Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

More power to the King than. Parliament can suggest something and he or she might exercise the power. So the King is in charge without any oversight or accountability. And that is thus undemocratic.

it's called reserved powers.

While Australia doesn't have peerage for the upper house so won't be applicable.
But it's just like the reserved power of the G-G he is not elected either but appointed at the recommendation of the PM

Australia went through its own constitutional crises in 75


https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... atparl/c04

The point is accountability, not an explanation of how it works. That is crystal clear. Can't spin my head around it that people are so much in favor of an inherently undemocratic institution as a head of state.

But this will probably strip Andrew and Harry off their titles. Problem fixed?

You keep saying “head of state”, but in the UK it’s just symbolic. So the King can strip other royals of their title, so what? Nobody really cares because it has zero affect on their day to day lives.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The problem is that we do not know and can not know. It might be so it is just for a cup of thee every week, or it might be that he just uses it to influence the way the country is heading. Good or bad, we don't know.

Why should you be privy to those meetings? You aren't privy to any other meetings the PM or government minsters have so why should the meeting with the monarch be any different??

Are you just being daft, aren't you? Or you are trying the slippery slope argument. Because the Monarch is the head-of-state and is totally unaccountable. And if you rebut will be: well the PM is accountable and the King has no influence whatsoever, fine lets at least abolish the weekly meetings.

No I think you are, being daft that is. Why should you be any more privy to meetings between the monarch and the PM than between the PM and any of the other people he meets with?? You can bet you arse on it that company CEO's, heads of other governments, EU ministers have more influence over him than the king has and you have no clue what's in those meetings either. You only want change for the sake of change and can't come up with any reasons why change is necessary.

I know why I don't want the situation to change in NZ, we don't have anyone I would deem worthy enough to become out head of state, the position would be a political one, which I disagree with and it would become a nightmare of epic proportions for race relations in NZ, since the crown would no longer exist the significance of the relationship between Māori and the Crown, provided for by the cornerstone of the nation’s constitutional architecture, The Treaty of Waitangi would be up jeopardy.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Why should you be privy to those meetings? You aren't privy to any other meetings the PM or government minsters have so why should the meeting with the monarch be any different??

Are you just being daft, aren't you? Or you are trying the slippery slope argument. Because the Monarch is the head-of-state and is totally unaccountable. And if you rebut will be: well the PM is accountable and the King has no influence whatsoever, fine lets at least abolish the weekly meetings.

No I think you are, being daft that is. Why should you be any more privy to meetings between the monarch and the PM than between the PM and any of the other people he meets with?? You can bet you arse on it that company CEO's, heads of other governments, EU ministers have more influence over him than the king has and you have no clue what's in those meetings either. You only want change for the sake of change and can't come up with any reasons why change is necessary.

I know why I don't want the situation to change in NZ, we don't have anyone I would deem worthy enough to become out head of state, the position would be a political one, which I disagree with and it would become a nightmare of epic proportions for race relations in NZ, since the crown would no longer exist the significance of the relationship between Māori and the Crown, provided for by the cornerstone of the nation’s constitutional architecture, The Treaty of Waitangi would be up jeopardy.

Then take responsibility for yourselves, and have that conversation or negotiation. Train's leaving the station, there won't be a monarchy in 10 years.

The UK monarchy was always set to spin itself apart after Elizabeth's death, let alone the nationally defining self-own of Brexit, nobody should want to chain themselves to any future involving a vague monarchic, paternalistic, dominating connection to.... Charles. Shut it down.

Kiwirob wrote:

No I think you are, being daft that is. Why should you be any more privy to meetings between the monarch and the PM than between the PM and any of the other people he meets with?? You can bet you arse on it that company CEO's, heads of other governments, EU ministers have more influence over him than the king has and you have no clue what's in those meetings either. You only want change for the sake of change and can't come up with any reasons why change is necessary.

That you see things differently, is fine. I believe you have a conservative nature and thus would like things to remain. That's fine. But don't dismiss my arguments for not having a monarchy, just because you don't like them. There is no reason to have a Constitutional Monarchy, European style, these days.

Kiwirob wrote:

I know why I don't want the situation to change in NZ, we don't have anyone I would deem worthy enough to become out head of state, the position would be a political one, which I disagree with and it would become a nightmare of epic proportions for race relations in NZ, since the crown would no longer exist the significance of the relationship between Māori and the Crown, provided for by the cornerstone of the nation’s constitutional architecture, The Treaty of Waitangi would be up jeopardy.

Oh boy, really? You have to have an undemocratically, unaccountable head-of-state who even is born there and will hardly visit the country because none of the 5 million people are deemed worthy? That's, to me, unbelievable. If you truly feel like that, New Zealand should have remained a colony. This is such a dismissal of your fellow countrymen that you do not trust someone from your own country to be head-of-state. As for being a political one, that depends on the style of a presidency one would have: Israeli style or German style is not necessarily a political on.

