Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Aruntraveller on March 08, 2021, 06:22:26 PM
-
Well the interview has been shown in the USA and various pundits here have had their say.
I was sceptical about the claims of racism the couple put forward and thought they were perhaps being oversensitive. After all the press have been fairly even handed in the way they treat the couple. Haven't they?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?
Bit of an eye opener to me. I don't read the papers involved on a regular basis but the comparisons drawn are fairly shocking.
I'm no fan of the whole set up, but I've gone from a fairly "huh - what does it matter?" to "They really are pretty vile to her". And that's just the press.
If the accusation of someone asking about what colour the baby will turn out is true, then some soul searching within the family needs to go on as well.
I can't find it in my heart to criticise them for leaving, no matter that they are a couple of over-privileged young people.
-
Well the interview has been shown in the USA and various pundits here have had their say.
I was sceptical about the claims of racism the couple put forward and thought they were perhaps being oversensitive. After all the press have been fairly even handed in the way they treat the couple. Haven't they?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?
Bit of an eye opener to me. I don't read the papers involved on a regular basis but the comparisons drawn are fairly shocking.
I'm no fan of the whole set up, but I've gone from a fairly "huh - what does it matter?" to "They really are pretty vile to her". And that's just the press.
I'd seen a couple of those examples before, but not all of them. It is jaw dropping the difference in approach from the media - the cloying sycophancy towards Kate and the viciousness towards Meghan on exactly the same topic.
Now I'm not entirely sure this is necessarily racism (although it may well be). There are other reasons why the media 'love' Kate and 'hate' Meghan. First good old fashioned xenophobia - Meghan is american so 'not one of us' and therefore is ripe for criticism. And good old fashioned misogyny - Kate plays the role of the perfect dutiful model 1950s wife - perfectly turned out and never says anything remotely challenging - just there to support her hubby and have his kids. Meghan on the other hand is a strong and independent women who forged a successful career prior to becoming a royal, and clearly wants to continue to have an independent career. You can see why the Mail will hate this.
So it may be racism, it may be xenophobia or misogyny, or indeed a combination of all three. But it is hugely distasteful and reflects appallingly on our media if, well into the 21st century, they are unable to accept a strong independent woman who is black and not born and raised in the UK. Appalling.
-
Give me Meghan Sparkle any day - Kate Middleclass is a snooty parvenu.
-
There are times when you boys and girls absolutely amaze and astonish me!
Absolutely vicious anti-Royalty to the point of being (Left Wing/Communist) Republicans and yet you can see the disgusting nature of the treatment by the Press of Megan.
I noted a few points after the interview was aired in the US!
The papers have made a huge thing of the 'bullying' charge. Strange that this (supposed) bullying took place during Megan's first big Royalty Tour of OZ and nothing is said until the mail has lost a huge and potentially expensive law-suit!
It has been known for some time that members of the Palace staff were being paid to pass on any "interesting" tidbits
AS noted above Harry was adamant that he expected the press to try and do a Diana on his Mrs - he was right!
Harry knew ages ago that he has a snowball's chance in Hell of ever being required to plonk his arse on the throne and threw his efforts behind things like the Invictus Games for the disabled.
If Liz doesn't like what is happening now she has no-one to blame but herself, the Crown has been directed to her wishes for fifty-odd years, if she doesn't like it, she needs to change it, don't she, and not let her minions go blaming Harry and Megan for having the balls to say "Screw the lot of you! (and that includes his brother!)"
Owlswing
)O(
-
I have not watched the interview as a combination of Oprah and Harry and Meghan moaning about their difficult lives as multi-millionaires during a pandemic would be quite nauseating for me. I think facing poverty is far far worse than facing casual racism or media vilification, unless your ego is particularly sensitive in which case I can see how media vilification could be a bigger problem than poverty.
I am not surprised that there were a few comments about the colour of the baby's skin from within the palace - it is something different from the norm of pasty white and as a person with brown skin I do not have a problem with people remarking on my skin colour if I look different to them. It happens in brown families too - bring the white spouse in and people comment on the colour of their skin and the baby's skin and yes many brown people would prefer a brown spouse or a brown baby who looks and acts like everyone else. Even if you don't have a preference I know my family make jokes about my half-white nephew and his cousins call him "white boy" and how he needs cutlery to eat rice and curry rather than using his hand like everyone else and he jokes about his colour himself. I have seen this replayed in many dark families who bring in a white outsider. Not that I think there is anything 'outsider' about someone who looks different but the reality is that many other people of all skin colours do consider someone who looks different as an 'outsider'.
I think Meghan was treated differently to Kate by the media because the media are vile and vileness /creating or magnifying conflict etc generates public interest because many people have a prurient interest in conflict. Meghan and Harry gave the media lots of ammunition with their woke opinions and lectures about being kind to others and protecting the climate while flying around on private jets and revelling in their wealth and privilege. Not surprisingly hypocrisy annoys people. Loud, opinionated hypocrites annoy people even more. If you express opinions expect to be vilified - it happens all over the media. Charles used to get vilified by the press for his opinions on all kinds of things - they made him out to be mad talking to shrubbery. The media published accusations about royals arranging the murder of Princess Diana. As a brown woman , I think being accused of the murder of the mother of your children or the mother of your grand children (in Philip's case) is far worse than being subjected to casual racism or casual misogyny.
I think people should be careful about whether they are examining this issue free from bias as there is a danger of being condescending and patronising to people with darker skin due to some sort of saviour complex such as the ridiculous idea that 'dark people are perpetual helpless victims who need saving from the powerful white man'.
What I find interesting is that Meghan miscarried a baby already, but instead of laying low and reducing stress during this pregnancy she is making herself a target for the media and other people's opinions. So much for their claims about wanting privacy and a life free from press intrusion. Could the interview not have waited until after the baby was safely delivered or were the optics of a pregnant Meghan making accusations of racism just too good to pass up for the self-promoting entitled couple? Or if they are playing a clever game to try to take on the media and staging it to use the pregnancy as a weapon in their battle with the media, then good luck to them - I hope they succeed. Always good to see the tabloid media lose.
-
Kate Middleclass is a snooty parvenu.
Indeed. Isn't she the daughter of a (Air)bus driver?
-
Absolutely vicious anti-Royalty to the point of being (Left Wing/Communist) Republicans and yet you can see the disgusting nature of the treatment by the Press of Megan.
SO you agree it is disgusting treatment?
That's all my OP was about.
I was actually posting about the way the press operated.
You seem oddly conflicted on the Royal Family yourself:
If Liz doesn't like what is happening now she has no-one to blame but herself, the Crown has been directed to her wishes for fifty-odd years, if she doesn't like it, she needs to change it, don't she, and not let her minions go blaming Harry and Megan for having the balls to say "Screw the lot of you! (and that includes his brother!)"
-
Seen elsewhere 'The Royal Family - weapons of mass distraction'
-
Seen elsewhere 'The Royal Family - weapons of mass distraction'
;D
-
The current strategy by the carefully staged and optics savvy Meghan and Harry was Meghan's sound-bite about racism being different from rudeness, when comparing the Press treatment of Kate with the treatment of Meghan. No doubt they will run with that because a
lot of people like to jump on the racism bandwagon in the context of BLM. I think BLM is about real issues of harsher treatment by police and the judicial system, lack of opportunity to reasonably good schools, reasonably good homes in areas not populated by violent gangs of drug-dealers seeking to recruit children or drug-addicts robbing you for their next fix, access to opportunities to use your potential and skills to build a safe and secure life for yourself and your loved ones, access to healthcare etc. None of this applies to Meghan and her trust-fund husband.
As far as I am concerned racism is just one form of rudeness. I totally reject the idea of exceptionalism people try to attach to racism because of white people being exceptionally good at the slave trade due to industrialising first thanks to the presence of huge amounts of coal deposits that could be mined, the sense of innovation brought about by historical events etc . If dark people in that era had had been exposed to similar events and circumstances and had the opportunity, they would have behaved in the same way as white people - increased melanin production in hotter climates does not cause a person to be more compassionate or kind (just have to look at the caste system to see that). An industrialised 'darkie' nation would have been equally ruthless in their pursuit of slavery - they were after all engaging in slavery themselves and were also the people capturing slaves to sell to white people.
I think expressing racism is just being rude. If we were kind and thoughtful we would not express racism. I reject Meghan's assertions trying to create a distinction based on race about the Press treatment of her compared to the Press rudeness to Kate. Some people - white and dark - are racist of course so no doubt there was some racism expressed by some people,, which is as rude as misogyny faced by Kate or misandry faced by Charles for not being the 'man' his father wanted him to be - or any of those other -ism terms.
-
I have not watched the interview as a combination of Oprah and Harry and Meghan moaning about their difficult lives as multi-millionaires during a pandemic would be quite nauseating for me. I think facing poverty is far far worse than facing casual racism or media vilification, unless your ego is particularly sensitive in which case I can see how media vilification could be a bigger problem than poverty.
I am not surprised that there were a few comments about the colour of the baby's skin from within the palace - it is something different from the norm of pasty white and as a person with brown skin I do not have a problem with people remarking on my skin colour if I look different to them. It happens in brown families too - bring the white spouse in and people comment on the colour of their skin and the baby's skin and yes many brown people would prefer a brown spouse or a brown baby who looks and acts like everyone else. Even if you don't have a preference I know my family make jokes about my half-white nephew and his cousins call him "white boy" and how he needs cutlery to eat rice and curry rather than using his hand like everyone else and he jokes about his colour himself. I have seen this replayed in many dark families who bring in a white outsider. Not that I think there is anything 'outsider' about someone who looks different but the reality is that many other people of all skin colours do consider someone who looks different as an 'outsider'.
I think Meghan was treated differently to Kate by the media because the media are vile and vileness /creating or magnifying conflict etc generates public interest because many people have a prurient interest in conflict. Meghan and Harry gave the media lots of ammunition with their woke opinions and lectures about being kind to others and protecting the climate while flying around on private jets and revelling in their wealth and privilege. Not surprisingly hypocrisy annoys people. Loud, opinionated hypocrites annoy people even more. If you express opinions expect to be vilified - it happens all over the media. Charles used to get vilified by the press for his opinions on all kinds of things - they made him out to be mad talking to shrubbery. The media published accusations about royals arranging the murder of Princess Diana. As a brown woman , I think being accused of the murder of the mother of your children or the mother of your grand children (in Philip's case) is far worse than being subjected to casual racism or casual misogyny.
I think people should be careful about whether they are examining this issue free from bias as there is a danger of being condescending and patronising to people with darker skin due to some sort of saviour complex such as the ridiculous idea that 'dark people are perpetual helpless victims who need saving from the powerful white man'.
What I find interesting is that Meghan miscarried a baby already, but instead of laying low and reducing stress during this pregnancy she is making herself a target for the media and other people's opinions. So much for their claims about wanting privacy and a life free from press intrusion. Could the interview not have waited until after the baby was safely delivered or were the optics of a pregnant Meghan making accusations of racism just too good to pass up for the self-promoting entitled couple? Or if they are playing a clever game to try to take on the media and staging it to use the pregnancy as a weapon in their battle with the media, then good luck to them - I hope they succeed. Always good to see the tabloid media lose.
Well said Gabriella. I only saw a small part of the interview. It looked well rehearsed to me with a scattering of well positioned anecdotes. I wonder how much they were paid for the interview. There's no business like show business.
-
I'm sick of it, and the wall-to-wall coverage.
It is hard to know which is worse: an antiquated and dysfunctional institution/family whose continued presence in current society is an anachronism (I say just get rid) or the sections of the press that plays along with seeing these people as notable celebrities, often sycophantically, just because their birth family (as opposed to them having traits worth celebrating) while also seeking to undermine them - in combination, as we now see, this is an unpleasant, boring and voyeuristic distraction.
Racism is a serious issue, of course, but that too will get played down in the rush to rescue the reputations of the reprehensible.
-
I'm sick of it, and the wall-to-wall coverage.
It is hard to know which is worse: an antiquated and dysfunctional institution/family whose continued presence in current society is an anachronism (I say just get rid) or the sections of the press that plays along with seeing these people as notable celebrities, often sycophantically, just because their birth family (as opposed to them having traits worth celebrating) while also seeking to undermine them - in combination, as we now see, this is an unpleasant, boring and voyeuristic distraction.
Racism is a serious issue, of course, but that too will get played down in the rush to rescue the reputations of the reprehensible.
Yes I thought much as you do until I watched the interview. What was described was a damning indictment not only of institutions but of a fallen, embittered and confused status of increasingly secular Britain which increasingly tolerates these institutions for without national complicity these atrocious behaviours and attitudes would not prevail.
-
Seen elsewhere 'The Royal Family - weapons of mass distraction'
Brilliant¬!
-
Yes I thought much as you do until I watched the interview. What was described was a damning indictment not only of institutions but of a fallen, embittered and confused status of increasingly secular Britain which increasingly tolerates these institutions for without national complicity these atrocious behaviours and attitudes would not prevail.
Are you saying more religious countries aren't racist?
-
Are you saying more religious countries aren't racist?
No I am just flagging up that for all the good things attributed to an increasingly secular Britain there are some atrocious attitudes and behaviours which seem to be increasing too.
-
No I am just flagging up that for all the good things attributed to an increasingly secular Britain there are some atrocious attitudes and behaviours which seem to be increasing too.
So what is your solution, if you are saying that more religious countries can be just as racist?
