Harry & Meghan 14: The Reverse Harry - Restoring the Angevin Empire

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

5 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Well, this can’t be! The holy martyred St Diana patron of moron princes would not have possibly made a decision that Harry does not like in retrospect! Surely someone in the axis of evil that is the family  chose his school.  Probably Camilla! 

Hahah evil stepmother camilla! She's behind it all! Maybe SHE took the Vegas nudes??

[Jackie3]

Actually, a majority of the young adults do not want the monarchy. So the monarchy may be gone once the youngsters gain power.

I think this new generation will feel shame, not pride, in having a leader wearing jewelry stolen from other countries.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Jackie3

[just_ordinary]

@Four is Enough I am not sure how much teaching with another family member really happens to be honest. I am sure there is a heightened interest in a future Queen but I don’t think this holds up for the rest. Who showed the ropes to Sarah or Sophie? And Sophie doesn’t even live close by, has two children of her own she seems to take care of and hadn’t slowed down her engagements. I call bs on this headline. 

[klein_roeschen]

18 hours ago, noseybutt said:

It’s a conundrum. I can say if I were British I would be as anti-monarchy as I am now, but if I were British I would not be who I am now.

There will be celebrations throughout the world when Britain finally dismantles the monarchy, and especially if it’s done with any sort of acknowledgment of the history.

But within the UK, it will be expensive and disorienting. They have to figure out what next. They will have to shift laws and traditions. If there is general recognition around the morality of hereditary power and government, then the House of Lords will also come under consideration.

This is where the UK system is very different then the Scandinavian monarchies—it’s the class system that it actively upheld at all levels.

 I don’t think it will happen when a simple majority of the people want the monarch gone. It’s too baked into the power structures. My best guess will be 10-20 years past the time the majority wanting it gone.

 

The monarchy is the public face the unequal class system in the UK. In my democratic opinion, before getting rid of kings and queens, the House of Lords has to be removed. This concentration of governing power without the being elected but inherited is more dangerous than lavish coronations or princes and their wifes complaining about provided housing not up to their 'standarts'.

5 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

@Four is Enough I am not sure how much teaching with another family member really happens to be honest. I am sure there is a heightened interest in a future Queen but I don’t think this holds up for the rest. Who showed the ropes to Sarah or Sophie? And Sophie doesn’t even live close by, has two children of her own she seems to take care of and hadn’t slowed down her engagements. I call bs on this headline. 

Sophie would make a lot of sense in helping Megan transition because both of them are on the same hirachial ladder. Both are married to younger brothers of the future king. And I don't think that nobody expected Sophie to give Megan daily lessons on protocol and such. They have staff for that. But I can see it more as a mentoring role where Megan could have asked for help or directions. But I get more and more the impression that Megan didn't asked questions.

[rosamundi]

2 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

the House of Lords has to be removed. This concentration of governing power without the being elected but inherited

It's even worse than that. The majority of the House of lords is no longer composed of hereditary peers, as only 92 hereditary peers, elected by and from all hereditary peers, are permitted to sit in the Lords, unless they are also life peers.

The rest of the members are the Lords Spiritual (26 bishops) and the Life Peers (hundreds of them - nearly 800, I think). Life Peers are those Lords who have been given the title of Lord under the honours system, so they are appointed, for life, by the prime Minister who proposes them for the honour which gets them into the Lords.

So the only elected members of the Lords are the 92 hereditary peers, and the people who have the power to vote for them is a heavily restricted pool.

Edited March 5, 2023 by rosamundi

[Four is Enough]

14 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

If you read the book, though, Harry is able to be somewhat objective of the mother he lost so suddenly. For example, he speaks critically of how Diana dressed him when he was little. 

Oh, puh-leeze. EVERYBODY speaks critically about how their mothers dressed them when they were little.

9 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

@Four is Enough I am not sure how much teaching with another family member really happens to be honest. . I call bs on this headline. 

You could be right, but... I do remember reading about the QM taking Diana into her household, etc..

3 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

But I get more and more the impression that Megan didn't asked questions.

I will agree wholeheartedly with this. And I will state categorically that she didn't listen to suggestions or flat out rejected them.

[AmazonGrace]

2 hours ago, rosamundi said:

It's even worse than that. The majority of the House of lords is no longer composed of hereditary peers, as only 92 hereditary peers, elected by and from all hereditary peers, are permitted to sit in the Lords, unless they are also life peers.

The rest of the members are the Lords Spiritual (26 bishops) and the Life Peers (hundreds of them - nearly 800, I think). Life Peers are those Lords who have been given the title of Lord under the honours system, so they are appointed, for life, by the prime Minister who proposes them for the honour which gets them into the Lords.

