Politics Meghan Markle and Prince Harry - Racially Villified or Royally Unpopular?

Remove this Banner Ad

JackNah_8 said:
Doubt H and M will ever return as working royals, especially after Spare and Oprah interview

As for Catherine, who knows what happened to her? The rumours on X are pretty brutal and extreme
Click to expand...

Yes the moment was lost and the die is cast and as the English like to say, made the bed now lie in it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Reg Grundy35 said:
When I hear "working royals" i want to spew.
Click to expand...

Working royals refers to members of the royal family that carry out official duties on behalf of the Crown and represent the monarch at royal engagements, which include community initiatives, welcoming visiting Heads of State, meeting guests at official functions, State visits, presenting members of the public with honours, undertaking diplomatic activities such as state dinners, presiding over military ceremonies, attendance at sports events, opening new sessions of Parliament, attending charity functions as the patron and so on.

In 2023 Princess Anne conducted 457 engagements followed by the King with 425 royal engagements (with an average of 521 per year between 2002-2022 as Prince of Wales). The Duke of Edinburgh had 297 engagements in 2023, Queen Camilla had 233 and the Duchess of Edinburgh had 219. The Prince of Wales conducted 172 engagements.
 
Roylion said:
Working royals refers to members of the royal family that carry out official duties on behalf of the Crown and represent the monarch at royal engagements, which include community initiatives, welcoming visiting Heads of State, meeting guests at official functions, State visits, presenting members of the public with honours, undertaking diplomatic activities such as state dinners, presiding over military ceremonies, attendance at sports events, opening new sessions of Parliament, attending charity functions as the patron and so on.

In 2023 Princess Anne conducted 457 engagements followed by the King with 425 royal engagements (with an average of 521 per year between 2002-2022 as Prince of Wales). The Duke of Edinburgh had 297 engagements in 2023, Queen Camilla had 233 and the Duchess of Edinburgh had 219. The Prince of Wales conducted 172 engagements.
Click to expand...

Any idea when the term started being used regularly?

Answered my own question. 1990s to show only a few royals were receiving funds from the taxpayer via the queen (Elizabeth if it’s not obvious)
Originally to just have Charles and andrews branches but adapted over the years for various reasons. Well known of course.

Came to a head in jubilee with dozens on the Buckingham palace balcony with Charles re asserting his slimmed down push. Ironically hasty and Andrew were in at that point.

We have uncertainty at the moment and we wish them well with health issues. It seems william never intended to take on his predecessors level of work and you wonder if Harry declining to share the future load grated on him
 
Last edited:
Rat Saw God said:
Having a King who thought the Nazi empire was the bee's knees didn't bring the monarchy down
Click to expand...

The British people are engaged with Kate, she is idolised by millions.
She is revered as a great wife and mother.

If Willy thinks he can trade her in for a newer model, he is daft.

I notice in the stats above, Willy is way down on the list of actually working as a royal.

Gawd help us when he is King.

He let his ill wife take the fall, for that photo.

He is not a man of substance, so much for supporting your wife.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

campbell said:
If Willy thinks he can trade her in for a newer model, he is daft.

I notice in the stats above, Willy is way down on the list of actually working as a royal.

Gawd help us when he is King.

He let his ill wife take the fall, for that photo.

He is not a man of substance, so much for supporting your wife.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Please.

Absolute storm in a tea cup, fuelled by conspiracy theorists who spend far too much time on social media, indulging their fantasies as amateur sleuths with their invented theories.
 
Last edited:
Roylion said:
:rolleyes:

Please.

Absolute storm in a tea cup, fuelled by conspiracy theorists who spend far too much time on social media, indulging their fantasies as amateur sleuths with their invented theories.
Click to expand...
well why can't they? I mean the whole thing is a fantasy isn't it. Hereditary monarchy - i.e. coming out of the right uterus entitles equips you - without question - to be a head of state regardless of your intellectual, psychological capacity and temperament. Let not even start with the "divine right" bullshit!
 
