Prince Harry: No royal wants to be king or queen - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/europe/prince-harry-interview/index.html)
Couldn't this be construed as similar to what Diana said about Charles on Panorama? Let's wait for the pro-Charles click to condemn Harry.
If you look at the whole Newsweek interview, at least the part that is online at their site, it is a throwaway one liner, a sentence in a quite long wide ranging interview. Of course the tabs are going to town on it, they always do.
Duke of Hazzard it is. :lol:
William did talk about the "weight of duty" a few months ago. He does not seem so eager either. But Harry has very little chance of being monarch in any case.
Prince Harry says no royal wants to be king or queen
Prince Harry says no royal wants to be king or queen - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40363063)
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 12:11:27 AM
Prince Harry says no one in royal family wants to be king or queen
Prince Harry says no one in royal family wants to be king or queen | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/22/prince-harry-says-no-one-royal-family-wants-king-queen)
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 12:12:48 AM
'No royal wants the throne' Prince Harry's shock claim about the future of the monarchy
Prince Harry: ?No royal wants the throne? in shock claim future of the monarchy | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/819901/prince-harry-royal-family-queen-no-one-wants-throne-future-monarchy-william-charles)
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 12:26:33 AM
'No child should be asked to do that': Prince Harry reveals his anguish at being forced to walk behind his mother's coffin age 12 (and wants to make his mark before George and Charlotte overshadow him)
Prince Harry recalls walking behind mother Diana's coffin | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4625834/Prince-Harry-recalls-walking-mother-s-coffin.html)
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 12:27:37 AM
Prince Harry suggests no one in Royal Family wants the throne
Prince Harry suggests no one in Royal Family wants the throne - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2017-06-22/prince-harry-suggests-no-one-in-royal-family-wants-the-throne/)
Double post auto-merged: June 23, 2017, 12:30:34 AM
Prince Harry: No one in royal family wants to be king or queen
Prince Harry: No one in royal family wants to be king or queen - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/prince-harry-no-one-in-royal-family-wants-to-king-or-queen/)
Quote from: Mike on June 22, 2017, 09:15:34 PM
Prince Harry: No royal wants to be king or queen - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/europe/prince-harry-interview/index.html)
Couldn't this be construed as similar to what Diana said about Charles on Panorama? Let's wait for the pro-Charles click to condemn Harry.
do you mean clique or click? Sorry? Harry never thinks before he speaks.. so he says stupid things.
No I think William, Harry and Kate do not just blurt things out. I think the Heads Together campaign is carefully scripted.
In the article Prince Harry: ?No royal wants the throne? in shock claim future of the monarchy | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/819901/prince-harry-royal-family-queen-no-one-wants-throne-future-monarchy-william-charles)
Harry expressed "that the Queen has achieved for over 60 years". He did not refer to Elizabeth II as Grandmother.
well if no royal wants the throne, why are we paying for htem? I wish he'd keep his mouth shut.
Have you read the whole wide ranging interview given by Harry in the Newsweek, amabel? Or are we talking about the one sentence in the whole interview, which is spoken, obviously in response to a question and wasn't a spontaneous statement? One sentence that was taken up by the tabloid press who tan with it!
We don't know in what context that question was asked, nor do we know what Harry's demeanour was like when he said it. Dour and serious and emphatic? I doubt it. A laughing throw-away remark as in, with a grin 'Ah naar, nobody wants THAT job!' Probably! I do agree though that, as Harry knows what the Sun, DM and the others are like, he shouldn't have said it. However, most of the Newsweek interview and the reporter's comments on Harry are extremely interesting and well worth reading.
No I haven't read the whole article. Not that interested in Harry's ideas, and he seems even allowing for the press/internet concentrating on the more "sound bite" bits of his speech, to have said more than 1 sily thing. I don't think he should have watched what he said but he rarely does.
^ So you comment on something you haven't read, as distinct from your comments on the TV drama King Charles III which you didn't watch, and judged both.