I haven't got a clue what the Treaty of Waitangi would be and why it is up jeopardy. But above all: if you need a monarch to keep the peace then you haven't got a full-grown democracy. You seem to think that the Monarch has immense powers, well if that is the case, you have just proven my point about why I do not want an unaccountable, undemocratic Constitutional Monarchy.

scbriml wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

it's called reserved powers.

While Australia doesn't have peerage for the upper house so won't be applicable.
But it's just like the reserved power of the G-G he is not elected either but appointed at the recommendation of the PM

Australia went through its own constitutional crises in 75


https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... atparl/c04

The point is accountability, not an explanation of how it works. That is crystal clear. Can't spin my head around it that people are so much in favor of an inherently undemocratic institution as a head of state.

But this will probably strip Andrew and Harry off their titles. Problem fixed?

You keep saying “head of state”, but in the UK it’s just symbolic. So the King can strip other royals of their title, so what? Nobody really cares because it has zero affect on their day to day lives.

You still keep missing my point, head of state is just the position a monarch has, symbolic or not, that is not important. I think you need to have a real good reason, a clear benefit, to make a random family head-of-state.

As an aside to the discussion, here's what the wealth is estimated of the UK royal firm.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -explained

And about that the monarch has no input in laws or is ruled by them....

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... ns-consent

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... e-property

there you go, not symbolic at all.

ltbewr wrote:

To me, Prince Harry is a person with serious psychological problems compounded by father cheating on his mother,

Going to stir the pot more are we sure Charles is even his father?

StarAC17 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

To me, Prince Harry is a person with serious psychological problems compounded by father cheating on his mother,

Going to stir the pot more are we sure Charles is even his father?

haha, from what we know Willem-Lex isn't a direct descendent of William of Orange.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

No I think you are, being daft that is. Why should you be any more privy to meetings between the monarch and the PM than between the PM and any of the other people he meets with?? You can bet you arse on it that company CEO's, heads of other governments, EU ministers have more influence over him than the king has and you have no clue what's in those meetings either. You only want change for the sake of change and can't come up with any reasons why change is necessary.

That you see things differently, is fine. I believe you have a conservative nature and thus would like things to remain. That's fine. But don't dismiss my arguments for not having a monarchy, just because you don't like them. There is no reason to have a Constitutional Monarchy, European style, these days.

You have not given one single reason why a constitutional monarchy makes no sense.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I know why I don't want the situation to change in NZ, we don't have anyone I would deem worthy enough to become out head of state, the position would be a political one, which I disagree with and it would become a nightmare of epic proportions for race relations in NZ, since the crown would no longer exist the significance of the relationship between Māori and the Crown, provided for by the cornerstone of the nation’s constitutional architecture, The Treaty of Waitangi would be up jeopardy.

Oh boy, really? You have to have an undemocratically, unaccountable head-of-state who even is born there and will hardly visit the country because none of the 5 million people are deemed worthy? That's, to me, unbelievable. If you truly feel like that, New Zealand should have remained a colony. This is such a dismissal of your fellow countrymen that you do not trust someone from your own country to be head-of-state. As for being a political one, that depends on the style of a presidency one would have: Israeli style or German style is not necessarily a political on.

I haven't got a clue what the Treaty of Waitangi would be and why it is up jeopardy. But above all: if you need a monarch to keep the peace then you haven't got a full-grown democracy. You seem to think that the Monarch has immense powers, well if that is the case, you have just proven my point about why I do not want an unaccountable, undemocratic Constitutional Monarchy.

New Zealand hasn't been a colony since 1907. Charles being King of Great Britain is irrelevant to his role as King of New Zealand, or King of Canada, or King if Australia. New Zealand's political class are shockingly incompetent at the best of times, picking one of them to be president would be incredibly difficult. The only Kiwi in my life time that I would have been proud to have as head of State is Edmund Hillary, sadly he's long dead.

The Treaty of Waitangi is our founding document, it sets out the relationship between maori and the Crown, the Crown being the Monarch of New Zealand, not the government.

ReverseFlow wrote:

As an aside to the discussion, here's what the wealth is estimated of the UK royal firm.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -explained

And about that the monarch has no input in laws or is ruled by them....

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... ns-consent

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... e-property

£17b is a big number but the King can't liquidate it a swan off to a nice exile in the sun.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

No I think you are, being daft that is. Why should you be any more privy to meetings between the monarch and the PM than between the PM and any of the other people he meets with?? You can bet you arse on it that company CEO's, heads of other governments, EU ministers have more influence over him than the king has and you have no clue what's in those meetings either. You only want change for the sake of change and can't come up with any reasons why change is necessary.

That you see things differently, is fine. I believe you have a conservative nature and thus would like things to remain. That's fine. But don't dismiss my arguments for not having a monarchy, just because you don't like them. There is no reason to have a Constitutional Monarchy, European style, these days.