Reg Grundy35 said:
well why can't they? I mean the whole thing is a fantasy isn't it. Hereditary monarchy - i.e. coming out of the right uterus entitles and equips you - without question - to be a head of state regardless of your intellectual, psychological capacity and temperament. Let not even start with the "divine right" bullshit!
Click to expand...
Normally the idea of an alcoholic bottom as head of state would intrigue me but even that can't make William appear interesting.
 
Reg Grundy35 said:
well why can't they? I mean the whole thing is a fantasy isn't it. Hereditary monarchy - i.e. coming out of the right uterus entitles equips you - without question - to be a head of state regardless of your intellectual, psychological capacity and temperament.
Click to expand...

As I've said before the Governor-General under the current system is a non-political office because his powers are vested in the monarch who stands outside politics, because of the hereditary aspect.

Because of the hereditary aspect, future monarchs are trained from a young age to fulfil the constitutional duties and royal role required by the monarch and indeed often assists the existing monarch to carry out his/her royal duties, until they step into the full role themselves.

For example, from his teenage years, Charles has had training in Constitutional law by the late Queen exposing him to the workings of government through briefings, private lessons and involvement in different governmental departments.

When William was a teenager, the late Queen began William's constitutional education by taking him through the state boxes and guiding him through the papers. Starting in 2009 William underwent an two-year training program designed by the Queen and Prince Charles which included working with different departments in the British government, private lessons from "constitutional experts" and briefings with high-profile figures, like then-Prime Minister, Sir John Major.

Harold George Nicholson who at various stages of his public career was a politician, diplomat, historian, biographer, diarist, novelist, lecturer, journalist and broadcaster put it this way.

"The advantages of a hereditary Monarchy are self-evident. Without some such method of prescriptive, immediate and automatic succession, an interregnum intervenes, rival claimants arise, continuity is interrupted and the magic lost. Apart from the imponderable, but deeply important, sentiments and affections which congregate around an ancient and legitimate Royal Family, a hereditary Monarch acquires sovereignty by processes which are wholly different from those by which a dictator seizes, or a President is granted, the headship of the State. The monarch personifies both the past history and the present identity of the Nation as a whole. In an epoch of change, he [she] remains the symbol of continuity; in a phase of disintegration, the element of cohesion; in times of mutability, the emblem of permanence. Governments come and go, politicians rise and fall: the Crown is always there. He [she] is not impelled as usurpers and dictators are impelled, either to mesmerise his people by a succession of dramatic triumphs, or to secure their acquiescence by internal terrorism or by the invention of external dangers. The appeal of hereditary Monarchy is to stability rather than to change, to continuity rather than to experiment, to custom rather than to novelty, to safety rather than to adventure.

The Monarch, above all, is neutral. Whatever may be his [her] personal prejudices or affections, he [she] is bound to remain detached from all political parties and to preserve in his own person the equilibrium of the realm. An elected President – whether, as under some constitutions, he be no more than a representative functionary, or whether, as under other constitutions, he be the chief executive – can never inspire the same sense of absolute neutrality. However impartial he may strive to become, he must always remain the prisoner of his own partisan past; he is accompanied by friends and supporters whom he may seek to reward, or faced by former antagonists who will regard him with distrust. He cannot, to an equal extent, serve as the fly-wheel of the State.”

Reg Grundy35 said:
Let not even start with the "divine right" bullshit!
Click to expand...
The modern constitutional monarchy gains its fundamental authority via various Acts of Parliament, not 'Divine Right'. The concept of the 'Divine Right of Kings' as the origin of monarchial authority does not exist and hasn't existed since at least the 17th century.

Tim Harris, who is a social historian of politics who specialises in Later Stuart Britain and is the author of several works dealing with this era, argues that the continued existance of the monarchy has been since 1689, a "social contract" between ruler and people that serves the needs and wants of the people.
 
News.com.us site files them under - Celebrity - Royals.

Not sure what Harold George Nicholson would think of that. Chasing popularity like some tinpot dictator
 
peetoo said:
News.com.us site files them under - Celebrity - Royals.

Not sure what Harold George Nicholson would think of that. Chasing popularity like some tinpot dictator
Click to expand...