Don't take this the wrong way amabel, but do you immediately conceive dislikes and likings for people the instant you meet them without knowing them, and if you dislike them do you instantly discount any ideas they come up with? Just curious.
I think there is a simple solution to Harry's predicament. Just renounce the right to the throne, title and perks so that you can lead a "normal life". I think that anyone that does not want to be part of the royal family should be given a way out. It all comes from that nonsense about being "ordinary". Ordinary families worry about bills, health etc. If Harry wants to be ordinary, he is quite welcome to my world.
Having said that, there is no guarantee that this is a case of the tabloids picking up a single line and then running with it. I am old enough to remember when Charles' autobiography (a very substantial book) was reduced to a few sentences about not loving Diana. The media can be manipulative and the public can sadly be gullible.
In the original Newsweek article Harry doesn't go on and on about being 'ordinary' either. However, I do agree that both William and Harry (and William has said plenty about wanting to be 'ordinary' over the years) shouldn't say this. Years ago prince Andrew apparently tackled the very young Harry about it and snapped 'You're not ordinary, can't be ordinary' and he was right. They can't be. (OTOH Andrew seems to have problems in accepting that he's more 'ordinary' than he thinks he is! )
On the other hand, in the Newsweek article Harry emphasises that he's 'in a good place', full of enthusiasm for his charities and looks forward to more.
Quote from: Curryong on June 24, 2017, 07:27:16 AM
^ So you comment on something you haven't read, as distinct from your comments on the TV drama King Charles III which you didn't watch, and judged both.
Don't take this the wrong way amabel, but do you immediately conceive dislikes and likings for people the instant you meet them without knowing them, and if you dislike them do you instantly discount any ideas they come up with? Just curious.
no idea what you mean. I have been reading about Harry for years, and I have seen British TV drama for many years. in the ase of Harry, I have never thought he had much brain. But I think he has a kind heart.. and for a time I thought he had more "get up and go" than WIlliam. but lately, I've begun to feel that he is not any more substantial than his brother.. he gave up the army which gave him a direction and focus..
and he is still inclined to say foolish things.
as for British TV drama I think it is atrocious and have more or less given up on watching it. From what Iv'e read here, abut that charles III thing, it is wildly inaccurate, but the inaccuracies don't seem to be there to make any kind of point. So forgive me if I don't waste the few hours I have free of work, to watch such things.
Double post auto-merged: June 24, 2017, 09:07:04 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 08:00:56 AM
I think there is a simple solution to Harry's predicament. Just renounce the right to the throne, title and perks so that you can lead a "normal life". I think that anyone that does not want to be part of the royal family should be given a way out. It all comes from that nonsense about being "ordinary". Ordinary families worry about bills, health etc. If Harry wants to be ordinary, he is quite welcome to my world.
that is nonsense. harry says silly things but of course he is not going ot renounce the life he has. It would be undutiful, unless he is very much unsuited ot it. For another, if he did give up his royal status, he wodl still be a rich young man and probably have an even better time of it, because he woudlnt have the royal duties etc that he does have now
Then if he does not want to renounce, why complain about it or suggest that nobody wants it? You don't want the role, give it up. I am sure there are many in the line of succession who will want to take on the role. This is just a rich kid gone wrong, allowed to do anything he wants because he lost his mum young. Tell that to the people that lost everything in that London Tower. Those are people who have a right to complain. Not someone that has all the advantages of life.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 09:15:29 AM
Then if he does not want to renounce, why complain about it or suggest that nobody wants it? You don't want the role, give it up. I am sure there are many in the line of succession who will want to take on the role. This is just a rich kid gone wrong, allowed to do anything he wants because he lost his mum young. Tell that to the people that lost everything in that London Tower. Those are people who have a right to complain. Not someone that has all the advantages of life.
no there aren't. he "complains" for the same reason most of us complain.. we like to grouse. but I agree that it si stupid to say something like that which does imply "we royals are slogging away out of duty, we don't really want to be here" and it is bound to rouse a lack of sympathy from the people. But as I have repeatedly said "Harry isn't very clever nad often says stupd things.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 24, 2017, 08:00:56 AM
I think there is a simple solution to Harry's predicament. Just renounce the right to the throne, title and perks so that you can lead a "normal life". I think that anyone that does not want to be part of the royal family should be given a way out. It all comes from that nonsense about being "ordinary". Ordinary families worry about bills, health etc. If Harry wants to be ordinary, he is quite welcome to my world.