What do we do? What steps do we take? How do we ameliorate these "atrocious attitudes and behaviours"?
-
Well said Gabriella. I only saw a small part of the interview. It looked well rehearsed to me with a scattering of well positioned anecdotes. I wonder how much they were paid for the interview. There's no business like show business.
Thanks and agree about it being well-rehearsed - she is an actress - there were probably many run-throughs in front of a mirror and audience, focusing on body language, experimenting with make-up, clothes, lighting etc. to appear as natural and un-staged as possible. Completely show-business.
I have been avoiding the TV because it keeps playing clips. Unfortunately this morning the radio in the car played a few soundbites. It's all self-serving rubbish with Meghan being royal - so agreeing with the institution - just long enough to become more marketable and then moving to the US to sell the brand to the media in a way that generates the most coverage. Being interviewed while pregnant, ticked the mental health box in the interview, played the race card, the adversary needs to be the Royal Family because that's better drama than it being just the press. Hopefully the Royal Family won't respond to this rubbish during a pandemic.
It might turn into a similar situation to the Markle relatives sniping from the side-lines in an increasingly irrational manner to make money and also because they are upset about being ignored. Meghan and Harry will give interviews to promote themselves and because they want attention and don't like being ignored.
-
I think expressing racism is just being rude. If we were kind and thoughtful we would not express racism.
Yet the outcomes from rudeness and racism are different in many cases.
People are often rude to me, doesn't affect me that much.
People can be racist and it can affect your job prospects, and in some tragic cases your life. I think there is a quantitative difference.
-
So what is your solution, if you are saying that more religious countries can be just as racist?
What do we do? What steps do we take? How do we ameliorate these "atrocious attitudes and behaviours"?
People need to be a bit more specific about naming problems rather than Caricaturing and blaming groups on mass for some vague supposed offence against something equally vague which is what is happening here where a woke, foreign, woman, mixed race has somehow bewitched our most royal family rather than just shutting up and being dutiful. If you ask people to be more specific they can't because it's a composite of tabloid guff, them taking out there own worst impulses and avoidance behaviour for actually resolving their own mistreatment by these institutions. Let us remember that it was Her Majesty who signed Johnson's illegal order for prorogation of Parliament.
Now to actually get to your point. Answer; name what the problems are and keep naming them. Explore oneself and encourage others to at the grass roots level.
Maybe it starts with dealing with the plank in your own eye, to wax biblically.
-
Yet the outcomes from rudeness and racism are different in many cases.
People are often rude to me, doesn't affect me that much.
People can be racist and it can affect your job prospects, and in some tragic cases your life. I think there is a quantitative difference.
Agreed in those situations where it does affect your job prospects etc.
I meant in the specific case of Meghan and Kate. Totally agree in the situation where people are not leading rich, privileged lifestyles, hence I mentioned how BLM is an important issue - but Meghan is just jumping on the bandwagon to raise the issue as part of a strategy to promote her brand to make money.
People have been racist to me and rude to me - where it hasn't affected my job prospects or endangered my life, the racism has no more effect than any other type of insults - like you it doesn't affect me that much.
I think I would be more upset by people undermining my intelligence or my ability to be financially independent or if they suggested I thought I needed a Royal husband for me to have value. So for example the "Waity Katy" insults or the comments about Kate being a commoner or the daughter of a former air stewardess or her mother engineering the marriage seem as bad as to me as any racism Meghan is alleging she faced.
-
Yes I thought much as you do until I watched the interview. What was described was a damning indictment not only of institutions but of a fallen, embittered and confused status of increasingly secular Britain which increasingly tolerates these institutions for without national complicity these atrocious behaviours and attitudes would not prevail.
Secular? The royals, for whom I have no loyalty whatsoever, have no authority in any denomination in these islands saving the CofE. They've had no authority in any matter of religion in Scotland since Charles I tried and failed to interfere in 1638.
-
It turns out that what she said about their children not being given the title Prince or Princess being decided specifically for them, is incorrect. It was already established that only the children of the first in line would be given those titles. (Interested to hear if anyone knows otherwise?).
-
It turns out that what she said about their children not being given the title Prince or Princess being decided specifically for them, is incorrect. It was already established that only the children of the first in line would be given those titles. (Interested to hear if anyone knows otherwise?).
Err - Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie - they aren't the children of the first in line to the throne.
-
Err - Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie - they aren't the children of the first in line to the throne.
I was just thinking that...
-
The members of the BRF who have the title of prince or princess include:
The Queen’s four children: Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Princess Edward.
The Queen’s grandchildren: Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice
The Queen’s great-grandchildren and children of future king Prince William: Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis.
The Queen’s great-grandchildren including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s son Archie, Princess Eugenie’s son August Brooksbank, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips children do not possess the title of ‘prince’ or ‘princess’.
-
It's explained here (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race)
-
The members of the BRF who have the title of prince or princess include:
The Queen’s four children: Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Princess Edward.
The Queen’s grandchildren: Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice
The Queen’s great-grandchildren and children of future king Prince William: Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis.
The Queen’s great-grandchildren including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s son Archie, Princess Eugenie’s son August Brooksbank, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips children do not possess the title of ‘prince’ or ‘princess’.
Have I been misgendering Edward?
-
Have I been misgendering Edward?
;D Sorry didn't spot that. Clearly we have according to the Standard.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-princess-british-royal-family-archie-title-b923017.html
-
So you agree it is disgusting treatment?
That's all my OP was about.
Yes, I do.
I was actually posting about the way the press operated.
You seem oddly conflicted on the Royal Family yourself:
I have to agree with you. As far as I am concerned this episode has done more to blacken (no pun intended) the name of the Royal Family as a whole than anything that I ever expected to see.
Ever since the whole Diana divorce, I have lost almost any respect I ever had for Charles.
Owlswing
)O(
-
The members of the BRF who have the title of prince or princess include:
The Queen’s four children: Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Princess Edward.
The Queen’s grandchildren: Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice
The Queen’s great-grandchildren and children of future king Prince William: Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis.
The Queen’s great-grandchildren including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s son Archie, Princess Eugenie’s son August Brooksbank, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips children do not possess the title of ‘prince’ or ‘princess’.
But it isn't consistent is it.
Not all of the Queen's grandchildren are Princes and Princesses are they. Charles and Andrew's kids are, but Anne and Edward's kids aren't. So there doesn't seem to be a clear and set formula.
And mapping generation to generation Harry is the equivalent of Andrew, whose children are Princesses.
-
Harry is the equivalent of Beatrice and Zara
Charles, Anne and Edward are the equivalent of Andrew. The HRH passes along the male line so Zara and her brother are not given the title Princess or Prince. As they started scaling down the monarchy, they agreed that Edward's kids would not get the HRH title.
I think Meghan as a seasoned actress is delivering her lines, and is currently playing a carefully scripted and staged role that she has practised many times before the cameras rolled. Cue tears welling up on demand.
I also don't buy the story about Kate and the flowers. People send flowers and apologise to be gracious and kind because they are the bigger person and someone has to make the first move. I have apologised first for my part in misunderstandings even where I felt the other person was more at fault than I was. Meghan's selective memory means she left out the part where she accepted her flaws. She has admitted to having mental health issues - maybe she was depressed and crying and reacting because of her mental health issues rather than because Kate did anything particularly hurtful to someone who, if they had been a little less ' emotionally fragile' probably would not have cried. I guess that's actresses for you. Kate comes from a more stable family background and is probably less high-strung than Harry and Meghan.
Harry's and Meghan's unstable family history has meant they seem to not be mature enough to see that the whole world does not revolve around them and their needs so it is hardly surprising they feel unsupported and isolated if they keep torpedoing family relationships every few months by their actions. This soap opera they have created will run and run - it has to as their financial independence probably depends on it.
-
Harry is the equivalent of Beatrice and Zara
Charles, Anne and Edward are the equivalent of Andrew.
No I am talking about the comparison generation to generation.
So as Andrew is to Charles (the next youngest brother to the primary heir of that generation), so Harry is to William.
So if Andrew's children are Princesses, why aren't Harry's kids also Princes/Princesses. It isn't consistent.
I'm a republican so in the broadest sense I don't give a damn, but if you are going to have a hereditary monarchy surely there has to be consistency in terms of which members of the family get a particular title and which get a different title. And that presumably is based on position within the family. So if Beatrice and Eugene are Princesses I can't see (if there is consistency) which Archie isn't a Prince, or the new sprog (apparently a girl) isn't a Princess - or at least will become as soon as Charles becomes King.
-
No I am talking about the comparison generation to generation.
So as Andrew is to Charles (the next youngest brother to the primary heir of that generation), so Harry is to William.
So if Andrew's children are Princesses, why aren't Harry's kids also Princes/Princesses. It isn't consistent.
I'm a republican so in the broadest sense I don't give a damn, but if you are going to have a hereditary monarchy surely there has to be consistency in terms of which members of the family get a particular title and which get a different title. And that presumably is based on position within the family. So if Beatrice and Eugene are Princesses I can't see (if there is consistency) which Archie isn't a Prince, or the new sprog (apparently a girl) isn't a Princess - or at least will become as soon as Charles becomes King.
Spud's link in his earlier post covers this
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race
-
Spud's link in his earlier post covers this
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race
I did read it but it didn't seem to make a lot of sense in terms of what has actually happened.
So from the article it would appear that Archie would automatically become a Prince when the Queen dies and Charles becomes King. However I didn't think that was going to happen from the reports.
Also under the rules Edward's kids would automatically become Prince/Princess - yet they aren't.
And again from the rules George, Charlotte etc wouldn't be Prince/Princess until the Queen dies as they are a generation too far removed. However they are.
So there seems to be a framework with a lot of tweaking, presumably under the decision making of the Queen.
-
I did read it but it didn't seem to make a lot of sense in terms of what has actually happened.
So from the article it would appear that Archie would automatically become a Prince when the Queen dies and Charles becomes King. However I didn't think that was going to happen from the reports.
Also under the rules Edward's kids would automatically become Prince/Princess - yet they aren't.
And again from the rules George, Charlotte etc wouldn't be Prince/Princess until the Queen dies as they are a generation too far removed. However they are.
So there seems to be a framework with a lot of tweaking, presumably under the decision making of the Queen.
It seems that the Rules on the titles Prince and Princess were laid down by KGV in a Letter Patent but later amended by a Letter Patent by QE11
I haven't read said Letters so I can't quote the exact details.
If and when I find the details I'll try and post them!
Owlswing
)O(
-
I did read it but it didn't seem to make a lot of sense in terms of what has actually happened.
So from the article it would appear that Archie would automatically become a Prince when the Queen dies and Charles becomes King. However I didn't think that was going to happen from the reports.
Also under the rules Edward's kids would automatically become Prince/Princess - yet they aren't.
And again from the rules George, Charlotte etc wouldn't be Prince/Princess until the Queen dies as they are a generation too far removed. However they are.
So there seems to be a framework with a lot of tweaking, presumably under the decision making of the Queen.
It covers and states that Liz intervened for Charlotte and Louis, and that George was a Prince as being in direct line.
Ed's kids were covered by Gabriella's comment that there waa a separate decision to slim down the monarchy.
Anne's, and indeed Anne, are covered by institutional sexism.
It's indeed piecemeal, and evolves, but in this case there should have been no expectation that Archie would he a prince, or princess if he chose to follow the approach of Princess Ed as per the Standard.
-
Mr Morgan leaves GMB
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-09/piers-morgan-to-leave-good-morning-britain-following-meghan-markle-row
-
Mr. Morgan leaves GMB
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-09/piers-morgan-to-leave-good-morning-britain-following-meghan-markle-row
I cannot say that I am sorry to see him go. He is one of my least favourite presenters and I am glad that all I know of him over the past few years comes from the Net where I did not have to ask someone else if they minded me switching him off.
And, if the gentleman doing the weather is to be believed, it is all because the lady dumped him!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Mr Morgan leaves GMB
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-09/piers-morgan-to-leave-good-morning-britain-following-meghan-markle-row
I reckon he's angling for a spot on the new Andrew Neil channel.
-
It's indeed piecemeal, and evolves, but in this case there should have been no expectation that Archie would he a prince, or princess if he chose to follow the approach of Princess Ed as per the Standard.
No I still don't understand the position - I thought that Archie could expect to become a Prince once Charles becomes King - that seems to be the basic rules. Sure if he or his parents choose otherwise then that would be different, but that would be their choice, the default being that he'd become a Prince.
-
No I still don't understand the position - I thought that Archie could expect to become a Prince once Charles becomes King - the seems to be the basic rules. Sure if he or his parents choose otherwise then that would be different, but that would be their choice, the default being that he'd become a Prince.
so there is agree that Archie would not be expected to be a prince under those rules currently?
-
so there is agree that Archie would not be expected to be a prince under those rules currently?
Sure, but nor would Charlotte (a Princess) or Louis.
But he would expect to become a Prince when the Queen dies.
Now I might be wrong, or we may be being fed misinformation, but I thought that Harry and Meghan had been informed that the palace had made a decision that Archie would not become a Prince - not just not now but not ever. So a decision away from the default and not in their favour. Meanwhile, again I may be wrong here, but I thought that the palace had made a decision that Charlotte and Louis would become Princess/Prince now (rather than on the death of the Queen). So a decision away from the default but in their favour.
Maybe I'm reading this entirely wrong, but that was my understanding of the defaults and the individual decisions.
