Prince Harry: No royal wants to be king or queen

Started by Mike, June 22, 2017, 09:15:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TLLK

Quote"Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don't think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time."

I have yet to read of any European royal who is the heir or close in the line of succession who has ever stated that he or she wants to be the monarch. However they all assume the role when the time comes and their family members support them.

I don't think that Harry's phrasing was the best, but he's stated what everyone of them from London to Madrid thinks IMO.

royalanthropologist

I bet if you asked all the members of the Windsor dynasty whether or not they wanted the top job, you would get some who want it. If William and Harry do not want the job, there is plenty of fish in the sea. They can just publicly announce that they no longer want to be part of the monarchy. I am absolutely certain that Prince Andrew and his daughters in due course would be happy to take on the role.

If they did that, William and Harry would soon discover that the Windsor clan is far wider than their immediate family. These children have been given a totally false impression that without them, the monarchy will end. It will not. There is a long list of people who can take that throne, including members of the Norwegian Royal family.

I find this obsession with being ordinary and yet taking the perks of the royal lifestyle to be absolutely pathetic. It is as pathetic as royals constantly telling us about their feelings and mental health issues. If I want to hear all that, I go to a counselling session as a counselor. The last thing I want to hear is how incredibly pampered millionaires are having a hard time of it.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

TLLK

^^^On this subject we'll have to agree to disagree @royalanthropologist.  I truly doubt that Andrew, who has never impressed me as an energetic or inquisitive personality, really would want this role after observing what his parents have done over the decades and after experiencing his own years of bad press.  IMHO he's content with his role and perks as DoY though he's made no secret that he'd like to see his daughters as full time royals.

Of the current Windsors...who would jump at the chance to be monarch my money would be on HRH Princess Michael of Kent.  :D
(Though I could be completely off base and we'd discover that it's secretly George Earl of St. Andrews who is the plotter.) :eyes: :windsor1:

royalanthropologist

Oh I bet Princes Pushy would love to become HRH the Princess of Wales. It would make a welcome change from always being at the back of the queue and the butt of all royal jokes. Harry sounds very, very ungrateful and self indulgent here. The expose is only getting worse:

I wanted out, confesses Harry the reluctant prince | Daily Mail Online
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

#29
Yes, TLLK, I've had my eye on George for some time. Also James, Prince Edward's son, acts a bit suspiciously sometimes, I've noticed!

Now, I am sure that Andy Pandy would love the job. Being able to fly here, there and everywhere, the pomp, the ceremony, the deference! He would be in heaven. Beatrice might be persuadable. Sarah certainly would. As mother of a future Queen she would get her picture in all the papers every day!

However, Eugenie, no, no, no. From all I've observed of her over the years she would hate it. She has never even wanted her friends to refer to her title, even teasingly. What is more important is that the York family are extraordinarily disliked in Britain.

Seriously, almost every person born into royal families everywhere have had those thoughts of 'Do I really want this' (life as a Royal) at times. When what Bertie Duke of York felt was a blow fell and he knew he was to be King (something he definitely didn't want) he cried on his mother's shoulder.

Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 02:08:38 AM


Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 25, 2017, 01:37:00 AM
Oh I bet Princes Pushy would love to become HRH the Princess of Wales. It would make a welcome change from always being at the back of the queue and the butt of all royal jokes. Harry sounds very, very ungrateful and self indulgent here. The expose is only getting worse:

I wanted out, confesses Harry the reluctant prince | Daily Mail Online

Well, the article is quoting from the original Newsweek interview, and the Newsweek reporter who actually spent time with him was very impressed and says so. She says Harry has conquered his demons, possesses some Royal magic, interacts incredibly well with those he comes in contact with on engagements especially wounded warriors, and is engaging and charming.

If the tabloids want to twist what he was trying to say about his past chaos and the future of the monarchy so be it. I've admitted in a previous post that some of what Harry said about his Royal role and the future of the monarchy probably could have been phrased better.

As for his soul-baring interview on mental health a while ago, charities that dealt with such issues praised him, and there were reports that calls to charity help lines had jumped substantially as a result. Many said they were calling specifically because they had read that interview. That surely is good isn't it?