So the only elected members of the Lords are the 92 hereditary peers, and the people who have the power to vote for them is a heavily restricted pool.

Supposing the Brits wanted to change the governing system and abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords, would the House of Lords have to agree?

[rosamundi]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

Supposing the Brits wanted to change the governing system and abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords, would the House of Lords have to agree?

They can't block bills as they work their way through the legislature (apart from in certain very specific circumstances which wouldn't apply here). Their role is scrutiny and revision, ultimately looking to draft a bill which has the acceptance of both Houses before it goes for Royal Assent.

[käsekuchen]

On 3/4/2023 at 6:17 AM, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

I get you guys points for sure. But if I as a mid 30s year old woman with money and formerly lots of freedom had to downsize to live in a small bachelor's pad for any period of time due to security or precedence or whatever.... I think I'd be rather upset about it. They complain about  many things that seem stupid but I feel for Meghan here. I'd be like "really?? really??! "

This is one of the many reasons I just don't understand why one (and I do mean both Kate and Meghan) would marry into the (B)RF. Yes, they marry the man that they love and they gain an incredible amount of privilege, but it doesn't seem very appealing to me.

You lose a good chunk of your freedom. Your children will be in the public eye to a much larger degree than they'd be if you were a regular celebrity. There is an interest in them because of their family and because of who they will become and ironically (depending on just where they are in the line of succession) that interest might be greatest in formative years. Your private life is a matter of public interest. And from what we've learned the life within the confinments of their own homes is really different, too. Your children will grow up in a system where one is more important than the other(s). Everything you do or don't do faces public scrutiny. And you're signing up your children for that same life.

You're not really allowed to voice a political opinion, because the royal family is supposed to be politically neutral. Tradition says you should not vote. You're not able to have a regular job. You are part of a institution that (historically speaking) has brought a lot of hurt to the world - but really, you can't criticise it, because you, too, are a part of it now. And there's probably a lot of pressure to not delve too deeply into RF part in the history of colonialism, because that might fuel republican sentiments.*

*This is obviously a guess from an outsider. I'm German. But seeing how much Germany struggled (and still struggles) with the genocide we commited against the Nama and Herero people in the early 20th century, I can't imagine that not being a huge can of worms the BRF (and their PR) very much doesn't want to open. We don't have a royal famlily and Germany has undergone three (four) major political changes since then. And still, our country is having a hard time facing what our ancestors did. Our government has now apologized and agreed to pay foreign legal aid, but stresses that this agreement does not mean we're legally liable and have a legal obligation to pay reparations. I can't imagine these issues being any easier to resolve for the members of a royal family, in which the members may be direct descendants of the monarch ordering (or at least being okay with) a genocide and (maybe) personally profiting from it.

Edited March 5, 2023 by käsekuchen
Clarification

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

 

I will agree wholeheartedly with this. And I will state categorically that she didn't listen to suggestions or flat out rejected them.

The Queen assigned one of her most trusted advisors, Samantha Cohen, to guide Meghan. This happened shortly after their engagement and her duties included teaching her appropriate etiquette and protocol. Most reports are that Cohen quit in frustration because her student preferred to ignore everything she told her. Meghan outright lied when she claimed there was no guidance. She also lied about not knowing how to curtsy. And it appears she lied about Sarah, Duchess of York., being her bestie helper since Sarah has no recollection of that. 

On another note, I'm currently reading Surrender, Bono's memoir of sorts. His mother died suddenly and unexpectedly when he was 14. It changed his daily life dramatically. It changed his family dynamics dramatically. Something not true for Harry & William. His father shut down as a parent. There was suddenly a lot of fighting --both verbal and physical--in the household. There was no decent food as his mother did all the shopping and cooking. Harry would have been fed by the same people who always fed him--both at boarding school and at home. Young Paul Hewson was suddenly supposed to figure out how to make dinner for his father and older brother, which he didn't really do, resulting in more fighting. At one point, his brother got a job at the airport and brought home leftover airline meals to heat in the oven. 1970s airline food wasn't something people sought out when they had a choice. Yet somehow, it's clear that neither Bono nor his not famous brother chose to make the loss of their mother their entire personality. Until recent years, Bono has not publicly talked about it more than acknowledging her untimely death, even though he definitely bears the scars. And nowhere in the book does he blame every personal fault or mistake on his father or the loss of his mother.  It's a huge contrast. Someone should send a copy to Harry. 