-
Sure, but nor would Charlotte (a Princess) or Louis.
But he would expect to become a Prince when the Queen dies.
Now I might be wrong, or we may be being fed misinformation, but I thought that Harry and Meghan had been informed that the palace had made a decision that Archie would not become a Prince - not just not now but not ever. So a decision away from the default and not in their favour. Meanwhile, again I may be wrong here, but I thought that the palace had made a decision that Charlotte and Louis would become Princess/Prince now (rather than on the death of the Queen). So a decision away from the default but in their favour.
Maybe I'm reading this entirely wrong, but that was my understanding of the defaults and the individual decisions.
The link and my comment covers Charlotte and Louis.
-
No I am talking about the comparison generation to generation.
So as Andrew is to Charles (the next youngest brother to the primary heir of that generation), so Harry is to William.
So if Andrew's children are Princesses, why aren't Harry's kids also Princes/Princesses. It isn't consistent.
Because they're a generation further down.
-
Because they're a generation further down.
But that is only relevant on the basis of the George V ruling that all grandchildren (but not great-grandchildren) of the current monarch are offered the title Prince/Princess. Whether they take up the title is another matter, but they are offered it.
So under the rules Harry and Meghan's kids should become Prince/Princess once Charles becomes King as they will be the grandchildren of a current monarch. But my understanding (I may be wrong, but this has been reported again in the Times today) is that is isn't just that Archie isn't give the title of Prince now (which isn't required but the rules - but has been offered to Charlotte and Louis), but that he wont be when Charles becomes King either - which is not what the default position is.
-
But that is only relevant on the basis of the George V ruling that all grandchildren (but not great-grandchildren) of the current monarch are offered the title Prince/Princess. Whether they take up the title is another matter, but they are offered it.
So under the rules Harry and Meghan's kids should become Prince/Princess once Charles becomes King as they will be the grandchildren of a current monarch. But my understanding (I may be wrong, but this has been reported again in the Times today) is that is isn't just that Archie isn't give the title of Prince now (which isn't required but the rules - but has been offered to Charlotte and Louis), but that he wont be when Charles becomes King either - which is not what the default position is.
Has the Times reported that this conversation happened or they have reported that Meghan thinks it happened? When people have mental health issues, as Meghan has said she has/ had, they do not always recall things accurately , and can interpret conversations and have perceptions differently from what was said or intended due to their poor mental health and emotional pain.
While sympathising with Meghan's emotional fragility, her emotional struggles also affect perceptions of her credibility in being able to accurately recollect events. Since we use our brains to recollect events, if our brain is not working very well because we have a mental health issue that makes us feel upset and depressed and isolated and helpless etc etc how accurate is our recollection going to be?
ETA: There is also the issue of plans for a slimmed down monarchy, which may be another reason why William's children are Princes and Princesses but not Harry's. It's easy to frame everything as a personal attack and thereby cause chaos and conflict, especially if you run to the media if you don't get your own way. So much for not inviting Press intrusion. I said at the time they claimed they were stepping back as Royals to have more privacy that this was a money-making exercise to control access to them to make them more money and here they are with multi-million pound deals with streaming services Netflix and Spotify, inviting Oprah who was a complete stranger to their wedding, and now colluding with Oprah to make vague and damaging public accusations against Harry's family without having to present any actual evidence to back up their claims. I knew this was a money-making exercise from the start - Meghan's acting skills came in useful.
-
Sure, but nor would Charlotte (a Princess) or Louis.
But he would expect to become a Prince when the Queen dies.
Now I might be wrong, or we may be being fed misinformation, but I thought that Harry and Meghan had been informed that the palace had made a decision that Archie would not become a Prince - not just not now but not ever. So a decision away from the default and not in their favour. Meanwhile, again I may be wrong here, but I thought that the palace had made a decision that Charlotte and Louis would become Princess/Prince now (rather than on the death of the Queen). So a decision away from the default but in their favour.
Maybe I'm reading this entirely wrong, but that was my understanding of the defaults and the individual decisions.
The Queen’s decree in 2012 (before the birth of George, whose sex presumably not known at the time) "ensures that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s eldest child is a daughter, she will be styled a Princess rather than a Lady."... "Just as George V's (sic) responded to popular concerns about the size of the titled royal family and George VI acknowledged his grandchildren’s place in the succession, Elizabeth II has equalized the titles of her future great-grandchildren to reflect the planned introduction of absolute primogeniture."
From this link (http://www.royalhistorian.com/queen-elizabeth-decrees-that-all-of-the-duke-and-duchess-of-cambridges-children-will-be-princes-and-princesses/)
So not to do with favouritism but exercising the royal prerogative in response to popular concerns about the moarchy.
It would make sense that this rule only applied to William's children. George V's decree applied only to the first son of the son of the Prince of Wales, who was third in line and very likely to become king in the future. Apparently, though, "the Sussexes are claiming that there was an expectation that the Queen might change the protocol in a similar way as it had been for William's children." (even though Archie is very unlikely to become king). (quoted from this link) (https://www.tatler.com/article/george-v-letters-patent-why-some-people-in-royal-family-are-princes-and-princesses-and-some-are-not)
-
The Queen’s decree in 2012 (before the birth of George, whose sex presumably not known at the time) "ensures that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s eldest child is a daughter, she will be styled a Princess rather than a Lady."... "Just as George V's (sic) responded to popular concerns about the size of the titled royal family and George VI acknowledged his grandchildren’s place in the succession, Elizabeth II has equalized the titles of her future great-grandchildren to reflect the planned introduction of absolute primogeniture."
But that is largely about equality between male and female children in terms of position in line to the throne.
But surely if the approach was to "equalized the titles of her future great-grandchildren" then that would mean that all great-grandchildren would be treated equally, but they aren't being, with the current view being that Archie will not be offered the title Prince even when the Queen dies (which he would be under the George V rules, which have largely not been superseded by Elizabeth's. How can titles of great-grandchildren have been equalised if three of them are offered the title of Prince/Princess, while one (plus at least one more) aren't offered the same title even once the Queen dies.
As I've said previously I'm a republican so broadly I don't give a damn - however it does seem to me that the treatment of Harry and Meghan's kids is not the same as for the others of the Queen's great-grandchildren and that only George has been treated in accordance with the George V rules - Charlotte and Louis have benefited from amendments to that rule (becoming Prince/Princess on birth rather than on the death of the Queen), while Archie is suffering by amendments to that rule (if as is being reported he wont be offered the title of Prince when the Queen dies - which is what is expected to happen under the current rules).
-
I have a solution: just get rid of this dysfunctional institution.
-
I have a solution: just get rid of this dysfunctional institution.
Agree entirely, but it's turned into a soap that will run on without end...
-
According to Spud's link it was to equalise the titles of the Queen's future great-grandchildren to reflect the planned introduction of absolute primogeniture. So not to equalise the titles of all her great-grandchildren - just the ones belonging to the children of the first born of the first born who would inherit whatever goes with inheriting the throne. So I gather this means that if the first born was a girl she would be a Princess and become Queen rather than it passing to a younger brother so the change for equality of sex introduced by Liz meant all Will's babies were entitled to have titles.
-
I have a solution: just get rid of this dysfunctional institution.
As a republican if the choice were mine and mine alone that's what I'd do. But realistically there isn't sufficient support at the moment for getting rid of the royals entirely. It will, of course, be interesting to see how public opinion shifts when the Queen dies and Charles becomes King. My perception is that a huge amount of the public support is actually for the Queen rather than for the institution of monarchy.
However, if there isn't sufficient groundswell to get rid of them entirely then we should consider how the monarchy should be reformed and slimmed down from its current over-blown state that helps generate the corrosive mutually parasitic relationship with the media.
And actually one of the big problems over generations has been the 'spare' in 'heir and spare'. It is crazy enough to have the heir twiddling their thumbs for decades doing a non-job waiting for their parent to die. But for the 'spare' they are effectively expected to devote their whole lives in a non-job without the slightest chance of getting the top job. And this has created huge problems generation after generation - Margaret, Andrew and now Harry.
So if we cannot get rid of the monarchy I'd like to see reforms whereby only those in the direct line are effectively the working royal - all others are expected to earn their keep effectively as a private individual, rather than expected to be a full time royal. If, in the very very unlikely eventuality a whole bunch of people die unexpectedly and they had to attain the throne, well wouldn't it be a breath of free air if that person had lived most of their life making an ordinary living (or rather the kind of ordinary living that the top elite make ;)).
-
I think part of the problem is the idea that royal patronage raises the profile of organisations. All these charities and other organisations expecting a royal to turn up to open something or attend something or raise the profile of an issue. The RF want to slim the monarchy and at the same time they seem to want to make sure there are enough royals to go round to attend things and have a work-life balance. They want privacy but at the same time need to generate enough interest from the media to raise the profile of charities and organisations when they turn up to open things or make speeches.
How tedious and frustrating it must be to know how unremarkable and irrelevant you really are compared to the rest of the world but all the while being expected to be a figurehead for people to look up to. Looks like Meghan and Harry have said sod this, let's make some real money from the celebrity nonsense rather than do the whole service and duty rubbish. Celebrity is a dangerous game - cue mental health problems for them and their off-spring as they expose themselves to the media and the public to look, comment and judge their opinions, behaviour and looks in return for status, wealth and real-estate.
-
I think part of the problem is the idea that royal patronage raises the profile of organisations. All these charities and other organisations expecting a royal to turn up to open something or attend something or raise the profile of an issue.
But I think that is a perculiarity of the UK and I am not convinced that a D-list royal will bring greater profile/money than an A-list (or even B, C or D-list) non royal celebrity.
I think we simply have this rather bizarre tradition that royals expect to be patrons of charities, and charities expect to have royal patrons. Has anyone really looking into whether this actually helps the charity rather than being merely a tradition.
And there is another issue - if royal patronages of charities are effectively just handed out I suspect in many, if not most, cases the royal in question has no special interest in the charity - they just been assigned that charity as part of their 'job'. So I imagine a charity will get far more out of a genuinely interested non royal celebrity than a uninterested royal performing the role.
And let's not forget that the UK isn't the only country that does 'charity' - most other countries, including many without royals, do so too. And they seem to operate fine without royal patronage - in fact there are some countries, e.g. the US where the notion of charitable foundations is much larger than in the UK.
-
This is how I see things playing out.
When the queen passes on and while Charles waits for his coronation, Britain will show it's collective ignorance by clamouring for William to be crowned King, as time goes by, the unconstitutionality of the collective position (52 to 48)will cause the presiding Tory party to get a bit scared and pander to the mob. They will change the law by which time people will have cottoned on to a ''Does it have to be a royal, what abaht a celebrity loved by everyone? Enter Joe the First of The House of Pasquale.
Of course this is a complete fantasy. What country would possibly choose someone to rule over them who had been a TV personality and entertaining clown?
-
I have a solution: just get rid of thi
s dysfunctional institution.
-
In all this kerfuffle one name is noticeably absent.
Princess Anne.
She has an impressive list of charities and other organisations of which she is a supporter and apart from her divorce she just gets her head down and does whatever is needed by the organisations that she supports.
I honestly think that it would do the monarchy a favour if, on the death of his mother, Charles decided that he was too old to be King and let William, leaving aside his attitude to and treatment of his brother and MM, take the throne instead.
I have said before that I am a monarchist but Charles and Andrew have done the institution no favours.
However, the Queen Mother lived to 101, Philip is 100, so there may well be at least another seven years before the question of the succession need be addressed.
Owlswing
)O(
-
According to Spud's link it was to equalise the titles of the Queen's future great-grandchildren to reflect the planned introduction of absolute primogeniture. So not to equalise the titles of all her great-grandchildren - just the ones belonging to the children of the first born of the first born who would inherit whatever goes with inheriting the throne. So I gather this means that if the first born was a girl she would be a Princess and become Queen rather than it passing to a younger brother so the change for equality of sex introduced by Liz meant all Will's babies were entitled to have titles.
This is consistent with George V's decree concerning the son of the son of the Prince of Wales. Let's say George had been a girl: if as the eldest she had been next in line after William, she would have become queen without first being a princess. So George V"s rule about only the first grandson taking the title of Prince had to be changed to include any older sisters. Perhaps not all his siblings, though.
-
This is consistent with George V's decree concerning the son of the son of the Prince of Wales. Let's say George had been a girl: if as the eldest she had been next in line after William, she would have done so without first being a princess. So George V"s rule about the first grandson only taking the title of Prince had to be changed to include any older sisters and by extension all his siblings.
But George V's decree also indicated that all children and grandchildren of a reigning monarch would automatically be offered the title of Prince or Princess. So by that decree (which I don't believe is altered by the Queen's decree which applies only to William's children) then Archie and any other children Harry and Meghan have should be automatically be offered the title of Prince/Princess when Charles becomes King (as they will then be the grandchildren of a reigning monarch).
However it is being reported that they had been informed that this wouldn't happen and that their children wouldn't be offered the title of Prince/Princess not only while the Queen is monarch, but also when Charles becomes monarch.
Now whether the offer of the title is taken up is up to the parents involved, but again reports indicate not having a title was not the Sussex's choice but a decision imposed by the palace.
Now this may all be incorrect and perhaps Archie will become Prince Archie when Charles becomes King (as the decree indicates). However if the reports are correct it does provide evidence of exceptionalism in a negative manner towards the Sussexes and their children.
