Megxit

[Rhea]

*shrug*

Sure, the press made a big deal out of it for 48 hours, but I really don't think the average Brit cares. At least not in my social circle. We haven't discussed it all it. Love Island all the way, baby! Plus there's a same gendered couple in Dancing on Ice...is a same gendered couple on Strictly next and will it happen this season? Those are the big, non-political topics. Truly, from what I can see, it's the Americans who get all royal obsessed. (waves to mom)

I think the Queen wanted to slim down the working royals anyway and Harry has never really shown an interest. I felt so bad for him when the press found out he was serving on the front line. The poor guy just wanted to serve in the army and then couldn't for security reasons once it was made public.

The average Brit doesn't hate Meghan. The average Brit doesn't spare a single, solitary second on the couple. I think it was a clash of cultures and expectations which created a very difficult situation. Harry hates the press and wants out of the limelight. Meghan is used to money, but since it was private money she didn't have to disclose where and how it was spent and watch herself be judged for those expenses. As an actress she probably also kept an eye on her public image, understandably. Now as a royal it's best to just not touch social media, approach newspapers or give statements - EVER. Those are all huge changes in her life in a very short amount of time. I do think it was underestimated how difficult those changes would be and the couple should have received more support. Though we have no idea if the interest in them surprised everyone or if they were offered support and didn't accept it.

Archie will already be the equivalent of Zara, Eugenie, and Beatrice, who are all royals with other jobs. I think it's difficult at the moment because while their children have jobs Anne and Andrew (the equivalent of Harry) haven't really. I hope this paves the way for Charlotte, Louis, Archie and any other children.

Harry and Meghan have a lot of earning potential which they are unable to take advantage of until they step away so I think they are on the first stage of that - announcing their intentions so that they can start earning elsewhere. I think it's unfair to expect them to just give back their inheritance or repay for their wedding. I can't believe I've seen calls for that, Diana's money is rightfully his and if his father wants to continue to support them I don't care one single bit. Lots of people's parents help them out and getting all righteous about how his father helps him or not because the royal family "owes" us something is BS. I do, however, think it's right and correct that they will give up the money from the Sovereign Grant. Paying back for Frogmore renovations is again silly, it would need renovations no matter who lived there.

My main concerns are
1 - who will pay for security for the couple? If they are on State business and working, then I think we, the UK taxpayers should pay for it. I don't think we should pay if they are on non State business in the UK or abroad. Security can add up to a lot of money and currently the MET Police don't disclose the amount spent on security for royals annually.

2 - what will be the environmental cost of splitting time between two countries? I'm a dual citizen, though because I'm a pauper in comparison I don't get to visit frequently. It does mean I have a larger carbon footprint than I'd like just down to me visiting my family. In this day and age I don't see that being a popular choice, though because they wouldn't access state money (at least the Sovereign Grant), their expenses and travel itinerary wouldn't be publicly available. If they are using state money, then it should be disclosed as it currently is.

3 - will they have Frogmore even they are not living there regularly (I believe the answer is yes atm)? I don't think that they should necessarily. I think lots of royals live in those cottages, but if someone is waiting for one or will be living there full time or it'll be rented for profit then I think they should get priority. Unless it's owed by someone (ie, not the taxpayer) who has the ability to gift it to them without strings.

4 - what will Meghan's visa status be? She was allegedly entering with leave to remain under the same visas I did. They require residence, with proof, to get each successive visa and eventual citizenship. Meghan splitting time would disqualify her from her successive visas with the ability to work within the UK and leading to citizenship under current immigration paths. Is a loophole being made for her so that she can live and work in the UK without the visas currently required by law?


Wow, that's long! My British husband and friends don't care about this and roll their eyes about anything Royal this so as the sole American in my immediate group I needed to get it all out on an American fourm

 

[arkieb1]

My father was born in England, the English still have an elitist social system that isn't the same in the US or the Australia. You probably have to have dealt with or be a part of the system or outside of it to understand it. But it is very intolerant to "outsiders."

 

[joelly]

So?
What's wrong with being, "Just a ginger headed guy with a pretty wife who used to be an actress on TV."
Perhaps they won't die in a car crash while being chased by paparazzi.

What's wrong with not being super duper extra special and superior simply by birth?
I see the whole royal system as an unfair anti-equality relic.
I view royalty as the opposite of, but equally unfair as, that other anti-equality-by-birth relic, slavery.

I see both as two sides of the same equally-offensive coin. d

If Harry gets all this and is putting his blueblood head into a proverbial guillotine MAJOR kudos to him!!!!!

Very well said Kenny. Agree to all of this. In this day and age, being royal is so out of date. They promote inequality and exclusion. What are they for anyway?

