[late]

They have sown the wind and must now reap the whirlwind.

Very Henry the Second...

[ingliz]

Legit thinks that British taxpayers should have been forced to continue paying for her Security too. Selfish idiot.

Surely she was complaining that they wouldn't provide security when she was pregnant with Archie, at the height of the xenophobic tabloid shit-stirring, effectively imprisoning her in a gilded cage.

[Heisenberg]

The Royals are outdated people. The institution is clearly outdated as well. They are not needed and merely given roles due to heritage and privilege. So a Republic does do something. It updates our nation.

Not everything is about money.

The way I see it, for it to "do something" we would also need a major societal overhaul including land reform and a massive downward transfer of wealth.

If we just got rid of the queen tomorrow and replaced her with an elected figurehead, it would change precisely nothing about where economic and political power actually lies in Britain. I think republicans who think otherwise are deluding themselves, frankly.

It's all a bit of a storm in a teacup, but there is one petty slight that won't go down well with our Black brethren; the revelation that Archie, a stupid name, wasn't given a title because he might turn out the wrong colour.

So much for Global Britain.

Yup. Charming stuff.

[ness31]

I’m going to try hard not to watch this Oprah interview. I do love me some salacious gossip though...

[snapdragon]

@Heisenberg and @ingliz

Not to worry, you two. He’s not entitled to be called a prince because of rules set down by George V , who had loads of kids and grandchildren. In theory, he could be given the title when he moves up to become a grandchild of a reigning monarch and not a great grandchild , when Charles becomes king, but in not in practise because it’s pretty well known Charles intends to slim down the monarchy even more

[noemon]

, at the height of the xenophobic tabloid shit-stirring

At the height of Meghan exchanging insults with her own handicapped sister and father* via American tabloids you mean?

Surely she was complaining that they wouldn't provide security when she was pregnant with Archie

How can anyone take them seriously? Harry and pregnant Meghan were not provided free security by the UK?

That's a new one and I highly doubt even they claimed such a thing.

Babies and toddlers enjoy the same security the parents do. Or no?


*after they called her out for lying about her claim that she put herself through uni with aid programs and hard work instead of dad paying for her tuition fees

[B0ycey]

The way I see it, for it to "do something" we would also need a major societal overhaul including land reform and a massive downward transfer of wealth.

If we just got rid of the queen tomorrow and replaced her with an elected figurehead, it would change precisely nothing about where economic and political power actually lies in Britain. I think republicans who think otherwise are deluding themselves, frankly.

I doubt a head of state is even needed, let alone we must have one unelected, considering we have a Prime Minister. But if a 'Lord Protector' is needed, I don't see why having an elected head of state is going to difficult to replace a monarchy considering they had to rebrand in Georgian England just to stay relevant. And don't get me started on getting rid of the 'House of Lords' or land reform, the latter perhaps I would allow to remain in any case. Although those who own the land would have to pay for it themselves - which would mean the same for a Royal Household who lost their titles. But being a Republican isn't about what is easy, 'saving tax' or what tourism they bring in or whatnot. It is all about what society should be about. I just don't believe in born privilege which means I don't support the monarchy.

Nonetheless even if we accept that we have a majority support for the Royal Family and hence they would remain in the UK if a referendum took place, look at who they are. We have Andrew and someone questioning Archies race (we don't know who but it wasn't Charles or the Queen apparently). They would need to be brought forward into the 21st century and that is if they can survive this considering that Colonialism and race relations is basically the M.O. of the Commonwealth and the whole point of the Monarchy.

[noemon]

I just don't believe in born privilege which means I don't support the monarchy.

I feel you, at least in a democracy a nation has no excuse for the hilariosity of its ruling members. That's what it comes down to. Republics have no problem with gold diggers, liars, hookers, Berlusconis and Trumps but how do you explain a hereditary Trump?

The Monarchy however goes through an existential crisis by a single person that abdicates their duty. And how to deal with those that want to abdicate duty but not the title?

So the question is pertinent, I'm pretty sure several people are currently plotting Prince George's suitor, if Meghan can do this by arranging a blind date with Harry via Hollywood circles, then why not more? and how does the Monarchy respond in a world where values such as honour are not only ridiculed but openly considered either faults or cover for "racism"?

Do you think George, Beatrice and the others will find suitors worthy of the post? Doubtful, the pool of readily available honourable people in society is constantly diminishing.

[ingliz]

George V

These rules?

The titles of prince and princess are restricted to the children of the sovereign, the children of the sovereign’s sons, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

It's odd then that Charlotte and Louis are HRHs. And Princess Anne's children were offered titles.

security

According to CNN and other US news outlets, when the xenophobic tabloid shit-stirring was at its worst. A palace aide refused to provide her with a security detail when she wanted to go out to lunch with friends because, publicity-wise, she was a distraction and 'overexposed'.

[B0ycey]

I feel you, at least in a democracy a nation has no excuse for the hilariosity of its ruling members. That's what it comes down to. Republics have no problem with gold diggers, liars, hookers, Berlusconis and Trumps. The Monarchy goes through an existential crisis by a single person that abdicates their duty. And how to deal with those that want to abdicate duty but not the title?

I am a Republican in the sense that I have never supported the monarchy. The irony is this has nothing to do with this case in particular but my father's trade union routes. The idea that to be against a monarchy is to support Donald Trump is frankly absurd and a total misreading of who actually supports and doesn't support the Monarchy. I would say it is the middle class and upper class, traditionalists and elitists who support the monarchy and the working class either don't like them or tolerate them to some extent at best.

So the question is pertinent, I'm pretty sure several people are currently plotting Prince George's suitor, if Meghan can do this then why not more, and how does the Monarchy respond in a world where values such as honour are not only ridiculed but openly considered either faults or cover for "racism".