Having said that, there is no guarantee that this is a case of the tabloids picking up a single line and then running with it. I am old enough to remember when Charles' autobiography (a very substantial book) was reduced to a few sentences about not loving Diana. The media can be manipulative and the public can sadly be gullible.
Well the big thing was Charles' confession of adultery which forced the PB divorce.
The other parts of the book included many of Charles complaints and self pity about his parents and his schools
Harry's in Africa now and then has the upcoming Invictus Games. I think that this interview's remarks are going to fade into the past over the next few months.
Prince Harry jets off on a ten-day safari | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4635148/Prince-Harry-jets-ten-day-safari.html)
Hopefully he realizes that the modern 24-hour news media is scum and he must try to keep away from revealing too much about his thoughts. The PR game is a double edged sword as his own mum proved. They have no loyalty or journalistic integrity. Anything that is sensational, they exaggerate and drown out just about everything else.
If Camilla does, then Harry certainly can! Charles though outdoes them all in soul baring.
No that is not correct. It is a biased, partisan and subjective reading of the facts. The undisputed pioneer and queen of royal media exclusives is none other than Diana, Princess of Wales. She started the process of the confessional
with Morton (although she originally lied about her involvement in the project) and took it to the zenith with panorama. No royal before or ever since has done such a thing. They are unlikely to do because it is not in their nature and the consequences of panorama for the interviewee were not exactly pleasant.
Diana ended up being ordered to divorce after that foray. Harry should keep well away from the PR game that earned his mother awe in the media and among her supporters; but a lot of personal isolation and media frenzies which ended up with her being killed in a tunnel as her vehicle was pursued by the paparazzi. Partisan praise from your supporters can only take you so far; as Diana bitterly learnt after Panorama. The "she stood up for herself" consolation sounds hollow when one realizes what happened afterwards.
Yes, it is correct because it is a discussion board and I have every right to my opinion. So don't go lecturing me about it being biased.
Charles is much older now. Diana lived to 36. Charles has had more years of whingeing. And it is not over yet.
Charles had his friends trash Diana and the Dimbleby book, the Junor book, and Smith book all portray a very complaining and whining prince.
What Diana wrote has nothing to do with the auto accident. It's like saying that Diana would not have been in that tunnel if Charles had dumped Camilla. Kismet.
You cannot possibly tell me I am wrong because you are not the Oracle here. It is an opinion board where we all have a say. You have had your say. I have had mine.
No I will not do so
@sandy. As you are probably aware by now; the very last thing I would do is follow orders no matter how politely phrased. I made my comment and opinion. If you don't like it...tough. It is neither insulting nor patronizing nor even lecturing. It is just a comment that you happen not to like. Perhaps the forum should use an up and down arrow so that people can express dislike of a comment. But as for the request, I stand my comment and I think it is accurate. Biased, subjective and partisan reading of the facts.
Then don't. Whatever you think, I can express my opinion which I am entitled to do. You are the one ordering me around insisting I am wrong. I think that's rude. If you don't like it tough. I find it condescending.
If the last thing you do is not follow orders, then how come you try to order me around and say I am wrong. No, I am not wrong.
You are not unbiased. And I am not going to back off on that statement.
Charles is very whiney and always has been. There I said it. No wonder Camilla has her separate dwelling to go to What a crybaby.
It's so sad how it has all deteriorated from the days the Princess Elizabeth pledged her lifelong duty as a Princess then Queen.
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.
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.