 

[D2B]

They can do what they want imho- but do it respectfully to the queen and Prince Phillip - both are elderly grandparents and their family. For me if you leave the fold you cant have the title . trademarking the Sussex title if this is true, will then be making money of a system they are not working in or want to be a part of.

Also you cant collaborate with the Queen - that is pure ego from one or both of them - she is the Queen not a business partner.

I do not think for one minute they intend to retire quietly - the website they have started seems to create an alternative court that lets them do as they please and be an international presence - one that leverages of their titles (which once you leave the fold as far as I am concerned you shouldn't get the benefits of without carrying out the responsibility) .... so it just goes around in circles.

They could have lived relatively quietly in the longer term, the cookbook launche, the magazine collaboration, the clothing range for charity - they were never about being part of the royal family - it was all to quick and too much about creating a brand and invited to much media attention.

the other aspect by removing themselves from the royal family - all bets will be off from a media sense - they are inviting even more scrutiny,

There are no quick solutions - I fear they keep on rushing and stumbling.

Not attending your ailing grandfathers potential last Christmas and not supporting your elderly grandmother in this time, is plain rude if you are a normal person. These are not behaviours and values that I would condone in my family and if my son did that to my mum and dad I would be sorely disappointed in how I had raised him and in his partner - let alone doing so on an international stage.

I hope they can get peace if that is what they really want.

 

[voce]

There are no quick solutions - I fear they keep on rushing and stumbling.

Not attending your ailing grandfathers potential last Christmas and not supporting your elderly grandmother in this time, is plain rude if you are a normal person. These are not behaviours and values that I would condone in my family and if my son did that to my mum and dad I would be sorely disappointed in how I had raised him and in his partner - let alone doing so on an international stage.

I think you're right in that there are no quick solutions. They could have handled it better, and it seems like they're rushing needlessly. Not attending Christmas with ailing grandfather's potential last Christmas--this is what bothered me the most. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, as they could've made more time before or after Christmas to spend with him, but their absence when he's rumored to be not as healthy as before is still not something I would have chosen if I were in the same circumstances.

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

All the makings of a reality show. How droll.

cheers--Sharon

 

[partgypsy]

DB@ this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about, when I say that I would not want to be anyone's public punching bag, for any amount of money. How do you even know THIS much about their various lives and activities. and of course purported motives and plans. You don't really. And what little you know, is from rags who want to paint them in the worst possible light to sell papers.

I don't care if they keep the title, or the house or if their father still gives Harry money and inheritances. They are not taking from the "royal" fund and other than that who the f cares. I'm sure whatever they do they will contribute to the GDP many times more than any average joe, "help" or no help withstanding. If you want to pick on them for taking family money then you should apply the exact same rules to ANYONE who inherits family wealth. Saying they have to both step away from what what obviously emotionally damaging situation and possibly unsafe situation AND wear sackclothes for the rest of their lives is exactly the kind of stupid judgmentalness they are (hoping) to get away from. And a similar type of "you owe me" attitude that got his mother killed.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

I think you're right in that there are no quick solutions. They could have handled it better, and it seems like they're rushing needlessly. Not attending Christmas with ailing grandfather's potential last Christmas--this is what bothered me the most. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, as they could've made more time before or after Christmas to spend with him, but their absence when he's rumored to be not as healthy as before is still not something I would have chosen if I were in the same circumstances.

Why didn't they bring the baby to visit grandad and the elderly great grandparents ?
My sister and I are the youngest in our extended family so im greatful we visited Grandma and Grandad at least weekly - to have some good memories before Grandma got old and sick and couldn't remember us

Also my grandparent genuinely loved spending time with my cousins and I
I see this from both sides as when Gary's kids come to visit its rear the grandkids come

So i think its really lovelly that Edward and Sophie's two see the Queen and Prince Philip so regulatory

 

[yssie]

My father was born in England, the English still have an elitist social system that isn't the same in the US or the Australia. You probably have to have dealt with or be a part of the system or outside of it to understand it. But it is very intolerant to "outsiders."

This.
It's something that words really just can't convey the insidiousness of.

 

[cmd2014]

They could have lived relatively quietly in the longer term, the cookbook launche, the magazine collaboration, the clothing range for charity - they were never about being part of the royal family - it was all to quick and too much about creating a brand and invited to much media attention.

Ummm, isn't this a bit hypocritical? I mean, Charles and Kate and many other members of the Royal Family have done magazine collaborations and been praised for them. Why is Meghan being slammed for the same thing? And many members of the royal family have raised money for charities. It's not like Meghan wrote a cookbook of her own recipes and published it under her own name for the purposes of aggrandizing herself...she gathered recipes of women in the community who the money was being raised for and made it clear it was a charity fundraising publication (like most churches do). And it looked like a beautiful, lovely, thing to do. But you write it like she launched her own cookbook like Sandra Lee or something. And the clothing line involved enlisting the work of a bunch of British designers kind of like Band Aid did with music - and they weren't slammed in the press for it like they were somehow being selfish or creating a brand or inviting too much media attention. Why is she being criticized for doing things to help people like the Royal family is supposed to do? Like what Diana did?