[just_ordinary]

I still think, even if Sophie might have been a great resource, there was never any inclination to have a family member advise a, at this point already, low level new member. I am sure there was a certain mentoring for Kate, because she is going for the top job. But neither Sarah nor Sophie, both DIL to the monarch are known to have gotten a mentoring, so I don’t believe the institution would bring extra effort for M. Just because it would make sense doesn’t mean that’s what’s happening.

The tabloids love to write up special relationships out of the blue. M and K as besties….., Sophie as Mentor….., basically every grandchild has been said to be HMTQ favourite at one point…., K being super close to Sophie/HMTQ/Charles/Camilla…..

I would take all of those stories with a massive grain of salt. Samantha Cohen was the only advisor we know of. And she should have been enough.

[viii]

Hmm, the idea of comparing grief doesn’t make me comfortable. Everyone measures grief differently, and while Bono’s situation might seem “worse”, Harry’s situation was the worst for him. They were both children who lost the pillars of their worlds. It’s not a pissing contest. 

[Manda]

On 3/4/2023 at 6:58 AM, treehugger said:

i just can’t feel sorry for her. Like other posters have pointed out, it isn’t like they couldn’t have looked for other accommodations in London that would have been safe and adequate. They were adults. If she was financially wealthy and independent apart from her marriage to the royal family, then this should not have been so difficult. I just can’t muster an ounce of sympathy for them.  Their constant whining and complaining has completely killed it for me. 

I have zero sympathy.  If you don't like what you're getting free, then go fund yourself what you can afford.  

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

Sophie would make a lot of sense in helping Megan transition because both of them are on the same hirachial ladder. Both are married to younger brothers of the future king. And I don't think that nobody expected Sophie to give Megan daily lessons on protocol and such. They have staff for that. But I can see it more as a mentoring role where Megan could have asked for help or directions. But I get more and more the impression that Megan didn't asked questions.

I don't think Sophie could have helped Meghan learn to tolerate racism.

Meghan didn't leave because she was unsure what to do on a walkabout. She left because they were calling her son a chimp. She left because her MIL's chums wanted her to parade naked through the street. 

She knew it would only get worse as Archie got older and could understand what was happening. A mother's love is a powerful thing. And she was right! Look how happy they are now, in their sunny home.

They left because they didn't like being insulted in the press. I guess royalists may think they should tolerate that, because of the huge honor of getting to stand on the balcony and do other royal things. But does anyone ever look really happy on that balcony?

Healthy people want to be  free or hatred and protect their children from it. No "lessons" from Sophie would have changed that. It's funny you think everything would have been solved if Meghan had hunted down Sophie to ask "Which hat should I wear" or "Does Prince Phillip walk ahead of me on the way to dinner?"

 

30 minutes ago, Manda said:

I have zero sympathy.  If you don't like what you're getting free, then go fund yourself what you can afford.  

Free? I thought they were "working" royals. 

Anyhow, they did as you suggested. They funded themselves and bought something they could afford. Their new home looks like paradise, and it's in a town that's almost always warm and sunny.  

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Jackie3

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, viii said:

Hmm, the idea of comparing grief doesn’t make me comfortable. Everyone measures grief differently, and while Bono’s situation might seem “worse”, Harry’s situation was the worst for him. They were both children who lost the pillars of their worlds. It’s not a pissing contest. 

And I didn’t say it was a contest. But in day to day life, Iris Hewson’s family’s life changed much more drastically from day to day.  Harry whining about a life of deprivation after Diana’s death rings hollow compared to a 14 year old who had to figure out dinner for the family or when I think about my grandmother and her siblings who had to run a farm to keep themselves alive after losing both parents during the depression. None of them had the luxury of endlessly ruminating on their loss or making it their personal brand. They were busy surviving. Harry has that luxury then and now. And it’s proving to be very unhealthy. 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I too doubt the mentoring.  Didn't Diana complain she didn't get much/any guidance and was essentially isolated from everyone once engaged?

She was bristish, aristocratic and should have already known some things.

Maybe a couple people gave Meghan an hour or something? *maybe*

The tabloids make up weird things sometimes based off the tinies grain of something true. And I fully believe BRF throw lies out to the papers to deflect as needed. Why wouldn't they? 

 

Meghan and Harry are still insufferable though.

 

I came over here just now to comment that geeeez Harry keeps popping up in my new feed with more interviews with different news outlets. Has he not interviewed with anybody?

Dr Phil and Geraldo must be next.

