As indicated in my profile, my interests include the British Royal Family.
Commonwealth Day, which takes place on March 8th this year, is Covid distanced.
In the video here and below the senior members of the British Royal Family (minus Prince Harry the Absent and Prince Andrew the Disgraced) join the celebrations and speak about why our Commonwealth links are so important. Presented by Anita Rani from Westminster Abbey, the celebration hears voices from across the world alongside music and readings.
---
Within the video the following senior Royals speak and appear:
4:46 - Queen Elizabeth II shares her annual address.
10:52 - Charlie the Prince of Wales,
22.28 - Camilla the Duchess of Cornwall (clearly the brains of the couple)
32:40 - rising, talented, Sophie Countess of Wessex, wife of lowkey Prince Edward, and
42:30 - Prince William (good kingly material) and dear Kate Duchess of Cambridge
(perfect for the future Queen consort or even regnant role).
Scarlet Starlet Has Her Revenge
Those marrying into the Royals can be trouble. Starlet follows the Americans-not-right-for-UK- royalty wrecking tradition of Wallis Simpson. I’m a lot more sympathetic to Diana, who weak-kneed Charlie cheated on from day one.
Now there’s money making tabloid fodder in the form of a strangely “young” boo-hoo, poor little me who, with hubby, shortly after abandoning the working Royals:
- signed US$10+ million Hollywood contracts with Netflix and Spotify
- Also there is that startup cross advertized with Oprah.
All helping to buy their US$14 million Hollywood mansion.
Meanwhile hubby deserves much sympathy, following his mother's death. Yet he doesn’t look/sound all that bright - reflected in his unfortunate choice of current starlet.
Is it at all possible that the less bankable problems of Meghan's own family have some bearing on her state of mind?
_____________
The aftermath: A clash of Royal Service versus Hollywood Me Generation.
Markle is a terrible woman.
ReplyDeletethe royals did not get to where they are today by being 'warm and fuzzy'..they have weathered wallis simpson, they have weathered diana and a number of embarrassing embezzling, philandering and all sorts of impropriety episodes over the decades.... (who talks of prince andrew and epstein underage girls saga today?, for instance)
ReplyDeleteHarry and Meghan should simply look to live their lives as nothing will change at Buckingham palace and more to the point, very likely, the entire 'Firm' is likely to close ranks and fire back 'no holds barred' at these two... "the meek inherit nothing", you see..
colour me a cynic, but over time i have seen enough to understand that someone as powerful as the british monarchy will get away with the most egregious of offenses quite easily. They have in the past...and I see no reason why these two might not even be footnotes in the long royal book of history...bad luck to Harry but he is dealing with a whole school of Great Whites wearing Savile Row suits, bowler hats...they will eat him and not even burp..
Hi Anonymous [Mar 8, 2021, 6:09:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteDitto to that, my friend.
Hi GhalibKabir
ReplyDelete@Mar 8, 2021, 6:09:00 PM
Indeed. What with Starlet on the scene + dutiful hubby deserting the job, Andrew's disgrace and now Oprah's interview, poor QE II has had a very bad 2 years. She and Phil are not long for this world after 80 years near/at the helm.
I'm not at all surprised Canada would not have an American Royal within its borders. "Royal" who at one stage seemed to want to supplant Canada's Governor-General/Administrator system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada
I don't think Starlet and hubby will forego a lucrative career of complaint against the descendants of the "cruel" King George III. Americans saying "who won the Revolutionary War anyway?!"
Reponse will very likely be on a:
- UK Press and Public Sympathic to Working Royals
vs
- US stars of color (including Oprah) shock, horror basis.
Its interesting how multi-racial the working Royals made the preceding (hours before Oprah video) Commonwealth Day (CD) video https://youtu.be/-cqI8-iBkJ4
CD video looked like a pre-emptive strike. In that vein I'm pretty sure MI6 (as a legitimate requirement in service to the UK Monarchy) got hold of the Oprah Interview video days/weeks ago from a friendly Hollywood contact - to prepare this pre-emptive UK action.
Regards
Pete
I have read many instances of meghan being a gratuitously rude person. So she is no shrinking violet and the bit about 'not knowing what she was marrying into' is at least untrue to a significant extent...
