Should Prince Harry and Meghan Markle abdicate? - Page 2

cullennz · 13th January 2020, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

He will remain rich no matter what he does, he has inherited wealth.

Indeed

He has half his mums money and the queen mother left him a shed load. Also owns land and his dad set him up with portfolios when he was a kid.

They will not be humming and harring over whether to pay the lecky or buy bake beans again, let's put it that way

ceptimus · 13th January 2020, 02:32 AM

So him and Meghan (who is also fairly rich) can pay for their own security and flights and houses.

Once they get divorced, he shouldn't expect to get his title and privileges back either.

cullennz · 13th January 2020, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

So him and Meghan (who is also fairly rich) can pay for their own security and flights and houses.

Once they get divorced, he shouldn't expect to get his title and privileges back either.

Agree with everything but security.

a) its extremely specialist

b) the govt would look extremely stupid if one died.

Matthew Best · 13th January 2020, 02:42 AM

The public is divided over the matter.

angrysoba · 13th January 2020, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

They should do whatever they want. I think they're going to find pretty quickly that not being rich and royal is much less fun than it seems.

He wants to live like Common People. He wants to do whatever Common People do. wants to sleep with Common People...

Someone should redub the Pulp song...

zooterkin · 13th January 2020, 03:02 AM

Right now, BBC Radio 4 is having a phone-in on the subject.

Quote:

PHONE-IN: Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex
Woman's Hour

When Meghan Markle entered the Royal Family it was seen by many as the dawning of a new age, a breath of fresh air.

Less than three years later the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced their wish to ‘step back’,

We want to hear your thoughts.

Do you think their announcement was outrageous or an inevitable consequence given the treatment of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex?

What impact will her ‘stepping back’ have on the Royal Family?

The number to phone is 03700 100 444. Lines open at 0900.

Darat · 13th January 2020, 03:08 AM

Glad they aren't trying to lead the discussion !

P.J. Denyer · 13th January 2020, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

He wants to live like Common People. He wants to do whatever Common People do. wants to sleep with Common People...

Someone should redub the Pulp song...

It couldn't be as good as the one already created with Rees-Mogg.

Darat · 13th January 2020, 04:39 AM

Obviously they shouldn't abdicate, they'd need to be reigning monarchs to do that.

What I really struggle to understand is what is there to discuss? Saying "not doing any more royal duties so I'll stop taking money for doing that, I'll turn up for the odd party, funeral, marriage" hardly seems to need much discussion.

abaddon · 13th January 2020, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

So now the British Royal Family has been 'rocked to its very foundations', according to the DAILY ~~HORROR~~ MAIL, using one of PRIVATE EYE's stock phrases, usually in relation to Ron Pevsner of Neasden FC.

Meghan has fled to 'North America' to be with Archie and Harry is to face the music with his grandmother, the Queen, father Prince Charles and big brother, William.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51077816

So what do you think? 'Princess Pushy' and nice-but-dim Harry or badly done-by Meghan and her gallant husband?

Is the UK a disgustlngly racist country or has it been stretched to the end of its tether?

"Abdicate"? Nobody abdicated anything.

Besides, they are minor royals. Who cares?

Ethan Thane Athen · 13th January 2020, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Long story short the public doesn't "pay for the Royals."

Due to a long standing tradition on the Royal Family not charging for public use of their vast land holdings and the tourism brought in, the Royal Family makes Great Britain money, not cost them.

Which they only have because the country has let them keep them and the tourists rarely see any of the Royals, they see the buildings, which would still be there - but I don't want to derail with that debate.

Ethan Thane Athen · 13th January 2020, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

The public is divided over the matter.

Excellent!

Tolls · 13th January 2020, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Obviously they shouldn't abdicate, they'd need to be reigning monarchs to do that.

What I really struggle to understand is what is there to discuss? Saying "not doing any more royal duties so I'll stop taking money for doing that, I'll turn up for the odd party, funeral, marriage" hardly seems to need much discussion.

