tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post2404530055828555395..comments2024-03-24T00:23:36.772+00:00Comments on Mad About Meghan: "We Can All Live a Life of Service. Service Is Universal."Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11799152261801421558noreply@blogger.comBlogger155125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-6453182480021388252021-03-01T23:34:55.544+00:002021-03-01T23:34:55.544+00:00No New Zealand is not culturally English. As a cul...No New Zealand is not culturally English. As a culturally mixed person with some Scandinavian ancestry, I totally reject that description. It would be more correct to say the original settlers were Polynesian voyagers in the 14th century followed in the 19th century by an an influx of European settlers who were mainly British. Scots and Irish were more likely to emigrate here to escape conditions in their home countries. The English contingent were often those wanting to set up a classless society here free from the British aristocracy and were successful in this. It is certainly true that many British settlers were greedy for land and sometimes used force to achieve that. However although they did bring their European racial prejudices with them, it was diluted by intermarriage right from the start as fewer European women came at first. The earlier missionaries, whalers and sealers married Maori women and learnt their Polynesian language so there was very little stigmatisation of their mixed race offspring. For example there is no commonly used derogatory term for people of mixed race and many pale skinned people proudly identify as Maori today. We are increasingly multicultural as a large number of Polynesian and other Pacifica and Asian migrants add to our browning population each year. Auckland is the largest Pacifica city in the world as many Pacific Islanders emigrate. As far as human rights are concerned it helps that we weren't ever a convict settlement and that slavery had been abolished in the British Empire by the time we became a British colony. Because we were so far from Europe we gained self government very early on and manhood suffrage included Maori by the time we had our first national parliament. When women achieved the vote in 1897 there was universal suffrage for everyone over 21 and we never had to struggle for the vote as they did elsewhere. We have a social democratic system which accepts that the State is in the best position to provide health and education as well as old age and and unemployment benefits. All political parties accept this philosophy. Of course this didn't mean everything was perfect and we had land wars and some of the other detrimental effects of colonisation still afflict the indigenous portion of our society today. With our Treaty of Waitangi settlements we are making strenuous efforts to overcome the injustices of the past. We don't claim to be a "light on the hill" but a democracy in the making. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-90458955514255925972021-02-23T15:59:17.596+00:002021-02-23T15:59:17.596+00:00I can understand that the armed forces connections...I can understand that the armed forces connections and the Commonwealth organisations are within the Queen's gift and the decisions were certainly influenced by the Queen being Commander in Chief and Head of the Commonwealth. I also agree that someone living in UK is better able to attend meetings, services etc. But surely the other organisations mentioned are not obliged to cancel their patronages just because the Queen or her staff request it? They could still write to Harry or Meghan and ask for their continued patronage if they feel it has been beneficial for them. For example it would be interesting to know how closely Meghan has been involved with The National Theatre which seemed a much better fit for her than for any other RF member. Harry has certainly been an excellent patron for the Rugby Union, so why didn't the Queen's advisors leave any decision until after the lockdown finished in UK and USA. Then after that if Harry hardly ever visited UK or attended matches, a change could have been made in a more civilised manner. Now it looks like punishment. From the reports the Palace can certainly be faulted for over-riding the inclinations of the various groups involved. The old saying about acting in haste seems to apply . A Kiwi Fannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-56673705321538759812021-02-23T04:47:15.727+00:002021-02-23T04:47:15.727+00:00Diplomacy is indeed needed. It’s evident the palac...Diplomacy is indeed needed. It’s evident the palace lacks this quality and also the patience and discretion which is rather extraordinary given the large staff and budget it has. The BRF has been unable (or won’t) to control leaks to the press from palace insiders. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-38597863052716214492021-02-23T01:07:33.811+00:002021-02-23T01:07:33.811+00:00Both Queen Maxima and Crown Princess Mary married ... Both Queen Maxima and Crown Princess Mary married royalty who were next in the line of succession in the Netherlands and Denmark, whereas Harry is sixth in line and extremely unlikely to succeed to the British throne. Neither Maxine or Mary continued to work after their marriages and took on similar roles to British royals. Chris O'Neil married a Swedish princess who will be eighth in line once Carl Phillip's next baby is born. Her Husband Chris O'Neil turned down a title and has continued in his chosen occupation. They don't live in Sweden although Madelaine visits frequently and she does perform some royal duties when she is there. Her children no longer carry Duke and Duchess titles which is a recognition of their different status. Chris O'Neil is not involved at all in royal duties and is free to concentrate on earning his living. Harry