I think I know why I admire Prince Harry.

[FairreLilette]

12 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Not his parents?

Reminds me of one of the last interviews by Princess Diana about her marriage to Charles.  Diana said "well, the marriage was a bit crowded".  I always liked Diana.  The rest of the royals, I don't follow celebrity stuff...so yawns from me.  

[Odaks]

26 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I don't follow celebrity stuff...so yawns from me.  

Except for, "well, the marriage was a bit crowded". Funny how these odd quotes stick. isn't it? I think the press and media in general have much to thank for ensuring everyone remembers the bits that they deem significant. That particular bit may well have been significant. Never mind any of the other bits though.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Odaks

[Ceka Cianci]

25 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Reminds me of one of the last interviews by Princess Diana about her marriage to Charles.  Diana said "well, the marriage was a bit crowded".  I always liked Diana.  The rest of the royals, I don't follow celebrity stuff...so yawns from me.  

She's about the only one I know anything about.. I don't really keep up on a lot of it..

Her and the queen.. I know a little about her..

[FairreLilette]

31 minutes ago, Odaks said:

Except for, "well, the marriage was a bit crowded". Funny how these odd quotes stick. isn't it? I think the press and media in general have much to thank for ensuring everyone remembers the bits that they deem significant. That particular bit may well have been significant. Never mind any of the other bits though.

Yeah, but I followed up I liked her.  I did.  There was just something about her.  She's the only one though.   I did not watch nor do I want to watch the Oprah interview.   I haven't kept up on anything "royal" since Diana died.  

Edited April 10, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Odaks]

2 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Yeah, but I followed up I liked her.  I did.  There was just something about her.  She's the only though.   I did not watch nor do I want to watch the Oprah interview.  

My comment was aimed at how the quotes stick, even with someone like you, who "...don't follow celebrity stuff", because of how the media present things, rather then individuals' opinions.

[FairreLilette]

9 minutes ago, Odaks said:

My comment was aimed at how the quotes stick, even with someone like you, who "...don't follow celebrity stuff", because of how the media present things, rather then individuals' opinions.

Actually, I just Googled, looking for Princess Diana's last interview and she said  "There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded".  So, I remembered it wrong.

As far as me not following the royals, it's true.  I thought Kate was American.  I only recently about a month ago saw in headline as I was browsing, Kate is considered a common Brit.  lol  All these years and years I thought Kate was American.  Well, I don't follow the royals, anyhow.  

[Odaks]

1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:

Princess Diana's last interview

"...it was a bit crowded" was a perfectly fair recollection! I think the entire world picked up on that.

What is it that we say, now and again, "two's company; three is a crowd"? 

[Bree Giffen]

Is royalty very important to people in the UK?

[Madelaine McMasters]

17 minutes ago, Bree Giffen said:

Is royalty very important to people in the UK?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom

From which there is this trend line for the last 27+ years...

[Mollymews]

5 hours ago, Zzevir said:

Believe if you want (btw Harry never was the prince of Wels) 

But see how much more money and freedom she (they) have after they left. There is nobody telling them what they can do or not see Orphan interju .

And than why he is still using his tittle Why they used the HRH after they left ? Nobody forced them?

Harry was born Prince Henry of Wales because at time of birth his father was Charles Prince of Wales. Wales is by royal protocol the family name of the male heir to the throne

and he is not using his HRH title by command of the Monarch. He gets not to because the Queen said so. The Queen did remove his royal work posts titles tho, accepted his resignation from those roles because not employed by the firm anymore

is two parts to the monarchy. The family and the firm (the firm does the work/business of the monarchy)

the Queen said he can't refer to himself as His Royal Highness Prince Henry as she learned from what happened when her uncle abdicated the throne. She does not want to ever see again a alternative british royal court (legitimate or otherwise) to the formal Monarchy

[Rat Luv]

45 minutes ago, Bree Giffen said:

Is royalty very important to people in the UK?

It's mixed, IMO. Some are really proud of the royal family...others don't notice they're there, apart from when they're in the news. Or when the Queen talks to us on TV at Xmas  The UK media loves some of them (the Queen, Kate, William) and others not so much (Andrew, Camilla, Meghan)

 

 

 

 

[Sid Nagy]

We have a royal charade in the Netherlands as well.
This stuff belongs in the fairytales from the Grimm brothers or Hans Christian Andersen not in 21st centuries modern democracies. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by Sid Nagy
I could live without them. Those typos.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

37 minutes ago, Rat Luv said:

The UK media loves some of them (the Queen, Kate, William) and others not so much (Andrew, Camilla, Meghan)

 

 

 

 

And some of them (Andrew) quite likely belong in jail.

[Extrude Ragu]

I find comfort that my country looks after its traditions and won't just throw away centuries of history and tradition for the sake of being 'modern'. 

When you take away royalty, what you are left with is a lack of dignity and a sense of great instability. Politicians that are only around for a few years become the only face of a country. Look at America. 

[JanuarySwan]

48 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

I find comfort that my country looks after its traditions and won't just throw away centuries of history and tradition for the sake of being 'modern'. 

When you take away royalty, what you are left with is a lack of dignity and a sense of great instability. Politicians that are only around for a few years become the only face of a country. Look at America. 

How does America lack dignity without "royals"?   Aside from the fact the royals are not politicians they are a kind of figurehead of some sort that look for contributions for charities or something like that.  I don't know...and it really doesn't matter.  

