The Royals

If i was charles i would cut the titles from them and cut them off but put stuff in trust for Archie and Lillibet and maybe titles they can use when they reach 21

WARNING THIS ENDED UP BEING A BIT OF AN ESSAY & TAKES ABOUT 10 MINS TO READ SO BY ALL MEANS IGNORE IT IF YOU CAN'T BE ARSED WITH ME PRATTlING ON


I rarely talk about The Royals because in general I don't care that much. I see myself as agnostic on the situation or perhaps a dispassionate Republican. If i was to create my own democratic country i would not have a hereditary head of state. That said I have no appetite for a UK president that is elected by a public vote rather someone chosen by our elected representatives in parliament as they do in Germany for example. Perhaps the speaker could serve two 5 yr terms in that role followed by two 5 yr terms as President. Or the candidate could be chosen from a group of independent/cross party members of the Lords or the Supreme Court, somebody who has a track record of impartiality.

That being said when you look at a list of the most democratic nations the Scandanavian countries tend to top the list as do nations such as Canada, The Netherlands & Belgium and The UK whilst towards the bottom of the full democracy group still tends to be in the top 20. Many ardent Republicans will say that The Monarchy is a symbol of the problems with our democracy, that may be true but if something is a symbol then its removal must therefor be symbolic. Surely a better approach would be to look at the Scandanavian Monarchies figure out what it is that makes them the best democracies and incorporate that into our system. If we did that and Charlie streamlined the whole thing down to the direct line of succsssion like his European counterparts & paid a bit of inheritence tax, it wouldn't be perfect but i'd be more than content with that.

In terms of Harry & Meghan traditionally i have been on their side. More so Meghan than Harry, i respect the fact that unlike the rest of them she is a self made woman with her own career before the Royals. Kate may of had a successfull career by herself but if she wasn't the wife of the heir she'd be a nobody. I have sympathy towards her in how she has been treated by the media, the people that go after her the most are part of the worst aspects of our media: The Mail, The Express, Piers Morgan, Dan Wotton, Julia Hartley Brewer, Carole Malone etc.

Its interesting that many of these i've named were until a few days ago big supporters of Andrew Tate. Morgan & Wotton both had interviews with him whilst it was known he was under investigation for trafficking. Meanwhile in the short time between his spat with Greta Thunberg & his arrest JHB tweeted "I’d choose Andrew Tate’s life *every single time* over the life of a half-educated, autistic, doom-mongering eco-cultist." Whilst Malone wrote a column about how Meghan is no Diana where she lambasted the former & lauded the latter, this was a follow up to the one she wrote on the day Diana died & ended up going to print because word of her death happened when it was too late for The Express to pull it criticising Diana & was literally title "The Princess I fear"

When you have this rag-tag of sewer duellers attacking you, I would suggest your someone who's on the right side of things. Now that can be explained away as the opinion of a lefty, what cannot is that the Sussexes have beat the Mail in court twice now. In addition i would add this article in Buzzfeed comparing the media's coverage of Kate & Meghan Buzzfeed - Meghan & Kate

Meghan has made accusations of racism within The Royal Family & this has been met with a lot of pushback from people who weren't there. Putting aside the left wing identity politics of old rich white people, we all know what Prince Philip was like, Charles once told a southern asian woman she didn't look like she was from Manchester, the first time Princess Michael of Kent met Meghan she wore a broach that was a racist caricature and there was the recent incident with The Queen's lady in waiting. That's just what we see in public, the idea that these people would somehow be less racist behind closed doors seems to the birds for me.

All that being said i do take issues with several of the things surrounding Harry & Meghan. First off they made the claim that they got married in secret by The Archbishop of Canterbury. Welby has said that that did not happen & that if he did he would of committed a crime in fulsifing the marriage documents.