is basically in the same position as Madelaine and both families now live in USA. So Meghan and Harry are certainly able to similarly lead non royal lives from now on and won't have to worry about their actions affecting his grandmother or his father and brother. However in the interests of family harmony it would be circumspect to keep quiet about sensitive family history and past disagreements. The public disagreements within the Markle family have just exacerbated the situation. Some diplomacy is definitely needed. A Kiwi Fannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-52390852902030690842021-02-23T00:42:38.886+00:002021-02-23T00:42:38.886+00:00100% agree.100% agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-73903661958251820632021-02-22T22:02:51.825+00:002021-02-22T22:02:51.825+00:00I think it's important to recognize that there...I think it's important to recognize that there is diversity within the Commonwealth. Compared to other Commonwealth nations, New Zealand is generally more white and culturally English, correct? I don't think that is comparable to countries in Africa and the Caribbean, for example, who were colonized, brutalized by the slave trade, and forced into a new religion, language, and culture (with the obvious exception of the Maori in NZ who did have to live through that). I think countries founded on heavy British immigration are in a different situation and likely have a different stance on the British Royal family's value than countries where Brits (with the Royal family at the literal, figurative, or perhaps actual helm) decided to come ravage people and resources with impunity. So, you are very entitled to your opinion but I think it should be clear it is just yours or perhaps just representative of NZ, not that of Black and brown countries in the Commonwealth. <br /><br />As a Swedish-American, I would just like to say that I think the Scandinavian countries are successful not because they are constitutional monarchies (people here do not care about the royal families, they're non-entities, really), but rather because their electorate often chooses more democratically socialist philosophies and policies in government. The fact that Sweden has an incredibly high representation of women in senior offices isn't because of the king but because of equitable gender policies in the workplace that mean women don't have to choose between home and work. <br /><br />And lastly, you don't even have to leave the isle to find people who the Royal family has harmed historically and even currently through unwanted train tours during a global pandemic. I think that's evident with the Scottish Independence movement that is growing as we speak. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-89835668652433501932021-02-22T21:12:54.574+00:002021-02-22T21:12:54.574+00:00I was expecting this, but also hoping that perhaps...I was expecting this, but also hoping that perhaps the royal family would rise above pettiness. For an institution that cares so much about optics, they have completely missed the mark here (and have missed the mark entirely for the last 3 years, I'd argue) and have shot themselves in the foot. While the palace has been wrapped up in ridiculous intrigue, the rest of the wonderfully diverse Commonwealth and world have seen how they've handled this, the treatment of their first senior bi-racial royal. And guess what? It doesn't look good. As a friend of mine recently said about the racial inequality in the States, to be tolerant of intolerance is to be intolerant. <br /><br />At this point, it's abundantly clear that either the Queen, herself, is totally complicit or she has so completely lost control of her employees (the "grey suits") that she no longer even tries to reign them in. It's also abundantly clear that a lot of people have rose-colored glasses on when it comes to the Queen. <br /><br />I don't think Harry and Meghan are completely blameless, at least not with how they handled the initial split, but I do think it's obvious the royal family have not ever learned lessons from Diana's death. <br /><br />No matter what was going on behind closed doors, the fact remains that the royal family refused to publicly support Harry and Meghan while they were being dragged through the mud (and publicly speaking out was the only way they could have stopped what was happening), refused to listen or compromise when it was clear Harry and Meghan were suffering, and then continued to use the couple as scapegoats *while all the while* petting and protecting a possible PEDOPHILE. The fact remains, the royal family COULD have intervened for Harry and Meghan and didn't. And judging by the hateful media pieces and continued vile social media comments, I'd say it's pretty clear they have zero intention of ever intervening.<br /><br />Consider me completely UN-enamored of the institution. It's a shame - I did so used to love royal watching. <br /> Becca in Coloradonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-25574530289002750642021-02-22T15:55:06.781+00:002021-02-22T15:55:06.781+00:00It’s not. H&M sell more. It’s that simple. The...It’s not. H&M sell more. It’s that simple. There’s been coverage of Andrew and Epstein for years, lots of covers, you only have to google. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-24306454006947680022021-02-22T14:31:05.818+00:002021-02-22T14:31:05.818+00:00Hi Charlotte, I somehow missed to comment on your ...Hi Charlotte, I somehow missed to comment on your last post, so I will try to do it here. One thing I think most people are forgetting to mention in the whole discussion about the DoS leaving their working roles in the BRF is a very important one: that the institution is publicly funded and thus has a very constrained set of options when it comes to independent work. In essence, the RF has to stick to a ceremonial part, because that’s what they are paid for. By the British public. Specifically looking at the DoS, I do not think their way of thinking about "modern" royal work, with private enterprises etc., would have been compliant with the public mission. I had hoped they would find a way of modernising the role of a royal more down the line of succession, because it really would have revitalisied the institution. I think all points about Prince Andrew et al. are completely valid. I do think that some family members' private endeavours are not within the framework the public should expect for their money; the whole discussion about the DoS should lead to a review of the whole system of the BRF and eventually to its streamlining. The doubles standards are not helpful to the institution. — Sarah<br /><br />Admin Note: Sarah I moved your comment to this post as it's part of this discussion. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-61356096055807769752021-02-22T14:29:23.756+00:002021-02-22T14:29:23.756+00:00I agree with the Duke & Duchess - service is u...I agree with the Duke & Duchess - service is universal. Everyone can, and should, live a live of service.<br />Having not waded through the 137 comments before mine yet, I don't know if this has been asked already... Is there any chance of Charles or William reversing this decision when they ascend the throne?Caseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16454114357977846319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-4663729863039497622021-02-22T14:20:25.579+00:002021-02-22T14:20:25.579+00:00I agree I think other European Royal families have...I agree I think other European Royal families have found a much better balance as to how to be royal (both in role and image) in the 21st century. I realize the British model is a bit more complex with vast overseas responsibility as well, but they’re looking increasingly stale and out of touch next to other European RF’s. It’s always the balancing act isn’t it, tradition vs modernizing. But I think of other crown Princes and princesses and most have had pretty developed independent careers (or at least pursuits of not a fully formed career) and have chosen spouses with established independent lives and careers. It just makes them feel more in touch with regular people to me. The BRF often feels like they trade on their aloofness and mystique. It works in some ways but may also be the Achilles heel in others. I think Meghan came in as a bit of an outsider in nationality and career and the BRF and larger British media/institutions just weren’t quite ready for it. She’s analogous to Queen Maxima or Crown Princess Mary or Princess Madeleine’s husband Chris (who granted has mostly declined any royal role). These women came in from other countries and with jobs and lives before their royal marriage. I know some bumps at the outset but both have settled in. It just always strikes me the BRF and perhaps more importantly the ecosystem of media/tradition that shapes their image was just not ready to have a character like Meghan in the cast. And it blew up. It’s really sad. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-3037050119506327092021-02-22T14:10:40.376+00:002021-02-22T14:10:40.376+00:00I agree Ive become sort of mystified by the concep...I agree Ive become sort of mystified by the concept of a royal expert. I’m really not sure what they do or what information they have. They seem to scan Twitter headlines, and then apply a set of criteria from maybe how the royal family operated 50 years ago, and then spin it into a scandal for money and clicks. I don’t think they have particularly insider knowledge and they definitely don’t help the situation on either side. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-72810468677493452382021-02-22T14:04:53.928+00:002021-02-22T14:04:53.928+00:00I don’t even know what a working royal is anymore....I don’t even know what a working royal is anymore. The goal posts are always moved. I think the RF’s lack of consistency on this is half the issue. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-10522495848408076352021-02-22T14:03:35.333+00:002021-02-22T14:03:35.333+00:00They definitely manipulate the media coverage. How...They definitely manipulate the media coverage. How else is the Andrew scandal so buried and even the most trivial Harry and Meghan news breaking controversial news every day. This is strategic. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-13865361542989197082021-02-22T14:02:11.969+00:002021-02-22T14:02:11.969+00:00There’s no justification for Andrew keeping anythi...There’s no justification for Andrew keeping anything as far as I’m concerned. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-71482119577089951512021-02-22T12:14:14.234+00:002021-02-22T12:14:14.234+00:00My goodness what is happening...I think that it&#...My goodness what is happening...I think that it's a best things t do but I rather work on these reminding charities I didn't think stripping their charities will limit them handling and helping others queen statement is not bad and I love the respectfull in terms of the idea well the thing of them are happy and freeBluefirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05649992037530958562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-75197551217572458222021-02-22T12:00:57.167+00:002021-02-22T12:00:57.167+00:00I can’t speak to what is going on with Prince Andr...I can’t speak to what is going on with Prince Andrew or Michael of Kent, but the Sussexes chose to not be Working Royals and have setup a home base in California. Practically, I don’t really understand how it was thought possible that they could continue being Royal Patrons and support the organizations from such a distance. Yes, there is technology and, arguably, travel will one day be an option again, but logistically, doesn’t it just make more sense to have a member of the Royal Family who is “local” serve as the patrons? The honorary military titles are slightly different, and I can see how heartbreaking that would be for Harry but, again, I’m sure that holding those titles does require commitment, time, and responsibilities that being over 5,000 miles away makes difficult.