PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Is this the beginning of the end of the Monarchy?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 10416
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:38 pm    Post subject: Is this the beginning of the end of the Monarchy? Reply with quote

So Harry and Meghan are off, and "The Palace" is obviously shocked and doesn't really know what to do. I can't help wondering if this is the beginning of the end for the lot of them. QE2 isn't going to live forever, and when she goes we'll be left with Charlie and Camilla, while the main rump of flag-waving royalist supporters get old and die off. There's going to be real questions now about what sort of Monarchy William will take over.

Getting rid of it entirely would free up a nice windfall for the public:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51049960

Quote:

Does Prince Charles actually own all of his estates - and is his income from the Duchy still state funding? Robert

This comes after Harry and Meghan claimed on their new website that 95% of funding for their office comes through income from Prince Charles' estate - the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Duchy estate belongs to all heirs to the throne and has existed since Edward III created it for his son and heir, Prince Edward (famously known as the Black Prince), in 1337.

According to a charter, the Prince of Wales, as the Duke of Cornwall, receives income each year generated from assets on the estate - which includes large parts of Cornwall, Dorset and Herefordshire - but he does not benefit from the proceeds or profit on the sale of any assets, according to the Duchy's website.

This means that the territory - and income - of the Duchy will pass to Prince William, as heir, and on to his son Prince George when he becomes the heir.

Therefore the estate itself is not owned by any one member of the Royal Family, nor is it owned by the government.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fuzzy



Joined: 29 Nov 2013
Posts: 1041
Location: The Marches, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sure it will dwindle to the size of other euro-royals, instead of all the current parasites on the public teat. Unless some more germans take over the franchise.

no worse than whitehall of course: https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/exclusive-senior-treasury-source-alleges-ballooning-civil-service-pension-cost-deliberately-hidden/

H&M makes sense moving abroad. I think Andrew's mates have speeded things up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BritDownUnder



Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Posts: 619
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Megan had a long hard look in the mirror and thought "I don't want to be doing this for the next fifty years" and bolted. Germaine Greer, of all people, predicted this.

She will probably do OK as an actress but their tendency to waste money, mostly other people's money, on holidays, houses and private jets will get them in the end and they will probably crawl back once they can't make it on their own when HM croaks and all is forgiven.
_________________
G'Day cobber!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4126

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don’t understand the “media”. On the one hand they must make quite a packet reporting on the UK monarchy, on the other they put in destructive stories.

More...............
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11529
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Is this the beginning of the end of the Monarchy? Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
............Getting rid of it entirely would free up a nice windfall for the public: ..............


The public would still have to fund much of the ceremonial because that is what draws in the tourists who spend billions in this country every year. Also the cost of maintaining most of the Palaces would still be there as they are listed buildings and part of the tourist trail.

Then there would be the spending on the "President" or other "Head of State" and the cost of voting for them every four or five years and that vote would probably attract less than the local government elections do. Personally, I prefer the Monarchy to an elected or politically appointed President - Tony Bleh anyone?
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Snail



Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 800

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think also its good to have something visible to point to as a contrast to democracy. Or as a highlight to old-fashioned virtues as duty and self-sacrifice to something bigger. Even if it doesn't quite match reality, the monarchy is a useful and important symbol.

I wouldn't have thought this a few years ago, but it seems as if its now an a accelerating trend to demolish things and ideas which were previously seen as important.

Country, community, family, fatherhood, motherhood, maleness, gender, democracy, monarchy etc.

Meghan&harry are another personification of the increasingly self-centred times Imo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11529
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snail wrote:
.............Meghan&harry are another personification of the increasingly self-centred times Imo.


I agree with most of your post Snail but not the above. Harry has lived through the persecution of his mother by the press and can see the same happening now to his wife. Watching coverage of Diana was often like watching a pack of sharks in a feeding frenzy as paparazzi jockeyed for the best position for a picture.

Harry didn't want to do nothing. He wanted to carry on with some duties but that seems not to be possible. His only chance of the throne now is if his brother's family die together in a car or plane crash which is unlikely given the way that they are looked after so why should he put up with 24/7 press intrusion?

Good luck to him and his wife and child, I say.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 5554
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Harry has lived through the persecution of his mother by the press and can see the same happening now to his wife. Watching coverage of Diana was often like watching a pack of sharks in a feeding frenzy as paparazzi jockeyed for the best position for a picture.

Harry didn't want to do nothing. He wanted to carry on with some duties but that seems not to be possible. His only chance of the throne now is if his brother's family die together in a car or plane crash which is unlikely given the way that they are looked after so why should he put up with 24/7 press intrusion?

Good luck to him and his wife and child, I say.

My thoughts as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7531
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Snail wrote:
.............Meghan&harry are another personification of the increasingly self-centred times Imo.


