2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 19, 2020 10:38:47 GMT
I suppose the question is whether anyone’s going to be interested in them if they’re not HRH any more? Surely the fascination only exists because they are Royal, so when the hue and cry dies down from this what’s left? A bloke who was in the army and an actress from a tv series no one had heard of? Once outside of the “golden circle” there’s nothing. They’re effectively going down the Fergie route and look what she had to resort to, legitimately flogging Ocean Spray cranberry juice and Weightwatchers on US tv, and illegitimately flogging access her ex husband (then a member of that golden circle) for cash. It will be an interesting experiment, but they’ll be back. Or rather HE’LL be back in a few years with or without Meghan. Gutted they are losing the HRH. Harry and Meghan are the two I don't mind. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 19, 2020 10:45:17 GMT
They are still royals and they still have their HRHs, they just won’t be using them. (But they will still be using Duke and Duchess.) Same as how Camilla is Princess of Wales but doesn’t use it.
Diana being stripped of her HRH didn’t affect her fame or popularity one bit, and the media and people around the world call her Princess Di (a title she never held) to this day. And she was not a “blood royal” like Harry.
Meghan and Kate are still known worldwide by their maiden names and not their titles.
To the world media he will always be “Prince Harry” and he’ll always be Diana’s son. And soon to be son of the King.
|
|
490 posts
|
Post by bimse on Jan 19, 2020 10:48:53 GMT
I don’t blame them wanting to be free from media intrusion and free from the royal household which must be incredibly isolating . They need to establish their lives , instead of remaining sidekicks forever to the main royals. Now is an excellent time while the baby is young .
But I’m not convinced any of the royals , Harry included, have any idea what it’s like to exist in the real world and be financially independent. And indeed he still won’t , seems he’s still being bankrolled for life by his dad . That’s not financial independence, well not in the real world it isn’t.
At least Meghan knows how to live independently, but will she still be courting the media publicity they’re apparently wanting to be free from?
Then there’s the Sussex Royal brand .... I must admit I’m not sure what it’s a brand OF , but sounds to me like they might still be using and profiting from royal credentials even if they’re not allowed to use that particular name. After all, Harry doesn’t appear to have many life skills to offer a real employer , apart from being royal. He’s been a figurehead for charities, surrounded by sycophants. The real world of work is quite different, but then I’m guessing he’ll still be just figureheading projects, getting publicity for them, because he’s royal , with sycophants telling him what a good job he’s doing. Only they’ll have to pay him ..... I wonder if an ex royal and an expensive one at that , will be a good use of charitable funds?
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 19, 2020 10:57:54 GMT
I was originally going to say this with a wink but ... actually, no; I was born and grew up in Sussex. I like it, it's beautiful countryside and lovely small towns (generally). I don't want it dragged into all this muck and 'sleaze'.
Why can't they use Windsor and Markle?. Not sure where the sense of entitlement about my home county comes from?
Plus, as above, any ideas on why they decided to not live at the cottage until after the renovation?
|
|
848 posts
|
Post by duncan on Jan 19, 2020 12:53:10 GMT
A bloke who was in the army Who also likes dressing up as a Nazi and who only got into Oxbridge because of who he was related to. 100% certain to be working for the BBC by the end of the year. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 19, 2020 13:17:11 GMT
Spare a thought for William. All on him now and that little chap George. Is that what his mother would have wanted? Is it modernising the Royal Family to do it this way? Actually I don’t think so.
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 19, 2020 13:22:42 GMT
Spare a thought for William. All on him now and that little chap George. Is that what his mother would have wanted? Is it modernising the Royal Family to do it this way? Actually I don’t think so. Exactly. Extremely selfish of Harry. The number of “serving” royals is being depleted both as a deliberate strategy and by death. Harry was one of the chosen few who would continue the work. He’s opted out of that. But hopefully when he sees his brother’s standing in the country climb even further, the allure of selling polo equipment and Rolex watches will fade and he’ll realise exactly what he’s thrown away. That’s why I reckon he’ll be back. |
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 19, 2020 13:24:54 GMT
OMG I’ve just realised this whole thing is the plot of Kinky Boots almost word for word! We’re currently at the bit where the girlfriend is eyeing up expensive jewellery and flats in London and Charlie is giving up the factory!
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 19, 2020 13:57:32 GMT
I haven't seen the deceitful, game changing daughter-in-law plot line since, well, Three Sisters last month at the National.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 19, 2020 14:05:58 GMT
Spare a thought for William. All on him now and that little chap George. Is that what his mother would have wanted? Is it modernising the Royal Family to do it this way? Actually I don’t think so. Exactly. Extremely selfish of Harry. The number of “serving” royals is being depleted both as a deliberate strategy and by death. Harry was one of the chosen few who would continue the work. He’s opted out of that. But hopefully when he sees his brother’s standing in the country climb even further, the allure of selling polo equipment and Rolex watches will fade and he’ll realise exactly what he’s thrown away. That’s why I reckon he’ll be back. I always thought he would be the one to bring down the Royals from the inside. Continuing his mothers work I thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 15:19:50 GMT
It’s indicative of the shambles of a nation we now live in that some people are fixated on this minor kerfuffle whilst there is massive division in generations and between socioeconomic groups, whilst we are staring into an isolated national abyss and whilst the climate appears to be developing not necessarily to our advantage. What leads some people to make a celebrity couple the centre of their grievance?
We have this national grievance culture in fact, one that has been stoked by media shovelling this stuff into people’s brains to deflect from reality and they’ve seemingly managed to push people’s ills into a silent corner. Not the cancerous media, not the sclerotic economic situation, not the parlous state of education, not even the institutional corruption that has led to events such as turning a blind eye to widespread abuse.