^^^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:
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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4636038/I-wanted-confesses-Harry-reluctant-prince.html#reader-comments)
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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4636038/I-wanted-confesses-Harry-reluctant-prince.html#reader-comments)
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.
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.
Prince Harry Reveals He 'Wanted Out' of the Royal Family
Prince Harry Reveals He ?Wanted Out? of the Royal Family - Us Weekly (http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/prince-harry-reveals-he-wanted-out-of-the-royal-family-w489607)
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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/25/prince-harry-almost-abandoned-royal-duties-stayed-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 (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/821027/prince-harry-wanted-out-royal-family-stayed-because-of-the-queen)
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..
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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'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"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
I know republicanism has some wonderfully logical ideas as to why monarchy is an absurdity but the thing is I find republicans rather dreary. You get these suggestions of opening up Buckingham Palace to refugees and think...oh God no. Not another Cromwell. The idea of Cherie Blair prancing about first lady just does not cut it. I know monarchy is an anachronism but it is far more interesting than the worthy causes of republicanism.
We should take into consideration the number of people that are indifferent and/or don't really want to rock the boat and are worried about their immediate future. The way the public thinks of the queen they do not think of the next in line in that way.
So wait till it's charles or william in charge and again they could have a problem with shouldering the blame for economic problems in the country coming post brexit Britain.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 25, 2017, 06:09:12 PM
You get these suggestions of opening up Buckingham Palace to refugees and think...oh God no.
:lol: :happycry: never heard of that one.
Prince Harry: I wanted out of royal family but stayed to do good
Prince Harry: I wanted out of royal family but stayed to do good | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/25/prince-harry-i-wanted-out-of-royal-family-but-stayed-to-do-good)
Double post auto-merged: June 25, 2017, 08:46:56 PM
Prince Harry: I wanted out of the Royal Family
Prince Harry: I wanted out of the Royal Family (http://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-i-wanted-out-of-the-royal-family-10926654)
QuoteI'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.
IMO it is a combination of the two because even those monarchs/heirs in the NL and Luxembourg which have had a tradition of voluntary abdication have likely had their misgivings. I do know that Willem-Alexander had his own periods of doubt/rebellion during his teens/twenties before he settled into his role as Prince of Orange. Apparently that was part of the reason when he was sent away to boarding school in Wales, rather than continuing his education in the Netherlands.
CP Victoria has made her own thoughts known regarding the time when she will succeed her father as Sweden's monarch because if tradition is followed, it will be on his deathbed.
As I recall W-A
s late brother Friso made a somewhat similar statement to Margaret's when he and his elder brother were children.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 25, 2017, 06:09:12 PM
I know republicanism has some wonderfully logical ideas as to why monarchy is an absurdity but the thing is I find republicans rather dreary. You get these suggestions of opening up Buckingham Palace to refugees and think...oh God no. Not another Cromwell. The idea of Cherie Blair prancing about first lady just does not cut it. I know monarchy is an anachronism but it is far more interesting than the worthy causes of republicanism.
well maybe it is more "interesting". that does not necessarily make it better. why not open up some of Buck Palace to refugees or people made homeless? it isn't such a terrible idea.
Constitutional monarchy can work very well, and most monarchies In Europe have less social and economic differences than many republics... including the US. However, it is a form of govt that will always need fine tuning, to stay abreast of the times while preserving tradtion.
However I think if it ends, it wil be either through some major scandal or traumatic event OR possibly because of a lack of interest by the current monarch..
I hope it will go on, but I have my doubts about Wil and Harry because I think that it needs dutiful people in the job, and neither of them is as dutiful as Charles..
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 04:35:30 AM
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
the british don't have a strong national identity????
The British have a very strong sense of national identity. There's enormous pride in the history traditions and customs of Britain, almost to the point of jingoism sometimes. There's pride in the sense of independence living on islands gives. In various polls things like the BRF, the quality programmes of the BBC, the castles, pubs, countryside, Shakespeare and other major literary figures, the fact that England has never been invaded for a thousand years, not even in two major wars, are all evoked as expressions of national pride, and should be.