It was the same effect as when Diana brought eating disorders to the fore by her speeches. People began coming forward to the admittedly few clinics that were available at that time to treat patients with these conditions.

TLLK

QuoteYes, TLLK, I've had my eye on George for some time.

The plotter needs to be banished!!! :P

https://www.geni.com/people/George-Philip-Nicholas-Windsor-styled-Earl-of-St-Andrews/6000000003151256322 Definitely shifty eyed in this photo. Don't be taken in by the smile.

sara8150

#31
Prince Harry Reveals He 'Wanted Out' of the Royal Family
Prince Harry Reveals He ?Wanted Out? of the Royal Family - Us Weekly

Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 04:02:42 AM


Prince Harry: I almost abandoned Royal duties but stayed because of the Queen
Prince Harry: I almost abandoned Royal duties but stayed because of the Queen

Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 04:09:39 AM


Prince Harry reveals he 'wanted out' of the Royal Family - but stayed because of the Queen
Prince Harry reveals he ?wanted out? of the Royal Family - but stayed because of the Queen | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

amabel

nonsnense. Marie Christine is a mile down the list and no one wants "line hopping." the rule is that its William and his kids.  They know that from birth so while they problaby do find it stressful, they expect it. and would probably be unhappy if some circumstance deprived them of it..

royalanthropologist

If they know that from birth then they should stop troubling us with their complaints about not wanting the job. It is very disrespectful if someone offers a job and then you tell them that you don't want it but will just do it anyway. William and Harry are not doing anyone any favors by being in the line of succession. If they find the luxury and prestige too demanding, they can buzz off and someone else will take over. I bet Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk are salivating over this kind of media rubbish that Harry is pushing. Why? Only Harry knows why? They have not quite understood what the media can do to you if you try to get too close to it.

I can already see the signs of the new panorama and Morton hovering if they continue like this. Already Harry has dropped hints that they should not have made him walk behind his mother's coffin. Oh those insensitive Windsors for giving the children a chance to say a final goodbye to their mother...tsk tsk. Then you have the self-aggrandizement about modernizing an institution that is older than him by a millennium. Once again the Spencer gene is at work. That family does really believe they are more royal than the royals (a stupid statement if there ever was one)

Harry is a very, very small part of the institution of monarchy. If he thinks he can single-handedly reform it then he has lots of trouble ahead. It is also disrespectful to his grandmother who has held the act together for 70 years despite members of her own family who were conspiring with republicans to bring it down.  By contrast Harry and William have virtually no experience of doing serious public work. William's speeches in particular are extraordinarily bad.

Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria were below 30 when they inherited the crown. I can never, ever imagine any of them ever saying they did not want to do the job. It seems the royals are getting more incompetent as time goes on. We might end up in an extended therapy session for royals if they continue like this.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

I'm sure the queen wasnt' too happy at becoming queen, so young. OK she would not say anyting in public because she is naturally very reserved and in any case in her day royals didn't talk to the press much.  but she was a young woman, had just been able to spend time with her husband living quietlyi I n Malta, like a "Normal person" and she had to give that up.  I don't know why you keep going on  about "conspirign with republcians" etc.  yes Di's behaviour was bad for the monarchy but it resulted form her very unhappy marriage.  it was an unsual situation.  And if "republicans" do win and the monarchy is ended, well so what? It has had a long history, in its way in the last 100 years it has served Britain well, and it may have had its day.

royalanthropologist

@amabel. I stand by my opinion that Diana was an unwitting tool for Republicans who tried to bring down the monarchy. I do not for one single second imagine that Morton, Bashir or Anthony Holden are monarchists. I have just been reading some of the pieces by Holden about Charles. They are bitter, mean-spirited, blatantly partisan and incredibly republican.  A royal princess who had insight should have stayed well away from such people. Instead in her desire for revenge, she was setting the very inheritance of her children up to fail. She gave them ammunition to try and destroy the monarchy. It is a testament to the strength of the monarchy and the will of the British people that the Windsors survived the republican assaults on them. It is no thanks to Diana who had become a fifth columnist in the family.