You have not given one single reason why a constitutional monarchy makes no sense.

I did, several times, in fact. That you do not accept it, is another matter. As said, in fact, you gave the perfect example of the influence/power you yourself gave the monarch.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I know why I don't want the situation to change in NZ, we don't have anyone I would deem worthy enough to become out head of state, the position would be a political one, which I disagree with and it would become a nightmare of epic proportions for race relations in NZ, since the crown would no longer exist the significance of the relationship between Māori and the Crown, provided for by the cornerstone of the nation’s constitutional architecture, The Treaty of Waitangi would be up jeopardy.

Oh boy, really? You have to have an undemocratically, unaccountable head-of-state who even is born there and will hardly visit the country because none of the 5 million people are deemed worthy? That's, to me, unbelievable. If you truly feel like that, New Zealand should have remained a colony. This is such a dismissal of your fellow countrymen that you do not trust someone from your own country to be head-of-state. As for being a political one, that depends on the style of a presidency one would have: Israeli style or German style is not necessarily a political on.

I haven't got a clue what the Treaty of Waitangi would be and why it is up jeopardy. But above all: if you need a monarch to keep the peace then you haven't got a full-grown democracy. You seem to think that the Monarch has immense powers, well if that is the case, you have just proven my point about why I do not want an unaccountable, undemocratic Constitutional Monarchy.

New Zealand hasn't been a colony since 1907. Charles being King of Great Britain is irrelevant to his role as King of New Zealand, or King of Canada, or King if Australia. New Zealand's political class are shockingly incompetent at the best of times, picking one of them to be president would be incredibly difficult. The only Kiwi in my life time that I would have been proud to have as head of State is Edmund Hillary, sadly he's long dead.

The Treaty of Waitangi is our founding document, it sets out the relationship between maori and the Crown, the Crown being the Monarch of New Zealand, not the government.

Well, you put it like Nw-Zealanders are a bunch of children and need adults (read=the Monarch) to keep everybody in check. That's not unlike colonial mentality. I don't believe that that is true and the Kiwi's are perfectly capable of running their own country. I seem to have more faith in you fellow countrymen then you do.

As for the Treaty of Waitangi, would be strange to argue that the monarchy can never be abandoned because of an agreement made in 1840.
It is indeed regarded as the founding document of New Zealand, the Wikipedia page is an interesting read. Quite a controversial history.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That you see things differently, is fine. I believe you have a conservative nature and thus would like things to remain. That's fine. But don't dismiss my arguments for not having a monarchy, just because you don't like them. There is no reason to have a Constitutional Monarchy, European style, these days.

You have not given one single reason why a constitutional monarchy makes no sense.

I did, several times, in fact. That you do not accept it, is another matter. As said, in fact, you gave the perfect example of the influence/power you yourself gave the monarch.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Oh boy, really? You have to have an undemocratically, unaccountable head-of-state who even is born there and will hardly visit the country because none of the 5 million people are deemed worthy? That's, to me, unbelievable. If you truly feel like that, New Zealand should have remained a colony. This is such a dismissal of your fellow countrymen that you do not trust someone from your own country to be head-of-state. As for being a political one, that depends on the style of a presidency one would have: Israeli style or German style is not necessarily a political on.

I haven't got a clue what the Treaty of Waitangi would be and why it is up jeopardy. But above all: if you need a monarch to keep the peace then you haven't got a full-grown democracy. You seem to think that the Monarch has immense powers, well if that is the case, you have just proven my point about why I do not want an unaccountable, undemocratic Constitutional Monarchy.

New Zealand hasn't been a colony since 1907. Charles being King of Great Britain is irrelevant to his role as King of New Zealand, or King of Canada, or King if Australia. New Zealand's political class are shockingly incompetent at the best of times, picking one of them to be president would be incredibly difficult. The only Kiwi in my life time that I would have been proud to have as head of State is Edmund Hillary, sadly he's long dead.

The Treaty of Waitangi is our founding document, it sets out the relationship between maori and the Crown, the Crown being the Monarch of New Zealand, not the government.

Well, you put it like Nw-Zealanders are a bunch of children and need adults (read=the Monarch) to keep everybody in check. That's not unlike colonial mentality. I don't believe that that is true and the Kiwi's are perfectly capable of running their own country. I seem to have more faith in you fellow countrymen then you do.

As for the Treaty of Waitangi, would be strange to argue that the monarchy can never be abandoned because of an agreement made in 1840.
It is indeed regarded as the founding document of New Zealand, the Wikipedia page is an interesting read. Quite a controversial history.

Have you looked at topics related to US gun control recently.

The key is 2A which goes back to 1776.

This type of issue affecting 2022 policy is not unique to NZ.