They have been rightly critical of The Mail's coverage of them, particulalry Meghan, however they have a $100m deal with Netflix, Jemima Khan (Diana's best friend, Sir James Goldsmith's daughter, Lord Zac Goldsmith's sister, Prime Minister Imran Khan's ex-wife. The upper class huh ?) left her role as a consultant on The Crown because she felt they did not handle Diana's story "respectfully & compassionately". Whilst its might not be as bad as The Mail its still a double standard with a massive price tag.

They expressed their hurt at the removal of their security particularly when under intemse media scrutiny & receiving death threats. The left wing of the culture war divide framed this as being racist because of Meghan & Archie being black/having black ethnicity. What has been overlooked is that Charles has actually removed security from much of his family, siblings, nieces & nephews & their children for reasons relating to my earlier point about streamlining. Harry & Meghan kept their security until they left their role as senior Royals, security is taxpayer funded if you relinquish your duties you don't get.to keep the benefits. Harry & Meghan would make the argument that they wanted a half in half out role & were refused this, forcing them into relinquishing those responsibilities. Nevertheless it refutes the suggestion by the left that it was motivated by racism.

In terms of criticism of the press coverage of Meghan as I have already illustrated there is a lot of legitimate criticism to be had. There is no doubt that many elements of our press is a sesspool from The Phone hacking scandal, their coverage of Diana, too many things in The Sun to mention but the villification of Liverpool fans after Hillsborougj & countdowns to Charlotte Church & Emma Watson's 16th birthdays are the first two to come to mind.

That being said a number of the pro Meghan brigade want to make it seem that the press's hate of Meghan is purely an act of racism. Some of the more extreme left culture warriors, mostly found in The US but can also be found here are of the belief that any negative act against a person of colour by a white establishment is racist.

To counter that I would argue there is a difference between macro & micro, at a micro level some of the coverage has been racist, The Mail published an article that referred to her exotic dna, that is plainly racist, should never of been written, approved by an editor & retracted & apologised for immediately.

At a macro level, this is how the press operates, the reason why Harry is so guarded against them is because he's seen this movie before with his mother & she was the whitest person you could get not just in appearance but also in social class standing. Meghan's supporters will point to the article I shared comparing her to Kate & come to the conclusion that the reason behind why they treat one better than the other is purely racial. However correlation does not always equal causality & the media's coverage of Kate has not always been favourable. Whilst Meghan supporters like to share the previous Buzzfeed article they are less inclined to share this one detailing more negative coverage Buzzfeed - Kate Middleton

The British press published upskirt/dress pics of Middleton, there were unsolicited nude photos of Kate which whilst never published by a British newspaper were taken by a British member of the paparazzi. At one point the coverage of Kate was so bad it was criticised by Parliament's media select committee.

So what changed ? As the article shows the media's coverage flipped when the got married & they realised they could not treat the future Queen Consort in such a manner. Meghan could have a legitimate complaint that didn't happen for her & in fits into the mantra of Harry's book about different treatment of the heir & the spare. In addition I have seen the point made by people in the media that The Cambridges decided to play ball with the sharks & exchanged access for favourable coverage & an easier ride.

Harry meanwhile took a different approach & yrs ago before their leaving the Royal family & everything coming to blows released a deeply critical statement about the press & that was a basically waving a rag to a bull. You can argue that he was morally right to do so, call out the sesspool of sharks for being a sesspool of sharks especially after his mother but unfortjnately the sesspool of sharks has neither morality or self awareness. William doesn't like the press for the same reason's as Harry but as the American civil rights leader Pauli Murray once said "don't get mad, get smart". Harry got mad, William got smart.

All in all I feel rather fed up about the whole thing, they had their Opera interview, they had a Netflix documentary does he really need a book & all the imterviews that go along with it. I think part of the backlash they are receiving over here is down to the cultural diffrences between US & UK. Whilst the US is all open about emotions & will go to a psychiatrist for ptsd after stubbing a toe, the British are more stiff upper lip keep calm & carry on. The idea of publicaly going against the family is heavily frowned upon especially when that family is so heavily entrenched in the nations identity & sense of patriotism.

love this going back in time to when 2 Royals called William and Harold last fell out

(07-01-2023 01:51 )southsidestu Wrote:  WARNING THIS ENDED UP BEING A BIT OF AN ESSAY & TAKES ABOUT 10 MINS TO READ SO BY ALL MEANS IGNORE IT IF YOU CAN'T BE ARSED WITH ME PRATTlING ON

No I think you pretty summed up what I think about the whole affair and on those involved. And I'm utterly sick of it all, overshadowing the real important stuff.