I think the argument is something along the lines of "you got a wedding and your house done up, so we demand our pound of flesh".

I'm not saying it's a good argument...

SuburbanTurkey · 13th January 2020, 05:26 AM

The French had the right idea on how to deal with obsolete royalty.

Vixen · 13th January 2020, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Well, he didn't ask to be born into the job. His mother died because of overeager paparazzi, and now his wife is being subjected the same treatment. He may just want to live a peaceful, regular life. Can anyone blame him?

What treatment? Sure, a large section of he British public was wary of Meghan due to her background (divorcée, actress, age and being American [not British of of European royalty] and the press traditionally likes to build people up, to only drag them down, as happened with Diana and numerous others (for example, George Best). However, Diana was killed by a speeding drrunken driver who no doubt thought he was being chased by the paps but even then it is your responsibility to drive safely. Diana wasn't wearing a seatbelt either. So whilst the paps may well have been in hot pursuit on their motorbikes - it's their livelihood after all to get a 'scoop' (pictures of Dodi Fayed and Diana together) - their 'treatment didn't lead to her death. Diana was a young aristocratic girl from a sheltered background who probably had a naive and romantic view of what married life to the heir apparent would involve. She wasn't to know Charles was still knocking around (and knocking off) his longtime secret (and married to someone else) girlfriend, Camilla, and her going off the rails - sleeping around with the butlers, chauffeurs, protection officers, doctors and broadcasters - was an understandable reaction to the ultimate betrayal by Charles.

Meghan, on the other hand, has had at least two long-term cohabitating relationships, including marriage, and is seen by many to be yet another gold digger, obsessed with clothes, money, fame, looking perfect, cleverly manipulating the nice-but-dim Harry with her doe-eyed fawning looks, no doubt learnt at drama classes. The press' instant fascination with her photogenic feaures set her up perfectly to be built up and knocked down in true tabloid tradition.

Something in her narcissistic personality is enjoying and creating all of the drama that surrounds her.

Prince Harry himself is desperately and intensely jealous of his older brother, William. How awful it is for one sibling to be seen as the favourite and another as 'the spare', the runt of the litter. Imagine Harry's brooding resentment at William being at the front and by the Queen's side, his kids all being prince and princesses, whilst he and his wife are relegated to sit behind Andrew in the third row and their kid refused a title. OTOH whilst Wills was restricted in what he could do as third in line to the throne, Harry had the freedom to party around like no tomorrow, arousing disapproval in William.

Certainly, William didn't like Harry's choice of wife and thought it unwise to marry so quickly. Harry likely greatly enjoyed the press attention Meghan was getting, for once being centre of attention and in the spotlight, via his attractive photogenic wife. William's turn to be jealous.

IMV the marriage is probably in trouble as a baby doesn't necessarily bring a couple closer together. I don't think you can really know someone in less than a year, so their haste to marry and have children has likely put pressure on the marriage. The conflicts caused by Meghan's disregard for royal protocol has caused even more pressure on the relationship.

So, has their 'treatment' led to the desire to drastically abandon the royal family and England? I think the answer lies somewhere in between the massive cultural difference between the pair and the British press and public being resistant to having the status quo values challenged.

Darat · 13th January 2020, 05:39 AM

By the way Vixen's account above has as much credibility as a rejected script for an episode of the Crown.

ETA: Note the use of England instead of UK, a nice touch.

TragicMonkey · 13th January 2020, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

By the way Vixen's account above has as much credibility as a rejected script for an episode of the Crown.

ETA: Note the use of England instead of UK, a nice touch.

It's a load of disgusting nonsense that reveals much about the writer, nothing about the subject.

ceptimus · 13th January 2020, 06:06 AM

The line being spun in the media, "If you don't give us what we want then we'll give no-holds barred interviews to Oprah and others, dishing the dirt on the royal family" is nothing short of blackmail. The Queen should cut them off cold and tell them to publish and be damned.

