Opinions may Vary . A genuine question about why Meghan and Harry seem to attract such differing views.

[BasiliskStare]

I post this more in hope than experience but I would be really interested in a proper discussion about those who are fans or supporters of them , those who aren't and indeed ( of which there are many ) , those who are indifferent.

So - I'll start. There was an interesting post on another thread which said M&H come over as David and Goliath , standing up against "the Institution" - my paraphrase.

No spitting , no fighting , mind the furniture 😂

I agree . So long as that also applies to the Wales children on threads .

I don't talk about the Wales children.

Well I think you know I am somewhat in favour of a constitutional monarchy - I've said it often enough. But I think a female PM should not have to bob a curtsey - I think a handshake or a nod would be fine - because I do get the PM is elected and must have the respect that comes with that (even from people who don't agree with them / didn't vote for them)

And if the monarchy is abolished by popular opinion , I'll go with that - & that is just how very small c conservative I am. One thing I will say which may be in poor taste , (and please anyone report this) I will go with the Monarchy , and it's the position not the person , but truly in my heart of hearts ( hypocrite me? ) if it ever came to H & M acceding due to unforeseen circumstances to the throne I'd be chaining myself to the railings of BP like the most ardent suffragist. Yes it doesn't stack up , yes it's hypocritical - but wishy washy as I am , I'll go along with a constitutional monarch , as long as they are scrutinised & behave appropriately. 😂

That sounds better in what I laughingly call my brain than it does written down.

The expected response of a person who can't reply but has to get a bit in 🙄 please don't tell me I have to explain in tiny words?

The less you talk about yourself the less people know about you .

I hope I have read you right. I think you are saying you'd chain yourself to the railings as a protest against the new king and queen.

if it ever came to H & M acceding due to unforeseen circumstances to the throne I'd be chaining myself to the railings of BP like the most ardent suffragist. Yes it doesn't stack up , yes it's hypocritical - but wishy washy as I am , I'll go along with a constitutional monarch , as long as they are scrutinised & behave appropriately.

The danger of an inappropriate monarch is ever present.

Modern times indicate Nazi sympathiser Edward VIII (who actually took the throne).

Latter times indicate that but for accidents of birth order we'd be celebrating a current King Andrew or an incipient King Harold.

Even the current incumbent has numerous dubious connections and allegations stacked up.

Scrutiny and exposure seems to have changed little in the way of behaviour.

I didn’t say you did however there have been numerous snide remarks about the Wales children on various threads .

I'm sure there has been. I hate it.

Leave the children out of it.

Indeed

Scrutiny doesn't really exist. Certainly not in parliament or by the people.

Of course I wouldn't and @CathyorClaire is right in that we are only ever a step away from a dreadful monarch. But as things stand I am happy at W&C being at the front and rather than chaining myself to the railings I would probably write a sternly worded letter to the Telegraph.

My hypocrisy is mainly me talking about the position not the person and admitting I just would not like H ( on current course and speed) to be King.

I think in fact there’s a very effective natural filter which militates against an unsuitable person remaining in post as monarch. The role is a lot more demanding and frequently boring than some people realise and people like Edward VIII and Harry or Meghan would not manage to stay the course for long. Just think of having to deal with the Red Boxes each morning, meetings with courtiers and officials, seeing the PM and having your finger on the pulse of political events. It’s unglamorous and routine stuff and narcissistic people with short concentration spans and difficulty in feigning interest in anything but themselves just would not want the gig.

its a process of natural selection and it’s served us pretty well in the last 200 years.

Spot on.

That very unflattering picture of Theresa May was deliberately chosen for the front pages from the many pictures taken of her that day. It wouldn’t even have been the only one of her greeting the King with a handshake and curtesy. The photographer would have had tens of that actual moment, yet that was the one that was chosen as being newsworthy.

I’d have raised my eyebrows at the headline and with the newspaper and journalist in my mind I have said (to myself) something along the lines of “bloody arseholes”.