 

[kenny]

My father was born in England, the English still have an elitist social system that isn't the same in the US or the Australia. You probably have to have dealt with or be a part of the system or outside of it to understand it. But it is very intolerant to "outsiders."

I'm not part of the system in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Nazi Germany either.
So you can't recognize what's wrong with a system because you haven't dealt with it, and so, don't "understand" it?
Is understanding something the same as approving of it?

I live in the American system.
I understand it.
But that doesn't stop me from seeing things that are wrong with it.

 

[winnietucker]

Saw this online and thought it was pertinent.

 

[voce]

I only started following this royalty stuff after it was revealed Prince Andrew had an association with Jeffrey Epstein, hence I missed a lot of articles prior to the birth of Archie. UK publications like the Daily Mail have not been remotely fair to Meghan. I started paying attention to this drama because I wish for two people in love to escape the bullying from pernicious British media. As to the argument someone put forth that regular Brits don't care about royalty news and it seems that Americans care about British royals more than Brits, 1) the drama is being stirred by British media monetizing their headlines in British, not American markets; and 2) maybe the Americans are paying attention to this because a lot of us see an injustice being perpetuated by the British media, and maybe we care more about justice and racism than regular Brits. Also, personally speaking, I am tired of any news with Trump in the headline; I think Trump knows how to play to his voter base, and in my opinion the correct way to deal with Trump is to give him no air time instead of letting him rile up the Democrats and giving him so much attention (effectively all the air time in the world, which is exactly what he wants). (If you want to win, you've got to stop giving your opponent exactly what he wants!)

 

[distracts]

Have to do things a certain way - no. Have some kind of responsibility after (only recently) claiming £2.5m of taxpayer funds to refurbish their private home - yes. They can do as they please, but absolutely not whilst claiming taxpayer funds - rights come with responsibilities, for them as for us all.

Their home is not their private home - Frogmore is part of the crown estate, and sovereign grant/crown estate funds were used to renovate it. I honestly don’t see what the fuss is about there. Even if they continue living there, they may have to pay rent which I believe some other royals like Beatrice and Eugenie have had to do. And if they continue living there, it will be at the whim of the queen and she is who should be blamed, not them.

The line of thinking that they have obligations because of this is a trap they’d never be able to escape if they engaged in it. I’m glad they’re escaping this kind of toxic bullshit that is best left in the past.

Also you cant collaborate with the Queen - that is pure ego from one or both of them - she is the Queen not a business partner.

I do not think for one minute they intend to retire quietly - the website they have started seems to create an alternative court that lets them do as they please and be an international presence - one that leverages of their titles (which once you leave the fold as far as I am concerned you shouldn't get the benefits of without carrying out the responsibility) .... so it just goes around in circles.

Not attending your ailing grandfathers potential last Christmas and not supporting your elderly grandmother in this time, is plain rude if you are a normal person. These are not behaviours and values that I would condone in my family and if my son did that to my mum and dad I would be sorely disappointed in how I had raised him and in his partner - let alone doing so on an international stage.

The queen is just an old lady. The titles mean nothing. Of course they can collaborate with her, just as they would with any other human being.

Many people alternate Christmas between one side of the family and the other (or friends, as M&H did). It's not rude to do that, even when your grandparents are old. I'm sure they see them plenty. Not every time they see them is in the press.

I notice WAY more people complaining about them benefiting from their station more than were upset about Prince Andrew... people have suggested many times cutting Meghan and Harry off entirely and stripping them of their titles while I didn’t see a single person mention the same for Andrew. Really shows the true colors of people and what they value. Obedience and fealty above all, apparently, even above morality.

 

[Jambalaya]

I hope this will be a positive new start for Meghan and Harry.

I see that people are wondering about money and security issues. I think they stand to make a fortune once they're released from their official royal ties. I just read that Meghan has signed a Disney voiceover, and they have trademarked all those products. I think they'll make so much money that they won't need any more from Charles, and they'll have enough to live somewhere super-secure, with all the best security arrangements - just same as Hollywood stars and other very rich and famous people. So in time, I think those questions about money and security will fade away.

If they weren't happy living as UK royals, then they needed to change their lives. I guess they'll live in North America and Harry will simply visit home a few times a year to see his family.

I'm assuming the Canadians will let them immigrate permanently to Canada! If not, they can live in the US. Harry would be eligible as the spouse of a US citizen.