Quote from: Curryong on June 26, 2017, 04:47:38 AM
The British have a very strong sense of national identity. There's enormous pride in the history traditions and customs of Britain, almost to the point of jingoism sometimes. There's pride in the sense of independence living on islands gives. In various polls things like the BRF, the quality programmes of the BBC, the castles, pubs,
well I wont mention the War!!
The Easter 1916 rebellion in Dublin, the one in 1922, or the John Cleese one? :P
Actually I remember a TV play in which the actor who played Captain Mainwaring in Dads Army (can't remember his name now,) played an Englishman who gets stuck in a ski lift in Switzerland with a couple of German fellow tourists in the 1970s. It was very funny.
what have the 1916 rebellions got to do wit the British identity?
I was sort of joking about how the British DO go on about WWII, but it is understandable because it was their finest hour. I can't see that the French have a better sense of national identity than the British...
Well, the French may very well be proud of their country and to be fair there is a lot to be proud of. The British do go on and on about the second world war, (though Americans do as well) but that certainly wasn't the finest hour for the French, so they don't obviously speak of it! :D
(I mentoned it once but i think Igot away with it :)
I didn't. I once mentioned Petain because there was something about him in an English language magazine I was reading in Brittany, and the atmosphere around me (in the hotel) went suddenly icy! We were getting on so well with this other couple, a few drinks, a chat about cheese and our journey so far. It could have been the start of a beautiful if long-distance friendship!
^^^LOL
@Curryong-My French-American friends who live near near Lille would always give me a heads up saying "Don't bring up the War" whenever we were meeting with their aunts/uncles who had been children/teens during WWII.
When talking about British identity people do find themselves, in present day, going back to one thing in particular and that is colonialism. There is more to British history than that but it gets brought up in almost every discussion. People mention this repeatedly, the post colonial guilt is brought up repeatedly and what would the one historic element that be that reminds people of the colonial powers, well I'd say that would be the royal family. They still have some of the stolen artifacts, jewelry and tiaras from fromer colonies. Keeping them in place in the 21st century makes little sense.
@tiaras-Would you happen to know which of the jewels in the royal collection were stolen?
The Kohi-noor diamond was stolen.
HOW DOES DIANA come up in this subject?
All about C, PC, and PD again....some of ..get a grip on it pelase! Find another hobby other than here.
PH is ordinary in his word. His word of his family, friends, school when he was boy, etc. Very ordinary for him.
PH does not have to worry about ever being K of his heirs involved in such a big role in BRF.
PH could not last one day, none of them could, not even K or Pippa could last one day in OUR ordinary lives of job hunting, carreer goals, interviews, paying bills, mowing the lawn, driving places, housekeeping our hoes, our shopping for groceries and not fun shopping as K does...etc.
YES, K and MM, if she is going to H's wife, led ordinary lives before. K does not want ordinary. K did not marry ordinary.
Umm, if he marries MM, WE ALL CAN AGREE I THINK, this girl is not interested in being marry to ordinary. She would embrace that BRF thingy of PH's...the perks are literally out of this world.
Sidenote. I am a fan of PD, but LDFS /PD never lived an ordinary day in her life...ordinary worries abut having to work to pay bills for their is no cushion....finding a house one can afford, career goals...plains for retirement...etc. I posted this before. If we have to bring up PD, can we talk abut her being an extraordinary woman trying to be in an ordinary world and she did that, but yet still, her life was never ordinary.
Camilla, who is going to be Queen Camilla and King Charles both want to be K and Q.
K wants to be Q day, some day and you and Pippa want her to be.
Harry needed to not say this, LOL!! Spoke too much.
Quote from: Curryong on June 26, 2017, 01:17:50 PM
I didn't. I once mentioned Petain because there was something about him in an English language magazine I was reading in Brittany, and the atmosphere around me (in the hotel) went suddenly icy! We were getting on so well with this other couple, a few drinks, a chat about cheese and our journey so far. It could have been the start of a beautiful if long-distance friendship!
you should have heard the icy silence tht happened once when I was up in the North and someone Irish, who should have known better, suggested singing some Orange song, like "The Sash".
