Meghan and Harry 4: Working for Netflix

[Loveday]

2 hours ago, Destiny said:

That said, I will continue to have a secret life dream to save the Queen's life so she gives me a boon, and that boon would be unfettered access to the non tourist areas of all the Royal Trust (that's what they call their National Parks or whatever, right?) properties so I can see ALL THE THINGS. Bonus points if I get to check out the vault and see all the pretty shiny objects. I find their objects way more interesting than the people. 

Edit: No, I have no idea if granting a boon for saving someone's life is a thing or not. Dun ruin my life dream!

Ooh, I forgot the Queen has a sister! I can't remember her name though. Someone should clearly hire me as a royals expert. 

Your secret life dream is my secret life dream. I want to be let loose at Windsor, please. Or Kensington Palace, I've often wondered if there's anything left of Victoria's era in the attics there. Oh, anywhere, really, I'm not too picky! ??

[Destiny]

5 minutes ago, Loveday said:

Your secret life dream is my secret life dream. I want to be let loose at Windsor, please. Or Kensington Palace, I've often wondered if there's anything left of Victoria's era in the attics there. Oh, anywhere, really, I'm not too picky! ??

It would be so amazing to be able to just wander and see all the things. Obviously I don't want to go into people's private spaces since they are actually human persons who deserve privacy, but all the areas they don't put on he tour would be so great. 

[MamaJunebug]

4 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Honestly? My first thought was Princess Michael of Kent. She is vile and racist AF. She wore a racist blackamoor brooch to lunch with Meghan and made racists comments to a group of American black customers in an American restaurant!

Was asking about details but No worries - it’s mentioned in the  VF article linked previously. Princess Michael - what a lack of class.

Edited March 11, 2021 by MamaJunebug

[hoipolloi]

Nigel Farage tells us that no one, in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, has done more for people of color -- excuse me, colour -- than the British Royal Family:

 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

1 hour ago, Destiny said:

And she’s a princess but Harry and Meghan’s kid is not? Royalty is weird. Let’s get rid of it. 

Her husband, Prince Michael of Kent, has exactly the same relationship to the Crown as Archie. They are both the sons of younger sons of kings (let’s assume we’re a few years in the future here). So when Prince Michael was a baby, it made sense to everyone that he should be a prince. He’s now in his late seventies, so let’s fast-forward 70 years. King George is on the throne. He’s a grandfather and his younger siblings also have families. Will people think Archie ought to be a prince then?

12 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

Astoundingly rude. About when was this - for Dickduckgo’ing purposes? TIA

Early 2000s. She was in the US because her daughter Ella was graduating from Brown. The restaurant was Da Silvano.

[apandaaries]

21 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Nigel Farage tells us that no one, in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, has done more for people of color -- excuse me, colour -- than the British Royal Family:

 

If he means killing and colonizing, then he might be correct. 
But I fail to see any positive attributes to the British contribution of the history of colonization and slavery.

[MamaJunebug]

1 hour ago, Destiny said:

In trashy tv and trashier romance novels, they call the favor that the royal grants you a boon. IDK if this is really a thing, but I still want the damn favor!

Can I come along and hold your coat? That way I can see all the treasures & not have to worry about dropping any of them. 

[Destiny]

2 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

Can I come along and hold your coat? That way I can see all the treasures & not have to worry about dropping any of them. 

You don't think for a second I'm touching a damn thing do you? I can't even afford an apartment! I certainly can't afford to touch Nice Royal Things (tm). I can't afford to replace them when I drop something expensive. This is a "hands in pockets like I'm five" sort of festivity. ?

2 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Will people think Archie ought to be a prince then?

I won't be alive, but given that Archie is the grandson of a king, I vote yes. I don't really understand who this Michael person even is so maybe it makes sense to have this person be a prince in context. Not that it matters because I think the whole institution is stupid. Being born to be a ruler, even a figurehead is a stupid concept. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Destiny

[HerNameIsBuffy]

6 minutes ago, Destiny said:

Not that it matters because I think the whole institution is stupid. Being born to be a ruler, even a figurehead is a stupid concept. 

This.  I mean it's a silly hypothetical because all of this title crap is just nonsense about birth order.  How is this a thing that American's take seriously.

I guess if one is raised in the UK where it's part of the culture it may well be ingrained in some people as just how things are...like our ridiculous electoral college and 32 oz beverages.  But how an American can assign any gravitas to their monarchy I fail to understand.

(History yes, I find the history fascinating ... I'm talking about caring about rank of these British Kardashians in 2021.)