I don't think it's such a big deal, really. I think the timing made it so, more than anything. They'll live abroad and take advantage of all the opportunities that come their way, which they couldn't do while being UK royals, and they'll leave the royal family to those who do want to be part of it and to carry out royal duties.

So everybody gets to do what their heart desires. I call that a win! I hope for happiness for both William and Harry and their families. Those two boys had enough heartache growing up.

 

[AGBF]

The queen is just an old lady.

I disagree. I am not a monarchist. I believe that a republican democracy, like the one the United States was designed to be, with true division of and separation of powers is the best form of government yet divisied for large nations. (I like direct democracy for small nations.)

I believe that Queen Elizabeth has faithfully served her country for many years, however. I do not see her as someone who has done nothing and who should be dismissed even if one does not believe that she has any special status by being "royal". I think her hard work should cause her to be recognized as someone who deserves respect. (Entertaining Donald Trump was a feat of great fortitude in itself. Do you think she did that for her personal pleasure in his company?)

 

[lissyflo]

Their home is not their private home - Frogmore is part of the crown estate, and sovereign grant/crown estate funds were used to renovate it. I honestly don’t see what the fuss is about there. Even if they continue living there, they may have to pay rent which I believe some other royals like Beatrice and Eugenie have had to do. And if they continue living there, it will be at the whim of the queen and she is who should be blamed, not them.


The line of thinking that they have obligations because of this is a trap they’d never be able to escape if they engaged in it. I’m glad they’re escaping this kind of toxic bullshit that is best left in the past.


I notice WAY more people complaining about them benefiting from their station more than were upset about Prince Andrew... people have suggested many times cutting Meghan and Harry off entirely and stripping them of their titles while I didn’t see a single person mention the same for Andrew. Really shows the true colors of people and what they value. Obedience and fealty above all, apparently, even above morality.

You misunderstand my use of the term private - I mean that their home is not open to the public at all, unlike a number of other royal residences. And remaining profits from the sovereign grant are payable to the Treasury for the benefit of UK taxpayers, so the spending of it is absolutely an issue for the general public as they are entitled to any residual funds.

Someone else compared Charles supporting them as a personal issue, the same as any parent. I'd argue that that completely misses the point. Charles currently funds them via the Duchy estate. He is only entitled to income from that estate by virtue of being the heir to the throne. As soon as he takes the throne, the right to that income passes to William as the next heir, and so on down the generations. To make a statement amounting to wanting to be free of the royal family, but then continue to be funded by cash that your father only has a right to by virtue of being in the next monarch is utterly nonsensical, not to mention hypocritical. The assets in the Duchy are held in trust on behalf of the nation, the trustees being ultimately responsible to Parliament (I’m 99% sure), so it’s not the same at all as someone’s parents supporting them from assets they personally own.

Reports yesterday were that Harry inherited £7m from his mother (which will have grown in the intervening years) and £3m from the Queen Mother - what exactly do they need further funding for, if not carrying out royal roles? This inheritance alone is more than most lottery winners receive and beyond most people's contemplation, so surely they can be financially independent immediately if that's their desire. The assumption that their existing personal funds are somehow insufficient to enable immediate active independence will surely just make them seem further removed from the average person.

I also disagree with your take on the Price Andrew comparison. I think more people are discussing the Sussexes as Andrew's behaviour is clearly deeply shameful (in the best case scenario, unlawful at worst) on a number of levels and so needs little discussion. I think the public are genuinely confused about a great number of issues re: the Sussexes - not least constitutional ones that have the potential to cause great upset and upheaval in the country at a time when Brexit and Scottish independence are already doing that. Confusion breeds discussion and questioning, and tends to bring out the worst in people, which is why their rushed, opaque and seemingly poorly considered statement probably wasn't the best approach and has resulted in more discussion in their case.

As Brexit has perfectly demonstrated, relationships that have developed over decades (in the case of Brexit) or millennia (in the case of megxit, as England has had a national monarch and royalty since the 800s I believe) take time to unpick. As a general citizen, I believe I have a duty to support and sustain my country to the best of my abilities and not to do anything that would cause harm. So as a member of royalty, surely Harry could countenance a more tempered, considered exit strategy for the sake of the nation. I’m absolutely not saying that he needs to put up and shut up or suffer intolerably for decades, but goodness, something slightly more thought through to try to minimise exactly the response that they’ve created. They seem to want to maintain a podium for doing good and I whole-heartedly applaud anyone and everyone striving to make the world better. But podiums of any description, royal or otherwise, only work because they make you visible, and as visible people they will still be subject to press intrusion and internet commentary regardless. I see countless rags on US supermarket shelves peddling paparazzi pics of celebs - won’t they just move into that category instead?