Darat · 13th January 2020, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The line being spun in the media, "If you don't give us what we want then we'll give no-holds barred interviews to Oprah and others, dishing the dirt on the royal family" is nothing short of blackmail. The Queen should cut them off cold and tell them to publish and be damned.

Where on earth has that been said?

Myriad · 13th January 2020, 06:24 AM

I think they should abdicate, just to confuse people.

Myriad · 13th January 2020, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The Queen should cut them off...

It used to be, when a Queen decided to cut someone off, it really meant something.

ponderingturtle · 13th January 2020, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

Which they only have because the country has let them keep them and the tourists rarely see any of the Royals, they see the buildings, which would still be there - but I don't want to derail with that debate.

But the buildings would not have much in the way of public management anymore being private property.

But I fail to see a reason to treat Harry and family any differently than the rest of the royals.

ceptimus · 13th January 2020, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Where on earth has that been said?

Here's one newspaper. Do an internet search to find many others reporting the same thing.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/107238...erview-threat/

JoeMorgue · 13th January 2020, 06:50 AM

I get that nothing short of afternoon tea and extra vowels is more key to the British psyche then their Royalty so nothing will ever change the fact that I'm an outsider looking in on this, but it's still so hard for me to find a vein to hit here.

Everything is just wrapped up in this idea that Prince Harry, who was born into a position he had no say in, is somehow obligated to maintain a specific lifestyle and persona for ever, forced to live a lifestyle he doesn't want and can't do to the satisfaction of the same people demanding he maintain it.

TragicMonkey · 13th January 2020, 06:57 AM

Didn't either Sweden or Norway recently do something like this, redefining which royals were the main bunch and the rest should be considered only as "and friends"? Seems logical to me that you'd have to pare down occasionally, otherwise you dilute the brand and have too many to keep up with. Harry's not exactly necessary. There's an heir with an heir with an heir plus two spares now.

Darat · 13th January 2020, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Here's one newspaper. Do an internet search to find many others reporting the same thing.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/107238...erview-threat/

Right so nothing but made up crap.

It has no more veracity than me saying Harry has threatened to do all public engagements in the nude if he doesn't get his way.

TragicMonkey · 13th January 2020, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Right so nothing but made up crap.

It has no more veracity than me saying Harry has threatened to do all public engagements in the nude if he doesn't get his way.

He and Meghan are an attractive couple. They could make serious money by releasing a sex tape.

ceptimus · 13th January 2020, 07:05 AM

He's not obligated to do anything. If he wants to quit that's fine, but he shouldn't expect to retain his privileges if he's not prepared to do the tiny token amount of "work" that's required. And it's offensive really to call it "work" as it amounts to perhaps ten hours a week traveling around in great luxury, attending banquets and meeting a few people. Most of the people he meets have had to fork out their own hard earned cash to prepare for and attend the same events.

Meghan has already given up on her friends, father, family, previous husband, and now seems to want to give up on the royals after only marrying into the firm eighteen months ago. She knew what she was getting into (or should have done). She comes across as a self obsessed brat who wants to tell others what to do (cut carbon emissions for one thing) while continuing to keep her own extravagant carbon footprint. Being a royal is not just living the life of luxury, traveling on private jets between palaces and exotic holidays and attending the odd marriage or film premiere: they're also expected to do the slightly less glamorous jobs of opening hospitals, visiting towns, and such.

Meghan would also be very stupid not to realize that she would be the focus of media attention - all the royals are, and with her previous acting job and photogenic looks, it should have been obvious to her that she would be especially targeted. I think she likes the media attention anyway, but wants to be free to do it on her own terms - that's not acceptable if it harms the Queen and other, more senior, royals.

Darat · 13th January 2020, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I get that nothing short of afternoon tea and extra vowels is more key to the British psyche then their Royalty so nothing will ever change the fact that I'm an outsider looking in on this, but it's still so hard for me to find a vein to hit here.