Well the results of her handy work are beginning to come out. Expect a "Harry, His True Story" project to come out soon.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

sorry but nonsense - I think that if Holden has moved to becoming more republican, it was through writing his bio of Charles, that the more he saw of Charles the less he liked the idea of his becoming King.
I tink he did like Diana and felt sorry for her.. and that may have pushed him towards a more left wing point of view...  He felt that Charles was too remote from people, and too much inclined to use his positon to put forward his own ideas, which he should not really do.. and that he had not bene a good husband to Diana. 
As for the others they wanted a story, that's all.  Diana was foolish to offer them a story, because it rebounded on her.  by making herslef too public, she alos made her faults too prominent.
And nonsense about Harry. He may be bored at times but he's not going to try and "get out".
besides, so what if it does end in teh next few years? I don't believe it will..  I'm not so wedded to the monarchy that I expect it to continue forever and I can't help feeling that perhaps it has reached its end.

sandy

Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 25, 2017, 07:23:03 AM
@amabel. I stand by my opinion that Diana was an unwitting tool for Republicans who tried to bring down the monarchy. I do not for one single second imagine that Morton, Bashir or Anthony Holden are monarchists. I have just been reading some of the pieces by Holden about Charles. They are bitter, mean-spirited, blatantly partisan and incredibly republican.  A royal princess who had insight should have stayed well away from such people. Instead in her desire for revenge, she was setting the very inheritance of her children up to fail. She gave them ammunition to try and destroy the monarchy. It is a testament to the strength of the monarchy and the will of the British people that the Windsors survived the republican assaults on them. It is no thanks to Diana who had become a fifth columnist in the family.

Well the results of her handy work are beginning to come out. Expect a "Harry, His True Story" project to come out soon.

Diana said publicly she wanted the boys to be prepared for their royal heritage and wanted William to be a good King. She never ever derided the establishment of the monarchy nor said she sympathized with republicans.

Charles provided a lot of ammunition causing a crisis when he named Camilla (forcing the divorce so she was no longer "safe" married friend). He got away with marrying her. But this sort of thing brought down the Duke of Windsor decades before. The embarrassing confessions of Camilla are certainly not going to do him any good. His little ménage with the PBs was really the stuff of the National Enquirer. He confessed to it, not his late ex wife. Charles was the problem., Diana was neutralized.

Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 10:51:26 AM


Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 25, 2017, 06:33:59 AM
If they know that from birth then they should stop troubling us with their complaints about not wanting the job. It is very disrespectful if someone offers a job and then you tell them that you don't want it but will just do it anyway. William and Harry are not doing anyone any favors by being in the line of succession. If they find the luxury and prestige too demanding, they can buzz off and someone else will take over. I bet Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk are salivating over this kind of media rubbish that Harry is pushing. Why? Only Harry knows why? They have not quite understood what the media can do to you if you try to get too close to it.

I can already see the signs of the new panorama and Morton hovering if they continue like this. Already Harry has dropped hints that they should not have made him walk behind his mother's coffin. Oh those insensitive Windsors for giving the children a chance to say a final goodbye to their mother...tsk tsk. Then you have the self-aggrandizement about modernizing an institution that is older than him by a millennium. Once again the Spencer gene is at work. That family does really believe they are more royal than the royals (a stupid statement if there ever was one)

Harry is a very, very small part of the institution of monarchy. If he thinks he can single-handedly reform it then he has lots of trouble ahead. It is also disrespectful to his grandmother who has held the act together for 70 years despite members of her own family who were conspiring with republicans to bring it down.  By contrast Harry and William have virtually no experience of doing serious public work. William's speeches in particular are extraordinarily bad.

Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria were below 30 when they inherited the crown. I can never, ever imagine any of them ever saying they did not want to do the job. It seems the royals are getting more incompetent as time goes on. We might end up in an extended therapy session for royals if they continue like this.

Harry won't give a panorama interview. But I think Camilla might with her soul baring via her buddy Penny Junor.