The Firm, Harry and Meghan and especially a certain section of the media all have to take their share of blame over this explosion. In fact the media are the only winners out of all this. It prodded, stirred and indoctrinated, and it is now rinsing the fallout to its utter delight. It really is insidious.

Thank you

Its funny you mentioned indoctrination, when The Queen died I was visiting my Grandfather in Suffolk, that area is prime royalist country. Tory heartland a lot of small rural towns with an old fashioned pub & Anglican church with the rectangular Saxon towers its a full on cliché.

My Aunt, Uncle & cousin came round & they absolutely hate Meghan. My cousin said it with such disdain & I'm like what has she ever done to you ? And she gave the answer that so many people do, for what she did to The Queen.

And I'm like what did she do ? You/all the other people have no idea how the Queen felt about things, if i had to guess how The Queen felt i would guess she loved her Grandson. They just project their own feelings onto others. The Express always like to go with Diana would think, like you have a fucking clue what she would think, I don't either but I imagine she would take her son's corner over Julia Hartley Brewer & Piers Morgan's anyday of the week.

Yet they (my family) all love Kate and I'm like what has she ever done for you ? What does Kate do that is so amazing ? Personally i find her boring she's like a Stepford Wive whenever i see her i'm like is that a human being or have they animated her waxwork from Madame Tussauds ?

Essentially this is a family dispute and therefore none of my business.
However by virtue of writing a book and courting the very category of people who he claims have given he and his family so much trouble over the years Harry has set about trying to make it the business of ordinary folk and no doubt make a shed load of money in the process.
There feels a distinct whiff of living and dying by the same sword here to my mind which rightly or wrongly gives rise to exhaust the emoji to its very death.
The behaviour of modern media is often something I find questionable at best and reprehensible at worst and particularly in respect of Royal coverage. The Royal Family do have cause for considerable gripe imo.

Be that as it may however airing dirty linen in public never strikes me as a particularly good look. You can't pick and choose your family.
I have endless gripes against my own family most notably my brother but nobody would give two hoots about that and quite frankly nor should they.
I am not of a public profile where anyone would care less about my internal family squabbles and grievances.
Harry on the other hand does have a public profile that not only allows for some people to feel interested but invested as well. He is in a position where he can challenge orthodoxy and the institution of the Royal Family by his chosen means.
I suspect it will be viewed differently by the British as opposed to the Americans for example.

Harry is perfectly entitled to love and marry who he likes but I would rather question the wisdom of cynically using the media for such purposes as he appears to be doing given the nature and extent of his gripe with them over such a long period.

I'm on neirther side but I do wonder how Diana would feel about all this. To a certain extent Charles is probably the catalyst for all this, by cheating with Camilla while married to Diana. I still think there are people who think Charles should not be King for the way he treated Diana.
I'm over that now and think Charles may only be on the the throne a short time, before William inherits it who I feel will bettervaccepted by the the British public than Harry. I have had a feww preorders for his book but I juust wonder how quickly it will fly off the shelves.
they probably but feel there now has to be a point where the press needs to stop sensationalising things in the royal family and focus on matters of real concern in real life affecting us all and let he royals sort their problems out in private.

Looks like Charles has cut down the bit in th coronation where the Dukes have to swear allegiance to him and the crown so no Harry and No noncey Andrew

shame the dukes of Glouster and Kent wont get there bit in the coronation but as they are in there late 70s to mid 80s prob best for them as well

Wow that South Park Episode with harry and meghan is so funny