<br /><br />I’ve seen a lot of articles blaming the Sussexes and criticism of “service is universal,” and I feel that the interpretation of the BP statement (looking at Robert Lacey) is just as unfair. There’s this desire to take side and place blame that is undeserved for both the Sussexes and the Queen. Both sides are in impossible situations and there’s no rubric to follow. In addition to being a PR nightmare, this is a family matter that I’m sure is very emotional for all parties. Could the statement have been worded differently? Yes, but Robert Lacey is stoking a fire that need not be stoked, same as anyone who said that the Sussexes statement was a jab at the Queen. Same goes for Hunt and trying to use Princess Diana as a frame for this. It does more harm than good. Prince Andrew should absolutely be removed from his patronages and have military titles stripped, if it hasn’t been done already, but am I wrong in thinking that there was a BP statement about him standing aside from all 200+ patronages back in 2019, so does he still actually have them? <br /><br />At the end of the day, I feel like we all knew this was coming. The Queen made it plain that she could not support a hybrid role for the Sussexes that they’d wanted when first announcing their step back. They’re still retaining their private patronages and will do a world of good there and with any of their new endeavors. It’s not required that they be Royal Patrons to give back and do the charitable work that is important to them. <br /><br />Could this whole situation—from start to finish—have been handled differently? Absolutely, by all parties. But I think compromises were made here—even if the Sussexes don’t use HRH, they still have it, and the titles Duke and Duchess of Sussex (conferred to commemorate their wedding) could have also been removed, I imagine. Would it have been a smart move to take both those back? No, but I’m sure it was discussed. The Sussexes wanted freedom (admittedly, on their own terms), and now they can pursue whatever charitable and/or entrepreneurial endeavors speak to them. After all, all of this—the military titles and being Royal patrons—are just fancy names. The work is the important thing, not whether their name appears on the organizations’ websites. The important thing is that the Sussexes are still capable of giving back, and I’m confident that they will. <br />Brittanynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-70714231529713069842021-02-22T05:32:38.645+00:002021-02-22T05:32:38.645+00:00It’s ok to speak for yourself, but please realize ...It’s ok to speak for yourself, but please realize that many people don’t care about the Commonwealth. They don’t have shared English heritage and don’t share a fondness for the British empire or the new global England either. My friends are from all over the world and we work in tech and finance. These people resent the English for assuming people have forgotten the horrible legacy of the British empire and how that legacy still affect many people negatively today. If the British people want a republic or keep their king or queen, that is their choice. Other countries have bigger problems to worry about than visiting english royals getting the proper royal treatment so the English people can be brainwashed that somehow they still have an empire to lord over. People are friendly and hospitable, but don’t try to take advantage of that and make it more than it is. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-2057445547302681182021-02-22T03:37:51.784+00:002021-02-22T03:37:51.784+00:00I feel like Prince Michael and Prince Andrew may b...I feel like Prince Michael and Prince Andrew may be allowed to keep their patronages because they still live in Great Britain. I think the fact that Harry and Meghan are basing themselves in the US has a lot to do with it. I think they may have been allowed to keep more if they "left" the royal family, but were staying in Great Britain. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-80332844704644299692021-02-21T23:59:09.947+00:002021-02-21T23:59:09.947+00:00I remember Diana making a statement that she was s...I remember Diana making a statement that she was stepping back (in 1992?), and she gave up a lot of her patronage’s at that time. I recall being surprised by how many she had. like more than 50?<br /><br />but I think a few remained even after that announcement - not sure what happened after the divorce. <br />-DuchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-42533335279002036012021-02-21T23:26:40.122+00:002021-02-21T23:26:40.122+00:00After watching what happened to Princess Margaret,...After watching what happened to Princess Margaret, the Charles, Diana and Camilla show, Andrew, Edward and now this generation, I realize the BRF is very dysfunctional. This was never a question about choosing country and duty over family. If so, Camilla would have been a footnote and palace courtiers would still be out trying to figure out whose foot fit into the royal glass slipper.