I'm no great monarchist; if you gave me a blank piece of paper to draft rules for a society, a structure of inherited wealth, position and influence would absolutely not be involved. But to answer those who are questioning why we retain it, I also see benefits. The political leanings of a country are subject to change at 3-5 yearly intervals, and at present the main political parties here are deeply polarised on a number of fundamental issues. To have an over-riding institution provide a neutral face for the nation, working for the benefit of the country, paid for by the country and not subject to political changes provides a fantastic position to build lasting and stable relationships with other countries - which is surely what all countries should be striving to do. That's how I see the monarchy fitting into a 21st century role - effectively receiving a salary from the nation for working for the benefit of the nation.

And to address the racism and classism issues. I read a 'sensible' paper and have never read anything that I would consider to be remotely racist, or negative in any way to be honest, about Meghan. I'm not arguing that the rags take the same approach, but if you read the gutter press then of course you'll get gutter attitudes. That absolutely doesn't mean that the whole nation feels that way. To read some of the blanket comments in this thread about Brits being racist, snooty and classist is as stereotypical of an entire nation as those gutter press generic statements. The society I experience on a daily basis is meritocratic - hard work is respected and valued regardless of who is doing it, and I have zero experience of being made to feel inferior by landed gentry roaming the hills.

 

[Snowdrop13]

You misunderstand my use of the term private - I mean that their home is not open to the public at all, unlike a number of other royal residences. And remaining profits from the sovereign grant are payable to the Treasury for the benefit of UK taxpayers, so the spending of it is absolutely an issue for the general public as they are entitled to any residual funds.

Someone else compared Charles supporting them as a personal issue, the same as any parent. I'd argue that that completely misses the point. Charles currently funds them via the Duchy estate. He is only entitled to income from that estate by virtue of being the heir to the throne. As soon as he takes the throne, the right to that income passes to William as the next heir, and so on down the generations. To make a statement amounting to wanting to be free of the royal family, but then continue to be funded by cash that your father only has a right to by virtue of being in the next monarch is utterly nonsensical, not to mention hypocritical. The assets in the Duchy are held in trust on behalf of the nation, the trustees being ultimately responsible to Parliament (I’m 99% sure), so it’s not the same at all as someone’s parents supporting them from assets they personally own.

Reports yesterday were that Harry inherited £7m from his mother (which will have grown in the intervening years) and £3m from the Queen Mother - what exactly do they need further funding for, if not carrying out royal roles? This inheritance alone is more than most lottery winners receive and beyond most people's contemplation, so surely they can be financially independent immediately if that's their desire. The assumption that their existing personal funds are somehow insufficient to enable immediate active independence will surely just make them seem further removed from the average person.

I also disagree with your take on the Price Andrew comparison. I think more people are discussing the Sussexes as Andrew's behaviour is clearly deeply shameful (in the best case scenario, unlawful at worst) on a number of levels and so needs little discussion. I think the public are genuinely confused about a great number of issues re: the Sussexes - not least constitutional ones that have the potential to cause great upset and upheaval in the country at a time when Brexit and Scottish independence are already doing that. Confusion breeds discussion and questioning, and tends to bring out the worst in people, which is why their rushed, opaque and seemingly poorly considered statement probably wasn't the best approach and has resulted in more discussion in their case.

As Brexit has perfectly demonstrated, relationships that have developed over decades (in the case of Brexit) or millennia (in the case of megxit, as England has had a national monarch and royalty since the 800s I believe) take time to unpick. As a general citizen, I believe I have a duty to support and sustain my country to the best of my abilities and not to do anything that would cause harm. So as a member of royalty, surely Harry could countenance a more tempered, considered exit strategy for the sake of the nation. I’m absolutely not saying that he needs to put up and shut up or suffer intolerably for decades, but goodness, something slightly more thought through to try to minimise exactly the response that they’ve created. They seem to want to maintain a podium for doing good and I whole-heartedly applaud anyone and everyone striving to make the world better. But podiums of any description, royal or otherwise, only work because they make you visible, and as visible people they will still be subject to press intrusion and internet commentary regardless. I see countless rags on US supermarket shelves peddling paparazzi pics of celebs - won’t they just move into that category instead?

I'm no great monarchist; if you gave me a blank piece of paper to draft rules for a society, a structure of inherited wealth, position and influence would absolutely not be involved. But to answer those who are questioning why we retain it, I also see benefits. The political leanings of a country are subject to change at 3-5 yearly intervals, and at present the main political parties here are deeply polarised on a number of fundamental issues. To have an over-riding institution provide a neutral face for the nation, working for the benefit of the country, paid for by the country and not subject to political changes provides a fantastic position to build lasting and stable relationships with other countries - which is surely what all countries should be striving to do. That's how I see the monarchy fitting into a 21st century role - effectively receiving a salary from the nation for working for the benefit of the nation.

