Jump to content

Because The British Royal Family


DougRichards

Recommended Posts

I actually respect Prince Harry (or is it just "Harry" now) for this, and think he will be absolutely fine out in the real world if he is eventually cut off from the royal purse completely.

 

The United Nations would be atop a long list of MNCs interested in his services. It also raises the question of whether he could enter politics.

 

Because the UN and politics are the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 784
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

They should do it right and flat out renounce their titles and make a go of it using their own money. It's not like they will be penniless. From what I've read, Harry has inherited something like $30+ million between his mother and great grandmother. That's a fairly good pile of cash to use while they launch their 'brand'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually respect Prince Harry (or is it just "Harry" now) for this, and think he will be absolutely fine out in the real world if he is eventually cut off from the royal purse completely.

 

The United Nations would be atop a long list of MNCs interested in his services. It also raises the question of whether he could enter politics.

It's still Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex unless he decides to renounce his titles, in which case he would be just Harry Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

If he wants to give up the life, good luck to him. He's paid some dues. But if he's not doing Royal work, he shouldn't get paid for it. Whatever money he gets from the Civil List should be reduced commensurately. As noted, he's independently wealthy and his wife can always go back to work, so we won't be having a tag day for him anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rt Hon Harry Mountbatten-Windsor MP does have a certain ring to it.

 

I would not be surprised if he renounced all monies before being asked to. He seems to be the type who would do so.

Would he have part of a military pension available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've trademarked the hell out of "Royal Sussex" and can probably make a killing selling perfume, soap and cheap cufflinks to morons. So much for going their own way, they are going to milk their "royalness" for every penny they can. Apparently, the Queen had no idea it was coming and is not amused.

 

I saw on Twitter, a photoshopped picture of the two of them where someone had added Yoko Ono's head to her body in a picture of the two. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Rt Hon Harry Mountbatten-Windsor MP does have a certain ring to it.

 

I would not be surprised if he renounced all monies before being asked to. He seems to be the type who would do so.

Would he have part of a military pension available?

 

Doubt it since he left after only a decade or so. Unless there is a special Royal rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Daily Mail, Her Majesty was not informed until after it was done. Also they are apparently ignoring her to do their own millenial virtue signalling thing. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7873341/Queen-appears-public-time-Harry-Meghan-crisis.html

 

My wife is a typical royal wedding junkie. Last night she looked at me and said "you were right" that Meghan was a gold digging snake and Harry is a pussy whipped nebish. It really wasn't very hard to see, I've been pussy whipped to a crazy woman who hated my friends and family, I can spot it a mile away now that I'm back in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt because I do believe our press has been vile to her. But there is very little defence to snubbing the Queen.

 

Yes, that's what I think. I don't know and don't want to know anything about how the couple's relationship works. That's their own business. I do think the whole idea of a Royal Family is becoming increasingly ludicrous though. Our friends across the pond did away with ours 240 odd years ago and I don't see them wanting to create one of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the best reason to have a Monarch, is you don't have to worry about getting a bad President. :D

 

I like it, not because I'm a monarchist in any respect, but I'm a romantic, in a historical sense. I also think anything we deliberately engineered to replace it would inevitably be crap. Everything new we have tried since the war we fucked up, so it seems a reasonable assumption.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it, not because I'm a monarchist in any respect, but I'm a romantic, in a historical sense. I also think anything we deliberately engineered to replace it would inevitably be crap. Everything new we have tried since the war we fucked up, so it seems a reasonable assumption.

No need to replace it, just let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt because I do believe our press has been vile to her. But there is very little defence to snubbing the Queen.

 

Yes, that's what I think. I don't know and don't want to know anything about how the couple's relationship works. That's their own business. I do think the whole idea of a Royal Family is becoming increasingly ludicrous though. Our friends across the pond did away with ours 240 odd years ago and I don't see them wanting to create one of their own.

 

 

But they did not do it becuase of the monarch, but your parliaments politics.

 

 

 

 

I like it, not because I'm a monarchist in any respect, but I'm a romantic, in a historical sense. I also think anything we deliberately engineered to replace it would inevitably be crap. Everything new we have tried since the war we fucked up, so it seems a reasonable assumption.

No need to replace it, just let it go.

 

 

How a POTUs is treated reminds me quite a bit of a king with a court and stuff. Congress demurely standing up whenPOTUS enters for the state of the union speech. Reminds me of a monarch holding court. Same for the french president and his big palace and his mounted guard and all the other pomp. The only non-ceremonial monarchs in Europe, taht are actually ruling, are the Grand-Duke of Liechtenstein and the Pope ruling the Vatican. All the rest are for smiling and shaking hands. So if a country wants that or not is their business. But many people are very nostalgic and seem to need the pomp.

Edited by Panzermann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But many people are very nostalgic and seem to need the pomp.

 

People like authoritative figures no matter how much they deny it and in absence of such even circus will do.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Queen may have authority, but she clearly doesn't have any real power. So, for us, it's an ideal solution. You invest all the powers you traditionally give to a President in a Prime Minister, and make him subservient to a greater authority figure. With a couple of exceptions, and you can probably guess which ones, it seemingly works. We don't like our politicians getting above their station, and making them grovel before a theoretical superior appeals to us seemingly.

 

I'm not saying it would work for anyone else, but it appears to work for Japan, Norway and Denmark. None of those seem authoritarian regimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly does work in Japan's case, with the caveat that the nobility must uphold its part of this bargain by acting the part.

 

Disunity within it is the first step toward the public's loss of respect for the social authority of it.

Edited by Nobu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...