I agree with most of your post Snail but not the above. Harry has lived through the persecution of his mother by the press and can see the same happening now to his wife. Watching coverage of Diana was often like watching a pack of sharks in a feeding frenzy as paparazzi jockeyed for the best position for a picture.

Harry didn't want to do nothing. He wanted to carry on with some duties but that seems not to be possible. His only chance of the throne now is if his brother's family die together in a car or plane crash which is unlikely given the way that they are looked after so why should he put up with 24/7 press intrusion?

Good luck to him and his wife and child, I say.
Don't agree with that Ken.

She is a deeply narcissistic, not very bright attention seeker of the Hollywood "celebrity" mould who has, predictably, jumped on the latest pathetic bourgeois bandwagon of "wokeness". But, who has found the less than obsequious attentions she has got from the British press in response to her and his pathetically hypocritical "woke" public pontifications not to her taste. Furthermore, race has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's not even as if she looks conventionally "black" in any event. But, as I said, that has got bugger all to do with anything and certainly bugger all to do with anything in the minds of the vast majority of the British public. I would bet my house on that.

He, meanwhile, is as thick as pig-shit and is clearly mirroring her every opinion.

As for their "offer" to continue with "some" duties, we only got to hear about that in the last day or so. Bullshit is my guess. The other week, it was an entirely different mood music coming from their initial statement. They made it quite clear, in a very public way and without letting the palace know about it before hand, that they were off. This, latest "offer" was a last minute attempt to hold onto the financially lucrative HRH titles. And the Palace, clearly, have told them to go f*ck themselves. They are either all in of they are all out.

In terms of how this all pans out, she'll no doubt be okay back on the other side of the Atlantic because she is better able to control the media game over there and has the cultural background and experience to know how to milk it. He, meanwhile, does not know his arse from his elbow and will be like a duck out of water. No longer protected, for all of it's constraints, by the royal household machinery.

In terms of the effect on their marriage, my guess is it will end badly. I give it a few years at most.


Last edited by Little John on Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:01 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Snail



Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 800

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, that's exactly my thoughts too. She's an actress, so wants to be famous etc. And that means America. Maybe the next Oprah Winfrey or something. It all seems kinda obvious to me: Woo and marry famous prince, boost her career to the next level, divorce if he becomes a drag and receive millions, become no1 celebrity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7531
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7907757/PIERS-MORGAN-Spare-crocodile-tears-Harry.html

Quote:
PIERS MORGAN

Prince Harry is very sad. The cause of his 'great sadness' is that he and his wife Meghan are quitting the Royal Family to go and live in North America and be full-time celebrities. In a speech at a fancy London restaurant last night (above), Harry explained they had 'no option' but to quit

'I will continue to be the same man who holds his country dear,' he said, 'and dedicates his life to supporting the causes, charities and military communities that are so important to me…the UK is my home and a place that I love. That will never change.'

And to avoid any ambiguity, he insisted: 'What I want to make clear is we’re not walking away.'

At this point, I regret to say I burst out laughing.

Oh, I know, I know…the only accepted narrative, certainly on Twitter, is that the mean, beastly, racist media has driven out poor Harry and Meghan with our despicable antics.

We shamefully refused to let them lecture us about the environment AND use private jets like taxis!

And we had the audacity to think a $500,000 star-studded, baby-shower party in New York was a tad inappropriate given that Harry and Meghan were busy urging us on Twitter that same week to pay more attention to poor people.

Oh, and we shockingly suggested that if you’re going to have the taxpayers fork out $3 million on refurbishing your home, you should probably not hide photos and details of your son's birth or stop the public taking your picture at Wimbledon.

Yes, the 'bullying' media's treated them appallingly, and it's all because Meghan has a black mother – despite the fact we all fell over ourselves for 18 months to say how fantastic it was to have a bi-racial woman enter the Royal Family.

So, on behalf of the disgusting British media, I humbly and sincerely apologise for holding these two rich, privileged public figures to any kind of accountability.

Of course, there's another way of looking at all this.

It could just be that Meghan and Harry are a pair of spoiled, entitled, hypocritical brats who decided to hold the Queen and Monarchy to ransom so they could have their royal cake and eat it, and have now had their bluff called and been sent packing.

Make no mistake, that's the real story here.

Harry admitted it himself last night when he said: 'Our hope was to continue serving the queen, the commonwealth and my military associations but without public funding,' he said. 'Unfortunately, that wasn’t possible.'

No, it wasn't.

The Queen, for all her warm words in her statement, was having none of it, because she knew their absurd 'half-in, half-out' scenario was a non-starter.

You can't have senior members of the Royal Family living in North America flogging themselves to the highest bidders like grubby tiara-clad second-hand car salesmen.