Everything is just wrapped up in this idea that Prince Harry, who was born into a position he had no say in, is somehow obligated to maintain a specific lifestyle and persona for ever, forced to live a lifestyle he doesn't want and can't do to the satisfaction of the same people demanding he maintain it.

Nah. Lots of people forget that we were within a heartbeat of storming the palace after Diane's death. If there had been a referendum for keeping the monarchy or abolishing it that week we'd have ousted them. (Caveat it may then have taken us quite a few years as we ain't good with referendums!)

ceptimus · 13th January 2020, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Right so nothing but made up crap.

It has no more veracity than me saying Harry has threatened to do all public engagements in the nude if he doesn't get his way.

You think the meetings of their representatives with Oprah haven't happened then?

Darat · 13th January 2020, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You think the meetings of their representatives with Oprah haven't happened then?

No idea. But there is zero evidence that they are engaging in the behaviour that you called blackmail.

shemp · 13th January 2020, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

Who would you like to see them wrestle?

This guy.

JoeMorgue · 13th January 2020, 07:18 AM

I'm lost. Explain "OMG HE'S GONNA TALK TO OPRAH!" to me someone.

Mr Fied · 13th January 2020, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm lost. Explain "OMG HE'S GONNA TALK TO OPRAH!" to me someone.

The idea given by some media is that if they don't get what they want they will do a tell all interview and expose the Royal Family's dirty secrets.

Some ~~comics~~ newspapers are going with the blackmailing the family story.

Darat · 13th January 2020, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm lost. Explain "OMG HE'S GONNA TALK TO OPRAH!" to me someone.

And air the dirty laundry, such as his grandad is a funny old racist, his dad is an adulterous weirdo and his grandmother is a queen.

theprestige · 13th January 2020, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm lost. Explain "OMG HE'S GONNA TALK TO OPRAH!" to me someone.

As best I understand it, the thing is like this:

Half of "being a Royal" is just a big PR job. Appearances, events, tacit endorsements. The right smile, wave, and word for every occasion. And all the occasions. Your calendar is not your own. Your social life is not your own. Everything you do is subordinated to the PR job of being a Royal.

So. You step back from the job. You're still royalty. You'll still show up for royal family events, because they're your family. But the PR job of being a Royal? Boop to that.

In that context, setting up Oprah appearances seems like exactly the kind PR work you said you wanted to step back from. It comes across as not only hypocritical, but also disrespectful and dishonest. You can't have it both ways. If you tell the British people you don't want to do the PR job, and then you turn right around and start a PR job, I think there's a legitimate grievance.

Darat · 13th January 2020, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Fied

The idea given by some media is that if they don't get what they want they will do a tell all interview and expose the Royal Family's dirty secrets.

Some ~~comics~~ newspapers are going with the blackmailing the family story.

I'm still going with he could be threatening to do all royal duties in the nude. It's just as well supported as the other blackmailing claims but the pictures are better.

JoeMorgue · 13th January 2020, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

And air the dirty laundry, such as his grandad is a funny old racist, his dad is an adulterous weirdo and his grandmother is a queen.

Oh noes somebody stop him. He might break the British public's illusion that that the Royal Family is totally normal and well adjusted.

Please. Unless he's got GoPro Footage of the Queen bathing in the blood of her Corgis to stay young, I don't think any Oprah interview is going to shock anyone.

ceptimus · 13th January 2020, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

No idea. But there is zero evidence that they are engaging in the behaviour that you called blackmail.

We will do X (something you don't like) unless you (continue to) pay us lots of money. Not blackmail in your book. Okay.

Darat · 13th January 2020, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

As best I understand it, the thing is like this:

Half of "being a Royal" is just a big PR job. Appearances, events, tacit endorsements. The right smile, wave, and word for every occasion. And all the occasions. Your calendar is not your own. Your social life is not your own. Everything you do is subordinated to the PR job of being a Royal.