In response to the off topic subject here.....
The UK of GB and TC will always have a BRF and class system Having the monarchy keeps this whole class system going. England is the epitome of a class system.
You cannot have it without Monarch and then the levels of the nobility.
It is what it is and is what it will be. It has been for thousands of years.
Rest assured, the BRF, and the levels of nobility are not going anywhere.
To separate the BRF 's private lands, funds, art works, jewels, and estates would be near impossible to do. The levels of the nobility are not giving that up.
The time for that to have happened has long passed.
GB has the most strict, formidable class system there is.
The Monarchy and the levels of the nobility will keep in inpalce and even the people(peasants) are satisfied with it. Ex. All the comments abut Carole Mids here and various sites , TDM , etc abut her being a social climber, out of her palce, etc. We Americans think she is a sef-made woman, a success stry.
WIAT for it.
I am not knocking the British class system. The peasants here, I mean Americans , are going nuts with the Republican party and crazy happy for anyone who is wealthy. The goal here s for the American peasants to stay in their place and be happy for billionaires and multimillionaries . Via making sure their health care is in place and the tax system favors them....it is crazy. The Liberals vs the Conservatives is crazy. Trump and party are hurting the people who voted for him and yet, they still think, well, he did not mean that like that. The Liberals are crazy and the DUMMIECRATS are just dummies. The Repulsivcans are repulsive.
YES, in the USA, you can be in your class system. Make your clubs. If some clubs, people, places do not accept, fine. People make their own. Go live in a high end , expensive gated community. No, it is 25 million apt in NYC, but yours...still....your class system. Make your class system. Rise up or fall down the scale. Be rich and poor the next day. Be poor one day and rich the next.
Double post auto-merged: June 26, 2017, 10:23:04 PM
Back to Monarchy and levels of the nobility, I think in time, especially when William becomes K, the BRF will, can decrease in wealth, people, taxed funded ways for their lifestyle which will be ok with him and K and their children and for it, less public duties, less traditional public duties too and just a less public lifestyle.
When W becomes K, we are talking 25 years from now.
In other words, the wealth without the worry and work
But Trudie, the British class system has been breaking down for nearly 200 years. Yes, the remnants of it are still around, perhaps a bit too adhered to still, but I certainly would not put it anywhere near to the Indian caste one which has been around far longer and is beginning to be dismantled only in the past few years, for example.
It started to split with the Reform Bill in the early 1830's when the corrupt nature of the electoral system was tackled by the Whigs. As a result, one heck of a lot of new electorates (some in major industrial cities) came into existence and more importantly, more middleclass people than ever before got the vote and they and their representatives began sitting in Parliamentary seats that had before been only the province of aristocrats and the gentry, and their relatives.
After that huge move the middle classes, moving up up up into the higher ranks of the professions, becoming wealthy through business and trade became very very important in national life. That was exacerbated by a long and lasting rural depression in the countryside in the 1870s. Aristocrats who had largely relied on rents from tenant farmers began to sell their land and in some cases go under. This was the era in which many young Peers began to marry American heiresses in order to save their estates. However, some of them also married Australian governesses and British music hall artistes, and actresses.
Now, this doesn't mean that the middle classes who became wealthy didn't get knighted, join clubs, or receive other titles in the peerage, or send their sons and grandsons to public schools like Eton and Harrow. They did. However, they didn't buy estates that wouldn't be viable, and they themselves weren't the children of aristocrats though they did often move in their circles, including Royal circles.
Taxation after the First World War really finished off many aristo families. The big estates began to be broken up and sold off. Families lived in crumbling big family houses with few servants and very much more simply than they ever did before. That process has gone on and continues today.