 

 

[Jackie3]

4 hours ago, louisa05 said:

The Queen assigned one of her most trusted advisors, Samantha Cohen, to guide Meghan. This happened shortly after their engagement and her duties included teaching her appropriate etiquette and protocol. Most reports are that Cohen quit in frustration because her student preferred to ignore everything she told her. Meghan outright lied when she claimed there was no guidance. She also lied about not knowing how to curtsy. And it appears she lied about Sarah, Duchess of York., being her bestie helper since Sarah has no recollection of that. 

 

Wow! Then it's all Meghan's fault. That is very convenient.

Is it really OK to reject your son and DIL because your DIL didn't know curtsey protocol? This is why the monarchy is rapidly losing it's popularity among younger people. 

It also seems quite unlikely that Meghan, desperate for a family, said, "No! I won't listen you! I will drink from my glass whenever I want to, without waiting for the Queen to drink first." Or whatever stupid protocol she was learning. 

In any event, failure to learn protocol is a reason for rejecting her? You're better off without such a family.

It also seems odd that Meghan's colleagues on Suits rave about her courtesy and kindess. Yet she apparently went through a complete transformation in the UK and became a rude, raving lunatic. It certainly couldn't be that the royal family created this narrative.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Jackie3

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Fergie gave an interview to The Telegraph where she said “I don’t really know Meghan. I haven’t really met her.”

[tabitha2]

And Chris Rock just tore into her Ass in his Netflix show. He does a great impression of her

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

1 hour ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Fergie gave an interview to The Telegraph where she said “I don’t really know Meghan. I haven’t really met her.”

Course Fergie is the OG can't rely on anything she says. So who knows, she might want to distance herself from their negative press.

[Jackie3]

16 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

And Chris Rock just tore into her Ass in his Netflix show. He does a great impression of her

Laughing at young women is such fun.

[viii]

7 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Harry whining about a life of deprivation after Diana’s death rings hollow compared to a 14 year old who had to figure out dinner for the family or when I think about my grandmother and her siblings who had to run a farm to keep themselves alive after losing both parents during the depression. 

The comparison just doesn’t sit well with me. It’s like when a childless person says they’re tired and a parent immediately jumps down their throat, saying they don’t know what REAL tiredness is. Harry experienced loss and grief just as much as someone else who lost his parent. While his basic necessities were still met, the worst thing that could have happened to him, happened to him. Maybe I’m just BEC but this idea that because he’s royal, he didn’t have it *THAT* bad rubs me the wrong way. 

[prayawaythefundie]

Some things have changed since Diana‘s days as a new royal. It‘s very unlikely that Meghan was not offered any training or mentoring whatsoever. Whether it was the help she would have needed and whether she accepted it, is anyone‘s guess.

[noseybutt]

12 hours ago, käsekuchen said:

This is one of the many reasons I just don't understand why one (and I do mean both Kate and Meghan) would marry into the (B)RF. Yes, they marry the man that they love and they gain an incredible amount of privilege, but it doesn't seem very appealing to me.

You lose a good chunk of your freedom. Your children will be in the public eye to a much larger degree than they'd be if you were a regular celebrity. There is an interest in them because of their family and because of who they will become and ironically (depending on just where they are in the line of succession) that interest might be greatest in formative years. Your private life is a matter of public interest. And from what we've learned the life within the confinments of their own homes is really different, too. Your children will grow up in a system where one is more important than the other(s). Everything you do or don't do faces public scrutiny. And you're signing up your children for that same life.

You're not really allowed to voice a political opinion, because the royal family is supposed to be politically neutral. Tradition says you should not vote. You're not able to have a regular job. You are part of a institution that (historically speaking) has brought a lot of hurt to the world - but really, you can't criticise it, because you, too, are a part of it now. And there's probably a lot of pressure to not delve too deeply into RF part in the history of colonialism, because that might fuel republican sentiments.*

 

This is where I wonder how much of colonial history Meghan Markle understood. The American experience with British colonialism is remote—-from a very different era. I wasn’t in the US during my high school years, but I doubt the 19th and 20th century colonialism is covered deeply in history classes. It was barely covered in my university history survey classes and instead consigned to specific electives.

The weight of the history is intense.

 

[apandaaries]

25 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

This is where I wonder how much of colonial history Meghan Markle understood. The American experience with British colonialism is remote—-from a very different era. I wasn’t in the US during my high school years, but I doubt the 19th and 20th century colonialism is covered deeply in history classes. It was barely covered in my university history survey classes and instead consigned to specific electives.

The weight of the history is intense.

 

Didn’t she study international relations at Northwestern? 
She and I are around the same age. Colonialism was definitely a part of my undergrad curricula in many different ways  and classes. It seems unlikely that a Northwestern grad wouldn’t have a solid understanding of that system and how it’s influenced the present.