So. You step back from the job. You're still royalty. You'll still show up for royal family events, because they're your family. But the PR job of being a Royal? Boop to that.

In that context, setting up Oprah appearances seems like exactly the kind PR work you said you wanted to step back from. It comes across as not only hypocritical, but also disrespectful and dishonest. You can't have it both ways. If you tell the British people you don't want to do the PR job, and then you turn right around and start a PR job, I think there's a legitimate grievance.

Not seeing the grievance you are saying exists.

He has job A which involves "PR"
He resigns from job A
He takes up job B which involves "PR" but different "PR" to job A.

Where's the point of contention? He is in effect changing job.

If we aren't "paying" him why should we have any grievance about what he decides to do with the rest of his life? We don't own him.

Yes, stripped of titles including HRH and public funding/protection	9	25.71%
Yes but keeping titles incl HRH, public funding, protection and Frogmore Cottage	2	5.71%
No, Harry cannot give up his British citizenship and Archie belongs to the Queen	3	8.57%
Who?	21	60.00%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

13th January 2020, 12:23 AM	#41
cullennz Suspended Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 19,688	Originally Posted by Darat He will remain rich no matter what he does, he has inherited wealth. Indeed He has half his mums money and the queen mother left him a shed load. Also owns land and his dad set him up with portfolios when he was a kid. They will not be humming and harring over whether to pay the lecky or buy bake beans again, let's put it that way
cullennz Suspended Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 19,688

13th January 2020, 02:32 AM	#42
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	So him and Meghan (who is also fairly rich) can pay for their own security and flights and houses. Once they get divorced, he shouldn't expect to get his title and privileges back either.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

13th January 2020, 02:42 AM	#43
cullennz Suspended Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 19,688	Originally Posted by ceptimus So him and Meghan (who is also fairly rich) can pay for their own security and flights and houses. Once they get divorced, he shouldn't expect to get his title and privileges back either. Agree with everything but security. a) its extremely specialist b) the govt would look extremely stupid if one died.
cullennz Suspended Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 19,688

13th January 2020, 02:56 AM	#45
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,003	Originally Posted by Loss Leader They should do whatever they want. I think they're going to find pretty quickly that not being rich and royal is much less fun than it seems. He wants to live like Common People. He wants to do whatever Common People do. wants to sleep with Common People... Someone should redub the Pulp song...
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

13th January 2020, 02:42 AM	#44
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 8,089	The public is divided over the matter.

13th January 2020, 03:02 AM	#46
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Photo Contest Winner Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 48,031	Right now, BBC Radio 4 is having a phone-in on the subject. Quote: PHONE-IN: Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex Woman's Hour When Meghan Markle entered the Royal Family it was seen by many as the dawning of a new age, a breath of fresh air. Less than three years later the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced their wish to ‘step back’, We want to hear your thoughts. Do you think their announcement was outrageous or an inevitable consequence given the treatment of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex? What impact will her ‘stepping back’ have on the Royal Family? The number to phone is 03700 100 444. Lines open at 0900.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

13th January 2020, 03:08 AM	#47
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,143	Glad they aren't trying to lead the discussion !
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

13th January 2020, 03:34 AM	#48
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,725	Originally Posted by angrysoba He wants to live like Common People. He wants to do whatever Common People do. wants to sleep with Common People... Someone should redub the Pulp song... It couldn't be as good as the one already created with Rees-Mogg.
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,725	__________________ "I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

13th January 2020, 04:39 AM	#49
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,143	Obviously they shouldn't abdicate, they'd need to be reigning monarchs to do that. What I really struggle to understand is what is there to discuss? Saying "not doing any more royal duties so I'll stop taking money for doing that, I'll turn up for the odd party, funeral, marriage" hardly seems to need much discussion.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