<br /><br />That is so ridiculously soap operatic. Harry didn’t want his wife and Archie to be targeted by lies and hounded. That was his big, unforgivable crime. Since his marriage, the royal correspondents and anonymous place insiders have been describing Harry as mentally fragile as if he is crazy and weak. Those innuendos have been repeated here on this blog. It’s cringe worthy watching them try to throw all kinds of negative labels at Harry since he won’t give up his wife. I think there was a movie called “Gaslight” where a man was trying to make his wife thinks she is crazy when in fact, he’s the psychopath. Gaslight fits well here. <br /><br />The reality of today’s BRF is more like an aging monarch being handled. I’ve watched this with my own family with our nonna who’s 91. She’s mentally sharp, but much more forgetful, more fragile physically and has left much of her business affairs and day to day correspondences, bills and care to her children and grandchildren. This has led to some family fights and divisions. But we are family so we mend, plus we don’t have money and titles to bestow on family brown nosers. <br /><br />I think the other European royals have managed to handle their state duties and extended family with more grace, less drama and remained well liked by their people despite their family scandals and famous image. It seems to me these European families have learned how to be a monarch, but still be a healthier family too. They are ok with not having a royal press corp churning out dozens of stories each day. That shows that these modern European monarchies can live without the hype and be savvy enough to use media as needed to stay relevant. I think the BRF adores the public adulation too much. The irony is as much as the British Royals say they hate social media and see it as crass like Meghan, they have copied Meghan, just like they copied Diana’s populist touch. —MaddieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-12941134859175344722021-02-21T23:22:55.542+00:002021-02-21T23:22:55.542+00:00What's a little crazy is that Harry could not ...What's a little crazy is that Harry could not come back to the UK and participate if he wanted to, because of the pandemic. Meghan (and Harry) have such a need to do good for others -- I think Meghan would not survive if she could not move ahead with what must be so many ideas and plans. In the working RF, that does not work. I don't see how she could move forward if she had to have her actions approved by those "above" in the hierarchy. The focus of the monarchy is the head. The Queen is more important than Charles, who is more important than William, who is more important than Harry, and so on. Maybe not in family life, but I can see some of Meghan's plans being unacceptable. Or perhaps they would be moved to another member. I just checked the news on my phone -- lovely articles about members of the RF and their baby plans (or not) and then one nasty story about Meghan. Same old stuff. My feeling is that all these excuses about what she should have/could have done just cover up a feeling of her not belonging to UK society. That is, of course, focusing on a select portion of society! I love that she has freedom to say what she wants now. It's all ridiculous -- they have sacrificed for others, done nothing wrong, and are living a happy life. I know Harry will be sad about some things but he's looking pretty happy these days, and I don't think they could be happy in the UK.Allison in USnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-34075727874730080372021-02-21T22:45:43.311+00:002021-02-21T22:45:43.311+00:00I believe in constructive fair debate and certainl...I believe in constructive fair debate and certainly we should be able to criticise statements and actions of anyone if our comment is based on the actual facts. However so often we make up our minds because of unproven speculation either by the news media or others. As a citizen of a Commonwealth Country I do feel hurt that many recent contributers who aren't part of the Commonwealth feel free to prophesy that Britain and other realms will reject the present British Monarchy in favour of becoming Republics. No country is perfect nor are its leaders but having a President does not always guarantee that a country will become more democratic or egalitarian. In my opinion the most democratic countries in the world are the Scandinavian constitutional monarchies. And even they have had royal scandals in recent years. Perhaps we need to tone down the rhetoric. A Kiwi Fannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-10876227669370863792021-02-21T22:19:29.228+00:002021-02-21T22:19:29.228+00:00She kept her patronages but then decided to prune ...She kept her patronages but then decided to prune them back and concentrate on a chosen few.<br />Frankly it is rediculous to have hundreds of them as the Queen does at present. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-523822918879524553.post-11772016803671049942021-02-21T22:16:48.726+00:002021-02-21T22:16:48.726+00:00Nice Trying to associate Meghan with Andrew. Just ...Nice Trying to associate Meghan with Andrew. Just keep repeating his name. Fergie, wife of Andrew. <br /><br />Why not mention that Oprah interviewed Michelle Obama also. Oh wait. No Andrew association. That wouldn’t look good attacking a popular former POTUS and a black woman. The tabloid created Meghan works better as a punching bag. <br /><br />Here’s the thing. Why is Meghan or Harry being equated with Andrew or Fergie? Why? What purpose does this serve? Who benefits?<br /><br />Meghan and Harry didn’t buddied up with Epstein and went in the telly to talk about it. They didn’t try to bribe people. They didn’t use money from a palace sanctioned charity to pay £450,000 to a former aid to go away......<br /><br />As royals who must work for their own living, Meghan and Harry signed up with Netflix and Spotify and now do an interview with Oprah. All done in full transparency. That is somehow considered bad and greedy? Yet other family members can do endorsement of products for goodies, try their hand at film making of the young princes no less and they don’t get the same nasty blowback. <br /><br />It’s called Double Standard.<br /><br />What’s up with that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com