Rogue royal couple could still fit into Prince Charles' goal of slimmed-down monarchy

#1
Prince Charles’ Desire For ‘Slimmed-Down Monarchy’ Strengthened, May Include Only His Children, Grandchildren (Dec 2019): . . . Prince Charles may propose major changes for the royal family in the near future. While speaking with The Sun, Brittani Barger, deputy editor of Royal Central, said that Prince Andrew’s recent scandal has most definitely strengthened Prince Charles’ desire for a slimmed-down monarchy.

Since the Duke of York is now out of the picture, and it is unlikely that he or his two daughters would take on royal duties ever again, the monarchy may eventually only consist of Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry, their wives and their children. While speaking with Sky News, Labour leader Jeremy Corbin said [...] When asked if he thinks the royal family is indeed too big, Corbin said that he thinks there are a lot of people attached to the royal family.

- - -

January 10: . . . the Queen, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge were said to be adopting a pragmatic approach to [...Prince Harry & Megan's...] bid to become hybrid royals.

Meghan flies back to Canada; Prince Harry in ‘crisis’ talks with Prince Charles (Jan 10): Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, has flown back to Canada following the bombshell announcement that she and her husband, Prince Harry, are "stepping back" from royal duties, prompting intensified speculation that the couple will make Canada their part-time home.

[...] Robert Lacey, a royal biographer and author of “The Crown: The Inside History” [...] “Canada is the ideal base for the two-way royal work they have in mind,” he said, speculating that Harry and Meghan may try to launch something in the model of the Obama Foundation. He added that “in post-Brexit Britain, it could make sense to strengthen ties across the Atlantic.”

He said that Prince Charles, the queen’s eldest son, had previously signaled that he wants a slimmed-down monarchy if and when he takes the throne. “Some European royal families get by with four people,” Lacey said, adding that those numbers would not work for Britain, where there is “such an appetite for royalty.” But Charles nonetheless wants to cut down on the number of working royals, Lacey said, and part of that plan includes expanding roles for William, who would focus on efforts domestically, and Harry, who would concentrate on members of Britain’s Commonwealth of Nations. “But half a Harry is better than no Harry, and if Meghan can be kept onside and brought in, that’s all for the good,” he said.

[...] Harry and Meghan attempted to explain how they see their new roles on a new website, SussexRoyal.com, which promotes “supporting community” above “serving the monarchy” or “strengthening the Commonwealth.” They said they wanted to continue to work with the charities they have supported, which focus on issues such as female empowerment and mental health, and would also seek to set up a new charitable entity.

The Sussexes said they would like to achieve “financial independence.” But there are more questions than answers. How will they earn money? Will they continue to receive money from Prince Charles ... Where will they live in North America? (MORE - details)

Move by Prince Harry and Meghan signals a slimmed-down future: . . . At present 5% of their [Prince Harry & Megan's] costs are met by the sovereign grant – the annual funding mechanism that covers the cost of the monarchy and replaced the civil list in 2012. This is the public money they intend to relinquish. Charles funds the remaining 95% from his income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The planned new arrangement will still see their security bill in the UK paid for by the taxpayer, however. Their website explains that the couple’s status as “internationally protected people” mandates that armed security is provided by the Metropolitan police. Who will foot the security bill across the Atlantic is not yet clear.

The couple argue that there is precedent for members of the royal family holding a title and earning an income, though have not given examples. [...] the royal family has faced problems in the past with working senior royals. The Earl and Countess of Wessex struggled unsuccessfully to combine high-profile jobs in TV and public relations with royal duties...

The biggest clue that the Sussexes were set to redefine their position came in the TV interview they gave to ITV’s Tom Bradby during their tour of South Africa late last year. Meghan’s unhappiness was evident when she said, very candidly, of her role: “It’s not enough just to survive something, right? That’s not the point of life. You’ve got to thrive, you’ve got to feel happy. I really tried to adopt this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip. I tried, I really tried. But I think that what that does internally is probably really damaging.”