TLLK

QuoteSeriously, almost every person born into royal families everywhere have had those thoughts of 'Do I really want this' (life as a Royal) at times. When what Bertie Duke of York felt was a blow fell and he knew he was to be King (something he definitely didn't want) he cried on his mother's shoulder.
Honestly I would be puzzled if they didn't have those misgivings about their future role as it is a daunting one.

amabel

Quote from: TLLK on June 25, 2017, 02:30:50 PM
QuoteSeriously, almost every person born into royal families everywhere have had those .
Honestly I would be puzzled if they didn't have those misgivings about their future role as it is a daunting one.
well yes, and there is a kind of "good manners" esp about the Englsih royals that they are not expected to say "Oh Yes I'm longing to be queen or King, that's the top job".
but it is a daunting prospect, knowing your life is mapped out for you.  So that's why really the heir who is brought up knowing it is "there" for him, or her, from childhood is probably the best person.. because they know from early on that they're not going to be able to be a nuclear physicist.. and they try and accept the limitations of the role.  Its been hard on Charles, but I think that he got use to the idea, young and would not wish to give it up, but equally sisn't longing for the day he's king.  so the last thing the RF want is a situation of "going down the line" and saying "who would really like the job?  what about Prince Michael etc?"

tiaras

It's time the monarchy goes away. It's a ridiculous institution and I'm surprised has lasted this long. The cap that the aristocracy creates in Britain keeps the class system going and the existence of a titled nobility restricts social mobility in the country. The British elections made me feel this way because of the options, and the fact that everyone couldn't run, just the leaders of the party. So the good news is there can't be a trump but the bad news is there can never be a Trump i.e. a novelty candidate. This causes so many questions about the way they function as a democracy. I think once the queen is gone ultimately their days will be numbered.

Trudie

I'm not sure if so much as the daunting prospect of becoming sovereign or the fact that to become sovereign one has to lose their parent to take the job. Princess Margaret was quoted as saying to her sister upon hearing that their father was to become King and she became to heiress presumptive "Poor you"



royalanthropologist

I sometimes get amused by the premature predictions of the end of the monarchy. All opinion polls show that the republicans are actually losing ground. That is despite the problems that the monarchy has faced. My own view is that the British people were permanently scarred by the puritanism of Cromwell and will not tolerate a president or presidential figure again. Tony Blair is hated precisely because he behaved as if he was a president. Without the monarchy, the UK is another European vassal state clinging onto the last vestiges of a lost empire. I am not too sure that British want that to happen.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

tiaras

Look at France they've got a strong national identity the British simply don't have.  The class system depreciates social mobility thus destroying quality of life and the ability to dream of a better life for the next generation. It's mostly European countries that have monarchies, even most Asian countries are getting quite democratic or striving to be one. The british won't thinkabout this while brexit, the economic struggles the country is going through continue and while the queen is still alive. But soon enough at least in our lifetimes we'll see the monarchy going away.

Curryong

Quote from: tiaras on June 25, 2017, 04:31:57 PM
It's time the monarchy goes away. It's a ridiculous institution and I'm surprised has lasted this long. The cap that the aristocracy creates in Britain keeps the class system going and the existence of a titled nobility restricts social mobility in the country. The British elections made me feel this way because of the options, and the fact that everyone couldn't run, just the leaders of the party. So the good news is there can't be a trump but the bad news is there can never be a Trump i.e. a novelty candidate. This causes so many questions about the way they function as a democracy. I think once the queen is gone ultimately their days will be numbered.

I don't know what you mean by 'everybody couldn't run just the leaders of the party'. That's the way a Parliamentary (Westminster) system works. Almost everybody is eligible to run as a candidate, independents included.

I watched the proceedings on election night and there were joke or novelty candidates standing in a row with candidates from major and minor parties and independents in those town halls, waiting for votes to be declared. They were certainly running, for a Parliamentary seat. I was very amused to see a man in an Elmo suit, one dressed as a fish finger, one with a bucket on his head, and they had novelty names.