-
This is from Town and Country - they usually know a thing or two about The RF:
If things remain as they currently stand, that could change when his grandfather becomes the monarch. “Archie will be able to use the title of HRH Prince when Charles becomes King,” says royal historian Carolyn Harris, author of Raising Royalty: 1000 Years of Royal Parenting, told Town & Country shortly after Archie’s birth. She added, “but it is possible that he will not use this title. Archie will not be able to pass the title of Prince or Princess to his children as they will be another generation removed from the sovereign, but the title of Duke of Sussex will pass to Prince Harry's male line descendants.” (Male line refers to the system of patrilineage, in which a child inherits titles from their father, not their mother—unless their mother happens to be Queen.)
Also:
Technically, when Archie was born, he could have used the title of Earl of Dumbarton because he is a great-grandson of the monarch in the male line, and because his father, Prince Harry, has a ducal title (the Duke of Sussex). At the time, it was thought that Harry and Meghan had chosen to forgo the title for their son—but in the Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan said that wasn’t the case. She claimed that it was, in fact, the institution of the monarchy that didn’t want her and Harry’s child to have a title, which the couple learned while she was pregnant with Archie.
More here:
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a27421887/archie-harrison-mountbatten-windsor-title-prince-charles-king/
-
If William as king died without having any children, the next in line would be Harry. Hence the need for all grandchildren of the monarch to be princes/princesses. But as soon as William has heirs, those children precede Harry and so there is no absolute need for William's siblings and cousins to be princes/princesses (which seems unfair but this shows how the system is inherently unfair - at least they keep their titles though). So going by the apparent need, from the time of George V, to slim down the monarchy, you might want to limit those given that title to the first several in line. Somewhere down the line of succession they have to stop having the title prince(ss) and those at that point are bound to feel disadvantaged.
-
I guess if William had not had children, then Harry's kids would need the title prince(ss). But as soon as William did have children, that need was reduced.
-
ffs they can make up any rules they like to include or exclude anyone depending on who they care about at any point! It's a silly game.
-
I guess if William had not had children, then Harry's kids would need the title prince(ss). But as soon as William did have children, that need was reduced.
The issue isn't one of need - frankly no-one needs the title of Prince or Princess.
The issue is whether there is evidence that the palace was acting in a manner towards Harry and Meghan which wasn't in accordance with normal protocol and could be construed as unfair treatment towards them in comparison to other royals in a similar position.
Now of course this is potentially disputed, but if the reports (e.g. in the Times today) are correct that the palace indicated to them that their children would not be entitled to the title of Prince/Princess, not just now, but even when they become the grandchildren of the monarch, then there does appear to be evidence or unreasonable treatment. Specifically because it would run counter to the agreed protocol of the offer of titles, as per the George V decree.
-
I guess we will not know what exactly was said during conversations about Archie and a title. People's recollection of conversations are not always accurate and are coloured by emotion and perceptions and people often believe their memories even when contradicted by objective evidence. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It will just be accusations and counter-accusations, which is all part of the drama Harry and Meghan need to make money from their soap opera.
I get that everyone thinks something should be done to reform the current institutions but I doubt reform will eliminate the toxic personal issues and baggage each individual in an organisation brings with them. There is no way to prevent people from experiencing what they perceive as toxic behaviour as they go through life. No one can anticipate how someone else will react to words because of their personal experiences and what mental health issues these perceptions will cause and what mental health issues the RF have as part of their baggage. No doubt most of that family have felt unsupported and depressed and lost etc etc along with many other ordinary members of the public living ordinary lives.
Meghan's current toxic behaviour to others will be attributed to her mental health issues and any toxic behaviour she has experienced will be attributed to someone else's mental health issues and so it goes on in endless cycles. Harry is an adult and feels let down by his father, who is an adult and feels let down by Harry and round and round it goes.
What seems to be clear is that putting yourself in a the public domain creates an increased risk of mental health issues due to wider exposure to the public and the opportunities for public comment.
Certain roles also carry a higher risk of exposure to toxic behaviour - e.g. the higher up in management people go the more stress they face as they become more of a target for blame as the public face as well as having to deal with inter-personal issues and disagreements, hurt feelings etc amongst the people who report to them. Hence many people do not want these roles, preferring a less stressful, lower-paid role.
The mental stress that goes with being a public figure as part of the RF is one of the reasons Harry's previous girlfriends did not want to marry him. If Meghan was ever serious about staying and being part of the RF she would have set up a support system to deal with the inevitable mental health issues that go with the job. Harry had publicly spoken about his own mental health issues enough times and spoken about the reason why his girlfriends would not commit to a life as a royal. I think she was always looking for a quick exit to the US after a suitable period of time as a way to access the lucrative deals and free herself from the restrictions of Royal protocol.
-
The issue isn't one of need - frankly no-one needs the title of Prince or Princess.
The issue is whether there is evidence that the palace was acting in a manner towards Harry and Meghan which wasn't in accordance with normal protocol and could be construed as unfair treatment towards them in comparison to other royals in a similar position.
Now of course this is potentially disputed, but if the reports (e.g. in the Times today) are correct that the palace indicated to them that their children would not be entitled to the title of Prince/Princess, not just now, but even when they become the grandchildren of the monarch, then there does appear to be evidence or unreasonable treatment. Specifically because it would run counter to the agreed protocol of the offer of titles, as per the George V decree.
Yes I know that is an issue. I'm saying that we also need to understand why the Queen only mentioned William's children in her 2012 decree, and if that reason means that the palace are or are not being unfair to H&M in denying their children titles.
-
Yes I know that is an issue. I'm saying that we also need to understand why the Queen only mentioned William's children in her 2012 decree, and if that reason means that the palace are or are not being unfair to H&M in denying their children titles.
No that is broadly a red herring - the 2012 decree applies only to William's kids so isn't directly relevant to Harry's.
However prior to either William or Harry having kids the default position under the 1917 decree was:
1. While the Queen is monarch only George is a Prince - none of the other children of either William or Harry receive the title of Prince/Princess (as those titles are not given to the great-grandchildren of a monarch except for the direct in-line, in this case George).
2. When the Queen dies and Charles becomes King - all the other children of William and all of Harry's kids are automatically offered the title of Prince/Princess (as those titles under the 1917 decree are automatically offered to all grandchildren of the current monarch).
So that's the default - but there appear to have been two changes to this - one is definite, the other widely reported.
1. That despite the 1917 decree - Charlotte and Louis automatically became Prince/Princess at birth rather than when the Queen dies (the 2012 decree).
2. That despite the 1917 decree Harry's children will not be offered the title of Prince/Princess when the Queen dies (the reported decision on the palace regarding the Sussexes children).
So on the basis that there reports are correct (I know that is an assumption) there has been a change from the default 1917 position that specifically advantages William's kids (well specifically Charlotte and Louis) and another change from the default 1917 position that specifically disadvantages Harry's kids.
You can see why they might consider this to be unreasonable, particularly when clouded by the race issue.
-
ffs they can make up any rules they like to include or exclude anyone depending on who they care about at any point! It's a silly game.
I so agree with this post.
-
I so agree with this post.
And I agree with this post
-
This statement is a wee bit strong but otherwise an interesting discussion (6.5mins long):
Harry & Meghan: A Grotesque and Disgusting Spectacle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF6v7YuRDWA
-
Seen elsewhere:
If you are offended by Harry & Meghan's interview, but not so much by Andrew's interview, then your moral compass is really off.
-
This statement is a wee bit strong but otherwise an interesting discussion (6.5mins long):
Harry & Meghan: A Grotesque and Disgusting Spectacle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF6v7YuRDWA
What was all that about?! An advert for a telescope and then a long ad for some fitness trainer's ad. I listened for ages but nothing about Meghan and Harry!
-
Seen elsewhere:
If you are offended by Harry & Meghan's interview, but not so much by Andrew's interview, then your moral compass is really off.
Yes, I'd agree. I was offended by neither interviews. Andrew's position in the Epstein case is just very annoying.
I'm interested in different views on various subjects.
-
What was all that about?! An advert for a telescope and then a long ad for some fitness trainer's ad. I listened for ages but nothing about Meghan and Harry!
Susan, when you see the advert for the telescope click on 'skip ads' after a countdown of seconds.
-
Susan, when you see the advert for the telescope click on 'skip ads' after a countdown of seconds.
thank you for reply, but I don't think the voice will read me that - I'll try again later.
-
But George V's decree also indicated that all children and grandchildren of a reigning monarch would automatically be offered the title of Prince or Princess. So by that decree (which I don't believe is altered by the Queen's decree which applies only to William's children) then Archie and any other children Harry and Meghan have should be automatically be offered the title of Prince/Princess when Charles becomes King (as they will then be the grandchildren of a reigning monarch).
However it is being reported that they had been informed that this wouldn't happen and that their children wouldn't be offered the title of Prince/Princess not only while the Queen is monarch, but also when Charles becomes monarch.
Now whether the offer of the title is taken up is up to the parents involved, but again reports indicate not having a title was not the Sussex's choice but a decision imposed by the palace.
Now this may all be incorrect and perhaps Archie will become Prince Archie when Charles becomes King (as the decree indicates). However if the reports are correct it does provide evidence of exceptionalism in a negative manner towards the Sussexes and their children.
From the Mail today:
"Indeed, Prince Charles is thought to be in favour of a slimmed down monarchy, with fewer princes and princesses. But this shift pre-dates Harry's marriage and has nothing to do with race."
-
From the Mail today:
"Indeed, Prince Charles is thought to be in favour of a slimmed down monarchy, with fewer princes and princesses. But this shift pre-dates Harry's marriage and has nothing to do with race."
Let's ignore the obvious - that anyone believes anything in the Mail.
Well he's hardly going to say that is about race is he. But if they wanted to slim down the monarchy with fewer princes and princesses why did they decide to make Charlotte and Louise princess and prince when the existing convention - the George V decree - wouldn't give them those titles. So it hardly rings true does it - let's reduce the number of princes and princesses by deciding to create two new ones and refuse the title to one other. Do the maths.
-
Let's ignore the obvious - that anyone believes anything in the Mail.
Well he's hardly going to say that is about race is he. But if they wanted to slim down the monarchy with fewer princes and princesses why did they decide to make Charlotte and Louise princess and prince when the existing convention - the George V decree - wouldn't give them those titles. So it hardly rings true does it - let's reduce the number of princes and princesses by deciding to create two new ones and refuse the title to one other. Do the maths.
Maybe they were prioritizing the equalization of titles in preparation for primogeniture laws about to be passed?
-
Maybe they were prioritizing the equalization of titles in preparation for primogeniture laws about to be passed?
I struggling to see how the two are related.
There is no need to change the rules on titles for second/third born children if you are changing the rules to make the first born rather than the first born son higher in line to the throne.
But the result is that under the previous rules there would have been just one prince/princess (George) amongst that generation. By changing the rules there are now three. So much for reducing the numbers of prince/princesses.
-
Prof,
Yes I thought that too. But they could end up with a situation where the eventual heir is a woman with a younger brother - if, say, George dies before William, leaving Charlotte and Louis.
-
Prof,
Yes I thought that too. But they could end up with a situation where the eventual heir is a woman with a younger brother - if, say, George dies before William, leaving Charlotte and Louis.
Leaving aside my view that we should bin the monarchy, I can't see a problem if the heir was a female with a younger brother.
-
Prof,
Yes I thought that too. But they could end up with a situation where the eventual heir is a woman with a younger brother - if, say, George dies before William, leaving Charlotte and Louis.
Firstly - in this day and age that is pretty unlikely and also it would only be an issue if George died before he had kids himself.
But more importantly - so what, why would this be a problem. With the removal of the male hierarchy why should there be an issue with the first in line being female but with a younger brother - that's what you'd expect to happen from time to time.
-
Firstly - in this day and age that is pretty unlikely and also it would only be an issue if George died before he had kids himself.
But more importantly - so what, why would this be a problem. With the removal of the male hierarchy why should there be an issue with the first in line being female but with a younger brother - that's what you'd expect to happen from time to time.
Indeed.
So if they are intending to slim the monarchy down, focusing on the direct line of succession (ie the eldest son or daughter in each generation) would achieve this, since if William had 3 children and Harry had 2, and they all became princes/princesses on Charles becoming king, that would be five. But if only William's have the title, that makes 3, which is less than 5 (bolt of lightning).
-
Indeed.
So if they are intending to slim the monarchy down, focusing on the direct line of succession (ie the eldest son or daughter in each generation) would achieve this, since if William had 3 children and Harry had 2, and they all became princes/princesses on Charles becoming king, that would be five. But if only William's have the title, that makes 3, which is less than 5 (bolt of lightning).
But if you are focussing on the direct line of succession then you need to focus just on George, and not Charlotte and Louis or you'll simply create the same problem the next generation - noting that Charlotte is to George as Harry is to William. So by making Charlotte and Louis Princess/Prince they are doing exactly the opposite of focussing on the direct line of succession as neither of them are on the direct line of succession.
So the slimmed down approach would be to create an equivalence for all of Charles grandchildren, with the exception of the one (George) who is in the direct line of succession. But that isn't what they've done and their decision has tripled the number of prince/princesses in that generation compared to the default approach of the George V decree.
-
Prof,
No because Charlotte and Louie's children won't become princes and princesses.
-
So the number of princes per generation will be restricted to the number of children of the son of the Prince of Wales.
-
Some European royals actually have proper jobs. Some of our lot should follow their example.