I don't think Harold George Nicholson would give two hoots what news.com.us terms the royal family as. If some see them as celebrities, then so be it.
 
Roylion said:
As I've said before the Governor-General under the current system is a non-political office because his powers are vested in the monarch who stands outside politics, because of the hereditary aspect.

Because of the hereditary aspect, future monarchs are trained from a young age to fulfil the constitutional duties and royal role required by the monarch and indeed often assists the existing monarch to carry out his/her royal duties, until they step into the full role themselves.

For example, from his teenage years, Charles has had training in Constitutional law by the late Queen exposing him to the workings of government through briefings, private lessons and involvement in different governmental departments.

When William was a teenager, the late Queen began William's constitutional education by taking him through the state boxes and guiding him through the papers. Starting in 2009 William underwent an two-year training program designed by the Queen and Prince Charles which included working with different departments in the British government, private lessons from "constitutional experts" and briefings with high-profile figures, like then-Prime Minister, Sir John Major.

Harold George Nicholson who at various stages of his public career was a politician, diplomat, historian, biographer, diarist, novelist, lecturer, journalist and broadcaster put it this way.

"The advantages of a hereditary Monarchy are self-evident. Without some such method of prescriptive, immediate and automatic succession, an interregnum intervenes, rival claimants arise, continuity is interrupted and the magic lost. Apart from the imponderable, but deeply important, sentiments and affections which congregate around an ancient and legitimate Royal Family, a hereditary Monarch acquires sovereignty by processes which are wholly different from those by which a dictator seizes, or a President is granted, the headship of the State. The monarch personifies both the past history and the present identity of the Nation as a whole. In an epoch of change, he [she] remains the symbol of continuity; in a phase of disintegration, the element of cohesion; in times of mutability, the emblem of permanence. Governments come and go, politicians rise and fall: the Crown is always there. He [she] is not impelled as usurpers and dictators are impelled, either to mesmerise his people by a succession of dramatic triumphs, or to secure their acquiescence by internal terrorism or by the invention of external dangers. The appeal of hereditary Monarchy is to stability rather than to change, to continuity rather than to experiment, to custom rather than to novelty, to safety rather than to adventure.

The Monarch, above all, is neutral. Whatever may be his [her] personal prejudices or affections, he [she] is bound to remain detached from all political parties and to preserve in his own person the equilibrium of the realm. An elected President – whether, as under some constitutions, he be no more than a representative functionary, or whether, as under other constitutions, he be the chief executive – can never inspire the same sense of absolute neutrality. However impartial he may strive to become, he must always remain the prisoner of his own partisan past; he is accompanied by friends and supporters whom he may seek to reward, or faced by former antagonists who will regard him with distrust. He cannot, to an equal extent, serve as the fly-wheel of the State.”


The modern constitutional monarchy gains its fundamental authority via various Acts of Parliament, not 'Divine Right'. The concept of the 'Divine Right of Kings' as the origin of monarchial authority does not exist and hasn't existed since at least the 17th century.

Tim Harris, who is a social historian of politics who specialises in Later Stuart Britain and is the author of several works dealing with this era, argues that the continued existance of the monarchy has been since 1689, a "social contract" between ruler and people that serves the needs and wants of the people.
Click to expand...
ok :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blue Arrow
Covid-19 Covid Inquiry, why no Royal Commission?
Replies
23
Views
1K
Werewolf
Werewolf
_Mike_
Vale Lt Col Harry Smith
Replies
1
Views
465
Tasmaniac
T
G
  • Locked
  • Poll
Society/Culture Biggest flog? Chief or Gough?
Replies
14
Views
609
Gethelred
Gethelred
MPMonkeys
Advertising: okay or obnoxious?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Chief
Chief
Rotayjay
The Robodebt Royal Commission
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
771
Views
35K
peetoo
peetoo
Crankyhawk
Society/Culture "Triggering" and whose responsibility is it
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
mr bagcroft
mr bagcroft
Gethelred
Society/Culture Sport: Arbitrary, Needless or Essential?
2 3
Replies
67
Views
3K
ferball
ferball

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top