America has a different kind of royalty - the innovators.  The Vanderbilt Family is considered an American royal family but are only one, there are many.  Gloria Vanderbilt could have sat around on her derrière never lifting a finger she was born into such wealth but instead she created the first figure-flattering jeans for women and built her own clothing empire and did not rest upon her families' money.   I quick read the book on The Vanderbilt's fairly recently.  America is a country of innovators.  That is what's known as "it's face".  The face of America is innovation.

Edited April 10, 2021 by JanuarySwan

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Extrude Ragu said:

I find comfort that my country looks after its traditions and won't just throw away centuries of history and tradition for the sake of being 'modern'. 

When you take away royalty, what you are left with is a lack of dignity and a sense of great instability. Politicians that are only around for a few years become the only face of a country. Look at America. 

Do you mean dignified traditions like imperialism... or Morris dancing?

[Gabriele Graves]

There are lots of "traditions" that simply are not acceptable in a progressive society and when we finally get one they will have been consigned to the past as shameful.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Gabriele Graves
moved rest to another post

[Gabriele Graves]

On the subject of Royals, I am pretty meh.  I think a lot of people enjoy the pomp, colour and ceremony of parades and occasions and so there seems to be a role there for at least for tourism.  I don't think they need to be made richer at the expense of the taxpayer though.  I would be happy if NZ were a republic.  It is often a bold, brave move to go against the flow and I think you have to admire the Royals who do that and attempt to live differently.  It is one thing to want to change your life but much harder to achieve so I admire Harry and Megan for going for it.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Gabriele Graves

[Phil Deakins]

I have huge admiration for Prince Harry, first because he served two periods in Afghanistan - up front - not being shielded because of who he is. And then because of the Invictus Games that he created for the wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women. HUGE admiration for him.

He was born into circumstances not of his choosing, but he's used them for good, in bringing about the Invictus Games. I don't blame him in the slightest for reacting against the gutter press scumbags, by choosing to opt out of some aspects of his life.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Phil Deakins

[Sid Nagy]

10 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said:

I find comfort that my country looks after its traditions and won't just throw away centuries of history and tradition for the sake of being 'modern'. 

When you take away royalty, what you are left with is a lack of dignity and a sense of great instability. Politicians that are only around for a few years become the only face of a country. Look at America. 

Look at Germany. A ceremonial president. Works just fine.

The royal charade in the Netherlands (I don't know about other kingdoms) is extremely expensive.
The king gets a personal salary higher than the president of the USA, his wife gets one, his eldest daughter the moment she turns 18 this year.
The 3 palaces they use are maintained by the state, they live there for free.
They pay no taxes, while the family is filthy rich, like most monarchs who still reign.

If we had a president it would be much more democratic and a lot cheaper.
For the rest very little would change. We are a parliamentarian democracy and the role of the head of state is almost completely ceremonial.

But a lot of people still love the pictures straight out of a fairytale on occasion of the opening of the parliamentarian year in September with the tour in the golden carriage. Very photogenic. Just like kings day when they try to act normal among their nationals.
So they are in good nick for at least another generation.  The taxpayer pays.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Sid Nagy

[RunawayBunny]

  

24 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I have huge admiration for Prince Harry, first because he served two periods in Afghanistan - up front - not being shielded because of who he is. And then because of the Invictus Games that he created for the wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women. HUGE admiration for him.

Yes.. bleeding wound of Middle Asia "Afghanistan" a playground for USA and Russia. Serving in Afghanistan very important feat indeed.

[Amina Sopwith]

Overall, the British public is in favour of the monarchy. As Maddy's chart shows, its popularity has peaks and drops relating to certain events, and of course there are many passionate anti-royalists but overall, at a national level, it's pretty steady. I remember the street parties when William and Harry married, and even when Charles and Camilla did...bit more subdued then, but you expect that for a second marriage in later life after tragedy, whoever the couple is.

How much this will change when Charles ascends to the throne, I don't know. The Queen is hugely popular. I believe that even anti-royalists, while they hate the role itself and want to see it scrapped, mostly think that as long as it does exist, she does it well. Charles has been talking about a slimmed down monarchy for many years and I think even royalists mostly think that's a good idea. 

I don't blame Harry and Meghan in the slightest for opting out and I was supportive of them. But I've said from day one that I didn't think they were handling their PR very well. 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Amina Sopwith

[Rat Luv]

I'm not really pro-royal (I don't care, really). But I'm not sure I'd like a president instead...look how much politicans swindle and cheat! At least the Queen is open about spending a zillion on refurbishing her yacht...not fiddling expenses so she can put another jacuzzi in her house, and then yelling on TV about corruption 

 

[Gopi Passiflora]

On 4/10/2021 at 1:47 AM, Garnet Psaltery said:

A man who didn't see his grandfather last Christmas, and now it's too late.  What bad timing, Gopi.

I'm sorry...maybe this topic was in bad taste....

---

You guys seem very opinionated on this! I read all your opinions - pretty interesting.

[Coffee Pancake]

 

3 hours ago, Rat Luv said:

I'm not really pro-royal (I don't care, really). But I'm not sure I'd like a president instead...look how much politicans swindle and cheat! At least the Queen is open about spending a zillion on refurbishing her yacht...not fiddling expenses so she can put another jacuzzi in her house, and then yelling on TV about corruption 

The royal family are no less political or corrupt than any self declared politician. They have unfettered access, influence and untold direct power over civil and secret institutions. They are also for all practical purposes above the law. The Queen has been very careful to keep her hand in national affairs hidden from view, her children have been less skilled, the tip of the iceberg is visible via the now decade old  black spider memos, to assume he only wrote the odd letter is naïve in the extreme. 

At least with a president you can vote them out if (when) they fail to deliver on their promises / decide to go off in a random direction and start /support / authorize a war / etc

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos