Unpopular opinions about the royal family

[Homehermit]

I am just interested to see your opinions about the royal family. No judgement. And it can be from any royal family, not just the British one.

There would have to be a rule that anyone who has already been an elected MP can not stand for election as the Head of State. That way this could never happen.
Instead, we would be more likely to get someone like Joanna Lumley. Does a lot for charity already, would be absolutely fine hosting events for foreign politicians and dignitaries, and there will be no sex or financial scandals on her watch either.

You people savvy? Look at the stuff they believe! 😀

Someone suggested on here years ago that a presidential position could be filled by a Laureate on a fixed term.
I liked that idea

I think that is a great idea.
I would like a panel to shortlist candidates, then an election. The panel's job is to make sure that the shortlist is people who can do the job. So you do not end up with someone who has sex with young trafficked teenagers for example or has dodgy friends.
It also means those who did it would actually want the job, rather than being forced into it through birth.
I know locally some people who do charity work and spend their time going to gatherings of the local great and good. We even have a local magazine that publishes photos of people attending these events. I used to know fairly well a man who moved in these circles. He would have been great as Head of State or in a supporting role. Independently wealthy through a family business, spent his time doing a lot of charity work, hosted charity fundraising events on the large lawn of his house, etc.
There is this myth that only the Royals do free charity work when that is not the case at all. Some people do pretty much Royal's job, but at a local level, and they do it for free.

There are about four claims on the diamond each with merits just who is going to untangle that mess? Cameroon was right to say no to it what if he caused a war by giving it back to the "wrong" country?

Would there be those four claims had the Sikh royal family line (to whom the diamond belonged to) not lost their kingdom and also died out somewhat mysteriously?!

I’d argue this kohinoor matter is much bigger than you realise.

If you believe in God (which makes sense if you believe in the divine appointment of monarchy) then this kohinoor entanglement between two different royal families is serious and big enough to earn the attention of God’s courthouse, especially since one of those two royal family lines has now died.

'Kohinoor' was trending on social media shortly after the sad news of the Queen of England’s passing.

Acquiring the Kohinoor from an 11-year-old child has always been contentious for many legal, moral and ethical reasons. The legal Treaty document that the vulnerable child signed in 1848 was never authorised by his Queen Mother (who had been acting on his behalf as regent). But his QM was known to have had a formidable fighting spirit: “The mother of the boy Maharaja Duleep Singh seems to be a woman of determined course, and she is the only person apparently at Lahore, who has courage.” (Lord Ellenbrough, 20/11/1843)

The kohinoor’s Sikh royal family line’s last surviving member, Princess Bamba, died during the early part of the late Queen of England’s reign.

Princess Bamba’s gravestone reads the message:

“The difference between royalty and servility vanishes,
The moment the writing of destiny is encountered,
If one opens the grave,
None would be able to discern rich from poor.” (Princess Bamba)

It was clear during the late Queen of England’s reign that neither she nor her governments were willing and/or capable of untangling the kohinoor’s historical, legal and moral mess. It’s too big and there’s a conflict of interest.

Ultimately, the kohinoor is a Justice issue that only God’s courthouse can untangle now…

*1849

England took the Stone of Destiny in 1296 and kept it till 1996 when it was finally returned.

that’s a whopping 700 years.

I'm not gloating and I feel for everyone who loved her. I respect her longevity. But I can't understand why so much fuss is made of her sense of duty. Reading some of the stuff people come out with, you'd be excused to think she spent 70 years alone in a lighthouse in the middle of the Atlantic living on gruel! The main feature of her duty was living the life of incredible privilege and highest level of comfort available wherever she went, while perpetuating the myth that she was anointed by god so more special than the rest of us. She never had to undergo any assessments of her performance or meet any standards for her duties. Throwing state dinners and meeting dignitaries on her own terms hardly seems like something to fawn over.

@Frezia
Yep

But the masses are fed a line and many ( dropping in number thank his ) swallow it whole

Ultimately, the kohinoor is a Justice issue that only God’s courthouse can untangle now…

Perhaps we could saw it in four and give a bit to each country who claims it. Everybody will be happy then.

That Solomonic wisdom has been suggested by historians… no one has officially made it.

I agree @Frezia but no one wants to stick their neck out and say it publicly, right now. For example the BBC is scared of being branded left wing and unpatriotic by the government, so it goes along with all the over the top psychophantic programming. My personal feeling is she was a decent human being, possibly not of great intelligence and of limited interests ( she never expressed any interest in the arts, theatre, literature etc). She had a sense of duty, but she also was very determined to ensure her family’s continued reign.

possibly not of great intelligence and of limited interests ( she never expressed any interest in the arts, theatre, literature etc) Really? The usual MN snobbery about the countryside rears its head again. You've no idea what she was interested in behind closed doors. Not of great intelligence? What kind of intelligence do you mean? She certainly had great emotional intelligence and a very good memory.

was clear during the late Queen of England’s reign You must be talking of Queen Elizabeth I of England not the late Queen because there is no longer such a title as Queen or King of England.

Nope…

I traced back through my reading material to see where I got the title ‘Queen of England’ from. It’s a direct reference to the title as in the contested legal Treaty that the child Duleep Singh signed in 1849 as ‘Maharajah of Lahore’ (except he was only a child aged 10 or 11, so his Queen Mother should have been present in this legal document because she was acting on his behalf as regent, but she’s not in the Treaty at all).

“III. The gem called the Koh-i-Noor, which was taken from Shah Sooja-ool-moolk by Maharajah Runjeet Singh, shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England.”

If this legal document were to be tested in a law court (an appropriate suggestion here is God’s courthouse because it’s a higher level matter and concerns royalty/monarchy), then the title ‘Queen of England’ and intended persons would still be clearly identifiable as the Head of State. So, at the time in 1849 this was Victoria and since then there was the late Elizabeth II.

It’s still incorrect, ignorant and insulting to refer to The Queen of England.

As above, it wasn’t intended as an insult at all. It was a direct reference to the title as used in the contested 1849 legal Treaty that forms the basis of the British Crown’s continued claim to the Koh-I-Noor (that document and the title that’s used on it is still used to try legally justifying possession of the gem, btw),

The legal Treaty was drawn up by the then British Governor General Lord Dalhousie (who was serving the monarch at the time). Are you also saying he was being “incorrect, ignorant and insulting” to his sovereign in 1849?

The monarch (Queen Victoria) clearly didn’t have a problem with the usage of the title (because the meaning was clear), otherwise she may have refused the Kohinoor on that Treaty’s basis or requested for a correction (which she didn’t).

I will change to Queen Elizabeth II going forwards if that’s the correct usage, but also clearly reference where the title ‘Queen of England’ comes from in relation to the Kohinoor diamond (the Treaty).

@TheGander I watched a video of Harry doing a speech to promote the Invictus games in Germany, he said the opening line in German then laughed about how this is the only bit of German he knows. Tragic, not hilarious. I don't think he speaks any other languages fluently either. He would have been raised from the early age for the life of service in diplomacy among other things, it's quite appalling he's not fluent in at least one other language. Its not a dig on him personally, I don't think the rest of them are much better either.

it wasn’t intended as an insult at all

it is still an insult.

you said 'Kohinoor' was trending on social media shortly after the sad news of the Queen of England’s passing

that was a reference to the late ERII. And it’s got precisely nothing to do with an historical document.

And was your reference to ERII as “Queen of England” that is incorrect, ignorant and insulting.

I’ve already explained where I got the term from (my reading material on the Kohinoor Diamond, specifically the legal Treaty; I know of no Queen who has objected to the title as in the Treaty).

If the British Governor General Lord Dalhousie got the title wrong in a legal Treaty in 1848, then is it a surprise that others make the mistake too?

*1849

@Frezia as a family I don’t think they have valued intellect particularly. However french was supposed to be a court language, it would be a shame if that tradition is lost, maybe Kate and William’s kids will be encouraged to learn it.

I’ve already explained where I got the term from (my reading material

and I’ve already explained that a term in an historical document referring to a totally different person has got nothing to do with how you decide to refer to the late QEII.

in fact, you called her “Queen of England” before you even started to talk about this historical document.