Yet that’s precisely what Harry and Meghan demanded with their extraordinary Monarchy manifesto they published two weeks ago, in which they told the Queen – via social media - how they were going to drag the institution she has served so magnificently kicking and screaming into a new woke, 'progressive' era.

It was going to be their two-faced virtue-signalling way or the highway.
We’ve already seen from the cringe-making clips of Harry (successfully) hustling Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, for Meghan for voiceover work, that the only 'service' on their minds is to commercially exploit their royal status and promote her acting career

We’ve already seen from the cringe-making clips of Harry (successfully) hustling Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, for Meghan for voiceover work, that the only 'service' on their minds is to commercially exploit their royal status and promote her acting career

And for a moment, I feared the poor Queen, already reeling from having to fire her son Andrew and with her 98-year-old husband Philip in ill health, would succumb to their outrageous ultimatum. But no. Instead, Her Majesty rejected it.

She said they could leave royal duty, but if they did, they couldn’t use their HRH titles, maintain their official positions, or have any public funding to support them.

Harry and Meghan were thus, contrary to what he said last night, given a very simple choice: they could either stay in the royal firm or quit.

And they chose to quit.

Not that Harry seems to fully grasp that’s what they're doing.

'What I want to make clear is we’re not walking away,' he insisted last night.

Sorry, what?

That’s exactly what you’re doing, Your (Soon-Not-To-Be) Royal Highness.

'The UK is my home and a place that I love,' he continued. 'That will never change.'

Oh really?

Well if that's the case, why are you going to live in North America?

'We both do everything we can to fly the flag and carry out our roles for this country with pride,' he added.

Harry and Meghan were also seen talking to the Lion King's director Jon Favreau about her future opportunities. Harry tells Mr Favreau: 'If anyone needs any extra voiceover work…' before Meghan interrupts and jokes: 'That's really why we're here – to pitch!'

Oh pur-lease.

You’ve spent your entire married life whining about everything and everyone, and plotting to get out of 'flying the flag'.

Harry told the charity crowd: 'Once Meghan and I were married, we were excited, we were hopeful, and we were here to serve'.

Yet he then said their decision to quit comes after 'so many months of talks.'

Now, I'm not the world’s greatest mathematician but they were married in May, 2018 and it’s now January, 2020.

So that’s a period of just 18 months between the pair of them excitedly looking forward to serve - and quitting.

And for 'so many' of those months, they’ve been planning to quit.

Which beggars the question: how many seconds did they actually excitedly serve before wanting out?

The most ridiculous assertion came towards the end of the speech.

'It has been our privilege to serve you,' Harry said, 'and we will continue to lead a life of service.'

That’s just a blatant lie.

We’ve already seen from the cringe-making clips of him (successfully) hustling the boss of Disney for Meghan for voiceover work, that the only 'service' on their minds is to commercially exploit their royal status and promote her acting career.

They’re going to be the royal Kardashians, and no amount of doe-eyed victimhood whimpering can change that cold hard fact.

They’re also going to very soon discover what the real world’s like.

Despite their constant bleating about the media, Harry and Meghan have actually been afforded huge privacy, protected by new rules of engagement between the royals and British press established after the death of his mother.

That’s why not a single photo of them appeared during their recent six-week holiday.

But once they become just another pair of grasping money-chasing celebrities, they will find themselves at the mercy of the merciless US tabloid media and paparazzi.

Harry’s wish for a new 'peaceful life' is thus utter delusion.

As, frankly, is almost everything about his view of all this saga.

The bottom line is that he was given a choice about which way to go with his life and he decided to quit on the Queen, the Monarchy, the military, and his country.

So, spare me all your crocodile patriotic dutiful tears, Harry.

You’ve ditched it all for the big bucks and your wife's movie career.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 8328

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hard to take anything Piers Morgan says about them very seriously, he's got skin in the game.

There’s a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won’t read all about it
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7531
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
Hard to take anything Piers Morgan says about them very seriously, he's got skin in the game.

There’s a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won’t read all about it
How about contesting the content of the article. Just a thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 8328

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote:
Hard to take anything Piers Morgan says about them very seriously, he's got skin in the game.

There’s a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won’t read all about it
How about contesting the content of the article. Just a thought.


I'm sure there's some merit to his arguments, that's not my point though. My point is about the motivation of the source, as a historian I'm sure you understand the importance of knowing *who* is saying things not just what's being said.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7531
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote:
Hard to take anything Piers Morgan says about them very seriously, he's got skin in the game.

There’s a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won’t read all about it
How about contesting the content of the article. Just a thought.


I'm sure there's some merit to his arguments, that's not my point though. My point is about the motivation of the source, as a historian I'm sure you understand the importance of knowing *who* is saying things not just what's being said.
I have presented an argument myself. I have also presented an article. But you choose to attack, not the argument, but an easy target character.

Okay.

How very identitarian of you and how intellectually dishonest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group