Do you think some of you are addicted to hating Harry and Meghan?

[wowwhataday]

More and more these manic threads are popping up on mumsnet, wild posts and theories and then hundreds of posts brimming with excitement about catching them out or exposing them. It’s like a game or a hunt. Have many of you crossed the line from interested to addicted?

So what? He's hardly going to be deposed because of it. Who cares if some people who seem to be mostly Americans who have no idea about the Monarchy kick off? It's not vindictive ifvits a change in the rules from now on, because he'll be removing titles from Williams future grandchildren too. It will be easier for him to do it than for William to do it. I don't think he will unless he absolute has to.

I’m not disagreeing with you, I think he should do it despite the nuclear Montecito meltdown that will follow but I’m convinced he won’t.

I agree but I don't think any if them would willingly do it. They would gave to be forced into it by some sort I'd public outrage, just like they were forced to pay tax.

Ah, right, I see what you mean. I suppose I get a little irritated by the RF (or any celebrity, for that matter) getting praise when they just behave like reasonable human beings. It’s like when men get super dad status for changing a nappy!

Haven’t kept up with thread but a poster below mentioned the likelihood or not of the RF being racist.

Tbh, if you are asking the question, is the RF likely to be racist, then I would say, given their roots, embedded in colonialism, the fact that they are all white, high born, and given the outbursts of Prince Philip who had a strong influence over the family; who may have been a talented bloke in many ways but was definitely “of his time and class” in terms of his attitude to people of different ethnicities ( and remember we only heard the outbursts or off jokes that occurred in public) and given the Blackamoor brooch incident, then I would say the exact opposite, that yes, it’s likely that there are strands of racism running through the royal family.

This Republic UK’s take on it:

• The British monarchy was instrumental in supporting the slave trade, something the Queen never publicly acknowledged. Elizabeth I had strong connections to Britain's slave trade and publicly supported Captain John Hawkins, who captured 300 Africans in 1562.
• From King George I (1714-27) to King William IV (1830-37) British monarchs actively supported slavery, investing in it and profiting from it. While slavery had been abolished in Britain in 1807, the future King William had been a vocal opponent of abolition in the House of Lords. Queen Victoria inherited a personal fortune gained through the slave trade, a fortune that has been handed down to subsequent monarchs.
• Queen Elizabeth’s silence on the issue for her entire life showed an unwillingness to face up to past injustices, and a lack of commitment to multicultural and multiracial Britain (and Commonwealth countries). The current royal family continues to profit from the slave trade, through its untaxed inheritances and makes considerable efforts to conceal these gains from the public.
• Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson showed support for the Nazi party before and during the Second World War. Both nurtured a friendly relationship with Adolf Hitler and many speculated that they were involved in a failed plot to overthrow the British crown during the war.
• Prince Philip’s problematic language and outright racism (and sexism) mostly occurred without acknowledgment or apology from the palace. On various public engagements, he referred to Asians as "slitty-eyed", ridiculed Nigerian national dress and referred to Aboriginal people as "spear throwers" (to name a few examples). Uncharacteristically, an apology was issued after one visit to an electronics factory, where he said a messy fuse box looked "as though it was put in by an Indian."
• In 2001 a black former employee of Charles accused the then prince of protecting his most senior aide after the aide was accused of racially abusing her at work.
• Princess Michael of Kent was accused of racially abusing diners in a New York restaurant in 2004, when she told them to "go back to the colonies".In 2017 Princess Michael of Kent was widely criticised for wearing a blackamoor brooch when she first met Meghan Markle. The blackamoor design is considered by many to be racist in its depiction of black people.
• Prince Andrew was once recorded using an egregious racial slur about black people, also whilst on official business. In a different incident, former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith accused Andrew of making "unbelievable" racist comments about Arabs.

KC3 seems to have an open outlook in terms of embracing other cultures and ethnicities, although there was that unfortunate incident where he and Camilla were caught on camera in Canada giggling at Inuit singers. To be fair, we don’t know what that was about or if the clips were taken out of context, but the optics weren’t good.

I have no idea about William but Harry has admitted in the past that his behaviour on this issue was extremely ignorant and problematic.

So let’s just say that there is some evidence that racism has occurred within some strands of the RF and quite recently too.

No. I'm not "praising" anyone. I'm saying that the behaviour of H&M is so low, that KC appears very dignified. He's not stooping to their level. Mind you,that would be difficult.
He's saying nothing publicly, nor are the others. Good call.

@Reallyhowisthatthecase333
Harry's behaviour was "problematic"?! Really?
He behaved in a racist way, but now he seems to be the poster boy for inclusion without any reference to, or apologies for, his offensive behaviour.
I find it strange that a person such as him would monetise his apparently anti racist credentials and target others.
Hypocrite.

And fwiw, I don’t think not removing titles is primarily about vindictiveness or lack of it, although they do have to consider the optics.

I think it’s about self preservation! And protecting the institution at all costs!

Harry may not currently be a working royal but he is still at the heart of the family inasmuch as he is the son of the monarch and brother of the future heir, and that will never change. Tbh his position at the core of the family is one reason I think that the shutters have come down so firmly on him. Because like him or not, him leaving was a blow to the very heart of the institution.

The current system is set up very nicely that the monarch can maintain their status and wealth and remain unchallenged, and our elected members of parliament have again, and again, let down the people of the UK by not asking probing questions about the RF’s accounts, not challenging the status quo, and not requiring more tax income and financial accountability. Indeed there are rules, very conveniently, which prevent discussion of the RF within parliament.