ReplyDeletethat said, the racist element involved in the palace does ring true given the background and entitled nature of the whole 'Firm', that racism bit should be investigated and the egregious people behind it outed...,
the other bit I find a bit odd is that, Archie Windsor is not entitled to be called 'HRH Prince' simply because of a decision by George V 100 plus years ago and to blame that on the queen seems a bit over the top and undercuts the legitimate racism and security related bad faith behavior from the 'Firm'. This racism thing can have consequences, (short term)
Overall, Everyone comes out covered in dung...sorry to say, while it is none of my business whom Harry married, it is clear he did himself and meghan and the 'Firm' no favours whatsoever with his choice...But, I do agree, the british tabloids who murdered his mother are toxic cretins with no element of decency left in them...and now they are indeed trying to do the same thing all over (oddly enough they were baying like hyenas behind catherine too calling her a trollop seeking William's attention, no wonder the dame keeps her trap firmly shut and says zilch to these drongo mediaheads)
PS: One can also get a sense that meghan and catherine both strong women in their own right had confrontational issues (I am sure some part of both their grievances are legit, it is not catherine's fault her great gramps was George V's chum and her grandad was Prince Phillip's chum and meghan's skin color is not her fault either...oh dear what an imbroglio)
Hi GhalibKabir
ReplyDelete@Mar 9, 2021, 12:25:00 PM
Yes. The half white Starlet does have a point about racism in the hithertoo lily-white UK Royal Family. But that didn't block her actually getting the Royal gig and she earned very many more $millions than her Suits gig, since.
On Archie's status - it is still unclear whether Starlet+hubby had already stood down from the working royals Before a judgement was made Archie couldn't be a Duke or Prince (paid and protected) for life. Having a permanent Duke/Prince Archie of Hollywood could have been seen as a lever to keep Starlet on the Royal gravy train/fame, for life.
This is a bit like Fergie (after divorce from Andrew) engineering a Duchessdom with her Princess daughters' as major lever to allow Fergie to live in Royal residences (with all the trimmings) for life. Notwithstanding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah,_Duchess_of_York#Cash_for_access
Lily-whiteness is predicable of ultra-conservative Royal Family (like most Euro Royal families).
Even more so seen in the Japanese Royals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste#Japan
"Japan had its own untouchable caste, shunned and ostracized, historically referred to by the insulting term Eta, now called Burakumin. While modern law has officially abolished the class hierarchy, there are reports of discrimination against the Buraku or Burakumin underclasses.[46] The Burakumin are regarded as "ostracised".[47] The burakumin are one of the main minority groups in Japan, along with the Ainu of HokkaidÅ and those of residents of Korean and Chinese descent."
UK Royals didn't allow divorcees (that I know of) until Camilla (especially as she's consort to Heir of Throne Charlie (the Dork).
And to this day - no Catholics (and I assume Jews as well) need apply until after they've converted to Church of England.
Like almost all institutions UK Royal lily-whiteness will be bred out as a wider range of people marry in.
Regards
Pete
eta or Burakumin have nothing to do with the Royals and the erstwhile Kuge (or edo era imperial aristocrats, themselves limited to only a few hundred families at the core). We can have a separate discussion on the very Indian looking Japanese caste/class system of the edo period Japan. (As a Japanese speaker, I can tell you these things first hand having lived in Japan for a while)
ReplyDeleteThe royals and erstwhile pre-1868 Kuge/post-1868 Kazoku peers are a club even today and admission is near impossible. any princesses daring to marry commoners get everything taken off them...the Imperial Household Agency runs a tight ship and you need to only look at the current empress and her long depression battle owing to the 24x7x365 stifled atmosphere.
now, 59 people own more than half of the UK and a lot of these happen to be benighted blighters who owe everything in many cases to a distant great great great grandma's steamy hanky panky with the reigning monarch of the day...with the status of an illegitimate offspring of a monarch serving as an 'golden access pass' to earldoms and viscountcies and of course castles and large parcels of land. not to mention the CoE bishops looting too..
These entitled reprobates have the temerity to lecture the plebs on the virtues of 'hard work' and 'living within one's means'....
that said, meghan shouldn't be denied her due nor should her children assuming charles never ending wait to become King does come to pass...oh dear...all so dreary innit!
PS: The apple doesnt fall far from the tree as Hitchens' stinging one liner on charles shows
"a morose bat-eared and chinless man, prematurely aged, and with the most abysmal taste in royal consorts." lol...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/06/prince-charles-sinister-speech-attacks-science-and-good-sense.html
Hi GhalibKabir
ReplyDelete@Mar 9, 2021, 4:58:00 PM
Very impressive that you can speak Japanese :)
Am I right in saying only those of "untainted" Japanese blood for generations (including "commoners") can marry into the "Imperial House of Japan" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_House_of_Japan ?
I reckon most of the senior Royals (Queen, even Charlie (up to a point), Camilla, Will, Kate, Ann, Edward, Sophie) work really hard - when they could be just sitting around like the Royals of Monaco.