13th January 2020, 05:09 AM	#50
abaddon Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Republic of Ireland Posts: 21,213	Originally Posted by Vixen So now the British Royal Family has been 'rocked to its very foundations', according to the DAILY ~~HORROR~~ MAIL, using one of PRIVATE EYE's stock phrases, usually in relation to Ron Pevsner of Neasden FC. Meghan has fled to 'North America' to be with Archie and Harry is to face the music with his grandmother, the Queen, father Prince Charles and big brother, William. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51077816 So what do you think? 'Princess Pushy' and nice-but-dim Harry or badly done-by Meghan and her gallant husband? Is the UK a disgustlngly racist country or has it been stretched to the end of its tether? "Abdicate"? Nobody abdicated anything. Besides, they are minor royals. Who cares?
	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes...

13th January 2020, 05:17 AM	#51
Ethan Thane Athen Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,166	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Long story short the public doesn't "pay for the Royals." Due to a long standing tradition on the Royal Family not charging for public use of their vast land holdings and the tourism brought in, the Royal Family makes Great Britain money, not cost them. Which they only have because the country has let them keep them and the tourists rarely see any of the Royals, they see the buildings, which would still be there - but I don't want to derail with that debate.

13th January 2020, 05:23 AM	#52
Ethan Thane Athen Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,166	Originally Posted by Matthew Best The public is divided over the matter. Excellent!

13th January 2020, 05:23 AM	#53
Tolls Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: UK Posts: 5,223	Originally Posted by Darat Obviously they shouldn't abdicate, they'd need to be reigning monarchs to do that. What I really struggle to understand is what is there to discuss? Saying "not doing any more royal duties so I'll stop taking money for doing that, I'll turn up for the odd party, funeral, marriage" hardly seems to need much discussion. I think the argument is something along the lines of "you got a wedding and your house done up, so we demand our pound of flesh". I'm not saying it's a good argument...

13th January 2020, 05:26 AM	#54
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,305	The French had the right idea on how to deal with obsolete royalty.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

13th January 2020, 05:35 AM	#55
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 20,268	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Well, he didn't ask to be born into the job. His mother died because of overeager paparazzi, and now his wife is being subjected the same treatment. He may just want to live a peaceful, regular life. Can anyone blame him? What treatment? Sure, a large section of he British public was wary of Meghan due to her background (divorcée, actress, age and being American [not British of of European royalty] and the press traditionally likes to build people up, to only drag them down, as happened with Diana and numerous others (for example, George Best). However, Diana was killed by a speeding drrunken driver who no doubt thought he was being chased by the paps but even then it is your responsibility to drive safely. Diana wasn't wearing a seatbelt either. So whilst the paps may well have been in hot pursuit on their motorbikes - it's their livelihood after all to get a 'scoop' (pictures of Dodi Fayed and Diana together) - their 'treatment didn't lead to her death. Diana was a young aristocratic girl from a sheltered background who probably had a naive and romantic view of what married life to the heir apparent would involve. She wasn't to know Charles was still knocking around (and knocking off) his longtime secret (and married to someone else) girlfriend, Camilla, and her going off the rails - sleeping around with the butlers, chauffeurs, protection officers, doctors and broadcasters - was an understandable reaction to the ultimate betrayal by Charles. Meghan, on the other hand, has had at least two long-term cohabitating relationships, including marriage, and is seen by many to be yet another gold digger, obsessed with clothes, money, fame, looking perfect, cleverly manipulating the nice-but-dim Harry with her doe-eyed fawning looks, no doubt learnt at drama classes. The press' instant fascination with her photogenic feaures set her up perfectly to be built up and knocked down in true tabloid tradition. Something in her narcissistic personality is enjoying and creating all of the drama that surrounds her. Prince Harry himself is desperately and intensely jealous of his older brother, William. How awful it is for one sibling to be seen as the favourite and another as 'the spare', the runt of the litter. Imagine Harry's brooding resentment at William being at the front and by the Queen's side, his kids all being prince and princesses, whilst he and his wife are relegated to sit behind Andrew in the third row and their kid refused a title. OTOH whilst Wills was restricted in what he could do as third in line to the throne, Harry had the freedom to party around like no tomorrow, arousing disapproval in William. Certainly, William didn't like Harry's choice of wife and thought it unwise to marry so quickly. Harry likely greatly enjoyed the press attention Meghan was getting, for once being centre of attention and in the spotlight, via his attractive photogenic wife. William's turn to be jealous. IMV the marriage is probably in trouble as a baby doesn't necessarily bring a couple closer together. I don't think you can really know someone in less than a year, so their haste to marry and have children has likely put pressure on the marriage. The conflicts caused by Meghan's disregard for royal protocol has caused even more pressure on the relationship. So, has their 'treatment' led to the desire to drastically abandon the royal family and England? I think the answer lies somewhere in between the massive cultural difference between the pair and the British press and public being resistant to having the status quo values challenged.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