The people who are the most prosperous in today's Britain are a mix. Yes, there are wealthy aristos and gentry, who managed to retain some of the family wealth and make careers for themselves, but there are also techno geeks and high flyers on the stock exchange and extremely rich businessmen and women and people in sport, show biz and music who live in a grand manner and have tons of money.
MPs in the Commons are often of working class background and many mingle with the above crowd and with the so-called upper classes, remnants of which hang around still. And what is more important, working class children can join the above if they have enough brains and talent and drive. It is harder for them admittedly in the beginning than for middleclass people's children, but that is the same in the US, isn't it?
@Curryong exactly so there's no need for them really. They're just delaying it imho. The royals aren't necessary in order to keep anything functional in Britain, they're just the remnants of the past.
Most people in Britain are busy worrying about other matters and now they're worried about immigration, national security, brexit etc,there will come a time when people wonder what that family is still doing there and why and it will likely be around the next coronation.
^ If the majority of the British people really didn't want a royal family they would be contacting their MPs, signing petitions, joining republican clubs in their millions and making their feelings known. There'd be debates in the Commons about it should that happen. None of it has, the polls have given the BRF consistent favorability ratings in the polls of up in the 70%'s for decades. These polls have been conducted by reliable firms. While that remains, the royal family remains.
Quote from: amabel on June 26, 2017, 05:03:08 AM
Quote from: Curryong on June 26, 2017, 04:47:38 AM
The British have a very strong sense of national identity. There's enormous pride in the history traditions and customs of Britain, almost to the point of jingoism sometimes. There's pride in the sense of independence living on islands gives. In various polls things like the BRF, the quality programmes of the BBC, the castles, pubs,
well I wont mention the War!!
Please inform me what *country* has NOT had a war within the country or outside the country in this world? Any country and time period will do.
Quote from: Curryong on June 27, 2017, 11:15:07 AM
^ If the majority of the British people really didn't want a royal family they would be contacting their MPs, signing petitions, joining republican clubs in their millions and making their feelings known. There'd be debates in the Commons about it should that happen. None of it has, the polls have given the BRF consistent favorability ratings in the polls of up in the 70%'s for decades. These polls have been conducted by reliable firms. While that remains, the royal family remains.
exacty, and if there were republican feelings, which there aren't.. they certainly would not wait for a coronation to happen.
Nobody is waiting for anything, people are indifferent because they have other more pressing matters to worry about in the present. When the time comes and I think it's definitely in our lifetimes that the standard of living goes down thanks to problems brought on by brexit which still hasn't unfolded yet. In the next two years brexit will be finalised and then watch the austerity, lack of free movement, difficulty filling positions etc and how a difficult economic situation will affect perceptions of the monarchy.
They will be the fall guys for a lot of things and if this workshy attitude by William and Kate is kept up and Charles's unpopularity continues there won't be a monarchy after the queen.
A difficult economy doesn't always translate into unpopularity for the monarchy. When times are insecure sometimes people turn TO institutions that represent certainty. Spain has huge economic problems including sky high unemployment yet Queen Sophia, King Felipe and Queen Letizia are very popular.
And what about the 1930s depression years when some sections of British society didn't get enough to eat or clothe themselves properly? The abdication of Edward VIII occurred in the middle of that, causing a terrible constitutional crisis, yet people didn't rise up and rid themselves of the monarchy.
The British monarchy's lasted for well over a thousand years. For most of that time life was extremely difficult for most of the peasants and working classes. Yet in all that time there has been one break without a monarch and that lasted about twenty years. People aren't keen on politicians now. They certainly don't want one ruling as President, especially if, as with the French system he costs almost as much per year as a monarch.
I can say that the events of the past few weeks have shown that partisan politicians can really mess things up if you give them too much power. The monarchy is the steadying hand that reminds people of their history. Otherwise the UK is nothing more than a vassal republic within the European continent. Not a great place to be for once a magnificent empire IMO.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 29, 2017, 02:20:03 PM
Not a great place to be for once a magnificent empire IMO.
I'd say the only reason they're surviving is because they're trying to convince people they are not
that empire.