealth in return. We don't do it for the thousands of others, after all. It's capitalism, just like my favourite team, Liverpool FC (the greatest team in the history of football, as I've no need to tell any of you) is thoroughly grounded in capitalism. So I'd better shut up about those bloody useless royals, hadn't I...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:29 PM

If it wasn't for the royals we wouldn't have netflix's "the crown"..

which keeps my mrs glued to the telly for hours
while I can be in another room playing with my music gear,
without any fear of interruptive nagging...

Apart from that, I include royalty in with religion and other baffling anachronisms
the 21st century would be far better off without...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:38 PM

Well we definitely would. But it isn't happening any time soon. Who knows, this couple might just break apart the royal hegemony once and for all. And come on, anything that might piss Prince BigEars off (in case of confusion, he's the one who was shagging Camilla on the royal train in a siding the evening before his wedding to Diana) can't be a bad thing...Baby steps...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:54 PM

Who can blame the young couple for wanting to spend more time in Canada? After years of beans on toast for breakfast wouldn't YOU prefer to live where you can have Tim Horton's doughnuts instead?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: JennieG
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 12:17 AM

Best one today, BWL!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Allan Conn
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 03:18 AM

The comparisons with the abdication crisis in the 1930s (which is sometimes suggested in the media) is surely way over the top? That was the case of the Head of State abdicating, or being forced to abdicate, thus involved the constitution of the country itself. Let's face it Harry is only 6th in line so there is no crisis for the country.

This is more an internal issue for the Royal Family itself (ie the firm losing some of its major players) and a massive celeb story. Take away the current celeb factor and it isn't even that unprecedented a story for the past few months. We have the brother of the person who is second in line for the throne voluntary stepping back from royal duties for family reasons! Just a few weeks ago we had the brother of the person who is first in line for the throne being forced to step back from royal duties because of his connections to a sex abuse story! What is the potentially more damaging story to the Royal Family??? In fact I imagine that the fact that Andrew has now been knocked off the tabloids by his nephew might in some ways be a bit of a relief for the firm.

As to the coverage! Way over the top. One national paper had the first 16 pages covering the story! Yes it is a media story but the media is itself going to excess in the pushing of it. I don't personally come across the same level of interest among people at large where I am. It's been barely mentioned, if at all, when I've been in the pub or at the club.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 03:44 AM

I agree Allan about the excessive coverage. I'm getting very tired of page after page in the newspapers and also on TV News programmes. It isn't after all of any serious import to the country. Whether this couple stay or go will have little effect on us. (Which means perhaps that I need not have started this thread!)

I think it's the financial implications which concern most people. They shouldn't be funded by the State to do nothing at all.

As for Andrew, I do think he should be questioned by the Police if there is any possibility he has sexually abused young women who were coerced/trafficked by his pervy mate.

I also agree to some extent with Steve (hee hee!). The Monarchy is a relic of the days when forelock-tugging 'plebs' were enchanted with them and thereby accepted their lot as disadvantaged underlings. 'They' represented the Rich, and 'we' agreed to remain very much less well-off, admirably kept in our place.
This is why I feel the Royals are now an anachronism, and we need to move on from those times.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 04:05 AM

So, Bonzo, it's ok for a Tory to criticise the royals but if anyone else does the same it becomes a "Leftwaffe" issue?

You have some strange and hypocritical bedfellows, Eliza.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 05:06 AM

Steve,
As someone who has expressed their distaste, elsewhere, of being addressed other than by your preferred name, should you not extend the same courtesy and find something more adult than "Prince BigEars"? Childish insults add nothing to your argument.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 05:22 AM

Oh I like Bonzo. We've had some lovely conversations about his rescued greyhound. If one takes a group of people of a similar political persuasion, there will inevitably be all types of personalities and characters among them. Not all Labour folk are x, y or z. Not all Tories are x,y or z either. I do hate generalisations, and I enjoy the diversity in human beings. So if I have some odd bedfellows, I quite enjoy their company!
I see that Meghan is now prosecuting the Mail on Sunday for publishing her letter to her father. And he is going to give evidence against his daughter in the case. Very difficult situation indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 05:49 AM