-
So the number of princes per generation will be restricted to the number of children of the son of the Prince of Wales.
Eh - no it would be limited to all the children of any person in direct line to the throne - so currently Charles, William and (in due course when/if he has children) George.
But the fact remains that the changes put in place by the palace has resulted in greater numbers of princes/princesses than had they not made those changes. So without the changes the only title in the youngest generation of the royal would be George. Charlotte, Louis, Archie and the as yet unborn daughter of Harry wouldn't be. So one Prince and four without those titles. The changes mean that three have the titles (George Charlotte and Louis) while two don't.
The point being if you have a claim that the changes are to slim down the royals and reduce the number of princes/princesses, your claim wont hold much water if it results in an increase, not a decrease in the number of princes/princesses.
-
......Meanwhile, back in fancy Windsor dreamland, the pampered pair also hold the titles 'Earl and countess of Dumbarton".
Why Dumbarton was singled out for this insult beats me, as neither of them has ever visited the town.
But that's royal tripe for you.
Oh...I know a dog called Prince.
-
I remember a man whose surname was Prince. He was given the nickname 'Finger'.
-
Not seeing the problem myself. It's up to the current monarch how many princes and princesses they want in their great-grandchildren's generation. If they only want Will's kids to have the title, their prerogative (until we lose the monarchy or change the powers of the monarchy). Which means Archie becomes a Prince (unless he says he doesn't want the title) when/if Charles becomes King regardless of Meg's unverified and vague hearsay to the contrary.
Harry has been bumped down the succession list now Wills has had kids, which isn't a surprise to him. Harry and Meg told Oprah they had been discussing with the Queen for 2 years up to Jan 2020 that they want to be part-time royals on their own terms, as and when they feel like it, while they make some money on the side with their royal profile. They got married in May 2018 - so if it's 2 years of discussion, then that discussion with the Queen had been happening since from before they got married. Not really surprising Archie didn't get made a prince or princess like Will's kids.
It seems Will and Kate found Meg irritating / annoying and did not want to hang out with her all that much - fair enough I feel that way about some of my in-laws. It was Harry's decision to get married to a foreigner and ask her to move to Britain so it's up to the 2 of them to sort out Meg finding some friends who like her and don't find her irritating - e.g. some Americans, the celebrity crowd etc. If Meg is the type of person who needs hand-holding and baby-sitting and has mental health issues, no wonder Will cautioned Harry against marrying her so quickly before she had had a chance to understand what she was letting herself in for. Sounds stupid to deliberately blind yourself to the challenges and then blame everyone else when you fall flat on your face because you don't have the right temperament for the job.
-
Fascinating: Queen Victoria decreed in 1898,
"We do hereby declare our further Royal will and pleasure that the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of "Royal Highness" in addition to such titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or other titles of honour if any as they may otherwise possess".
George V altered this in 1917, and now Elizabeth II in 2012 has changed it back.
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm
-
Fascinating: Queen Victoria decreed in 1898,
"We do hereby declare our further Royal will and pleasure that the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of "Royal Highness" in addition to such titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or other titles of honour if any as they may otherwise possess".
George V altered this in 1917, and now Elizabeth II in 2012 has changed it back.
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm
Interesting.
So George V acted to reduce the numbers of princes/princesses and the Queen has acted to increase them again.
And I gather that the changes George V brought in were specifically for that purpose - to reduce the numbers with those titles, and in doing so create a distinction between the British royal family and other european countries who he considered had a proliferation of princes and princesses.
-
Interesting.
So George V acted to reduce the numbers of princes/princesses and the Queen has acted to increase them again.
And I gather that the changes George V brought in were specifically for that purpose - to reduce the numbers with those titles, and in doing so create a distinction between the British royal family and other european countries who he considered had a proliferation of princes and princesses.
This is true. But George V had 41 cousins and siblings who were divided by the war, so he had good reason. QE II increased them for a different reason, to do with absolute primogeniture. Perhaps this is enough to show that Meghan's claim is wrong?
-
QE II increased them for a different reason, to do with absolute primogeniture.
Sorry that makes no sense - there is no link between the two.
If you change the line of succession from first born male, to first born there is no reason why you also need to change things so that later born children become princes/princesses.
Let's, for the sake of argument compare the current situation to one where Charlotte was the first born and George the second born, but using the George V rules on who is titled prince/princess.
Succession based on first born male:
Actual: Prince George; Charlotte; Louis
Hypothetical with first born girl: Charlotte; Prince George; Louis
Succession based on first born:
Actual: Prince George; Charlotte; Louis
Hypothetical with first born girl: Princess Charlotte; George; Louis
There was absolutely no need to additionally decide to increase the number of princes/princesses from one to three.
-
Sorry that makes no sense - there is no link between the two.
But there was a link between the two, because the 2012 decree was made just before George was born and just before the law on absolute primogeniture was brought in.
If you change the line of succession from first born male, to first born there is no reason why you also need to change things so that later born children become princes/princesses.
Regardless of there being no reason to include all Kate's children, it had the effect of ensuring that had George been a girl, she would have been a princess, as would be fitting for her place in the line of succession.
Let's, for the sake of argument compare the current situation to one where Charlotte was the first born and George the second born, but using the George V rules on who is titled prince/princess.
Succession based on first born male:
Actual: Prince George; Charlotte; Louis
Hypothetical with first born girl: Charlotte; Prince George; Louis
Succession based on first born:
Actual: Prince George; Charlotte; Louis
Hypothetical with first born girl: Princess Charlotte; George; Louis
Yes, I understand how it works.
There was absolutely no need to additionally decide to increase the number of princes/princesses from one to three.
At the time there was no increase, as Kate was expecting her first. And even if (we don't know) the idea was to restrict princes and princesses to the direct line, this still makes sense, because those great grandchildren in the direct line automatically jump the queue ahead of William's brother and uncles. But regardless of whether the idea was to slim down the monarchy, the reason for the change was nothing to do with Harry's children.
-
Which of them is related to Jesus though?
-
But there was a link between the two, because the 2012 decree was made just before George was born and just before the law on absolute primogeniture was brought in.
Regardless of there being no reason to include all Kate's children, it had the effect of ensuring that had George been a girl, she would have been a princess, as would be fitting for her place in the line of succession.
Yes, I understand how it works.
At the time there was no increase, as Kate was expecting her first. And even if (we don't know) the idea was to restrict princes and princesses to the direct line, this still makes sense, because those great grandchildren in the direct line automatically jump the queue ahead of William's brother and uncles. But regardless of whether the idea was to slim down the monarchy, the reason for the change was nothing to do with Harry's children.
As Charles only had 2 kids, unlike Victoria's huge brood, it makes sense to give all of Will's kids the title of Prince or Princess as there is still quite a lot of the worldwide public who buy into the title and think being a Prince or Princess is something special. So until the monarchy is abolished you need a few Princes and Princesses so they can get around to open all the community centres etc and be patrons of things as it's too much for just the eldest kid to do.
The latest announcements from across the pond about a private family phone call seem to be setting the stage for how this drama is going to run and run. Can't say I'm surprised. Meg seemed like a narcissist from fairly early on who turns every issue to be about herself, her feelings and her perception of her public image over all other considerations, including family ties. Her only interest in service to others seems to be based on whatever PR she can wring out if it for herself. Seems Harry has also adopted the same attitude.
-
But there was a link between the two, because the 2012 decree was made just before George was born and just before the law on absolute primogeniture was brought in.
Regardless of there being no reason to include all Kate's children, it had the effect of ensuring that had George been a girl, she would have been a princess, as would be fitting for her place in the line of succession.
But ensuring that the first born (rather than first born son) is both heir and a prince/princess doesn't require extending prince/princess to all children. That is an entirely distinct matter and clearly not linked to primogeniture because it (by definition) does not impact the first born child. So for example - Louis - absolute primogeniture doesn't affect him regardless of the of the birth order of George/Charlotte. However under the old rules he would not be Prince Louis - under the new rules he gains the title - a new Prince is created where one wouldn't otherwise have existed.
-
Her only interest in service to others seems to be based on whatever PR she can wring out of it for herself. Seems Harry has also adopted the same attitude.
Harry is, in all probability, the only one, other than the perpetrators, who really understand exactly what was said and done (really and not made up by the press) to make his wife so unhappy.
If, as appears to be the case, he agrees that she was kept at arm's length and various people decided to try and make sure that Harry and she did not get married.
I give Harry points for, effectively, telling his family that he was not going to stand for the way he saw his wife being treated and shot the Rigid Digit at them!
YES - I feel the Monarch and the monarchy and their staffs have done the monarchy no good at all. Seventy-plus years as a staunch supporter of the monarchy, including military service, has gone down the drain and I am sorry to say that I would rather believe Harry and Megan than the stuff being issued from the Palace by the Monarch or those speaking for the Monarch!.
Owlswing
)O(
-
But ensuring that the first born (rather than first born son) is both heir and a prince/princess doesn't require extending prince/princess to all children. That is an entirely distinct matter and clearly not linked to primogeniture because it (by definition) does not impact the first born child. So for example - Louis - absolute primogeniture doesn't affect him regardless of the of the birth order of George/Charlotte. However under the old rules he would not be Prince Louis - under the new rules he gains the title - a new Prince is created where one wouldn't otherwise have existed.
One wonders, why give even just George the title, why not wait until Charles is king? I don't know but I'd guess it's to demonstrate that he is third in line to the throne. So in that case, why not give the title to his siblings, to demonstrate their position in the line also?
-
One wonders, why give even just George the title, why not wait until Charles is king? I don't know but I'd guess it's to demonstrate that he is third in line to the throne. So in that case, why not give the title to his siblings, to demonstrate their position in the line also?
Not that I'm a monarchist, but to me it seems sensible to restrict the titles and 'working' royals just to those in the direct line to the throne, plus their spouses.
The notion of the 'spare' really is anachronistic in this day and age - realistically how often is the 'spare' likely to need to step in, and even if they had to, to do so from a broadly normal life would be rather refreshing.
For several generations now the 'spare' has been lost in terms of role and has proved problematic to the royals - Margaret, Andrew, Harry. So much better right from the get-go to make it clear to the 'spare' that they wont be a senior working royal and they'd be expected to make their own way in life.
Now it is too late for William & Harry's generation, but not so for the next generation down. But this would mean no titles for Charlotte and Louis and them being brought up to recognise that they wont be senior working royals and will need to live a basically normal life (or at least as normal as a royal can). Now although they look high up in the line to the throne, they'll drift lower as George has kids. Let's not forget that we now see Margaret (before she died), Andrew and Harry as being no-where near to the top of the tree yet they were once 2nd, 2nd and 3rd in line.
It is the notion of the 'spare' which has been really problematic for the royals over generations but they seem not to learn as they seem to be making the same mistake for a further generation in not recognising that that Charlotte and Louis are just Margaret, Andrew and Harry but just in a different generation.
-
Harry is, in all probability, the only one, other than the perpetrators, who really understand exactly what was said and done (really and not made up by the press) to make his wife so unhappy.
If, as appears to be the case, he agrees that she was kept at arm's length and various people decided to try and make sure that Harry and she did not get married.
I give Harry points for, effectively, telling his family that he was not going to stand for the way he saw his wife being treated and shot the Rigid Digit at them!
YES - I feel the Monarch and the monarchy and their staffs have done the monarchy no good at all. Seventy-plus years as a staunch supporter of the monarchy, including military service, has gone down the drain and I am sorry to say that I would rather believe Harry and Megan than the stuff being issued from the Palace by the Monarch or those speaking for the Monarch!.
Owlswing
)O(
I wouldn't get too invested. Like most people, members of the RF probably spend a lot of time lying to themselves and re-writing their personal narratives. The respective PR people are also busy earning their high fees by adding spin before comments are released.
Harry can stick 2 fingers up to the RF but let's face it, the effect is kind of diluted by him whining about daddy cutting him off financially while he sits in a large mansion in an expensive, exclusive celebrity neighbourhood in the middle of a pandemic. His own special narrative about his mother's dysfunctional relationship with the media also doesn't help his credibility. The whole "we want privacy we want to be in the media oh but wait we need to protect Archie from the media but wait we want to be in in the media" flip-flop to try to squeeze money from his dad just looks daft coming from 2 adults in their his 30s.
Meg's main gripe seems to be that the Palace employees are not focusing their time on intervening to counter negative stories appearing about her in the international media. She is convinced it's all due to racism and once Meg lets it be known publicly that she has this expectation it just leads to more negative stories in the media...which she then expects the Palace to intervene to counter.
I am guessing what happened was that as she was only married to the spare, the Palace probably prioritised the main royals - the Queen, Charles, Wills, his wife and kids and for Meg that's proof of racism as opposed to a sensible allocation of limited resources on the important royals. Fergie did not get the Palace intervening to combat negative stories about her in the media. But Megs thinks she is special because she has brown skin and also playing the race card could be a good money-spinner to pay for the mansion.
-
this drama is going to run and run. Can't say I'm surprised. Meg seemed like a narcissist from fairly early on who turns every issue to be about herself, her feelings and her perception of her public image over all other considerations, including family ties. Her only interest in service to others seems to be based on whatever PR she can wring out if it for herself. Seems Harry has also adopted the same attitude.
I agree. From the start I had that impression. However, I long ago learnt never to trust first impressions, so have tried to consider things impartially, but that interview was the decider, I think.