Lower down - I know of a squadron in a British Army (1960s) had 2 UK Dukes and a Foreign Prince. All had polo ponies (upkeep requiring "private means"). Fortunately the dukes n prince had never drawn a pound of their army pay. So they worked very hard for free when they could have just sat around on their family estates.
I still reckon that a future Duke Archie of Hollywood would not do much work Royal work and the British taxpayer would resent his upkeep and connection to Megs.
PS: Yes Charlie "a morose bat-eared and chinless man, prematurely aged, and with the most abysmal taste in royal consorts." are his good points. How bout Charlie the marital cheat, who took advantage of Diana (too young (but had to be a virgin) a mere royal baby maker producing an Heir and Spare) while Charlie screwed around with his boss-Cam.
Thanks for https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/06/prince-charles-sinister-speech-attacks-science-and-good-sense.html It should be required reading for all in the Commonwealth (eg. Aus and India) when Charlie and his Boss (the brains of the couple) ascend to the throne.
Cheers
Pete
Aristocrats, Actors and Golden Cages. part 1
ReplyDeleteWhen Napoleon Boanparte conquered large parts of Europe. He gave many people in the French aristocracy pieces of land in the occupied countries. That's how my ancestors ended up in a flat and cold country up North of France.
In the aristocratic world there is quite a hierarchy depending at wealth, power and reputation. It is also a relatively small world with a strong network. In order to continue or improve the blood line, wealth and power. This cast has also a lot of unwritten rules. Important is the appearance / image / reputation to the outside world.
No matter how big the family or personal problems are, you never'hang up your dirty laundry outside'. You better keep up your upper stiff lip. Despite that that can hurt or even damage you personally or your family. Empathy is very hard to find in this world.
This kind of lifestyle is very well comparable to that of fanatic religious people.
I am living in the so called 'bible belt' of the Netherlands. Many people overhere live strictly to the bible rules in rather small communities. Just like in the aristocracy the good public appearance to the church is crucial too.
In both worlds, people are developping an external idealistic image. But in their internal / personal life's they are acting very to totally different. Adhering to the many and strict rules causes people to become underhanded.
When Diana Spencer was introduced to the public as prince Charles' girlfriend.
She was portrayed as a middle class school teacher, that could be living next door.
In fact she belonged to the aristocracy aswell and her ancesting bloodlines can be traced back to the royal house of the Stuarts.
Howerver, Lady Diana entered the 'Firm' / the Institute in a very naive way.
Her most thrustworthy palace assistent, when Diana gave birth to her first son: "Diana, you are just the incubator for the future king and princes. Your role in the royal family is now over."
In the nex generation, an even more naive woman entered the 'Firm'.
Locum,
Hi Locum
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments [at Mar 14, 2021 2:17:00 AM]
Some French used foreign nobles correctly before the ultimately France wrecking Napoleon.
If you've watched the Vikings series you would have seen the French Emperor Charles very successfully using the ex-Viking Duke Rollo as a General to beat subsequent Viking invasions.
Then Empeor Charles gives Rollo Normandy. Normans of course invaded the UK 1066.
Normans being an excellent protection force and power-projectors for France in what became a French-UK empire for awhile.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings_(season_4)#Main
"Duke Rollo, a warrior and Ragnar's brother; he was granted the title of Duke of Normandy by Emperor Charles"
Pete
More on Duke Rollo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo
ReplyDelete"...a Viking who became the first ruler of Normandy, a region in northern France. He emerged as the outstanding warrior among the Norsemen who had secured a permanent foothold on Frankish soil in the valley of the lower Seine.
After the Siege of Chartres in 911, Charles the Simple, the king of West Francia, gifted them lands between the mouth of the Seine and what is now Rouen in exchange for Rollo agreeing to end his brigandage, swearing allegiance to him, religious conversion and a pledge to defend the Seine's estuary from Viking raiders.
Rollo is first recorded as the leader of these Viking settlers in a charter of 918, and he continued to reign over the region of Normandy until at least 928.
He was succeeded by his son William Longsword in the Duchy of Normandy that he had founded. The offspring of Rollo and his followers through their intermingling with the indigenous Frankish and Gallo-Roman population of the lands they settled became known as the "Normans".
After the Norman conquest of England and their conquest of southern Italy and Sicily over the following two centuries, their descendants came to rule Norman England (the House of Normandy), much of the island of Ireland, the Kingdom of Sicily (the Kings of Sicily) and the Principality of Antioch from the 10th to 12th century, leaving behind an enduring legacy in the histories of Europe and the Near East."