And to address the racism and classism issues. I read a 'sensible' paper and have never read anything that I would consider to be remotely racist, or negative in any way to be honest, about Meghan. I'm not arguing that the rags take the same approach, but if you read the gutter press then of course you'll get gutter attitudes. That absolutely doesn't mean that the whole nation feels that way. To read some of the blanket comments in this thread about Brits being racist, snooty and classist is as stereotypical of an entire nation as those gutter press generic statements. The society I experience on a daily basis is meritocratic - hard work is respected and valued regardless of who is doing it, and I have zero experience of being made to feel inferior by landed gentry roaming the hills.

+1 to all of this! Thank you for wording my feelings so well.

 

[chemgirl]

And to address the racism and classism issues. I read a 'sensible' paper and have never read anything that I would consider to be remotely racist, or negative in any way to be honest, about Meghan. I'm not arguing that the rags take the same approach, but if you read the gutter press then of course you'll get gutter attitudes. That absolutely doesn't mean that the whole nation feels that way. To read some of the blanket comments in this thread about Brits being racist, snooty and classist is as stereotypical of an entire nation as those gutter press generic statements. The society I experience on a daily basis is meritocratic - hard work is respected and valued regardless of who is doing it, and I have zero experience of being made to feel inferior by landed gentry roaming the hills.

I’m glad you don’t experience classism and racism. However I’m sure it’s very much dependent on your social circles and maybe where you live. It’s not everyone, but it’s still a problem.

I’ve never experienced it in London with our friends, but in the midlands with family it’s a constant. Not just them, but people in the pub, their coworkers we happen to meet, family friends.

I’m of Irish descent (both sides). My family left Ireland almost 200 years ago and settled in different parts of Canada. Emphasis was always on hard work and education. Earlier generations definitely struggled, but now we’re all fairly successful. Most of my family have professional careers, an aunt was a scientist in the 1920’s, another a diplomat to France in the 1940’s. I’m a chemical engineer, I’m fluent in multiple languages, I think I’m a fairly decent human, but as far as some people are concerned I’m an Irish upstart, poor trash on the make, nouveau riche. People have said that to me. It’s generally accepted that DH married down. I’ll always be poor Irish.

Seriously someone said that to me at the pub. That I’m lucky I married into a good British family. It’s insane. Why would being British be better than being from anywhere else?

I’m glad you don’t personally have to experience that, but it happens. Sorry, but I find the whole thing a bit triggering.

 

[Gussie]

But to answer those who are questioning why we retain it, I also see benefits. The political leanings of a country are subject to change at 3-5 yearly intervals, and at present the main political parties here are deeply polarised on a number of fundamental issues. To have an over-riding institution provide a neutral face for the nation, working for the benefit of the country, paid for by the country and not subject to political changes provides a fantastic position to build lasting and stable relationships with other countries - which is surely what all countries should be striving to do. That's how I see the monarchy fitting into a 21st century role - effectively receiving a salary from the nation for working for the benefit of the nation.

As an American, I couldn't ever understand why a monarchy would exist in this age. To be honest, I never followed the royals until recently when all of the scandals came about. (And I watched "The Crown." LOL) I was talking to DH (also American) about it and he explained the reason for having a monarchy exactly as you did. He also noted that the US would stand to benefit from a unifying neutral party. This makes perfect sense to me.

 

[arkieb1]

I'm not part of the system in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Nazi Germany either.
So you can't recognize what's wrong with a system because you haven't dealt with it, and so, don't "understand" it?
Is understanding something the same as approving of it?

I live in the American system.
I understand it.
But that doesn't stop me from seeing things that are wrong with it.

I have several degrees, and I thought I understood the system on paper.... It wasn't until I went to where my father grew up and had people treat me like poop on a bottom of a shoe that I fully appreciated how strong the elite class system is there, it's nothing like Australia which I have lived in most of my life or the US where I have stayed for 6 months. What I was suggesting is we can read about it and think we can understand it but honestly I had no concept of how strong and how selective it still is until I was rejected as part of it.

@yssie clearly understands what I'm trying to say - It is NOTHING like the US or Australia. In fact they consider most of the rich and upper class people in Australia and the US as "new money" which to many is trashy and they also look down upon them because of that. There would be a select few of them, that I doubt would even give Meghan the time of day because of who she was before she married Harry and what she represents.

The poster that said she belongs to an upper class hunting or horse riding forum and if you wear the wrong designer riding pants you are cut out of their "circle" forever is spot on....

 

[kenny]

Yeah, that system sucks.

We have a long way to go in America, but equality is a better system to strive for than accepting an institutionalized system that classifies everyone as superior or inferior by birth.