@wordler thank you for explanation as to how that headline would have been created. I had no idea that’s how things worked.

I would have to wear a yellow vest and shout 'Not my king.'

What an excellent theory. Only the stayers keep it.

( Confession: Sometimes I eat an avocado.)

@BasiliskStare your humour was very obvious to anyone with a sense of fun when you referred to chaining yourself to the railings of BP and didn’t need any explanation.

Anyway, I’d be right alongside you and I know we’d have a great time together even if we forgot why we were there in the first place. Oh and we’d have to try and remember not to accept anything the footmen offered us as a ‘welcome to the palace drink’. And I know they would because it’s one of their tricks - they’d fill us up with a pint of squash each knowing full well we’d be wanting off those railings 10 minutes later.

Just like the did to those Fathers For Justice protestors years ago 🤣

whilst looking after a baby and two other children
😂 😂 hahahahahahahaha

So you really ARE very interested in her, aren't you?

An almost obsessive interest....

Tbf, with the exception of the late Queen and her father, they've all been a pretty nasty bunch. Or have you forgotten all the raping, pillaging and colonisation? Hasn't served anyone else very well.

I'm amazed that you all follow her so much.
You all seem to be bigger fans than the fans!

@NeedZzzzzssss I’d like examples please of the ‘raping, pillaging and colonisation’ by specific members of the royal family.

George the fourth sat on the board of The East India Company but that wasn’t crown business. That company was Dutch (which a lot of people forget).

The East India Company did most of the colonisation. They then turned over their holdings to the British crown because it had become too unwieldy for a single corporation to run. They were the Amazon of their days with holdings everywhere.

Let’s go through the Queen’s ancestors and rate them for ‘raping, pillaging and colonisation’

Henry VIII- 0/10 lost the last English holdings in Calais, failed to invade Scotland. Pretty poor.

James I- 2/10 added Scotland to the English crown to create a United realm but that was voluntary because he was already the Scottish king of Scotland.

Charles I- 5/10 subjugated his own people and attempted to do the same in Ireland. Got his head cut off for being power mad.

Oliver Cromwell- 10/10 I know he’s not a relative of the Queen because he was Lord Protector but he was the worst thing to ever happen to Ireland and an absolutely joyless bastard to boot. Obsessed with wiping out Irish rebellion. What a twat.

Charle II- 0/10 love dogs, women and a good time. Most famous for the King Charles Spaniel and the Great Fire of London

James II- Catholic. A bit boring. Zero pillaging.

Anne 0/19- too busy helping the Low Counties defend themselves from the French.

William and Mary- ditto

The Georges I- IV: rising 4/10 increases British holdings in the Americas but then points deducted for losing the American colonies. Everything that particular breakaway did after that point is their own fault. Also negatives for Culloden and the banning of Scots Gallic.

No British or English monarch has sent in an army to ‘colonise’ in hundreds of years. Ireland was brought to us by the only bit in our history where we didn’t have a king! The rest came via a private company. By the time the British Government was administering the empire, the monarch was a figure head. Victoria, who actually wasn’t a nice woman really, gets a lot of the flak for decisions made in Whitehall. Those people never get mentioned. The British Empire was brutal but those decision weren’t made by the monarch. They were made by our elected representatives!

Wow go visit any country that has been colonised and see the lasting effects that are still felt today. Ignorant!

I wouldn't protest King Harry. The problem with constitutional monarchy is you don't get to control who you get next and if I chose to support the system, which I do, I don't think I can protest if I don't like the next in line.

But I am really glad to live in a time when a terrible King or Queen wouldn't result in my execution or a war in France. This is a good time in history to have a bad monarch because their power is limited.

Plus I notice that the protesters got a lot more vocal after the late Queen and I find that cowardly.

@NeedZzzzzssss I very clearly said that the British Empire was brutal. Try reading properly.

I just also pointed out that all those decisions were taken by the elected British government and not the constitutional head of state.

I could actually point out that Britain had no colonial tendencies until Parliament took absolute control over the army and the treasury.