-
Not that I'm a monarchist, but to me it seems sensible to restrict the titles and 'working' royals just to those in the direct line to the throne, plus their spouses.
The notion of the 'spare' really is anachronistic in this day and age - realistically how often is the 'spare' likely to need to step in, and even if they had to, to do so from a broadly normal life would be rather refreshing.
For several generations now the 'spare' has been lost in terms of role and has proved problematic to the royals - Margaret, Andrew, Harry. So much better right from the get-go to make it clear to the 'spare' that they wont be a senior working royal and they'd be expected to make their own way in life.
Now it is too late for William & Harry's generation, but not so for the next generation down. But this would mean no titles for Charlotte and Louis and them being brought up to recognise that they wont be senior working royals and will need to live a basically normal life (or at least as normal as a royal can). Now although they look high up in the line to the throne, they'll drift lower as George has kids. Let's not forget that we now see Margaret (before she died), Andrew and Harry as being no-where near to the top of the tree yet they were once 2nd, 2nd and 3rd in line.
It is the notion of the 'spare' which has been really problematic for the royals over generations but they seem not to learn as they seem to be making the same mistake for a further generation in not recognising that that Charlotte and Louis are just Margaret, Andrew and Harry but just in a different generation.
I was reading about Queen Victoria and Albert and how they thought they could help avoid a repeat of the Napoleonic wars by having their children and grandchildren married into European royal families. This would enable them to influence the Prussians and Germans and hopefully promote friendship with them. But it turned out a disastrous plan, when WWI happened.
The practice of naming the monarch's children and grandchildren princes and princesses only became customary with George !; before that it was just the Prince of Wales, and that was a symbol of English rule over Wales, dating back to when Edward the something conquered Wales; so not a very nice title to have. Knowing all that, and assuming there isn't some other deep and meaningful rationale behind it, I'm not bothered what happens.
The notion of the spare is common to a lot of families I would suggest, with some siblings living in the shadow of others.
-
Here is an interesting poll.
YouGov asked people:
'Imagine that Britain replaced the Queen with an elected head of state, to carry out a similar role. If you could pick anyone currently living to be Britain's elected head of state, who would it be?'
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/03/18/who-would-britons-choose-their-elected-head-state?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=elected_head_of_state
The most popular person (William) only gets 12% support, and astonishingly in a free choice just 3% of people would choose Charles, who will become Head of State when the Queen dies (assuming he survives her). More people would prefer David Attenborough, Boris Johnson, Stephen Fry and ... err ... themselves to Charles.
I think the monarchy is in for a really bumpy time when the Queen dies - realistically the groundswell of support for the monarchy is really a groundswell of support for our current Queen. Once she has gone I can see the dam burst.
-
Here is an interesting poll.
YouGov asked people:
'Imagine that Britain replaced the Queen with an elected head of state, to carry out a similar role. If you could pick anyone currently living to be Britain's elected head of state, who would it be?'
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/03/18/who-would-britons-choose-their-elected-head-state?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=elected_head_of_state
The most popular person (William) only gets 12% support, and astonishingly in a free choice just 3% of people would choose Charles, who will become Head of State when the Queen dies (assuming he survives her). More people would prefer David Attenborough, Boris Johnson, Stephen Fry and ... err ... themselves to Charles.
I think the monarchy is in for a really bumpy time when the Queen dies - realistically the groundswell of support for the monarchy is really a groundswell of support for our current Queen. Once she has gone I can see the dam burst.
Jeremy Corbyn.
-
Jeremy Corbyn.
And Farage.
I know - non-sense isn't it.
Albeit I guess if you can vote for anyone there are a small rump of fanatics that would like to vote for the likes of Corbyn or Farage as Head of State. However in a democratic process they'd have absolutely no hope of being elected.
-
And Farage.
I know - non-sense isn't it.
Albeit I guess if you can vote for anyone there are a small rump of fanatics that would like to vote for the likes of Corbyn or Farage as Head of State. However in a democratic process they'd have absolutely no hope of being elected.
I'd vote for Jerry C. He's a good bloke, and a true democratic socialist. Pity about his idiotic brother, but no-one can be blamed for their relatives.
-
I'd vote for Jerry C. He's a good bloke, and a true democratic socialist. Pity about his idiotic brother, but no-one can be blamed for their relatives.
Fine - that would be your choice were there to be an election for Head of State with no restrictions on who you could vote for.
I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole - his election as leader of the Labour party drove me out of the party - I couldn't remain in a party led by someone so painfully unelectable and with the less leadership experience and ability than your average slug - someone so devoid of leadership ability that his most senior leadership experience prior to be elected as Labour leader was as (I think) chair of the all party group on the Turks and Caicos islands - I kid you not.
But back to the actual topic - the poll was about a head of state with broadly equivalent role to the current Queen - so this could never be someone that would polarise on political grounds - it would need to be someone respected across the political spectrum - hence David Attenborough.
-
I can't see the point of a monarchy if they can't override a decision made by parliament - as long as the monarch is acting as 'defender of the faith'.
-
I can't see the point of a monarchy if they can't override a decision made by parliament - as long as the monarch is acting as 'defender of the faith'.
In a modern democracy the moment an unelected monarch over-rides parliament, they are (quite rightly) toast.
And why on earth should a head of state act as 'defender of the faith' - defending it against what or who? Presumably those who don't hold that faith. A head of state needs to be the head for all of the people, not just the minority with religious belief, let alone the even smaller minority who are christians, or the tiny minority who are members of the organisation (CofE) the 'defender of the faith' refers to - which is about 2% of the population of the UK.
-
Fine - that would be your choice were there to be an election for Head of State with no restrictions on who you could vote for.
I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole - his election as leader of the Labour party drove me out of the party - I couldn't remain in a party led by someone so painfully unelectable and with the less leadership experience and ability than your average slug - someone so devoid of leadership ability that his most senior leadership experience prior to be elected as Labour leader was as (I think) chair of the all party group on the Turks and Caicos islands - I kid you not.
But back to the actual topic - the poll was about a head of state with broadly equivalent role to the current Queen - so this could never be someone that would polarise on political grounds - it would need to be someone respected across the political spectrum - hence David Attenborough.
The bible-thumping wing of Christianity would be unhappy about the election of an atheist like Attenborough.
-
The bible-thumping wing of Christianity would be unhappy about the election of an atheist like Attenborough.
Tough - not that there is any chance of us having an elected HofS.
And I doubt were he to be HofS that he'd declare himself to be the 'Defender of atheism' as he would recognise that to be highly divisive - yet we have a HofS that declares her self to be 'Defender of the faith' despite the fact that a majority of the people she represents do not have religious faith.
Worse still, her son wants to change that to 'Defender of faiths' - while 'Defender of the faith' can be dismissed as an ancient and irrelevant anarchism, changing it to 'Defender of faiths' places him firmly in the camp of one group in this country (those with religious faith) and against another (those without a religious faith).
-
Worse still, her son wants to change that to 'Defender of faiths' - while 'Defender of the faith' can be dismissed as an ancient and irrelevant anarchism, changing it to 'Defender of faiths' places him firmly in the camp of one group in this country (those with religious faith) and against another (those without a religious faith).
That was big-ears making a half-arsed attempt to be modern and inclusive, and making a right pig's ear of it.
-
That was big-ears making a half-arsed attempt to be modern and inclusive, and making a right pig's ear of it.
But it is the exact opposite of being inclusive - effectively re-invigorating an anachronism to specifically make a majority of the UK as being people with a belief (or rather a lack of belief) that needs to be defended against.
And the sad thing is that I suspect that he, and many others in the establishment, consider inclusion with regard to religion as making sure that all the organised religions are represented. Without understanding that the vast, vast majority have no meaningful involvement with any organised religion and therefore most people are being excluded, rather than included, but the approach.
-
I can't see the point of a monarchy if they can't override a decision made by parliament - as long as the monarch is acting as 'defender of the faith'.
If I remember rightly (and I probably don't) the Monarchy has been unable to overrule Parliament for hundreds of years!
Since Cromwell?
Owlswing
)O(
-
I'd vote for Jerry C. He's a good bloke and a true democratic socialist. Pity about his idiotic brother, but no-one can be blamed for their relatives.
And your Mr. Corbyn supported a terror group that murdered and kneecapped friends of mine in the military trying to protect Unionists in NI - he should never have been elected to Parliament on that ground, added to his lying about being a supporter and being a friend of the piece of slime now in the Eire parliament Gerry Adams - on that count alone he is a treasonous piece of shit!
Owlswing
)O(
-
The bible-thumping wing of Christianity would be unhappy about the election of an atheist like Attenborough.
My vote would go to Olivia Colman.
-
My vote would go to Olivia Colman.
My vote would be to that feeling you get that there is something under the bed. I.e. I am unconvinced that it is needed.
-
If I remember rightly (and I probably don't) the Monarchy has been unable to overrule Parliament for hundreds of years!
Since Cromwell?
Owlswing
)O(
I think Brandy Nan was the last monarch who came close to overruling her parliament in England.
The Scots parliament ignored Charles II a few times, and even refused James, Duke of York - the future James VII - entrance whilst he was Charles' lieutennant in Scotland.
-
I think the monarch can overrule parliament in theory, but in practice it would cause a constitutional crisis, as in the play 'King Charles III' by Mike Bartlett. http://culturalattache.co/2016/06/03/king-charles-iii-shakespearean-take-britains-real-life-royals/
-
I can't see the point of a monarchy if they can't override a decision made by parliament - as long as the monarch is acting as 'defender of the faith'.
I can't see the point of a monarchy if they can't override a decision made by parliament - as long as the monarch is acting as 'defender of the faith'.
That title only applies in England, Spud...it was given to Henry VIII by the Pope for being a model Catholic...he kept it when he ditched Catholicism.
The last silly idiot with a golden hat to try and impose his idea of religion in Scotland caused Scotland to rise against him, chuck him out, go to war against him, and led, eventually, to him never needing another haircut.
-
That title only applies in England, Spud...it was given to Henry VIII by the Pope for being a model Catholic...he kept it when he ditched Catholicism.
Which is why I can't get particularly animated over the term, even though as an atheist (and indeed anyone else other than a member of the CofE) it seems deeply divisive. It is really just an anachronistic title, without meaning beyond the notion that the Queen is the head of the CofE (something that should also change).
However if a new monarch tried to make is 'relevant' by changing it to 'defender of faiths' then I would have a problem - that would be a deliberate move and one which couldn't be just tossed away as either anachronistic nor merely reflecting the monarch's role in the CofE. It would be a clear indication that the monarch feels that those in the UK with religious faith need protecting - protecting from who, well presumably those of us in the UK without religious faith. That would place the monarch as clearly 'siding' with the religious and against the non religious.
-
Which is why I can't get particularly animated over the term, even though as an atheist (and indeed anyone else other than a member of the CofE) it seems deeply divisive. It is really just an anachronistic title, without meaning beyond the notion that the Queen is the head of the CofE (something that should also change).
However if a new monarch tried to make is 'relevant' by changing it to 'defender of faiths' then I would have a problem - that would be a deliberate move and one which couldn't be just tossed away as either anachronistic nor merely reflecting the monarch's role in the CofE. It would be a clear indication that the monarch feels that those in the UK with religious faith need protecting - protecting from who, well presumably those of us in the UK without religious faith. That would place the monarch as clearly 'siding' with the religious and against the non religious.
or it could demonstrate the Cyrus like role of a monarch in the face of a vulpine secular humanism, on behalf of the religious minority.
-
or it could demonstrate the Cyrus like role of a monarch in the face of a vulpine secular humanism, on behalf of the religious minority.
What prize bollocks you come out with.
-
Well, all you kiljoy, dump-the-monarchy people are going to get quite a big surprise when the Queen dies in my opinion!:) Charles, or William if Charles has for some reason died, which is doubtful I'd imagine, will step into the role, be crowned King ina a well-planned immaculately presented and rehearsed ceremony, where large crowds wil line the route and the world will watch on TV. And everything will settle nicely back into normal, whatever the normal is at that time. :)
I hope I shall be here to see it, but bearing in mind the Queen's excellent health and my history, it is probably doubtful!
-
Well, all you kiljoy, dump-the-monarchy people are going to get quite a big surprise when the Queen dies in my opinion!:) Charles, or William if Charles has for some reason died, which is doubtful I'd imagine, will step into the role, be crowned King ina a well-planned immaculately presented and rehearsed ceremony, where large crowds wil line the route and the world will watch on TV. And everything will settle nicely back into normal, whatever the normal is at that time. :)
I hope I shall be here to see it, but bearing in mind the Queen's excellent health and my history, it is probably doubtful!
And the protection of Andrew will continue because who cares what he did.
-
Well, all you kiljoy, dump-the-monarchy people are going to get quite a big surprise when the Queen dies in my opinion!:) Charles, or William if Charles has for some reason died, which is doubtful I'd imagine, will step into the role, be crowned King ina a well-planned immaculately presented and rehearsed ceremony, where large crowds wil line the route and the world will watch on TV. And everything will settle nicely back into normal, whatever the normal is at that time. :)
I hope I shall be here to see it, but bearing in mind the Queen's excellent health and my history, it is probably doubtful!
I don't think that is what will happen - particularly if (as we must expect) Charles becomes King. He wont retain the Queen's huge levels of support amongst the public - he isn't widely liked nor respected amongst the UK populace and nothing is going to change that as the public have had plenty of time to make up their minds. Being King wont suddenly make him popular.