They took part in the political process nonetheless, even though they didn't come anywhere. That's the essence of democracy IMO. Not every country wants a Presidential system. There are plenty of countries around the world with Parliamentary systems, and they manage very well.

amabel

Quote from: tiaras on June 25, 2017, 04:31:57 PM
It's time the monarchy goes away. It's a ridiculous institution and I'm surprised has lasted this long. The cap that the aristocracy creates in Britain keeps the class system going and the existence of a titled nobility restricts social mobility in the country. The British elections made me feel this way because of the options, and the fact that everyone couldn't run, just the leaders of the
what on earth do you mean everyone couldn't run?  run for what?

Curryong

The Japanese have an Imperial Royal family and they are the oldest monarchy in the world. I've holidayed in Malaysia that have Royal families who take it in turn to rule, and Malaysians are perfectly happy with their system, as are the Japanese.

You seem to equate monarchy with not being democratic, when in fact all the European monarchies and the Scandinavian ones are parliamentary democracies with a monarch as figurehead, but Prime ministers, ministers with portfolios, free and regulatory elections and everything else to do with democratic freedoms. Just because a country has a President doesn't make for a freer or more equable society in real terms.

amabel

#47
Quote from: tiaras on June 25, 2017, 04:59:05 PM
Look at France they've got a strong national identity the British simply don't have.  The class system depreciates social mobility thus destroying quality of life and the ability to dream of a better life for the next generation. It's mostly European countries that have monarchies, even most Asian countries are getting quite democratic or striving to be one. The british won't thinkabout this while brexit, the economic struggles the country is going through continue and while the queen is still alive. But soon enough at least in our lifetimes we'll see the monarchy going away.
japan is a European country?

Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 05:18:44 PM


Quote from: Curryong on June 25, 2017, 05:17:30 PM
The Japanese have an Imperial Royal family and they are the oldest monarchy in the world. I've holidayed in Malaysia that have Royal families who take it in turn to rule, and Malaysians are perfectly happy with their system, as are the Japanese.

thnks curry you and I seem to be making the same points, so I'll stop!


Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 05:23:12 PM


Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 25, 2017, 04:44:24 PM
I sometimes get amused by the premature predictions of the end of the monarchy. All opinion polls show that the republicans are actually losing ground. That is despite the problems that the monarchy has faced. My.
I don't think the monarchy will end in the next 20 years, but it will problaby end maybe in another 50.  Nothings forever. but yo seem to be the one who is isnsiting that republicans are out there plotting and hoping for disaffected Royals to help them to push for an end to the monarchy...

tiaras

#48
I said most not ALL. The Japanese monarchy has problems too. They prioritize male heirs and have made princess Masako's life a living hell, so much so that she's had mental health issues worrying about her inability to give the family a male heir. These are not necessarily countries that have the best records on human rights and freedom. They are not the worst but certainly not up to the European standard of human rights in regards to womens, lgbt, etc.

The fact that the figurehead can never be a citizen and that citizens are subjects makes for an entirely different environment. Countries with Presidents aren't perfect but the ones where things go really bad are usually places where the president thinks he's a king of some sort and entitled to forever hold that position thus trying to effectively have a monarchy type of system.

Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 05:29:16 PM


Quote from: amabel on June 25, 2017, 05:17:41 PM
I don't think the monarchy will end in the next 20 years, but it will problaby end maybe in another 50. 
Yes, another 45 ish years and they're history. Even sooner if austerity gets worse than it currently is in the country. Economic problems bring change and if and when things get uncomfortable people will start questioning why monarchs and their families need to have paid holidays they call work or expensive clothes that they don't pay for or full access to the national buildings of the country.

Curryong

People have been predicting the end of monarchy in Britain since at least the 1870s when republicanism in Britain was briefly at its height. It continued on. It was challenged by the end of Victoria's reign, by the Abdication crisis, by the War of the Wales's, by Diana's death. It continued on.

Do you know how many members Republic, the biggest republican organisation in Britain, can boast? About 35,000 to 40,000 members, in a population of 67 million, and many of those aren't active.