The Duchess of Sussex has returned to Canada to join her son amid discussions over the future role for her and Prince Harry in the Royal Family.As far as I'm concerned, this is a dispute among the upper management at one of the world's oldest set of theme parks.
Meghan and Prince Harry had been in Canada over Christmas with baby Archie.
It comes as the Queen, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge asked staff to find a workable solution after the couple announced they will step back as senior royals.
The Royal Family was said to be "hurt" at the couple's statement.
Seriously, what is it that they actually do, other than operate a bunch of tourist attractions and occasionally put on glitzy televised spectacles? Plenty of nations with a parliamentary system of government get along perfectly well without oversight from the European Royal Gene Pool. I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, but it's been almost three centuries since a British monarch last refused to assent to a bill passed by Parliament.
From the comments: A view worth considering.
10 comments:
The royals seem like an expensive, anachronistic white elephant with no obvious function except costly pagents. Mired in sexual scandal, it is hard for an American to understand the attraction -except for Megan this is not an attractive cabal physically or any other way. Yet the fam is still beloved in the UK. And many Americans eat it up too as though it meant something. A mystery to me though. Guess you need to be British to really get it.
Excellent piece in the NYTimes about why this matters...to black Britons and those that care about racism there (or anywhere). Written by a black Briton it ends:
"the most meaningful act of royal leadership I’m ever likely to see."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opinion/meghan-markle-prince-harry.html
I think when Harry dropped from 2nd to 5th in the line of succession, his interest in the Royal Family plummeted as well. In addition, Meghan hasn't exactly been treated royally, either, although they did assign an HRH to her.
LRod
ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired
Racism? Perhaps. Or it could be because she refuses to behave as a royal wife is expected to (and she should have known what was expected before marrying into the family).
As to the article, "racism" is often observed to be so by people looking to be offended. If it is so subtle that one has to go looking for it.....
Stewart, I hope that "royal leadership" quote gets remembered. Coincidentally, my lovely mixed-genes granddaughter, who works in a call center, had the N-word hurled at her by a caller on the very day this story broke. Made the right move, hitting the "Transfer to manager" button while the guy was still spewing.
A friend of similar parentage recently told me that mixed people seem to get an extra share of bile from people who see the white side of their families as treasonous.
B, your vantage point is from the top....and there's a lot of misery down below along with bodies, for whom it wasn't subtle at all. If you would read the article and look at some of the tabloid headlines and articles, perhaps you might be honest enough to reconsider those words.
A person whose class/race/position hasn't been particularly blighted, often feels the way you do. Maybe watching YouTubes of Archie Bunker for a while might change your mind?
As for acting the royal wife, well one of my versions of Hell would be getting close to Kate Middleton. The phrase queen b*&^h comes to mind. Pretty yes, but a dragon.
But they do have those cool flybys over Buckingham palace from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF) There is a certain gravitas from those proceedings.
The royals have a labour shortage . They used to be able to send up to 10 people out to make public appearances . That number is shrinking .
The royals are non-partizan ,they can go into any situation and not be a distraction from the purpose of the event at the same time they elevate and legitimize the event . That's the attraction of having them . If Harry pulls out of the mix it increases the work load for his brother .
I know dairy farmers that have the same issues .
I've long appreciated the Brit parliamentary system wherein the allegiance/fealty point person is not the person at the head of their government: the Queen is not the PM. Here in America they are rolled together, so it's more difficult to really pick a fight with the President on bad actions/policy. The British situation, along with votes of confidence means that, when ruling Brit party really steps in it, they may be out of office in a week, whereas here we're stuck with them for 4 years.
Stewart, that's why most real democracies have a parliamentary form of government where the elected president is merely a figurehead who snips ribbons at road openings and stuff like that, while the real leader is the Prime Minister picked by the ruling coalition in Parliament. The U.S. has a President rather than a Prime Minister because the writers of the Constitution wanted to make a King of George Washington, but Washington refused. Thus they created a strong executive with King-like powers. But outside of the United States, it is very rare to see a real democracy with a President that has actual power. I think France is pretty much the only one, and that's mostly because the creators of the current French Constitution wanted to make Charles de Gaulle their Emperor, and de Gualle, like Washington before him, wasn't interested in being a monarch.
Post a Comment