And I think that once the concept of “removing titles” is lodged in the public’s mind as something that is current and possible, even if it does relate to children of a Prince who is, atm anyway, removed geographically from the core of the family, Harry is still a core member in terms of familial relationships, so this concept could potentially be considered a dangerous idea to have lurking in the public’s mind, in case it threatens the position of the current incumbents.

One can only hope!

He did address that subject directly on tv and apologise actually. I remember watching it,

And it’s funny how you only focus on Harry and do not address all of the other incidences in my post, when Harry is the only one who has apologised!

No titles are going to be removed ever. Take them away from Harry and his children then the same will have to be done for Williams’s children and no way is that going to happen.

Yes! Me too!

It’s reached ridiculous levels!

Man turns to his wife and puts a hand on the small of her back to guide her > cue headlines the next day about how in love W & K are!

William drives himself to royal engagement >
cue headlines the next day “William in driver’s seat”

Most of this ridiculous hyperbole and obsequiousness emanates from the tabloids to be fair!

But then some posters somehow back those stories and sentiments up by following a tabloid driven narrative!

My view is this: if you don’t live permanently in the U.K. then you forfeit your place in the LoS. It’s ridiculous that you have 3 heirs to the throne not living in the U.K.

I think short working abroad eg because your company have posted you abroad for a 2 year contract (thinking this happened with me and dh but we didn’t take it in the end) shouldn’t lose you that right but living permanently should.

I know it sounds garbled but makes sense in my head!

The RF doesn’t work like that it is all about the order of birth. If they started to remove people from the line of succession who weren’t playing ball then that will only cause public discord. It isn’t a popularity contest and if they started to do this and the public realised it was that easy to remove people then what would stop them asking for the whole lot to be removed.

I agree. I think this is why they don't do it. They don't want to set a precedent where anyone else could face demands for loss of titles. They absolutely wsnt to cling onto the Monarchy and the status it affords for as long as possible. Harry is not an aberration imo. He is what they made him. I mean, who cares about the 11th or whatever in the line of succession? They will never be needed to step up to the one official job as Head of State, which is a complete ceremonial post. It's all about status.

Please. Don't get personal. Maybe I agreed with much of it, has that occurred to you? Apart from excusing Harry.
Oh and the pro Nazi Edward and his vile antisemitic segregationist wife were ousted by the Baldwin government when it became clear they were a threat to the nation's security.
Harry is posturing on the subject of race and madly back peddled when some of his accusations against the RF were proven to be unfounded.

What nonsense. There's no need to read the tabloids. Harry and Meghan provide all the folly themselves.

You are right. The issue is that Harry and Meghan are desperate to cling on to their royal status, and pass it on to their children. Which is absolutely nonsensical as they live in a Republic! This sort of behaviour is really just an example of the worst aspects of royalty.
They get all the titles, wealth, status and privilege, milk it for all it's worth, exploit it, yey wouldn't work for a minute longer than necessary in the UK.

That's why it shouldn't be done on that basis. Get rid of Prince/Princess for everyone not in the direct line of succession and get rid of everyone who doesn't permanently live or was not born in the UK. One rule for everyone, playing ball or not. As weve seen from Princess Annes kids they have done fine- yes they trade on their family line but that can't be helped, but they knew they would have to make a life for themselves without being ' Prince/Princess'. Compared to Beatrice and Eugene, who's jobs seem to consist of allowing their names and titles to be on letterheads, taking over their parents grifting from dodgy Oligarchs business and fluttering their eyelids innocently wondering how come they have piles of cash in their bank account.

It is how Monarchy works in other countries, so it could be here if only our Monarchy were willing to give up any of their wealth and status without a fight.

Yes and the narrative was for years that all the blame is on WS for luring the poor King away and killing George vi with stress rather than the government having to basically bounce her into a marriage she didn't really want as an excuse to get rid of an unsuitable King, and then embargo the evidence for 50 years after his death.

@Tomatotater I couldn't agree with you more about Beatrice and Eugenie. I'm not sure how they don't get scrutinised more, but you've summed it up exactly. Same about your comments on Anne's children who have no titles to trade on.
The only good thing is that the York line ends there. The Sussex Royal line is destined to continue.

Come now, asking a legitimate question as to why you ignored the rest of my points in a post does not even remotely resemble “getting personal”.

If you look at some of the personal comments myself and other republicans have had to face on these threads over the years, it doesn’t remotely qualify!

If you agreed with it, then I am delighted!

Incidentally, we have no idea as to why Harry back-pedalled. I think there were probably a lot more things he could have said surrounding that issue, and a lot more things he could have included in Spare, but didn’t.

Yes, I have read quite a lot about it - it fascinates me. The cabinet papers make it all clear. Edward's red dispatch boxes were not kept secure, and Wallis' friend Ribbentrop almost certainly had access to them. They had to go.

He called the RF racist. He made money from that slander. He then accepted an "award" for it. Then he lied to Tom Bradby, saying that it wasn't him, it was the "UK Press"!
I have no idea why anyone with any Republican sentiment would support ultra royals like H&M

There we can very much agree FenellaFeldman 😀

Edited: on the worst aspects of Royalty I mean!

I 100% agree with @Tomatotater about the titles and following the Danish model.

I do think they will not do anything about Harry nor his kids titles as that will remain the parachute for Harry if (when) he needs to return as a divorced dad. I think, in that case, he will be brought back into the fold with his kids and their titles, and any changes to the letters patent will happen for the next generation.