YokoTsuno wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

YokoTsuno wrote:

Not realistic if you ask me, as it proves to be extremely difficult to eradicate this. I used to work with a French engineer with aristocratic roots and hIs name card still revealed his background. When I asked him why he still makes references to his aristocratic background, his answer was “Because it works”.

Well, I, alongside billions of people, would not be able to name 1 famous French aristocrat. But billions of people would be able to name Queen Victoria, King Charles or Meghan Markle for sure.

These French aristocrats might have some connections amongst the rich, but they got no more star power amongst the public. And that's the dagger that hurt them the most.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here.

You create the impression that it is ok for the British royals to make use of their celebrity status but it’s not ok for that once in a blue moon ‘left over’ French aristocrat to use his or her name for whatever business advantage this might have, or with the opposite sex for that matter

When did I ever suggest that? I just said that French aristocrats are not as powerful or well known compared to British Royals who still hold symbolize power in their kingdom. Nothing else.

I’d be curious to know the who, or what are the demographic makeup of “nearly half of those Britts” are? Also the ages of the various groups. As a Aussie I’d vote them out,

hh65man wrote:

I’d be curious to know the who, or what are the demographic makeup of “nearly half of those Britts” are? Also the ages of the various groups. As a Aussie I’d vote them out,

Royalists mostly. They are crazy these days. It's not uncommon to hear them talk badly about Diana since Camia became Queen Consort.

I think most people are just bored and fed up of hearing about him to be honest. Not him himself, but him and his wife constantly being on TV in the US bashing everything. They've made things feel like a hollywood daytime soap opera and are probably being paid accordingly for their thoughts. They need to grow up. Life is short, just talk with the family not through the media and sort themselves out.

I'm British. I'm not a royalist - I don't see them as anything other than ceremonial and I'm happy with that. I wouldn't want them replaced however or removed. The country doesn't need a presidential style system and they do a lot more good than harm. Prime example, TV program in the UK late last year about Charles and how he got a group of UK investors together to buy a historical mansion in Scotland with a huge amount of land. It kept in place the biggest single collection of Chippendale furniture in the world (which would have all been sold off probably to the middle east). They have rebuilt all the gardens, restored the house and opened it to the public. It employs nearly 300 staff, all from the local area which is incredibly deprived. They have built from scratch training centres for crafts (wood working, metal work, stone masonary, gardening). Kids from all the local schools get a chance to go there and learn a trade, something to do in their spare time. It's given them opportunites they would never have otherwise.

He's done this elsewhere in the country as well, and is part of his "Princes Trust" organisation. When Government doesn't give a crap it's good to have someone who clearly does, with no ulterior motive.

It is easier to destroy a governing system than to build it. I am in favor of anything that keeps the system working, US and the UK are struggling.

ewt340 wrote:

hh65man wrote:

I’d be curious to know the who, or what are the demographic makeup of “nearly half of those Britts” are? Also the ages of the various groups. As a Aussie I’d vote them out,

Royalists mostly. They are crazy these days. It's not uncommon to hear them talk badly about Diana since Camia became Queen Consort.

Some of that is also the product of time. Diana was masterful at using the media to stoke public sentiment (which reflects how easily some people are manipulated). With time and a less emotional analysis, a lot of Diana's behavior becomes less charming.

What the UK Royal Family needs right now is a Tommy Lascelles type character to straighten out everyone. A stern lecture from him would have put everyone in their place.

At this point, one really wonders what Harry's endgame is? Does he expect his elder brother to give up and allow him to succeed their father? Every day there's a new revelation from him ... for what purpose?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64170469

So now he's claiming there was a physical altercation between him and William.

luckyone wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

hh65man wrote:

I’d be curious to know the who, or what are the demographic makeup of “nearly half of those Britts” are? Also the ages of the various groups. As a Aussie I’d vote them out,

Royalists mostly. They are crazy these days. It's not uncommon to hear them talk badly about Diana since Camia became Queen Consort.

Some of that is also the product of time. Diana was masterful at using the media to stoke public sentiment (which reflects how easily some people are manipulated). With time and a less emotional analysis, a lot of Diana's behavior becomes less charming.

True, but she played the game the Royals created and won. I just don't get how anyone could claim the moral high ground with adultery and tampax under their belt.

If anything that happen to Diana happened to these Royal supporters, they would definitely be upset with their spouse. It's the hypocrisy of it all.

ewt340 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Royalists mostly. They are crazy these days. It's not uncommon to hear them talk badly about Diana since Camia became Queen Consort.

Some of that is also the product of time. Diana was masterful at using the media to stoke public sentiment (which reflects how easily some people are manipulated). With time and a less emotional analysis, a lot of Diana's behavior becomes less charming.

True, but she played the game the Royals created and won. I just don't get how anyone could claim the moral high ground with adultery and tampax under their belt.

If anything that happen to Diana happened to these Royal supporters, they would definitely be upset with their spouse. It's the hypocrisy of it all.