If anyone has spent more time being angry at a couple whose removal will do nothing to change any of the above then, maybe, they need to consider how far they have become part of the problem.
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 19, 2020 15:30:20 GMT
i haven’t noticed any anger. We’re just having a chat about it.
|
|
848 posts
|
Post by duncan on Jan 19, 2020 15:44:26 GMT
We have this national grievance culture in fact, one that has been stoked by media shovelling this stuff into people’s brains to deflect from reality Indeed, nothing worse than someone who cant make up their own mind about something trotting out tired old talking point tropes that they have picked up from somewhere else via repetition. Oh....... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 15:47:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 15:56:58 GMT
We have this national grievance culture in fact, one that has been stoked by media shovelling this stuff into people’s brains to deflect from reality Indeed, nothing worse than someone who cant make up their own mind about something trotting out tired old talking point tropes that they have picked up from somewhere else via repetition. Oh....... Pretty much all of the things I mention are things that are personally verifiable, we see them affecting our lives and have first hand experience*. Nobody here I imagine, however, has any real first hand experience of this couple and of the royal family, it’s just accepting what someone else (in this case, from shadowy unverifiable sources) has claimed. * One thing that is, hopefully, well beyond anyone’s experience is that of the Rotherham, Manchester etc. abuse scandals. People knew and tried to tell those who were in power, they didn’t listen and weren’t interested in making sure that such facts became widely known. i haven’t noticed any anger. We’re just having a chat about it. It doesn’t need to be anger (I mention it, as it’s the sort of word bandied around in headlines). It’s really just a matter of how much attention is paid to these different things. It’s sucking oxygen away from what I hope many would see as more important stories (the above mention of Rotherham/Manchester etc., for example. The police covering it up for years whilst people suffered. That has become a footnote just a day or two later.) Anyway, England are maybe about to win a test match, hold the back pages..... |
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 19, 2020 17:06:17 GMT
Taking into account that this is a forum primarily for discussion of theatre (by definition a niche pastime enjoyed by a subsection of the population) I think we do ok at broadening out the subjects covered by making the General section open to any topic. We spent 3 years and 2.5k posts discussing Brexit as an example. If you want to start a thread about something @cardinalpirelli then you’re welcome to do that. I’m not sure why you’re suggesting that we shouldn’t be discussing the royal family on THIS thread though. It’s in the news, some of us want to talk about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 19, 2020 17:08:36 GMT
This pretty much nailed it for me x
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 17:21:50 GMT
....and we’re probably going to spend another three years and more discussing Brexit, I imagine.
This is ephemeral and, like Kate and Camilla and Diana and whoever is the target of the times, it will pass but the way it is done is very, very interesting. As people interested in theatre and the manufacture of stories and manipulation of audiences it’s maybe more connected than many subjects, in fact. That’s where my interest lies and following that path is, I think, a relevant part of this thread.
The use of language links both playwriting and journalism, for example. A quick look at the headlines I posted and the emotional manipulation jumps out at you straight away. Creating characters as well, because what we are given is a construct that is only partly linked to reality (because the reality, as with all things royal is mostly hidden). Very little of this is real, maybe it’s better suited to it being seen as how you would react to a play (and, surely, it will be turned into one anyway).
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 19, 2020 17:37:30 GMT
I preferred it when you were urging everyone to stock up even more with dry goods.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 19, 2020 17:38:39 GMT
I think the take we have on the worries of the day is interesting and so far, a pleasure to be part of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 18:21:32 GMT
I Iove it when someone comes online and tells people that there are so many more important things that should be talking about when u know full well they have been arguing who the 3rd best standby of all time in Wicked is for the last 6 weeks!!
U gotta love the internet
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 19, 2020 18:32:20 GMT
I Iove it when someone comes online and tells people that there are so many more important things that should be talking about when u know full well they have been arguing who the 3rd best standby of all time in Wicked is for the last 6 weeks!! Grace x |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 18:43:28 GMT
I Iove it when someone comes online and tells people that there are so many more important things that should be talking about when u know full well they have been arguing who the 3rd best standby of all time in Wicked is for the last 6 weeks!! U gotta love the internet Believe me, I have never been into the Wicked thread! I saw it with Chenoweth and Menzel in 2003 (?), is it still going?  I preferred it when you were urging everyone to stock up even more with dry goods. Well, at least you appear to have a point of view on this subject.  |
|
752 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jan 19, 2020 19:04:08 GMT
I think the Royal family is an odd one these days. Hands up the people who think that the royals are inherently better than us and ACTUALLY should be ruling over us? Literally in charge, what they say goes no questions asked? Ok, so no-one then. So why do we have a royal family? Tradition? To greet other head’s of state/royals? To “bring in money to the country”? To have someone we can wheel out when a disaster happens so we have someone to “represent” something? I think Charles III the play hit the nail on the head really....there is a huge dichotomy at the heart of the whole thing...they have huge power but only if the agree not to use it...and if they did use it we wouldn’t like it. So what are they? PR? If that’s the case we keep looking as a nation as to whether they “give” us enough ....money wise and entertainment wise. Royal weddings, baby pictures, smiles, access...we are doing the mental sums all the time as to worth.
I think Harry and Meghan are doing the only sensible thing they could do....get as far away from a toxic situation where they can’t win (soap operas always have sad bits or they are boring!) ....Princess Anne had the right idea....perhaps they could all have a pact to make all the children commoners and stop being royal!
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 19, 2020 19:08:41 GMT
I’ll spare you all my 40,000 word dissertation on how the the usurpation of Richard II by Bolingbroke undermined the concept of the divine right of kings and set in motion 620 years of slow rot for the English monarchy. (And frankly Henry VII taking the throne on the weakest of all claims should have destroyed the idea of dynastic rule completely.)
|
|