13th January 2020, 05:39 AM	#56
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,143	By the way Vixen's account above has as much credibility as a rejected script for an episode of the Crown. ETA: Note the use of England instead of UK, a nice touch.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you Last edited by Darat; 13th January 2020 at 05:40 AM.

13th January 2020, 06:02 AM	#57
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,967	Originally Posted by Darat By the way Vixen's account above has as much credibility as a rejected script for an episode of the Crown. ETA: Note the use of England instead of UK, a nice touch. It's a load of disgusting nonsense that reveals much about the writer, nothing about the subject.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

13th January 2020, 06:06 AM	#58
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	The line being spun in the media, "If you don't give us what we want then we'll give no-holds barred interviews to Oprah and others, dishing the dirt on the royal family" is nothing short of blackmail. The Queen should cut them off cold and tell them to publish and be damned.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Last edited by ceptimus; 13th January 2020 at 06:08 AM.

13th January 2020, 06:21 AM	#59
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,143	Originally Posted by ceptimus The line being spun in the media, "If you don't give us what we want then we'll give no-holds barred interviews to Oprah and others, dishing the dirt on the royal family" is nothing short of blackmail. The Queen should cut them off cold and tell them to publish and be damned. Where on earth has that been said?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

13th January 2020, 06:24 AM	#60
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 17,291	I think they should abdicate, just to confuse people.
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

13th January 2020, 06:38 AM	#61
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 17,291	Originally Posted by ceptimus The Queen should cut them off... It used to be, when a Queen decided to cut someone off, it really meant something.
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

13th January 2020, 06:46 AM	#62
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,180	Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen Which they only have because the country has let them keep them and the tourists rarely see any of the Royals, they see the buildings, which would still be there - but I don't want to derail with that debate. But the buildings would not have much in the way of public management anymore being private property. But I fail to see a reason to treat Harry and family any differently than the rest of the royals.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th January 2020, 06:46 AM	#63
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by Darat Where on earth has that been said? Here's one newspaper. Do an internet search to find many others reporting the same thing. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/107238...erview-threat/
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

13th January 2020, 06:50 AM	#64
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,972	I get that nothing short of afternoon tea and extra vowels is more key to the British psyche then their Royalty so nothing will ever change the fact that I'm an outsider looking in on this, but it's still so hard for me to find a vein to hit here. Everything is just wrapped up in this idea that Prince Harry, who was born into a position he had no say in, is somehow obligated to maintain a specific lifestyle and persona for ever, forced to live a lifestyle he doesn't want and can't do to the satisfaction of the same people demanding he maintain it.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

13th January 2020, 06:57 AM	#65
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,967	Didn't either Sweden or Norway recently do something like this, redefining which royals were the main bunch and the rest should be considered only as "and friends"? Seems logical to me that you'd have to pare down occasionally, otherwise you dilute the brand and have too many to keep up with. Harry's not exactly necessary. There's an heir with an heir with an heir plus two spares now.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