It's entirely possible, but ultimately we'll never know. My own theory is that Diana knew the game, and it was more likely Charles and Camilla weren't discreet enough in the wrong company which Diana and the Spencers took as a direct threat to their interests. The Spencers, being a very prominent family, had a lot of skin in the game, and that is what set off the War of the Wales. Whether the Royal Family won, I don't know if I would call it a victory, because Diana died, and obviously in the aftermath they have been able to unilaterally control the narrative.

A101 wrote:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289/stages/16781

Second reading of the above is expected March 2023


https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 220111.pdf

Give the Monarch powers to remove titles; to provide that such removals can
be done by the Monarch on their own initiative or following a recommendation
of a joint committee of Parliament; and for connected purposes.

1 Power to remove titles
(1) His Majesty may remove any title.

(2) Where His Majesty has exercised the power under subsection (1)—
(a) if the person from whom a title has been removed is a peer, their
name must be struck out of the Roll of Peerage, and all rights of such
a peer to receive a writ of summons and to sit in the House of Lords
or to take part in the election of representative peers shall cease and
determine;

(b) all privileges and all rights to any dignity or title, whether in respect
of a peerage or under any Royal Warrant or Letters Patent, shall cease
and determine.

(3) His Majesty may exercise the power in subsection (1)—
(a) on his own initiative, or
(b) following a recommendation made by a joint committee of Parliament.

(4) In this Act, “titles” means—
(a) any hereditary peerage in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great
Britain, the United Kingdom or Ireland;
(b) any baronetcy or other hereditary title within England, Scotland, Great
Britain, the United Kingdom or Ireland
.
(5) The powers conferred upon His Majesty by this Act shall be in addition to,
and not in derogation of, any other powers of His Majesty.

Kind of a shame that the legislature has to waste its bandwidth on such tripe.

Just abolish it all and let the Windsors become normal taxpayers, they are not innately superior to anyone else.

Lizzy or Chucky or Willie have nothing more intelligent to say to the PM than any other citizen, probably far less intelligent than many.

Their perspective is that of a entitled rich person, IMO not the best perspective to be bothering the PM with.

The PM should have better things to do with their time than having to have tea and crumpets with some cosplay character out of a fairy tale.

Revelation wrote:

Kind of a shame that the legislature has to waste its bandwidth on such tripe.

A large chunk of it is to pave the way for the government to start trimming the peerage themselves, the Monarch also being granted the power to act unilaterally is collateral. It's also formalising the process since it isn't actually laid down in law as is.

Essentially it's the Honours Lists in reverse. Pretty much a nothing burger.

Aristocracy and monarchy are all about losers. There is only one winner, the surviving first son. (daughter may count now, I don't remember)

Not sure what the objective is for Harry.

It is not like X Factor where if everyone votes for Harry then William is not.

Also doubt this will win him any friends.

bennett123 wrote:

Not sure what the objective is for Harry.

It is not like X Factor where if everyone votes for Harry then William is not.

Also doubt this will win him any friends.

Alternate theory: Harry saw the writing on the wall and knew that with Wills having brought forth an heir and TWO spares, he would ultimately be spun off from the core group once his father ascended the throne. Scenario A) He and his wife may have been looking for a way get ahead of that with some kind of half in half out, and it hasn’t gone the way they wanted to. OR, Scenario B) he either figured out the plans or had been told them, and this is his big Middle Finger to it all.

luckyone wrote:

Alternate theory: Harry saw the writing on the wall and knew that with Wills having brought forth an heir and TWO spares, he would ultimately be spun off from the core group once his father ascended the throne. Scenario A) He and his wife may have been looking for a way get ahead of that with some kind of half in half out, and it hasn’t gone the way they wanted to. OR, Scenario B) he either figured out the plans or had been told them, and this is his big Middle Finger to it all.

It could be worse, given that he's playing Andy to Willie's Charlie.
I suppose there's plenty of time for him to grow into that role later in life.

Being a conservative soul, I have a lot more respect for 1200 years of history and tradition than some crank idea cooked up in the last hundred years. Tradition is merely answers to enduring questions that have proven durable. Democracy isn’t a perfect solution by any means, just witness the present chaos in what is supposed be a great democracy. I’d give Charles more say than he has now—maybe not a veto but, at least, a delay.

I’d make major US legislation subject to state ratification, rather like the Swiss model. Congress, more particularly, the out of control Executive Administrative branch needs to be trimmed back as the invasive weed it is. That’s where a monarch, steward of long term tradition, looking farther than the next election, comes in. Give him or her some veto power over the passions of democracy.

Revelation wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Alternate theory: Harry saw the writing on the wall and knew that with Wills having brought forth an heir and TWO spares, he would ultimately be spun off from the core group once his father ascended the throne. Scenario A) He and his wife may have been looking for a way get ahead of that with some kind of half in half out, and it hasn’t gone the way they wanted to. OR, Scenario B) he either figured out the plans or had been told them, and this is his big Middle Finger to it all.