[Destiny]

For the record, I do think pulling Harry's security detail was a dick move, and one that appears intended to force him to fall back into line based on timing. Whatever else he may be, he is still a VERY prominent member of the Royal Family, with all the dangers that come with that. I'd argue that he needs it more than many other members of the family (I have no idea who does and does not get security) just by virtue of being 'Diana's son' and all that implies for weird obsessed with the royals people. If you asked 100 people to name members of the Royal family, I'd bet that Harry is in the top 5 that come to mind a huge majority of the time. He didn't ask to be born into that, and as such, I think he deserves security.

Whether or not he's properly 'acting royal', whatever the fuck that means, he IS royal and didn't ask to be.

[PreciousPantsofDoom]

First, a disclaimer : I  didn't watch the interview and I haven't followed M&H particularly. I used to be somewhat interested in the Royal Family, but have become less and less so over the years. I'm getting to the point where I'm seeing the point of those who think it's a ridiculous institution.

Having said that, it's been hard to escape the endless publicity about this interview and I have thoughts.

First of all, there are many things about what they said that I have no reason to doubt. If Meghan says she was suicidal, then I believe her. If she says she tried to get help and was discouraged from it, then I believe her. I don't know why she couldn't get the help, (although people have plenty of plausible guesses.) It's hard for many people to find help, and being Royal probably doesn't make it any easier. 

The racist remarks about the baby? Sadly I beleive that too. It's possible it wasn't meant to be hurtful, but that doesn't make it right. Unfortunately, it does sound like there are members of the family and/or the Firm who just don't get it. I hope they can learn and do better, but I don't know them, so who knows. 

The thing with Kate and the bridesmaid dresses sounds more like it was one of those typical bride gets a bit wound up before the wedding things. From the sounds of it apologies were made and it is not that big a deal... Except for the part where somehow Meghan got made into the villain of that story. If that was done, then that was a crappy thing to do. 

I think the part about the security detail being pulled is bullshit. 24/7 Security is currently provided for a very few Royal's only. I think it's just the Queen, Philip, Charles and Camilla, and William and Kate (so the head of state +spouse, and the direct heirs/spouses. There are a few other working royals like Anne and Edward who get protection paid for because they are "working"  as Royal's (I think Andrew got cut.)That security is paid for by taxpayers in the UK when they are there and by Commonwealth taxpayers when they are traveling in those countries.

Harry and Meghan were on the list  of royals whose security costs were covered because they were "working for the Firm" , but I really don't see why they should be paid for once they decided not to participate in the whole Royal Duty thing. Yes, there is still a threat to them, but they have enough money of their own to pay for it themselves. It's not like they are destitute and need some sort of financial hardship clause invoked Why should taxpayers pay for their costs? I think if Harry expected that, then he is either very naiive or stupid. 

I don't think that the degree of threat against them should be a factor in covering their security costs either. It may well be greater due to racist assholes being a thing, but that just means they need to pay for decent security. That's probably a big cost for them, but so what?  How is that the responsibility of taxpayers? 

I will also say that I'm a bit turned off by the interview in general. Sure, I know, they want to tell their side of the story/set the record straight or whatever, but they end up sounding like like every other celebrity before them - telling the tabloids that just want to be left alone while simultaneously making sure that the lord knows what time they will be arriving at the Viper Room. 

 

[tabitha2]

They are in Cali and the cost for security for them every year is even more than Charles could afford... something like 10 million give or take I read. Can’t very well ask the British government to pay either. 
 

 

[sndral]

Here’s an article which discusses security for the RF. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/ever-present-threat-why-stepping-back-has-not-make-sussexes-safer
So if this article is correct, then we can absolve his family of direct responsibility for cutting off security. Although I wonder who the ‘senior civil servants’ are and if they have connections to or work for the RF. I remember the headlines from when they were living in Canada about whether Canada or the UK was paying for their security. I know when Harry & Meghan were dating & he visited her in Canada he had his security with him.

[MamaJunebug]

30 minutes ago, Destiny said:

Whether or not he's properly 'acting royal', whatever the fuck that means, he IS royal and didn't ask to be.

Not to drift the topic, but I’m finishing up the “Crazy Rich Asians” novel trilogy and this discussion is pinging a lot. The books describe, pretty plausibly, how being born into incredible wealth isn’t always as good as it sounds to those of us who actually, you know, worked!

[Destiny]

11 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

Not to drift the topic, but I’m finishing up the “Crazy Rich Asians” novel trilogy and this discussion is pinging a lot. The books describe, pretty plausibly, how being born into incredible wealth isn’t always as good as it sounds to those of us who actually, you know, worked!