So I think there will be a pretty major shift in opinions on the monarchy and the royals when the Queen dies. I don't think it will happen instantly - there will be a sympathy rebound and a ceremony rebound. But once Charles is fully ensconced and on the throne for a year or so there will be a diminution of support.
Will it be enough to make a republic likely - I doubt it, but it will be difficult to reverse.
-
I wouldn't get too invested. Like most people, members of the RF probably spend a lot of time lying to themselves and re-writing their personal narratives. The respective PR people are also busy earning their high fees by adding spin before comments are released.
Harry can stick 2 fingers up to the RF but let's face it, the effect is kind of diluted by him whining about daddy cutting him off financially while he sits in a large mansion in an expensive, exclusive celebrity neighbourhood in the middle of a pandemic. His own special narrative about his mother's dysfunctional relationship with the media also doesn't help his credibility. The whole "we want privacy we want to be in the media oh but wait we need to protect Archie from the media but wait we want to be in in the media" flip-flop to try to squeeze money from his dad just looks daft coming from 2 adults in their his 30s.
Meg's main gripe seems to be that the Palace employees are not focusing their time on intervening to counter negative stories appearing about her in the international media. She is convinced it's all due to racism and once Meg lets it be known publicly that she has this expectation it just leads to more negative stories in the media...which she then expects the Palace to intervene to counter.
I am guessing what happened was that as she was only married to the spare, the Palace probably prioritised the main royals - the Queen, Charles, Wills, his wife and kids and for Meg that's proof of racism as opposed to a sensible allocation of limited resources on the important royals. Fergie did not get the Palace intervening to combat negative stories about her in the media. But Megs thinks she is special because she has brown skin and also playing the race card could be a good money-spinner to pay for the mansion.
I know it's been a long time since we discussed these 2 and their business decision to quit playing Royal to go make some serious money in the US by raising their public and media profile while controlling their own publicity without being subject to the protocols of 'The Firm' i.e. the people who run the institution of the UK Monarchy.
But I notice Harry has cropped up again - apparently he is trying to sue the government as he wants a Judicial Review of the decision to not give him and his family their own British police protection if they visit Britain - Harry and Meghan are offering to pay for it themselves for the time they are in the UK. Apparently the British government and Intelligence services have determined that unless there is a specific, credible threat, people who are not working royals do not get automatic police protection when they fly in to visit. There is also not a pool of spare police officers sitting around for celebrities to hire if they are worried about security.
Harry's legal representative says Harry's security was compromised during his last visit to the UK to unveil the statue of his mother. But as far as anyone can tell the only thing that happened was Harry was chased by a few photographers trying to get his picture. I can understand why Harry does not want photographers getting unauthorised pictures as Harry and Meghan want to control their media profile as it's more lucrative for them if they control the pictures and their privacy. Harry thinks the government has got their understanding of UK law wrong. This should be interesting if it ever gets to court.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-claims-it-is-too-dangerous-to-return-to-britain-sdzktl8xl
“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”
Lilibet, who is seven months old, has yet to meet her great-grandmother, the Queen, the Prince of Wales and other members of the family. Meghan, 40, has not returned to the UK since March 2020.
Win or lose - genius way for Harry and Meghan to generate publicity for themselves and keep their names in the media to help them negotiate their million-dollar deals with Netflix etc: "poor Sussex children can't meet their relatives because of the mean UK government; Queen of England old and this may be the last chance to meet but not interested because the children are half-black."
Good news is Harry and Meghan are now worth far more than they could have ever hoped to be worth if they had stayed in the UK, so hopefully they will count their blessings, live fabulously wealthy lives in designer clothes and wonderful modern mansion in LA, raising their media profile with their celebrity friends and highlighting worthy causes to keep themselves relevant, and we get far less of their self-entitled whinging in the UK Press.
But yes I can see how their narcissistic tendencies might cause them to demand police protection from the Paparazzi if they come to the UK. It would also be helpful for their business interests for them not to be seen as somehow lesser royals - the many millions they are now worth might still not make them feel as important as the police escort given to William and Kate.
-
I know it's been a long time since we discussed these 2 and their business decision to quit playing Royal to go make some serious money in the US by raising their public and media profile while controlling their own publicity without being subject to the protocols of 'The Firm' i.e. the people who run the institution of the UK Monarchy.
But I notice Harry has cropped up again - apparently he is trying to sue the government as he wants a Judicial Review of the decision to not give him and his family their own British police protection if they visit Britain - Harry and Meghan are offering to pay for it themselves for the time they are in the UK. Apparently the British government and Intelligence services have determined that unless there is a specific, credible threat, people who are not working royals do not get automatic police protection when they fly in to visit. There is also not a pool of spare police officers sitting around for celebrities to hire if they are worried about security.
Harry's legal representative says Harry's security was compromised during his last visit to the UK to unveil the statue of his mother. But as far as anyone can tell the only thing that happened was Harry was chased by a few photographers trying to get his picture. I can understand why Harry does not want photographers getting unauthorised pictures as Harry and Meghan want to control their media profile as it's more lucrative for them if they control the pictures and their privacy. Harry thinks the government has got their understanding of UK law wrong. This should be interesting if it ever gets to court.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-claims-it-is-too-dangerous-to-return-to-britain-sdzktl8xl
“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”
Lilibet, who is seven months old, has yet to meet her great-grandmother, the Queen, the Prince of Wales and other members of the family. Meghan, 40, has not returned to the UK since March 2020.
Win or lose - genius way for Harry and Meghan to generate publicity for themselves and keep their names in the media to help them negotiate their million-dollar deals with Netflix etc: "poor Sussex children can't meet their relatives because of the mean UK government; Queen of England old and this may be the last chance to meet but not interested because the children are half-black."
Good news is Harry and Meghan are now worth far more than they could have ever hoped to be worth if they had stayed in the UK, so hopefully they will count their blessings, live fabulously wealthy lives in designer clothes and wonderful modern mansion in LA, raising their media profile with their celebrity friends and highlighting worthy causes to keep themselves relevant, and we get far less of their self-entitled whinging in the UK Press.
But yes I can see how their narcissistic tendencies might cause them to demand police protection from the Paparazzi if they come to the UK. It would also be helpful for their business interests for them not to be seen as somehow lesser royals - the many millions they are now worth might still not make them feel as important as the police escort given to William and Kate.
I get your take on it, I can't speak to their motivation, I don't pay very much attention to articles about them - I was vaguely aware from headlines that he'd been denied police protection, I didn't realise they'd been happy to pay for it.
All I'd say as a partial qualification is that the 'only thing' that happened to his mother was that she was 'chased by a few photographers', and look how that ended up. He may be cynical enough to just leverage that for publicity, she might be leading him on this, I don't know their dynamics, but underneath it all I'd imagine that his understanding of being followed by paparazzi might be more emotionally charged than yours or mine.
O.
-
I get your take on it, I can't speak to their motivation, I don't pay very much attention to articles about them - I was vaguely aware from headlines that he'd been denied police protection, I didn't realise they'd been happy to pay for it.
All I'd say as a partial qualification is that the 'only thing' that happened to his mother was that she was 'chased by a few photographers', and look how that ended up. He may be cynical enough to just leverage that for publicity, she might be leading him on this, I don't know their dynamics, but underneath it all I'd imagine that his understanding of being followed by paparazzi might be more emotionally charged than yours or mine.
O.
Yes I do understand that his emotional reaction is based on his perception of past events about his mother. And emotions are often immune to facts. His mother died because her chauffeur was drunk-driving - according to the autopsy. The alcohol affected his judgement and he did not mention that he was over the limit when Dodi asked him to drive and he started speeding through a tunnel and crashed. Yes it was to get away from media photographers who were chasing them. But Dodi and Di could have stayed at the hotel instead of leaving chased by Paps. They could have decided not to try to use the media when it suited them, by tipping of photographers in their media war with the Royal Family.
I think Harry and Meghan are trying to reign the media in, and trying to use UK police resources for that purpose. Good luck to them but I don't really have any interest in using police resources to support celebrity wars against the Press.
ETA: I think the main cause of Diana's death was a car-crash caused by erratic driving of the chauffeur who was under the influence of alcohol. So I think Harry, like other high-profile individuals who face death threats (JK Rowling, MPs etc), should be ok if his private security detail do not drink on the job or make other serious errors of judgement when it comes to out-running photographers.
It was interesting that in the statement Harry's legal representative made sure to mention Harry's connection to the Royal Family and his war record (well-known US PR tactic). What a great opportunity to publicise that “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats. While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the royal family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.”
ETA: Almost forgot - main cause of Diana's death is she was not wearing a seatbelt. The only guy who was wearing a seat-belt survived. Henri Paul (the driver), Dodi and Diana were not wearing seatbelts and died.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/1/newsid_2493000/2493315.stm
And Harry and Meghan keep making sure they mention their royal connections as a way of making money, so they are not doing anything to reduce their Royal profile even if their connection endangers their lives as they claim - though do not see how they are more at risk than say Princess Anne, who actually faced an attempted kidnapping when she was young, but is not living in terror with permanent police protection.
I assume they need the money to live a certain lifestyle - Harry would claim it's only to pay for the security but given the mansion, its location, the designer clothes, the private jets - I think as usual Harry has his own version of the 'truth' https://pagesix.com/2021/09/27/prince-harry-meghan-markle-take-private-jet-after-global-citizen-live/
-
Just my 2 penneth worth.
There is some risk to him and his familly due to his previous service in the military and that he gets so much publicity. I think offering to pay for police protection is a very reasonable compromise.
He and Megan do get a dis proportionate amount of negative press (here's just one comparison):
https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic (https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic)
I saw an article yesterday complaining about the companies that they are setting up. Why this should be a problem given that many people do this. Why single them out yet again.
I'm certainly not a fan of royalty (or ex royalty) but do think the press (UK anyway) have it in for them.
-
Yes - there is some risk. There has not however been any mention of any credible threats based on his tours of Afghanistan about 9 -10 years ago. If there is a credible threat he has been told the police protection will be provided.
Regarding payment for police protection, the principle seems to be that the police are not for hire for people who do not face a credible threat. I believe Harry has been made aware that the resources do not exist as there is no employment agency with a list of off-duty specially trained policemen waiting to be deployed for hand-holding duties for neurotic celebrities. Therefore currently employed police would have to be pulled off existing duties to help Harry and Meghan not have their pictures taken without their permission.
If there is no credible threat then many people including other members of the Royal Family who do not have constant police protection and who also face some risk, manage to visit family members without all this drama, if they really want to see them.
The threat of bad press is not something against which the police are usually employed to provide protection. Many celebrities, attention-seeking people, high-profile people including other members of the Royal Family face bad press, intrusive photographs and loss of privacy. Hence many people prefer to not seek out high-profile roles but Harry and Meghan seek publicity, along with their connections to the Royal Family, in order to get the Netflix deals to fund their lifestyle. This Judicial Review is one way of getting publicity for their soap-opera lives.
-
but Harry and Meghan seek publicity, along with their connections to the Royal Family, in order to get the Netflix deals to fund their lifestyle.
.. is an readily used method by many of our celebrities around the world. So what. They are still a target by the usual suspect press more than the majority of celebrities. I see no evidence of a balanced press, but a concerted effort to smear them.
I'm certainly no fan of celebrities as a whole and them in particular.
-
.. is an readily used method by many of our celebrities around the world. So what. They are still a target by the usual suspect press more than the majority of celebrities. I see no evidence of a balanced press, but a concerted effort to smear them.
I'm certainly no fan of celebrities as a whole and them in particular.
I agree celebrities who seek publicity make themselves more of a target for the press.
That isn't usually a reason for the UK government to divert police resources - to give celebrities police protection from unfair stories in the press.
Kate faced smear stories when she and William were together after university - they only started being nice to her after many years of giving her a hard time. The press are arbitrary and fickle and aren't very nice as their business model seems to be to manufacture news rather than just report it. Hence, it seems dangerous to try to use the press for your own agenda as they cannot be controlled - much like social media, which invites its own trolls to attention-seeking people.
Harry seems to have got the publicity he needs - good or bad it's all publicity and helps fund their L.A. lifestyle.
-
Just my 2 penneth worth.
There is some risk to him and his familly due to his previous service in the military and that he gets so much publicity. I think offering to pay for police protection is a very reasonable compromise.
He and Megan do get a dis proportionate amount of negative press (here's just one comparison):
https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic (https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic)
I saw an article yesterday complaining about the companies that they are setting up. Why this should be a problem given that many people do this. Why single them out yet again.
I'm certainly not a fan of royalty (or ex royalty) but do think the press (UK anyway) have it in for them.
I agree with a lot of that, and like you I am also no fan of royalty.
I think there are some important differences between Harry and some random celebrity. The first is that Harry had no choice in becoming in the public eye - he was from the day he was born. Secondly his time in the army places him in at additional risk compared to most people in the media, from extremists who opposed military action in Afghanistan. So even though he is no longer a front line royal he remains at risk because of his background and his past. In some respects that makes him more akin to an ex senior minister (e.g. Northern Ireland secretary) who I gather ofter continue to receive security even after they've left office.
Now I think it was the case that were he and Meghan to have remained in the UK that security would have been provided. I think it was the issue of them being abroad that provided the sticking block, which I can see as that is additional cost and their choice.
