Charles and Camilla

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

But this is not 1523. The King can’t legally force Andrew to desist or Exile or put him away. He already has had  his Royal privileges and employment taken.    

Most men who committed his crimes would be in jail.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Jackie3

[noseybutt]

Likely an unpopular opinion, but I have zeroes issues with families (and esp mothers) maintaining contact—even support—for the Andrews of the world.

But in more typical circumstances, this would have meant his mother visiting him in prison or in very humble housing. 

The issue is that his consequences—compared to more typical circumstances—have been minimal. He is still a wealthy man. He still has relationships and seedy access to the powerful. He still participates in the pageantry.

 

 

[hoipolloi]

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

The King can’t legally force Andrew to desist or Exile or put him away.

No, but C3 also doesn't have to enable Andrew.

2 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

The issue is that his consequences—compared to more typical circumstances—have been minimal. He is still a wealthy man. He still has relationships and seedy access to the powerful. He still participates in the pageantry.

All this. I fail to see why C3 should do anything to "improve" the existing situation. Andrew has everything he needs and then some. If they give into his whining, they will all live to regret it.

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

But this is not 1523. The King can’t legally force Andrew to desist or Exile or put him away. He already has had  his Royal privileges and employment taken.    

The queen could have not rescued him from the deposition. That she could have done and that level of enabling will always be a stain.

7 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

No, but C3 also doesn't have to enable Andrew.

All this. I fail to see why C3 should do anything to "improve" the existing situation. Andrew has everything he needs and then some. If they give into his whining, they will all live to regret it.

Typing at the same time and using similar language.

This story is where the BRF really sucks.  It’s all backwards. Most parents would be forced to let their child experience the consequences because most families have neither money nor power to do otherwise. But a mother or brother can always maintain connection if they choose even with family members who have done horrible things. That’s what many (most) mothers do and thank goodness for that.

But enabling? Nah. That’s not good for anyone.

Edited January 25, 2023 by noseybutt

[viii]

46 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

The issue is that his consequences—compared to more typical circumstances—have been minimal. He is still a wealthy man. He still has relationships and seedy access to the powerful. He still participates in the pageantry.

All this but I also hate that Harry’s actions have been deemed worse by majority of people and media, even though Harry hasn’t come close to the foulness that is Andrew of York. 

[noseybutt]

12 minutes ago, viii said:

All this but I also hate that Harry’s actions have been deemed worse by majority of people and media, even though Harry hasn’t come close to the foulness that is Andrew of York. 

100%. Harry and Meghan don’t strike me as honorable people but neither are they terrible. When their actions are compared to the rest of the royal family, they kind of fall somewhere mid range. 

[Coconut Flan]

Harry and Meghan have been scoring own goals.  If they didn't try put themselves forward, no one would still be talking about them.  Thus, Andrew trying to push himself out there again is bringing up the discussion.  Is it a requirement that half the BRF be attention whores or is it simply a product of their upbringing?  

[noseybutt]

12 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Harry and Meghan have been scoring own goals.  If they didn't try put themselves forward, no one would still be talking about them.  Thus, Andrew trying to push himself out there again is bringing up the discussion.  Is it a requirement that half the BRF be attention whores or is it simply a product of their upbringing?  

The bolded made me laugh but it’s also an interesting question. As an institution, they need attention otherwise there would be no relevance, yes?

[Jackie3]

28 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

100%. Harry and Meghan don’t strike me as honorable people but neither are they terrible. When their actions are compared to the rest of the royal family, they kind of fall somewhere mid range. 

Being married and moving to California puts you mid-range between good and evil? A little better than a pedophile and a home-wrecker?

If H&M are a little better than adulterers, where is all the fury at Charles and Camilla? And Andrew?

I do understand M&H's crimes, though. They are:

falling in love

getting married

failing to endure racism without complaint

moving to California

speaking and writing about their experiences

These things are really bad, I agree. But are they really just a bit better than adultery, accepting cash for access, and home-wrecking?

Edited January 25, 2023 by Jackie3

[viii]

A product of their (or, well, Harry’s) upbringing. The royal family are figureheads and nothing more. They need the relevance of people talking about them, otherwise people might start wondering what the point of them are. 

[klein_roeschen]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

Harry and Meghan have been scoring own goals.  If they didn't try put themselves forward, no one would still be talking about them.  Thus, Andrew trying to push himself out there again is bringing up the discussion.  Is it a requirement that half the BRF be attention whores or is it simply a product of their upbringing?  

I vote for upbringing. They where told since birth that they are a future figurehead and a prominent public figure because your parent is the regent/ you are the child of the future regent, it will move into the head and lives in a castle up there rent free. In Andrews case my take is that he is so dellussional that he likely thinks that when he gets out again and his lawyers against the victims than everyone will see that he did no wrong and he is the beloved prince again *barf*.

[SoSoNosy]

Could Charles restore all of that?  I am clueless on the royal rule book.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Harry touches on this in his book-how they are all obsessed with their press and he talks about knowing he'd be better off ignoring it but just can't help himself.

I think in their family there's got to be a baseline level of consciousness about the press that's hard for us regular people to even begin to fathom.

[noseybutt]

2 minutes ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Harry touches on this in his book-how they are all obsessed with their press and he talks about knowing he'd be better off ignoring it but just can't help himself.

I think in their family there's got to be a baseline level of consciousness about the press that's hard for us regular people to even begin to fathom.