I'd love to be super rich, but NEVER famous. I'd make an awesome rich person, but I want NOTHING to do with fame. I'd be a super cool boss who never asked my household staff (y'all, when I win the lottery my ass is getting a personal chef and a live in maid!) to take the green M&Ms out of the bowl (who the fuck puts them in bowls anyway?). I also believe in paying people well and not being an asshole, so who wouldn't love me as a boss?

That said, I've spent some time on the outskirts of some super-rich circles, and the second generation looses a lot by never having had to do a lot of the things that we all had to learn to do. A second generation super rich kid I know of went off to college having no idea how to book their own travel or even get money out of an ATM because someone had always done it for them. There's a lot to be said for having to learn life lessons. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Destiny

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

2 hours ago, Destiny said:

I can't afford to replace them when I drop something expensive. This is a "hands in pockets like I'm five" sort of festivity. 

Ugh, it was "hands in pockets" when I was 5, then when I was like 12 or 13, it was "hold your purse right next to your body so it doesn't swing around and hit things". I still think I hear my mom telling me that when I'm in a store with breakable stuff and I'm clutching my purse!

[klein_roeschen]

6 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

Princess Michael’s father was a Nazi. I got downvoted for pointing that out months ago, along with my opinion that Nazi ideology probably affected her. He didn’t raise her but there has been no atonement or acknowledgement of that Nazi past. 
You can’t change who you are related to, but it’s important to distance yourself from that. 

Both her parents where of former Austrian- Hungarian nobility (former, because with becoming a Republic, Austria got rid officially of things like nobility and titles). And despite how they try to say they where snatched up in 1938, Austria welcomed the Nazis with open arms and waving flags. And one thing the old nobility wasn't know for is being open minded and inclusive. She may be raised by her divorced mother in Australia, but I bet my underwear that her mother shared a lot of the racist mindset about with her former husband. And another thing about the former austrian nobility is their sense of entitlement and being miffed about getting that taken away over 100 years ago. But thats something they share with parts of the former german nobility and royality.

[truthseeker]

6 hours ago, apandaaries said:

If he means killing and colonizing, then he might be correct. 
But I fail to see any positive attributes to the British contribution of the history of colonization and slavery.

Have to agree with this.  I'm studying a unit on Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history at uni at the moment, and the British do not come up looking good (which I knew, but there is SO much more horror than we were ever taught at school in my day).

[truthseeker]

5 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

They are in Cali and the cost for security for them every year is even more than Charles could afford... something like 10 million give or take I read. Can’t very well ask the British government to pay either. 
 

 

That can't be right, surely?  That's more than $27,000 a day!  

[apandaaries]

24 minutes ago, truthseeker said:

Have to agree with this.  I'm studying a unit on Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history at uni at the moment, and the British do not come up looking good (which I knew, but there is SO much more horror than we were ever taught at school in my day).

It’s beyond disturbing to realize and recognize how abhorrently brutal the Brits (and other colonizers) were. The truth is so painful and wretched, and there’s no way to explain it beyond greed and ruthlessness. 
ETA: King Leopold’s Ghost is an excellent and excruciating read. Leopold also advised Q Victoria on how to “deal” with the colonies. Awful, but well researched and grounded in painful truths.

17 minutes ago, truthseeker said:

That can't be right, surely?  That's more than $27,000 a day!  

Given that the BRF has an estimated worth of 88 billion, I don’t think security for baby Archie is too much to ask.

source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/british-royal-family-richest-people-2017-11%3famp

Edited March 11, 2021 by apandaaries
More info

[tabitha2]

Asking That much in security every year for the Son of two non working royals who live thousands of miles away till he is 18 esp when his parents can pay( which they are doing now) is totally unrealistic and never going to happen. 
 

Everything else aside I guess the British people would take kindly to such an extravagant waste of money being sent overseas for the heirs grandson every year when many a toddler in Britain can’t eat a decent meal or have warm clothes . 

Edited March 11, 2021 by tabitha2

[just_ordinary]

 

7 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

Princess Michael’s father was a Nazi. I got downvoted for pointing that out months ago, along with my opinion that Nazi ideology probably affected her. He didn’t raise her but there has been no atonement or acknowledgement of that Nazi past. 
You can’t change who you are related to, but it’s important to distance yourself from that. 