It could be worse, given that he's playing Andy to Willie's Charlie.
I suppose there's plenty of time for him to grow into that role later in life.

Harry’s major maladjustment is inherent seeks relevance and attention. That and a horrible harridan of a wife.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Revelation wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Alternate theory: Harry saw the writing on the wall and knew that with Wills having brought forth an heir and TWO spares, he would ultimately be spun off from the core group once his father ascended the throne. Scenario A) He and his wife may have been looking for a way get ahead of that with some kind of half in half out, and it hasn’t gone the way they wanted to. OR, Scenario B) he either figured out the plans or had been told them, and this is his big Middle Finger to it all.

It could be worse, given that he's playing Andy to Willie's Charlie.
I suppose there's plenty of time for him to grow into that role later in life.

Harry’s major maladjustment is inherent seeks relevance and attention. That and a horrible harridan of a wife.

I think both of those are a step too far. We don't know either of the individuals -- Harry's statements suggest a lot of trauma relating to the loss of his mother and everything that came with it, forget all the baggage that comes growing up literally with a camera in your face. There are maybe three people on the planet who can relate to Harry in that regard.

Revelation wrote:

Just abolish it all and let the Windsors become normal taxpayers, they are not innately superior to anyone else.

Lizzy or Chucky or Willie have nothing more intelligent to say to the PM than any other citizen, probably far less intelligent than many.

Our entire problem is the quality of elected representatives (just like the US) right now is in many cases incredibly poor. The PM is an intelligent man but he in no way should be the PM. Intelligence isn't all of it.

As I said above the Royal Family (especially Charles) have done a hell of a lot for people in certain corners of this country that elected representatives would never in a thousand years give a hoot about and haven't lifted a finger to resolve in decades. Especially the lot in charge in the last 12 years. There isn't a massivel clammering to get rid of the Royal Family... but it would be good if the little brat shut up and grew up. This stuff with Harry and the family is complete nonsense and I'm sure is almost entirely driven by him and his Mrs trying to monetise everything. May work in the US but over here we've had enough and are bored of hearing about it.

Revelation wrote:

Their perspective is that of a entitled rich person, IMO not the best perspective to be bothering the PM with.

Actually it isn't, if you watched some of the TV documentaries about what they do day to day, the projects / Charities they are involved in. What they genuinely think about certain things is very different from almost any other rich person i've come across. Certainly head and shoulders above most of the billionaire twonks around these days.

The UK democratic system with the symbolic head of state works perfectly fine, some parts aren't perfect but this part can be left alone. I'd rather have what we have than a Presidential system and run the risk of having someone like Trump or Boris. What doesn't work is the current house of lords (far too big, ruined by Blair and all other PM's post him putting in cronies), voter reform is badly needed (first past the post is a joke) and we need vastly better MPs (or just get rid of the current government).

I suspect some kind of reform is badly needed in the US as well, especially after seeing the absolute nonsense of the last few days.

I’m an American so I don’t really have much skin in the game. Should Harry lose his titles??? NO!!! What happens if Prince William and his entire family is wiped out by a 9/11 type event, a plane crash of his entire family, or a host of other possibilities in this bizarre age of life?

SanDiegoLover wrote:

I’m an American so I don’t really have much skin in the game. Should Harry lose his titles??? NO!!! What happens if Prince William and his entire family is wiped out by a 9/11 type event, a plane crash of his entire family, or a host of other possibilities in this bizarre age of life?

The heir and the spares don't travel together.

Reinhardt wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Their perspective is that of a entitled rich person, IMO not the best perspective to be bothering the PM with.

Actually it isn't, if you watched some of the TV documentaries about what they do day to day, the projects / Charities they are involved in. What they genuinely think about certain things is very different from almost any other rich person i've come across. Certainly head and shoulders above most of the billionaire twonks around these days.

The UK democratic system with the symbolic head of state works perfectly fine, some parts aren't perfect but this part can be left alone. I'd rather have what we have than a Presidential system and run the risk of having someone like Trump or Boris. What doesn't work is the current house of lords (far too big, ruined by Blair and all other PM's post him putting in cronies), voter reform is badly needed (first past the post is a joke) and we need vastly better MPs (or just get rid of the current government).

I suspect some kind of reform is badly needed in the US as well, especially after seeing the absolute nonsense of the last few days.

Thing is, Charles Windsor could be doing all the same things or more without having to cosplay a few times a year and having people prance around bowing and curtsying calling him Your Highness. There's no way around it, a hereditary monarchy is un-democratic, and to some eyes, immoral because it sends the message that certain other humans are innately superior the instant they pop out of the birth canal.