Makes sense. Some people get obsessed over the likes and follows on social media. This is similar only social media plus tabloids and other press.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

29 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

Makes sense. Some people get obsessed over the likes and follows on social media. This is similar only social media plus tabloids and other press.

That's a good comparison. It stinks when you make an announcement on SM and hardly anybody notices. Imagine if that was your job and your job is all about who you are and has nothing to do with skills or education you have....so how do you self assess? By the press and they've been doing that since before the internet.

I finished Harry's book last night and I've been thinking about it a lot. It's hard to truly understand where he is coming from when all is said and done. It's just so foreign to me.

[Mama Mia]

On 1/23/2023 at 11:41 PM, prayawaythefundie said:

In many European countries big Christian churches still have a lot of privileges and money. As @klein_roeschen explained, money is even collected for them via taxes in Germany. (That‘s for members only though. You can leave and they stop taxing you.)

However, everyday life for most Europeans is less affected by their teachings than it seems to be in the US. They have less influence on legislation.
 

So many people here are cultural christians. Many catholics I know are openly pro-choice and supporters of gay marriage for example. When I left the Lutheran church a few years ago, nothing really changed for me, except I don‘t have to pay church tax anymore.

From a European‘s point of view secular US citizens‘ lives seem a lot more controlled by religious (christian) extremists than our own.

I think that varies dramatically by state. In mine there are many, many, many cultural Catholics, and cultural Protestants, and mainline church people, and many other non-Christian religions, and even evangelicals and hard core conservative fundamentalist Christians. But there are many people who aren’t religious at all. And the state is pretty vehemently anti-religious entanglement. I think there are a fair number of people here ( probably most ) who are somewhat more socially conservative than the official state stance, but overall will vote to support it, rather than give in to a theology and lack of safety nets.  the differences between US states sometimes seems as big to me as the difference between European countries. 

[Gobsmacked]

On 12/19/2022 at 10:01 PM, AmazonGrace said:

He is horrified that he's getting backlash for being a vile toad and it might be bad for business.

He is a totally vile toad. I once had the misfortune of being a passenger in a car that had stopped at traffic lights and realising that the daft oaf grinning at me from the car next to ours with a ‘hey it’s me I’m famous ‘ grin was Jeremy Clarkson. He looks even smugger close up. Yuk. He needs to be sent to room 101 along with Piers Morgan. 

[Dandruff]

14 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Harry and Meghan have been scoring own goals.  If they didn't try put themselves forward, no one would still be talking about them.  Thus, Andrew trying to push himself out there again is bringing up the discussion.  Is it a requirement that half the BRF be attention whores or is it simply a product of their upbringing?  

I don't know what's going on with the BRF, but there are plenty of royal families other than the BRF and therefore plenty of other "spares".  None of them (far as I know) have been making a public stink about it.

[tabitha2]

Denmark. But the Queen going to do what’s politic and sensible not catering to her upset son. She is not the kind of mother or granny her  counterpart was. 

 

[viii]

Spares have been an issue for a lot of royal families, especially in today's world when they're not needed as much (random heirs aren't dropping dead at aged 6 from disease). The BRF is not alone in this. Denmark is a dumpster fire right now, trying to manage their spares. Sweden isn't much better - they also stripped their spares of titles (or stripped them of something) but at least Carl Philip and Madeleine haven't been complaining to the press like Joachim of Denmark. However, in Sweden you still have the King whining that his son should be the heir, so they're not exactly doing the best, either. 

[noseybutt]

5 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Denmark. But the Queen going to do what’s politic and sensible not catering to her upset son. She is not the kind of mother or granny her  counterpart was. 

 

It’s unfortunate when people draw the short straw with grandparents. I was close to one of mine and no way would I trade that for the mess that is royalty.

[tabitha2]

At least  In Norway it’s not an issue as the Spare  is a free spirited Hippy dippy who talks to angels and married a American celebrity Shaman  And heirs younger child is not even considered a Member of the Royal family… Only the Crown Prince, Crown Princess and his eldest are. 

[viii]

Martha Louise of Norway isn't married to the Shaman. They're only engaged. 

[tabitha2]

You are correct. But They are almost certainly going to marry so My point still stand. 

[noseybutt]

Norway though is different culturally when it comes to money with extreme discrepancies in wealth frowned upon. There is no upper class/aristocracy equivalent to what the UK and some other European countries have going on—creating new nobility was outlawed by constitution over 200 years ago and has gradually died off except for a few families locally famous and a few other families recognized by Sweden and Denmark. The parliament is unicameral so no House of Lords. Educating children in private school is not really a thing (though sending them overseas for a year or two cultural exchange is common and supported financially by the government). There is talk of abolishing the throne altogether and it would be a natural evolution. The state church, for example, was cut loose.

The personalities within the family are also very different. The crown prince’s oldest child is a stepson and thus not having a royal title or role was completely normalized for those children. Martha Louise has had her hands full since the suicide of her ex husband and, while her having a relationship is not begrudged, there are strong cultural expectations that her focus be on her children versus a wedding.

ETA Martha Louise’s fiancé is unpopular because he is thought to be a conman. Much of the press around him focuses on his conspiracy theories, which is to be expected because Norwegians think of ideas around politics and religion similar to how they think about money—avoid the extremes. He alleges racism which may be part of the story but is complicated by the fact that it’s hard to shut down allegations of fraud with a criminal history.

Edited January 26, 2023 by noseybutt