The German Elite were almost all members of the NSDAP and held „honorary“ (?) positions in parts of the SS or other departments. Sadly, there are only few that resisted. The mix of the then normal racism and antisemitism and an opportunistic mindset (the monarchy and all royal roles and titles were abolished after WWI) was strong. The ones only holding those positions without actively killing people (wow, this sounds so wrong) got away pretty well in the Nuremburg Trials (and it’s a well researched fact that they often turned a blind eye). Same goes for her father. He wasn’t some big horrible exception but more the norm. The Nazi time left a big mark- which is why I am eternally grateful that the occupying forces ensured to really layed it on thick. In the 70s and especially the 80s there were massive youth and student movements that started to ask the hard questions and forced a new wave of historical revision. Explicitly holding their parents and grandparents responsible. It was extremely painful as a nation and on personal levels.

That doesn’t mean some diehards didn’t prevail. And she is definitely one of them, but at one point her behaviour went past the old-normal. The majority has managed to realise how wrong it all was. Many are well aware they hold unbiased racist views (still don’t like to get it pointed out though) and most wouldn’t dare to behave like her. We also shouldn’t forget that she was born 1945 and her parents got divorced in 1946. She wasn’t raised in Germany. So her father and his actions had probably very little influence in that. She is a racist well in her own right.

6 hours ago, apandaaries said:

I find it intriguing to see that certain folks can declare themselves not-racist while spewing and perpetuating all the racist lines.

I’m a white mom with a baby (now teen!) of color. One pervasive playground comment from white women was, “she’s so beautiful! What is she?”

I’ve got a few bucks that say none of those women thought they were being racist. My baby was and is obviously human. 
My point: one needn’t think one is being racist to actually be racist. If many people are pointing out problematic stances, it’d be good to sit back and think on things. For a long awhile. And especially before declaring oneself not one whit racist.

Very true. 
“one needn’t think one is being racist to actually be racist.”

But Harry himself said he didn’t point it out. I really wonder if they really raised the problem of racism in the family with the BRF and confronted them. Because it sounds as if the person might still be clueless that they offended. It’s not an excuse for the behaviour, but I think before I open up my family to this kind of criticism I should address this in private. Maybe they did? But that is not what they said on the topic.

In general I find the editing and Oprah’s way of forcing certain topics pretty annoying. I get that racism is THE topic in general at the moment (and rightly so) but they also put stuff together that has nothing to do with each other. Every generation and every trend in society has its own lens- we shouldn’t forget that. But from a professional view I sometimes miss a clear statement under which pretences people look at things. Science does that (that’s why you have those endless pages of method and why you research it). Oprah is seen as a profound journalist but what she presents is mostly in the category of personal remarks than what would be done for a top notch documentary. That’s fine but people tend to take everything at face value but seem to have lost any ability of multidimensional thinking. That doesn’t mean, one couldn’t come to the conclusion the whole BRF are racist arseholes but it would be based on a balanced resource analysis.

[apandaaries]

22 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

 

Everything else aside I guess the British people would take kindly to such an extravagant waste of money being sent overseas for the heirs grandson every year when many a toddler in Britain can’t eat a decent meal or have warm clothes . 

So...perhaps abolish the monarchy and free up billions for the British impoverished? Perhaps throw a few billions to the former colonies?

I’m okay with that. ?‍♀️

5 hours ago, Destiny said:

 

That said, I've spent some time on the outskirts of some super-rich circles, and the second generation looses a lot by never having had to do a lot of the things that we all had to learn to do. A second generation super rich kid I know of went off to college having no idea how to book their own travel or even get money out of an ATM because someone had always done it for them. There's a lot to be said for having to learn life lessons. 

Truth. 
never met so many former heroin addicts as when I dated a man from Calabasas. Too much money and too much time led to too many teens getting beyond fucked up. 
inherited wealth is always a problem. People need to work.

Edited March 11, 2021 by apandaaries
It’s okay to try to be concise.

[Pleiades_06]

32 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

Many are well aware they hold unbiased racist views (still don’t like to get it pointed out though)

I think you mean biased racist views. And your answer here shows you’ve done the work. 

I think a lot of Europeans and US Americans haven’t done the work. They minimize colonialism and the impact it has on people of color. If BIPOC don’t conform to what white people think is right and proper, it’s over. 

 

41 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

That’s fine but people tend to take everything at face value but seem to have lost any ability of multidimensional thinking.

Multidimensional thinking about what? About whether something racist really happened?

Oprah isn’t a researcher, and scientific/historical research can be horrible and biased as well. Just because you follow good protocols doesn’t mean you aren’t biased.

[tabitha2]

According to current approval ratings The Majority of the British and Commonwealth  citizens want to keep their monarchy or don’t care either way so take it up with them.