I agree with your ideas on reform, and comments on the US situation, which are OT in my opinion. It's not as if this site doesn't provide places to discuss US politics. Yet the struggle is similar. There are powerful entrenched forces that like the status quo just the way it is. The deck is tilted in their favor, and they have no interest in changing it.

Charles' idea of being green is driving a car running on ethanol from discarded wine, and heating a palace with wood fallen in the park of said palace.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Revelation wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Alternate theory: Harry saw the writing on the wall and knew that with Wills having brought forth an heir and TWO spares, he would ultimately be spun off from the core group once his father ascended the throne. Scenario A) He and his wife may have been looking for a way get ahead of that with some kind of half in half out, and it hasn’t gone the way they wanted to. OR, Scenario B) he either figured out the plans or had been told them, and this is his big Middle Finger to it all.

It could be worse, given that he's playing Andy to Willie's Charlie.
I suppose there's plenty of time for him to grow into that role later in life.

Harry’s major maladjustment is inherent seeks relevance and attention. That and a horrible harridan of a wife.

If Diana was your mother. You probably would have the same "Tantrum". Especially when your father married the tampax woman.

ewt340 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It could be worse, given that he's playing Andy to Willie's Charlie.
I suppose there's plenty of time for him to grow into that role later in life.

Harry’s major maladjustment is inherent seeks relevance and attention. That and a horrible harridan of a wife.

If Diana was your mother. You probably would have the same "Tantrum". Especially when your father married the tampax woman.

Says you, but not in the least provable. Doesn’t seem to have affected William.

And, is he not responsible for his behavior? You can’t change what happens, but you can change how you react.

bennett123 wrote:

IMO, being non royal or bi racial are not an issue.

Some people you like, some you have no view on and some you don't like at all.

In the case of Meghan, the tabloids have hated her right from the start. Case in point, the headline comparisons between Kate:

Baby Bumps

The Daily Mail on Kate Middleton:

"Not long to go! Pregnant Kate tenderly cradles her baby bump while wrapping up her royal duties ahead of maternity leave - and William confirms she's due any minute now"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... green.html


The Daily Mail on Meghan Markle:

"Why can't Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: is it pride, vanity, acting -- or a new age bonding technique?"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... stion.html

Liking avocados

The Daily Express on Kate Middleton:

"Kate's morning sickness cure? Prince William gifted with an avocado for pregnant Duchess"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/85 ... ss-avocado

The Daily Express on Meghan Markle:

"Meghan Markle's beloved avocado linked to human rights abuse and drought"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... -instagram

The Duchesses' Christmas plans

The Daily Mail on Kate Middleton:

"Carole wins granny war! Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will spend second 'private' Christmas with the Middleton family rather than joining the Queen at Sandringham"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ngham.html

The Daily Mail on Meghan Markle:

"Doesn't the Queen deserve better than this baffling festive absence? RICHARD KAY examines the impact of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's decision not to spend Christmas with the royal family"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... amily.html

Wedding flowers

The Daily Express on Kate Middleton:

"Why you can always say it with flowers"

https://www.express.co.uk/expressyourse ... th-flowers

The Daily Express on Meghan Markle:

"Royal wedding: How Meghan Markle's flowers may have put Princess Charlotte's life at risk"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/11 ... lotte-news

There has been an extremely concerted effort from the tabloids to hate her and make others hate her.

vrbarreto wrote:

All this furore over Harry is a nice distraction away from the family nonce...

The double standard between how badly Harry and his wife have been treated vs how much of a free pass Andrew has gotten in the UK Press is very sad.

Revelation wrote:

If so, congratulations to them. That pyramid is a joke, a relic from old times, a vain attempt to push one's self and one's children up at the expense of other, more deserving people.

Revelation wrote:

Bleep those pretentious snobs, who cares about their silly constructs such as titles and royal blood?

That pyramid is the British Class system which - for some reason - remains as rigid as ever.

Dutchy wrote:

Yes. I support the abolition of the monarchy, all titles, all nobility.

The concept needs to disappear.

Especially the "Sir" and "Dame" titles. They used to be worth something and given to people who had in some way earned them, but now they're little more than a tool for rewarding political favorites and party donors. Quite sad really. In New Zealand they were abolished (with the caveat that people who had them could still use them) but then got restored by a subsequent government.

Dutchy wrote:

Don't know how it works in the UK, but in the Netherlands, a lot of cost associated with the Royals are not published in such a manner, but more hidden away in other departments.

The official published figures is somewhere in the neighborhood of 55million Euro's, but a guestimate from 2018, from the Republican society, so yeah biased, but well researched, puts it more like 350million Euro's a year, including all the benefits they receive, including tax exemptions.

Yes but your King has an actual job. Met him in the flight deck during the disembarkation from a KLM 737 a few years ago. Top bloke.

Kiwirob wrote:

The only Kiwi in my life time that I would have been proud to have as head of State is Edmund Hillary, sadly he's long dead.