 

[Tekate]

Maybe they made this decision after Archie was born, if the British people feel upset that they updated and refurbished Frogmore then Harry and Megan should return it to the realm. He's independently wealthy and she has a few bucks. I think this is all about the son they have and what they want for his life. Zara T doesn't have a title nor does her husband and their girls. They want to live a full life and I don't think they can because of the press/papparazzi(?). Fair enough, give up the money, be an ambassador for Great Britain and lead a good life.

Have to do things a certain way - no. Have some kind of responsibility after (only recently) claiming £2.5m of taxpayer funds to refurbish their private home - yes. They can do as they please, but absolutely not whilst claiming taxpayer funds - rights come with responsibilities, for them as for us all.

 

[dk168]

Why negotiate if they truly want to walk away from it all?
If they believe they can stand on their own two feet as a brand, then they should drop the HRH and all that comes with it without milking the royal connections.
And if they raise the ugly R card, real or otherwise, when things do not go their way, then they will lose the very little respect I still have for them.
They come across as wanting the money and the glory, and not the responsibilities, and that really annoys me.
If they cannot survive on their own with the millions of private money they already have, then there is no hope for the ordinary people!

DK

 

[lissyflo]

I’m glad you don’t experience classism and racism. However I’m sure it’s very much dependent on your social circles and maybe where you live. It’s not everyone, but it’s still a problem.

I’ve never experienced it in London with our friends, but in the midlands with family it’s a constant. Not just them, but people in the pub, their coworkers we happen to meet, family friends.

I’m of Irish descent (both sides). My family left Ireland almost 200 years ago and settled in different parts of Canada. Emphasis was always on hard work and education. Earlier generations definitely struggled, but now we’re all fairly successful. Most of my family have professional careers, an aunt was a scientist in the 1920’s, another a diplomat to France in the 1940’s. I’m a chemical engineer, I’m fluent in multiple languages, I think I’m a fairly decent human, but as far as some people are concerned I’m an Irish upstart, poor trash on the make, nouveau riche. People have said that to me. It’s generally accepted that DH married down. I’ll always be poor Irish.

Seriously someone said that to me at the pub. That I’m lucky I married into a good British family. It’s insane. Why would being British be better than being from anywhere else?

I’m glad you don’t personally have to experience that, but it happens. Sorry, but I find the whole thing a bit triggering.

@chemgirl - I’m so sorry you’ve experienced that, and it must be so much worse when the disdain you feel is generated by family. You’ve been dreadfully unfortunate in your experience: I’m of immediate Welsh and Irish descent by virtue of my parents, and my grandfather slept on the streets in Trafalgar Square when he first arrived in London from Wales seeking work, but I’ve never experienced anything akin to what you have. I hope you won’t judge all us Brits by the standards you’ve been unfortunate to encounter.

 

[Snowdrop13]

What they are trying to do is really important and will set a precedent for future Royal generations. It’s no longer sustainable for all the children of the monarch to be pampered and cosseted on taxpayers money. I keep referencing other European Royals but the Dutch king’s brothers have/had degrees and proper jobs. Unfortunately for Harry he’s not very bright, has limited education and few skills (I mean, what has he been doing since he left the Army in 2015? Not much apart from the Invictus Games which can hardly be a lot of work on his part). He’s in a difficult position. Why has Meghan fled the scene with the baby? I wouldn’t be surprised if she dumps him and sets herself up for a great career in the US. The Royals might remove her title but no one will care!

 

[Rhea]

You misunderstand my use of the term private - I mean that their home is not open to the public at all, unlike a number of other royal residences. And remaining profits from the sovereign grant are payable to the Treasury for the benefit of UK taxpayers, so the spending of it is absolutely an issue for the general public as they are entitled to any residual funds.

Someone else compared Charles supporting them as a personal issue, the same as any parent. I'd argue that that completely misses the point. Charles currently funds them via the Duchy estate. He is only entitled to income from that estate by virtue of being the heir to the throne. As soon as he takes the throne, the right to that income passes to William as the next heir, and so on down the generations. To make a statement amounting to wanting to be free of the royal family, but then continue to be funded by cash that your father only has a right to by virtue of being in the next monarch is utterly nonsensical, not to mention hypocritical. The assets in the Duchy are held in trust on behalf of the nation, the trustees being ultimately responsible to Parliament (I’m 99% sure), so it’s not the same at all as someone’s parents supporting them from assets they personally own.

Reports yesterday were that Harry inherited £7m from his mother (which will have grown in the intervening years) and £3m from the Queen Mother - what exactly do they need further funding for, if not carrying out royal roles? This inheritance alone is more than most lottery winners receive and beyond most people's contemplation, so surely they can be financially independent immediately if that's their desire. The assumption that their existing personal funds are somehow insufficient to enable immediate active independence will surely just make them seem further removed from the average person.