His wife’s concerns have weighed heavily on Harry. He has made no secret of his anger at the British press. Both are pursuing legal actions against newspapers. (MORE - details)
Reply
#2
it is interesting to watch the response by media & the public to meghan talking about her difficulties with pregnancy & early parenting.

you would think there would be a bit more support for a new mother
it seems like there is almost an undercurrent of "rich people deserve to be treated badly"
and a sense of them having less human rights because of their financial or public status.

that is saying that money buys human rights

i do not agree with such ideology

i cringed when i heard the interviewer say he knew how hard it was when he had a baby

correct me if im wrong but men do not get pregnant or give birth.
i think he seemed to have missed the core concept of what Meghan was saying

it was borderline mansplaining though i was looking for something to punch[metaphorical](a rallying point for better treatment toward women around pregnancy child birth and post natal conditions & equality).

i wonder about the greener(more publicly ecologically friendly & more financially independent) they become then the more they will attract negative attention from the right wing.

i like meghan harry kate & will
i think they are fantastic role models for social empathy charity and a moral core of decency diversity & humanity

so call me biased
Reply
#3

[Image: prince-harry-meghan-make-kate-middleton-...nce-22.jpg]
Reply
#4
Quote:Top-selling British tabloids The Sun and The Daily Mail are focusing their fire on Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, over the extraordinary rift that has split the Royal Family and raised huge questions about the future for her and Prince Harry.
Friday's headlines fit with a pattern of negative coverage she has endured in the British press for many months for everything from her family background to alleged "demanding" behavior.
The Sun, which has criticized Meghan over issues ranging from holding her son's baptism in private to guest editing an edition of British Vogue, has placed the spotlight largely on the Duchess since the couple stunned the world earlier this week with the announcement that they would be stepping back from their roles as senior royals.


https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/10/media...index.html


Quote:"The couple are under pressure to give up their royal titles to stop them cashing in on their status," the Sun's royal correspondents wrote.

Inside the paper, Sun royal photographer Arthur Edwards wrote in an op-ed: "Ever since he fell in love with Meghan, Prince Harry has gone from Superman to the Joker."

lol
what a troll (referring to the sun)


Quote:On Thursday, as the news broke, The Sun dubbed the move in huge font "Megxit." On Friday, the tabloid focused on Meghan's return to Canada to reportedly rejoin their 7-month old son Archie, splashing its front page with "Meg's Mugged Us Orf" using a British colloquialism meaning to be ripped off, and making an apparent reference to the posh accent of the nobility.

[tabloids]desperate to create a TV reality Big  Brother game out of peoples lifes to stereo type cast personality's to gain hater clicks and own sensationalism...
trying to turn people into slap stick caricatures so they can comic strip single imagery and words
lol

woman bashing ...
beating up on the female to type cast her into the vindictive mistress format to service their hater base readers

part of the problem with trolls is that they love attention
give a troll a bloody nose in defense and they will revel in playing the victim
baiting behavior is typical
Reply
#5
This headline grabbed my attention for lolz


Quote:What is the modern relevance of the Royal family if Prince Harry leaves with his wife Meghan Markle?

they did a last minute edit
they have floating head line sentences on the article which are pop-up headlines
i am guessing they do this to change the heading to see what gets more clicks

what they had when i clicked it was
"what will the royal family look like when harry leaves it"

i thought
oh... he is leaving his family ?

sounds a bit troll baity

it sounds like it is pulled from the same bucket as
job interview question to a woman... immediately after asking if she has any children
"how will you manage family life and work if you were lucky enough to get the job?"

it takes a long time to change cultural morality concepts
more so when economy is leveraged against it

projecting an air of harry and meghan leaving the their family seems a bit of a flame.

intentional ?
un-intentional ?

hhmmm...
feeding a narrative is not journalism


Quote:what-would-a-royal-family-with-no-prince-harry-look-like
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-13/w...e/11861730
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)