Also pretty much the only one who actually deserved the "Sir" title. Still, I don't see anything wrong with having the G-G as head of state. I like how they're understated and don't make a big deal out of themselves.

If the British Monarch wants to be the head of state in NZ, then they should work for it. Spend at least one month a year here opening some supermarkets, unveiling some plaques, comforting some oldies and giving speeches about the importance of sea birds. Visiting the place once in five years overseas - like an overseas holiday - is actually somewhat insulting.

Revelation wrote:

Kind of a shame that the legislature has to waste its bandwidth on such tripe.

It's a good distraction from the government's utter incompetence in every other area.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Harry’s major maladjustment is inherent seeks relevance and attention. That and a horrible harridan of a wife.

If Diana was your mother. You probably would have the same "Tantrum". Especially when your father married the tampax woman.

Says you, but not in the least provable. Doesn’t seem to have affected William.

And, is he not responsible for his behavior? You can’t change what happens, but you can change how you react.

Oh willy, the one who cheated on his pregnant wife. Yeah that one.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Says you, but not in the least provable. Doesn’t seem to have affected William.

And, is he not responsible for his behavior? You can’t change what happens, but you can change how you react.

Well according to the book excerpts (yeah I've read a long article about it) Harry says that it did affect William, that both asked their father not to marry Camilla, etc.

As for how one acts, apparently the heir acts thuggishly and the spare is more level headed.

Aesma wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Says you, but not in the least provable. Doesn’t seem to have affected William.

And, is he not responsible for his behavior? You can’t change what happens, but you can change how you react.

Well according to the book excerpts (yeah I've read a long article about it) Harry says that it did affect William, that both asked their father not to marry Camilla, etc.

As for how one acts, apparently the heir acts thuggishly and the spare is more level headed.

What in the past three years makes you believe Harry is level headed? All we are getting is their side of the story, it’s so fanciful how can anyone believe a word of it.

WestendRaider wrote:

What the UK Royal Family needs right now is a Tommy Lascelles type character to straighten out everyone. A stern lecture from him would have put everyone in their place.

At this point, one really wonders what Harry's endgame is? Does he expect his elder brother to give up and allow him to succeed their father? Every day there's a new revelation from him ... for what purpose?

How about Judge Judy? or Steve Harvey? Those are my two choices lol

LCDFlight wrote:

WestendRaider wrote:

What the UK Royal Family needs right now is a Tommy Lascelles type character to straighten out everyone. A stern lecture from him would have put everyone in their place.

At this point, one really wonders what Harry's endgame is? Does he expect his elder brother to give up and allow him to succeed their father? Every day there's a new revelation from him ... for what purpose?

How about Judge Judy? or Steve Harvey? Those are my two choices lol

Not the senile old lady or the guy who can't pronounce a country name correctly.

ewt340 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

WestendRaider wrote:

What the UK Royal Family needs right now is a Tommy Lascelles type character to straighten out everyone. A stern lecture from him would have put everyone in their place.

At this point, one really wonders what Harry's endgame is? Does he expect his elder brother to give up and allow him to succeed their father? Every day there's a new revelation from him ... for what purpose?

How about Judge Judy? or Steve Harvey? Those are my two choices lol

Not the senile old lady or the guy who can't pronounce a country name correctly.

Either one of those two people would place Harry and Meghan exactly where they belong. I’m a millennial and the fact is, sometimes boomers have some news for us. Sometimes.

LCDFlight wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

How about Judge Judy? or Steve Harvey? Those are my two choices lol

Not the senile old lady or the guy who can't pronounce a country name correctly.

Either one of those two people would place Harry and Meghan exactly where they belong. I’m a millennial and the fact is, sometimes boomers have some news for us. Sometimes.

Yeah they gonna place both Harry and Meghan in front of a camera for special tv interviews where the 3 of them would make millions of dollars for 40 minutes appearance. Don't listen to people who don't know how to log in to their facebook account.

As an American with no horse in the race, I say strip all the titles from the family and make them pull their own weight like the entire tax base that supports them does now.

T18 wrote:

As an American with no horse in the race, I say strip all the titles from the family and make them pull their own weight like the entire tax base that supports them does now.

Yes agree

It was his choice (but who knows what’s was demanded in private) to leave.

It’s not a dictatorship but it’s does have rules much like King Edward VIII abdication

LCDFlight wrote:

WestendRaider wrote:

What the UK Royal Family needs right now is a Tommy Lascelles type character to straighten out everyone. A stern lecture from him would have put everyone in their place.

At this point, one really wonders what Harry's endgame is? Does he expect his elder brother to give up and allow him to succeed their father? Every day there's a new revelation from him ... for what purpose?

How about Judge Judy? or Steve Harvey? Those are my two choices lol

Judge Judy has already laid into Harry.

https://youtu.be/WBNjmN8YyCk