The "racism" I suspect wasn't directed at the Queen and Harry made that clear to Oprah. But to be fair to Meghan, she didn't cope and obviously wanted to tell the world that the Royals didn't give a fuck. That is more to do with branding as she and Harry do have to make their own money now than it does to opening up I suspect. And to be fair, I don't really give a fuck because she should have knew that being a Princess isn't about servants but the image you portray in any case. We already knew the Windsors were all about self promotion than wellbeing. We already went through that with Diana - who subsequently left the "Firm".

[Heisenberg]

The idea that to be against a monarchy is to support Donald Trump is frankly absurd and a total misreading of who actually supports and doesn't support the Monarchy.

In fairness, he didn't say that. He pointed out that a republic is not an inherent guarantee of classy leadership, which is very hard to argue with.

A far more important guarantee of classy leadership is proper instruction in the Immortal Science of Marxism-Leninism.

[noemon]

The idea that to be against a monarchy is to support Donald Trump is frankly absurd and a total misreading of who actually supports and doesn't support the Monarchy.

I think you misunderstood what I meant.

The "racism" I suspect wasn't directed at the Queen and Harry made that clear to Oprah.

All 3 of them understand better than most that their unnamed racism accusations are directed, consumed and rationalised solely at the Queen. That is the Queen's purpose, to represent "the Firm".

[B0ycey]

In fairness, he didn't say that. He pointed out that a republic is not an inherent guarantee of classy leadership, which is very hard to argue with.

If that was his point, sure. That is not how I read the sentence as to me it implies that Republicans promote these type of people.

But if you want to talk about "Classy Leadership" how about Johnson, May, Cameron, Blair, and Thatcher? You think our system today guarantees great leadership?

[Heisenberg]

If that was his point, sure. That is not how I read the sentence as to me it implies that Republicans promote these type of people.

I think you misread, to be honest.

But if you want to talk about "Classy Leadership" how about Johnson, May, Cameron, Blair, and Thatcher? You think our system today guarantees great leadership?

Oh, good heavens no. That's why I'm saying we need a complete societal overhaul beyond the cosmetic change of becoming a parliamentary republic while keeping everything else largely the same. The British ruling class, which extends far beyond the royal family, is an absolute shit show.

[B0ycey]

All 3 of them understand better than most that their unnamed racism accusations are directed, consumed and rationalised solely at the Queen. That is the Queen's purpose, to represent "the Firm".

Should know better perhaps. Clearly don't know better I would say. They obviously wanted public support, and they have it to some extent now when before they didn't. I just don't think they realised the damage they would do and perhaps they might even have wanted the best of both worlds and a sorry from Kensington Palace. Now they will be lucky to get a text reply.

[noemon]

If that was his point, sure. That is not how I read the sentence as to me it implies that Republicans promote these type of people.

But if you want to talk about "Classy Leadership" how about Johnson, May, Cameron, Blair, and Thatcher? You think our system today guarantees great leadership?

Indeed, that was my point. A republic does not need to guarantee anything because the fault lies with the voters, so anything can go but how can a Monarchy justify a hereditary Trump? Just because the UK had the privilege of having HM the Queen for the past 7 or so decades, it does not mean that is guaranteed for the future and with such offspring, evidently not.

[noemon]

Should know better perhaps. Clearly don't know better I would say. They obviously wanted public support, and they have it to some extent now when before they didn't. I just don't think they realised the damage they would do and perhaps they might even have wanted the best of both worlds and a sorry from Kensington Palace. Now they will be lucky to get a text reply.

The most obvious explanation is that Harry & Meghan know exactly what they are doing. She is a 40 year old Hollywood actress mate and he is a Prince. Meghan did not mind spitting on her own father just to promote herself as 'underprivileged' when she lied to an audience that she put herself through uni with "state-aid and hard work". That is precisely what teenagers do.

Meghan and Harry are still teenagers who never made it into adulthood and like all spoilt teenagers they have no problem putting their family down just to promote themselves. Of course nobody would care unless their family were by default the Heads of State of the UK & Commonwealth and them pissing on their family is also a piss on the UK as a whole.

[colliric]

I can't wait to see how the Royal family responds. An interview with William and Kate???

Piers Morgan is a bit of a dick, but he's not wrong here.

[Potemkin]

I just don't believe in born privilege which means I don't support the monarchy.

Yet you support inherited wealth, which amounts to the same thing. I just can't comprehend the reasoning of people who support the idea that wealth can be passed on from one generation to the next, yet decry the idea that a title can be passed on from one generation to the next. Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see any substantive difference.

[B0ycey]

The most obvious explanation is that Harry & Meghan know exactly what they are doing. Meghan did not mind spitting on her own father just to promote herself as 'underprivileged' when she lied to an audience that she put herself through uni.

Meghan and Harry are still teenagers who never made it into adulthood and like all spoilt teenagers they have no problem putting their family down just to promote themselves. Of course nobody would care unless their family were by default the Heads of State of the UK and them pissing on their family is also a piss on the UK as a whole.

I wouldn't really disagree with this but without going out of my way to watch this clusterfuck and only going by what I have read, I would say this whole interview was about self promotion rather than taking down the Monarchy because she didn't address who said that about Archies skin colour and only a segment of it was on her emotional state as a Royal. She would have learnt a lot from Dianas interview as well, but didn't execute it like her because she really did light a fuse and made this not about her but racism - which is ironic because it was only one line from a two hour interview.

This is a story of you are what you hate. Meghan would have made an exceptional Windsor had she not been an emotional wreak wanting to be the major star in the night sky. She is more American than Canadian.