Kate and William - what are they doing? Thread 2

[Pelleas]

A continuation of the thread discussing the Cambridges' contribution to the pandemic.

He’s not technically anything. He’s a prince, always was, always will be. The Duke of Windsor spent the best part of 50 years in exile. He was a prince of the realm until his last breath.

He's only a prince because the public accept him as such. Royal titles are a social construct. The people who bear them are human beings just like the rest of us.

Every title is a social construct. Chief executives are human beings like the rest of us, they’re just not born with that title.

That's exactly the point I'm making, AlsoHuman. You can't say Harry 'always will be' a prince, because we could decide in the future not to give him that title. Saying 'always will be' is no more applicable to a prince than to a CEO. When the CEO of a company leaves or retires, his employees relieve him of his title and status - we could do the same to the Royals.

@Alsohuman no they are not, they are earned. a doctor completes years of medical school. A teacher has to pass a degree and teacher training.

What does one have to pass to be a royal?

Naff all.

One has to pass through the royal vas deferents or birth canal.

One has to pass through the royal vas deferents or birth canal.

One doesn't, though, because you can assume the title of princess or Queen upon marriage - and thereby receive the same precedence as a 'born' Royal. For example, Camilla leapfrogged almost everyone in precedence when she married Charles - the Queen made a special alteration to the rules to allow Anne precedence over Camilla, but she's more 'important' than everyone else except the Queen and Charles himself.

Whether something is earned or not is a completely separate issue from whether or not it’s a social construct. This thread continues to be a logic free zone.

If you agree it's a social construct, Alsohuman, you have to agree it can be taken away - therefore you cannot say with certainty that anyone 'always will be' a prince.

@Alsohuman if you can point out any logic in having a hereditary monarchy in 2020 I would be most grateful!

Some may say - it’s better than having President Blair or Cameron or Corbyn or Johnson.

I am no royalist - does anyone know if we have to have a president if we have no monarchy or can we have just a prime minister?

"can we just have a Prime Minister" hmmm, let's think. The current incumbent is not exactly honourable or trustworthy. Not sure any of his predecessors would be popular with the general public either.

It’s as logical as it’s always been. What’s special about 2020?

The great thing about elected heads of state is that we can vote them out!

@yoloPenguinsEatfish exactly they're unpopular even with the royals there! We may as well cut away the waste and get rid of the whole family.

I’d rather have President Johnson, and god knows I’m not a fan, than King Andrew.

I have no idea why royalists use the 'President Blair/Trump' argument.

Firstly, I dont know if it has escaped your attention but Trump is American and therefore cannot ever run for office here. Blair is a past Prime Minister and is not seeking to hold office again.

They seem to conveniently forget about all the other countries around the world that don't have maniacs for presidents.

Having the royals will not stop us voting a maniac in, and even if we did, how could the royals do anything to control them? They're supposed to be apolitical.

So basically the entire president argument is a moot one.

Harry is still a Prince and stiil 6th in line

As he never tires of telling us from five thousand miles away.

CathyorClaire

Harry is still a Prince and stiil 6th in line

As he never tires of telling us from five thousand miles away.

There surely must be something advantageous about being in the line of succession.

Princess Margaret could have married the apparent love-of-her-life if she'd given up her claim to the throne.
Which, realistically, meant nothing. The odds were vanishingly small on her becoming queen.
But she chose that over poor old Peter.
Citing "her duty".
Not sure what the duty meant or how it manifested itself.

So is it the IPP thing?
Could Harry not claim the security if he weren't 6th in line?

Obviously, there's MM's claim in her own right. Actors in television series with blogs are regularly classed as IPPs.
Aren't they?

Actors in television series with blogs

Shocking punctuation.

Obviously, MM had the blog, not "Suets".

Oh, yes. Lots of advantage to staying in the line of succession.

Margaret could and did party relentlessly while retaining all the royal perks.

Harry is still able to blag his way onto other people's private jets and squat in their multi million dollar mansions without dipping into his own £34m wallet.

Even oily Andrew has a choice of luxurious palaces to hide his devious arse in.

It's painfully obvious the royals are on a good thing rather than being one.

CathyorClare - How do you know what the arrangement is for where they are living?

Mamamia456

pagesix.com/2020/05/07/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-move-into-18m-mansion-owned-by-tyler-perry/

It is not confirmed if the Sussexes are renting the house from Perry, but sources said they are likely staying as guests while he is out of town

Do you really think they'd be shy about confirming a spot of the financial independence they're working towards?

So they can't actually name the sources then, what does it matter whether they are renting, living there as guests or have another arrangement with the owner. I really can't understand the constant criticism of this couple. Have people really got little going on in their own lives that they feel the need to bring other people down.

Have people really got little going on in their own lives that they feel the need to bring other people down.

Don't know, Mama.

Due to lockdown I've got more time to spend on MN and wonder about people who've got so little going on that they need to drool over some other random family.