13th January 2020, 07:01 AM	#66
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,143	Originally Posted by ceptimus Here's one newspaper. Do an internet search to find many others reporting the same thing. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/107238...erview-threat/ Right so nothing but made up crap. It has no more veracity than me saying Harry has threatened to do all public engagements in the nude if he doesn't get his way.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

13th January 2020, 07:03 AM	#67
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,967	Originally Posted by Darat Right so nothing but made up crap. It has no more veracity than me saying Harry has threatened to do all public engagements in the nude if he doesn't get his way. He and Meghan are an attractive couple. They could make serious money by releasing a sex tape.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

13th January 2020, 07:05 AM	#68
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	He's not obligated to do anything. If he wants to quit that's fine, but he shouldn't expect to retain his privileges if he's not prepared to do the tiny token amount of "work" that's required. And it's offensive really to call it "work" as it amounts to perhaps ten hours a week traveling around in great luxury, attending banquets and meeting a few people. Most of the people he meets have had to fork out their own hard earned cash to prepare for and attend the same events. Meghan has already given up on her friends, father, family, previous husband, and now seems to want to give up on the royals after only marrying into the firm eighteen months ago. She knew what she was getting into (or should have done). She comes across as a self obsessed brat who wants to tell others what to do (cut carbon emissions for one thing) while continuing to keep her own extravagant carbon footprint. Being a royal is not just living the life of luxury, traveling on private jets between palaces and exotic holidays and attending the odd marriage or film premiere: they're also expected to do the slightly less glamorous jobs of opening hospitals, visiting towns, and such. Meghan would also be very stupid not to realize that she would be the focus of media attention - all the royals are, and with her previous acting job and photogenic looks, it should have been obvious to her that she would be especially targeted. I think she likes the media attention anyway, but wants to be free to do it on her own terms - that's not acceptable if it harms the Queen and other, more senior, royals.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Last edited by ceptimus; 13th January 2020 at 07:07 AM.

13th January 2020, 07:06 AM	#69
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,143	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I get that nothing short of afternoon tea and extra vowels is more key to the British psyche then their Royalty so nothing will ever change the fact that I'm an outsider looking in on this, but it's still so hard for me to find a vein to hit here. Everything is just wrapped up in this idea that Prince Harry, who was born into a position he had no say in, is somehow obligated to maintain a specific lifestyle and persona for ever, forced to live a lifestyle he doesn't want and can't do to the satisfaction of the same people demanding he maintain it. Nah. Lots of people forget that we were within a heartbeat of storming the palace after Diane's death. If there had been a referendum for keeping the monarchy or abolishing it that week we'd have ousted them. (Caveat it may then have taken us quite a few years as we ain't good with referendums!)
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

13th January 2020, 07:07 AM	#70
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by Darat Right so nothing but made up crap. It has no more veracity than me saying Harry has threatened to do all public engagements in the nude if he doesn't get his way. You think the meetings of their representatives with Oprah haven't happened then?
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

13th January 2020, 07:15 AM	#71
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,143	Originally Posted by ceptimus You think the meetings of their representatives with Oprah haven't happened then? No idea. But there is zero evidence that they are engaging in the behaviour that you called blackmail.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

13th January 2020, 07:18 AM	#73
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,972	I'm lost. Explain "OMG HE'S GONNA TALK TO OPRAH!" to me someone.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

13th January 2020, 07:38 AM	#74
Mr Fied Muse Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 525	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I'm lost. Explain "OMG HE'S GONNA TALK TO OPRAH!" to me someone. The idea given by some media is that if they don't get what they want they will do a tell all interview and expose the Royal Family's dirty secrets. Some ~~comics~~ newspapers are going with the blackmailing the family story.
Mr Fied Muse Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 525

13th January 2020, 07:39 AM	#75
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,143	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I'm lost. Explain "OMG HE'S GONNA TALK TO OPRAH!" to me someone. And air the dirty laundry, such as his grandad is a funny old racist, his dad is an adulterous weirdo and his grandmother is a queen.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you