Goes back a long way, that one, as it 'appens, Doug, and I'll bet that he doesn't insist that his peasantry in the Duchy call him Charles...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 06:29 AM

I do hate generalisations

So do I, Eliza. How do you feel about someone using the term "leftwaffe" or "leftard" to dehumanise anyone on the left of the political spectrum?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: banjoman
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 06:39 AM

We should bear in mind, That from statements over the years from senior royals, they consider themselves to be a separate race, destined to rule over us lower beings. I have no sympathy for any of them and cant wait for the monarchy to be finally abolished. Any talk of the work they do, and the income they produce for this country should be offset by how much they actually cost us. Canada is welcome to the whole lot so far as I am concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 07:24 AM

Wonder who the replacements will be...??

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 07:30 AM

What they bring to the country is always grossly exaggerated. For example, according to the Daily Torygraph in 2017, there were no royal spots in the top twenty tourist attractions, unless you include the Tower and the Royal Museums at Greenwich, both of which would no doubt survive the abolition of the monarchy for hundreds of years.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 08:35 AM

I always smile at the idea of the Royals attracting millions of tourists. I used annually to take groups of pupils on week-long trips to France, including a day visiting Paris. The Palace of Versailles was always heaving, and after queuing for ages, one couldn't see much except the ceilings due to the press of the crowds. The French haven't had a monarchy since the end of the eighteenth century...

I've just been catching up on the Meghan's-letter-to-her-father fiasco, and find it all very distasteful. I imagine the Queen is squirming at such a private matter being thrashed out in such a public fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 10:25 AM

This is why I feel the Royals are now an anachronism, and we need to move on from those times.
and
What they bring to the country is always grossly exaggerated.

From across the pond that royal life looks like a very pampered zoo that the inhabitants live in, with a whole bunch of rules that no one else has to worry about. Working without getting paid? Having to go through all of the pomp and circumstance stuff? The calendar of stuff they have to pay attention to? Grin and bear it.

Steve, I think you underestimate the attraction that Family has for the rest of the world, and it does contribute hugely to what people choose to do when they travel there. Cultural artifacts are a big part of attracting visitors to a place, even if they don't send their entire time consuming the royal tourist hype once they arrive.

That Meghan's letter thing is someone in her family trying to hit it big $-wise by finding and releasing it, isn't it? Everyone has some of "those" relatives who are bottom feeders (look at the US - we got a whole passel of them right there in the White House!) And your media ate it up. Escaping that fishbowl and that media sounds like a completely rational thing to do.

I also agree - the name calling isn't necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 10:29 AM

This New Zealand perspective is pretty telling.

Stuff.co.nz editorial

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 11:48 AM

"Steve, I think you underestimate the attraction that Family has for the rest of the world."

That doesn't mean it's good. Public hangings at Tyburn were pretty popular too.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 11:55 AM

If we must still have a Queen, Barbara Windsor would have been a much better choice...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: peteglasgow
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 12:20 PM

you beat me too it, S, talking about versailles. a massive queue to see some quite spectacular artwork while we wandered around the extensive and lovely gardens. personally, i'd like to see the royal palaces opened up with all the extensive art they own on display for all of us to see. i'm sure they could manage to get by without much public support and there will always be some people who would like to keep up with the royal gossip. it would be good to get a bit more reality and they do seem to be a rather tired and fractious outfit these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Jan 20 - 01:03 PM

My husband and I (I sound like the Queen already!) went on a coach trip to London to visit Buckingham Palace, which is open to tourists while Her Maj is away. But it wasn't the attraction of the present royal family which caused us to go on the journey, it was the sense of history. The State Rooms are magnificent, and one appreciates the Georgians and Victorians embellishing it over the centuries.

If all the royals decamped to Barbados tomorrow, there would still be vast numbers of visitors wanting to see all the historical buildings of London, plus Sandringham, Holyrood etc. The Tower is one of the most popular attractions, and I'm fairly sure it's the beheadings and incarcerations which tourists find fascinating, not our present Queen.

I was alive when George VI was King, and I remember my mother telling me he'd died. How times have changed since those days!