Aristocrats, Actors and Golden Cages. part 2
ReplyDeleteRacism.
Ohh my dear Rachel (*), just like one my extramarital daughters, you grew up in Los Angeles. She has the same skin colour and just like you she encouteres racism. Nadia hates the word "half cast" or "half blood". Racism is not good, but is it caused by the way we assess people in our brains. Who do not belong to our own 'herd' a.k.a. group, clan or tribe. In a "class society" like the UK there will be even more racism.
Coming to Britannica.
What happens today in the USA, will happen 10 years later in Western-Europe. And California will probably even be ahead of the rest of the USA. The British royal house is more than a century behind Europe and the USA. Oh yes Rachel you are a strong supporter of feminism. However, in the 'Firm' your role will be '2nd row incubator'.
Authentic.
Quote Ronald Reagan: "There have been times in this office, when I wondered how you could do the job if you hadn't been an actor." Showbusiness people learn that they must behave as authentic as possible. If the public pinches through a fake image, the actor will lose her/his credibility. Actors need a great sense of empathy, so they can understand the character roles they play. That's the opposite of the hypocrite aristocracy.
Turning Tide in Australia.
The royal family wellcomed you with open arms and gave you a 'warm bath'.
Then you went with Harry on a trip to Down Under. Overthere you showed your good actress and PR skills. Psstt Rachel, that's not your role. After Diana divorced, she became a good looking, very well dressed and self-aware powerwoman too. Rachel, sometimes you can be rude. PR wise, the royal family are physically a bunch of Roo-Dogs (ugly Australian sheep herding dog). They talk and behave in a rather clumsey way. Compared to the easy going style of you, Diana or Ronald Reagan.
The Reagan administration understood the power of the image. And produced more video footage of his presidency than the five prior administrations.
My dear Rachel, Diana and you are /were a threat to the power status quo of the 'Firm'.
Your husband is very aware of that and is not without reason very concerned about that. ;)
(* Her full name is Rachel Meghan Markle. Rachel is used in informal situations, like family and friends)
Locum,
Hi Locum
ReplyDeleteYes "Rachel" now Meghan Markle, more MM catchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex#Early_life_and_education
Yes the Royals live a complex life and should realize that, since 1776, United States connections have been bad news for unsuspecting Royals.
Cheers
Pete
You could have added price charlie the barmy...Lizzie should have gelded him when she had the chance post Harry's birth...
ReplyDeleteas an aside, the so called devious 'queen's consent' tool unwittingly ended up showing the monarchy is anything but ceremonial...that they had the chance to nip any one of the 1,000 odd laws they 'previewed' before it came to the 'commons'speaks volumes about the actual power they wield...nothing 'automatic' about that 'royal assent' for bills isn't it...
these so called 'conservatives' of all stripes and colours have somehow made the borders between realism and cynicism totally blur to the point they seem to be the same many a time...at least that is how it is to me...
PS: Hitchens had it bang on right when he labled charles the prince of piffle and went on to say '“This is what you get when you found a political system on the family values of Henry VIII...."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/06/prince-charles-sinister-speech-attacks-science-and-good-sense.html
razor sharp writing...a pity he passed away so young...
Hi GhalibKabir
ReplyDelete@Mar 16, 2021, 10:06:00 PM
Gotta admit that Charlie and Diana got it right in producing Prince William (who also has excellent Kate)
Are the old day when Gelding was unnecessary. Royal inbreeding (eg. from Henry VIII) due to royals only marring other royal relatives, meant that healthy male heirs were rare (Case in point: Henry producing Edward VI who was sickly-died early).
I don't know the extent to which the Queen has refused to sign any legislation (effectively sending it back to Parliament for a re-write). All too secret, even for my access.
Thanks for the 2010 article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/06/prince-charles-sinister-speech-attacks-science-and-good-sense.html, where the late Chritopher Hitchens chews out Charlie: eg.
"a king does have the ability to alter the atmosphere and to affect the ways in which important matters are discussed. (The queen herself proved that in subtle ways, by letting it be known that there were aspects of Margaret Thatcher’s foreign policy that she did not view with unmixed delight.)"
AND
"[Charles] unleashed upon an audience at the Center for Islamic Studies at Oxford University, an institution of which he is the patron...[his] foray into Islamophilia. Together with the Saudi royal family, he supported the mosque in North London that acted as host and incubator to Richard “Shoe Bomber” Reid...The prince’s official job description as king will be “defender of the faith,” which currently means the state-financed absurdity of the Anglican Church, but he has more than once said publicly that he wants to be anointed as defender of all faiths..."
Yes Christopher Hitchens should have lived lot longer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Illness_and_death