I also disagree with your take on the Price Andrew comparison. I think more people are discussing the Sussexes as Andrew's behaviour is clearly deeply shameful (in the best case scenario, unlawful at worst) on a number of levels and so needs little discussion. I think the public are genuinely confused about a great number of issues re: the Sussexes - not least constitutional ones that have the potential to cause great upset and upheaval in the country at a time when Brexit and Scottish independence are already doing that. Confusion breeds discussion and questioning, and tends to bring out the worst in people, which is why their rushed, opaque and seemingly poorly considered statement probably wasn't the best approach and has resulted in more discussion in their case.

As Brexit has perfectly demonstrated, relationships that have developed over decades (in the case of Brexit) or millennia (in the case of megxit, as England has had a national monarch and royalty since the 800s I believe) take time to unpick. As a general citizen, I believe I have a duty to support and sustain my country to the best of my abilities and not to do anything that would cause harm. So as a member of royalty, surely Harry could countenance a more tempered, considered exit strategy for the sake of the nation. I’m absolutely not saying that he needs to put up and shut up or suffer intolerably for decades, but goodness, something slightly more thought through to try to minimise exactly the response that they’ve created. They seem to want to maintain a podium for doing good and I whole-heartedly applaud anyone and everyone striving to make the world better. But podiums of any description, royal or otherwise, only work because they make you visible, and as visible people they will still be subject to press intrusion and internet commentary regardless. I see countless rags on US supermarket shelves peddling paparazzi pics of celebs - won’t they just move into that category instead?

I'm no great monarchist; if you gave me a blank piece of paper to draft rules for a society, a structure of inherited wealth, position and influence would absolutely not be involved. But to answer those who are questioning why we retain it, I also see benefits. The political leanings of a country are subject to change at 3-5 yearly intervals, and at present the main political parties here are deeply polarised on a number of fundamental issues. To have an over-riding institution provide a neutral face for the nation, working for the benefit of the country, paid for by the country and not subject to political changes provides a fantastic position to build lasting and stable relationships with other countries - which is surely what all countries should be striving to do. That's how I see the monarchy fitting into a 21st century role - effectively receiving a salary from the nation for working for the benefit of the nation.

And to address the racism and classism issues. I read a 'sensible' paper and have never read anything that I would consider to be remotely racist, or negative in any way to be honest, about Meghan. I'm not arguing that the rags take the same approach, but if you read the gutter press then of course you'll get gutter attitudes. That absolutely doesn't mean that the whole nation feels that way. To read some of the blanket comments in this thread about Brits being racist, snooty and classist is as stereotypical of an entire nation as those gutter press generic statements. The society I experience on a daily basis is meritocratic - hard work is respected and valued regardless of who is doing it, and I have zero experience of being made to feel inferior by landed gentry roaming the hills.

Thank you for this!

I didn't know that was how the Duchy worked and I appreciate your explanation. I was one of the ones who said I didn't mind Charles supporting Harry. I didn't understand that was where and how the money came from. I've changed my mind and now agree that their combined inhertience and previous earnings should be suitable to start their endeavours should their step away from working royals proceed.

-----

I'm still not bothered how this turns out (after sorting money, security and visa issues), I don't think most of us are, but I hope the time is taken to sort things out properly. It's important and doing so paves the way for William and Catherine's children Charlotte and Louis too. They don't have a direct line to the throne, barring anything terrible happening, and this may expand their options for their own futures.

I'm disappointed that people are (seemingly) blaming us racist, classist Brits, or even the royal family. We don't know what caused this or why. The gutter media has been incredibly harsh. The Daily Mail, which often cited and linked on PS, is a trashy newspaper. I wouldn't be caught dead with one. I don't know the US equivalent, but it's not quality or to be trusted. Sections of British society might be racist or classist. The royal family might be toxic for the couple. Or the unrelenting red tops might just be unbearable. We just don't know.

 

[Austina]

Frankly I’ve read more racists comments about Brits on this thread than I’ve read about MM in the press here!

Let’s not forget it’s not us Brits who had apartheid/segregation, we actually treated African American service men better than they were treated at home.

Before anyone gets on their high horse about my comments, my parents were immigrants to this country in the 50’s, so I’m not a racist.

 

[arkieb1]

I'd guess most of it has to do with the safety of their child. Harry will not allow the media to hunt his family the way they did Diana, and taking the child to Canada, will probably be as much about privacy reasons, as it was them taking a holiday....

 

[msop04]

Why negotiate if they truly want to walk away from it all?
If they believe they can stand on their own two feet as a brand, then they should drop the HRH and all that comes with it without milking the royal connections.
And if they raise the ugly R card, real or otherwise, when things do not go their way, then they will lose the very little respect I still have for them.
They come across as wanting the money and the glory, and not the responsibilities, and that really annoys me.
If they cannot survive on their own with the millions of private money they already have, then there is no hope for the ordinary people!

DK

!!!!!