So surely a solution would be that if he would have been provided with security in the UK, then that could still be provided at public expense when he is in the UK. Security elsewhere would be his own business.
I agree with VG - he cannot simply 'pay' for the UK police - that isn't how they work. I'm sure there are all sorts of people who might want to 'buy' their own personal bobby, but were they allowed to do so there would be less resource available overall as you cannot simply conjure up more police officers.
But I'll come back to my oft-stated position. The fundamental problem here is the symbiotic/parasitic relationship between the royal and the press. We should move to a situation similar to other countries with monarchies, where someone sixth in line to the throne would be expected right from the get-go to pay their way and live a broadly ordinary life with precious little press interest. And, of course other countries recognise that the 'spare', while often being high up in the line of succession when young slips further and further down the succession as time goes on and in our modern world is vanishingly unlikely to even become monarch.
We seem to have a multi-generational problem with the 'spare', Margaret, Andrew, Harry. Will we learn for the next generation or will Charlotte be brought up to be a play thing for the media with no real job, or be allowed (or rather required) so go off and make her own life.
-
If there are any credible threats to Harry because of his participation in Britain's war in Afghanistan, the government has said it will offer him protection while he is in the UK. Harry has not mentioned any credible threats due to Afghanistan.
There are lots of people who were in the armed forces who were posted to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, and like Harry would therefore become legitimate targets for their enemies.
Harry, knowing his high-profile in the Royal Family, chose to pursue a career in the army in a role where he would see action and have to kill Britain's enemies and make himself a target for Britain's enemy in return. He chose to give interviews where he drew attention to what he was doing while he was out there. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/21/prince-harry-afghanistan
I do not know that it is particularly relevant that Harry did not choose to be Royal. People do not choose the circumstances of their birth, and most people have no choice but to adapt and work within the parameters of their particular circumstances.
-
If there are any credible threats to Harry because of his participation in Britain's war in Afghanistan, the government has said it will offer him protection while he is in the UK. Harry has not mentioned any credible threats due to Afghanistan.
There are lots of people who were in the armed forces who were posted to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, and like Harry would therefore become legitimate targets for their enemies.
Harry, knowing his high-profile in the Royal Family, chose to pursue a career in the army in a role where he would see action and have to kill Britain's enemies and make himself a target for Britain's enemy in return. He chose to give interviews where he drew attention to what he was doing while he was out there. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/21/prince-harry-afghanistan
I do not know that it is particularly relevant that Harry did not choose to be Royal. People do not choose the circumstances of their birth, and most people have no choice but to adapt and work within the parameters of their particular circumstances.
Well neither you, nor I are security experts, but as far as I know the Taliban have issued a specific threat to kidnap and murder Harry. Why do you think they might have done that? As far as I'm aware the Taliban have never revoked that threat and they are now back in power in Afghanistan, and we know their record of supporting terrorist organisations when they were previously in power.
It is also widely reported that Harry to considered to be one of the most at risk of the royals.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-among-most-at-23690113
And of course the royals are no stranger to seeing their own targeted by terrorists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma#Death
-
Well neither you, nor I are security experts,
We don't need to be security experts as it's the UK government that makes these decisions and they have said if there is a credible threat to Harry they will provide police protection when he is in the UK but as far as I know the Taliban have issued a specific threat to kidnap and murder Harry. Why do you think they might have done that?
Well obviously because Harry was part of an army invading their country about 10 years ago and was therefore the enemy; along with the other British troops invading Afghanistan. Quite correctly the Talban wanted to kill the enemy before the enemy killed them. Pretty normal for warfare.As far as I'm aware the Taliban have never revoked that threat and they are now back in power in Afghanistan, and we know their record of supporting terrorist organisations when they were previously in power.
Even security ignoramuses like you and me are aware that regimes who threaten to kill invaders into their land rarely have the time to go around revoking their threats against every invader once the invader leaves and goes back to their own country. What the Talban said was "We will do our best to kill Prince Harry and Britain's other troops based in Helmand,"
The British police are not required to provide escorted protection for every British soldier who was threatened by the Taliban while invading their country. But if there is credible evidence that any of the soldiers still face a specific threat now in the UK as a result of being part of the British army in Afghanistan, the police presumably will get involved. Has it been reported that British soldiers who are no longer invading Afghanistan still feel the same level of threat from the Taliban as they felt while they were over there 10 years ago?
It is also widely reported that Harry to considered to be one of the most at risk of the royals.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-among-most-at-23690113
The British government seems to have said that they will make their decision based on the current intelligence information available to them as to who is the most at risk royal and how much actual risk that royal faces and whether it is enough to require police protection.
And of course the royals are no stranger to seeing their own targeted by terrorists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma#Death
Yes the Provisional IRA were able to get access to Mountbatten because he was at his holiday home in the Republic of Ireland. Lots of people have been killed by terrorists and British troops in Ireland as paramilitary troops tried to drive British forces out of Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA then moved their operations to the British mainland as a way of exporting the suffering of the people in Northern Ireland and making British people feel unsafe to try to get them to put pressure on their government regarding political decisions in Northern Ireland. It's part of the risks that go with military force and occupation. The Provisional IRA had few qualms about killing civilians on the Mainland and pointed out that civilian deaths were occurring in Northern Ireland.
Their statement said “The IRA claim responsibility for the execution of Lord Louis Mountbatten. This operation is one of the discriminate ways we can bring to the attention of the English people the continuing occupation of our country. The death of Mountbatten and the tributes paid to him will be seen in sharp contrast to the apathy of the British Government and the English people to the deaths of over three hundred British soldiers, and the deaths of Irish men, women, and children at the hands of their forces”
British troops are currently not occupying Afghanistan so there is less reason for the Taliban to want to kill British troops. Harry is also not currently in Afghanistan in order for the Taliban to have an opportunity to kill him.
-
We don't need to be security experts as it's the UK government that makes these decisions and they have said if there is a credible threat to Harry they will provide police protection when he is in the UK Well obviously because Harry was part of an army invading their country about 10 years ago and was therefore the enemy; along with the other British troops invading Afghanistan. Quite correctly the Talban wanted to kill the enemy before the enemy killed them. Pretty normal for warfare.Even security ignoramuses like you and me are aware that regimes who threaten to kill invaders into their land rarely have the time to go around revoking their threats against every invader once the invader leaves and goes back to their own country. What the Talban said was "We will do our best to kill Prince Harry and Britain's other troops based in Helmand,"
The British police are not required to provide escorted protection for every British soldier who was threatened by the Taliban while invading their country. But if there is credible evidence that any of the soldiers still face a specific threat now in the UK as a result of being part of the British army in Afghanistan, the police presumably will get involved. Has it been reported that British soldiers who are no longer invading Afghanistan still feel the same level of threat from the Taliban as they felt while they were over there 10 years ago?
The British government seems to have said that they will make their decision based on the current intelligence information available to them as to who is the most at risk royal and how much actual risk that royal faces and whether it is enough to require police protection.
I think we can confidently conclude that:
1. Harry is more of a terrorist target than other ex-members of the armed forces of equivalent rank etc because he is a member of the royal family and
2. Harry is more of a terrorist target than other members of the royal family of similar level of succession as he is ex military and specifically due to having served in Afghanistan.
That seems to be the conclusion of the security experts. Interestingly there seems to be an additional threat from the extreme right due to him marrying a black woman.
Whether this is sufficient to warrant additional security measures is, of course, a matter for the government to determine and, also of course, they won't formally comment as to the threat level as that may compromise security. But I think we certainly agree on the following:
1. When he is in the UK any necessary security should be the responsibility of the UK government.
2. As he has chosen to live abroad the UK government should not be responsible for paying for security when he isn't in the UK
3. He cannot just 'hire' the police.
-
Quite correctly the Talban wanted to kill the enemy before the enemy killed them. Pretty normal for warfare.
Not really - even warfare is governed by international laws and conventions - hence war crimes. And those rules of warfare do not permit you to simply kill as many of your enemy as possible. For example you are not permitted to kill enemy combatants if you can reasonably capture them alive.
-
3. He cannot just 'hire' the police.
What is the difference between hiring the police and making a contribution towards costs that will be incurred anyway?
-
What is the difference between hiring the police and making a contribution towards costs that will be incurred anyway?
Because decisions relating to the deployment of the police need to be determined by the police, not by private individuals. Once you allow an individual to determine that they need police, rather than the police themselves making this decision, then you have set a very challenging precedence regardless of who pays. You'd end up with a situation where the availability of policing resource becomes determined by who has the deepest pockets to pay. And regardless of who is paying we don't have an infinite pool of police officers, so if they are deployed in situation A, they cannot be policing in situation B.
But the fundamental issue isn't who foots the bill, but who makes the decision.
-
Not really - even warfare is governed by international laws and conventions - hence war crimes. And those rules of warfare do not permit you to simply kill as many of your enemy as possible. For example you are not permitted to kill enemy combatants if you can reasonably capture them alive.
I think warfare is driven by indoctrinated emotions including those that are religiously inspired, politically inspired and power inspired. Revenge can also play a part. Weapons of mass destruction ensure that as many of the 'enemy' are killed as possible and the language of warfare becomes dehumanised where words like 'target' and 'collateral damage' are used rather than '100 civilians'. I doubt whether the bomber pilot who bombed me out of my home or the Messershmit pilot who open fire on me during the 2nd World War ever thought about being governed by international laws and conventions.
-
I think warfare is driven by indoctrinated emotions including those that are religiously inspired, politically inspired and power inspired. Revenge can also play a part. Weapons of mass destruction ensure that as many of the 'enemy' are killed as possible and the language of warfare becomes dehumanised where words like 'target' and 'collateral damage' are used rather than '100 civilians'. I doubt whether the bomber pilot who bombed me out of my home or the Messershmit pilot who open fire on me during the 2nd World War ever thought about being governed by international laws and conventions.
Of course the international laws regarding warfare have developed since WW2, in part in response to what went on in that conflict.
But you can, and members of the armed forces or their leaders are, subject to international and local law in relation to their actions during conflicts. If you kill an enemy combatant when your legitimate military objective could reasonably be achieved without killing them then you will likely be subject to that law. So, in the most obvious example, if an enemy soldier has genuinely surrendered to you but you kill them anyway then that would be unlawful.
-
Of course the international laws regarding warfare have developed since WW2, in part in response to what went on in that conflict.
But you can, and members of the armed forces or their leaders are, subject to international and local law in relation to their actions during conflicts. If you kill an enemy combatant when your legitimate military objective could reasonably be achieved without killing them then you will likely be subject to that law. So, in the most obvious example, if an enemy soldier has genuinely surrendered to you but you kill them anyway then that would be unlawful.
I think warfare has moved on a lot from this as you get nation states (either US and Allies or Russia) with superior fire power invading less militarily powerful countries and trying to impose their rule directly or indirectly (by supplying arms and training and intelligence to local forces). In asymmetric warfare against an invader a lot of the rules don't apply as you would have no chance of winning against their superior fire power. You just kill people where you can to try to even the odds against you.
For example Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Or for example, 200 Al Qaeda fighters were hiding in some caves in the Tora Bora facing a pounding from US Daisy Cutter bombs during the US invasion of Afghanistan.
The US 'shock and awe' aerial bombardment phase of their invasion of Iraq resulted in (according to Iraq Body Count, which tracks civilian casualties in Iraq), 6,700 civilians killed in the first three weeks of action in Iraq. In the 21 days between 20 March and 9 April, when Baghdad was seized by Allied forces, 320 civilians were killed each day. So it makes sense that people fighting against those tactics used to support ground troops will not be following the rules you have mentioned.
In Afghanistan, for example, following the 1979 Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Massoud, a powerful insurgent leader of the Afghan mujahideen nicknamed "Lion of Panjshir", devised a strategic plan for expelling the invaders and overthrowing the communist regime. The first task was to establish a popularly based resistance force that had the loyalty of the people. The second phase was "active defense" of the Panjshir stronghold, while carrying out asymmetric warfare. In the third phase, the "strategic offensive", Massoud's forces would gain control of large parts of Northern Afghanistan. The fourth phase was the "general application" of Massoud's principles to the whole country, and the defeat of the Afghan communist government.
ETA: https://thoughtsonhistoryweb.wordpress.com/2017/09/17/the-tactics-of-ahmad-shah-massoud/
"The Soviets did not have the luxury of surrendering. Asked why there were no Red Army soldiers in his prisons, Massoud replied, “Hatred for the Russians is just too great. Many mujahedin have lost their families or homes through communist terror. Their first reaction when coming across a Russian is to kill him.”
-
Because decisions relating to the deployment of the police need to be determined by the police, not by private individuals. Once you allow an individual to determine that they need police, rather than the police themselves making this decision, then you have set a very challenging precedence regardless of who pays. You'd end up with a situation where the availability of policing resource becomes determined by who has the deepest pockets to pay. And regardless of who is paying we don't have an infinite pool of police officers, so if they are deployed in situation A, they cannot be policing in situation B.
But the fundamental issue isn't who foots the bill, but who makes the decision.
So there isn't a problem with Harry making a contribution to the policing costs as long as the police were planning to provide him with protection anyway.
-
So there isn't a problem with Harry making a contribution to the policing costs as long as the police were planning to provide him with protection anyway.
I don't see that as an issue as long as it is the police's view that the protection is required.
I think this already happens with policing large events where the police indicate that their presence is required and the organisers are expected to pay for, or at least, contribute to the costs. These are so-called Special Police Services.