Meghan Markle

[Zombie]

I’ve tried to avoid reading / listening to / watching stuff about MM but it’s getting everywhere.

Today, on the BBC news website, there is a link to something about “letters”.

I had nothing better to do...

...so I clicked on it.

Apparently MM is suing The Daily Mail for publishing a letter.

But it didn’t say what was in it.

So I googled “MM letter”, then Images. 

And bugger me there wasn’t just one letter there’s LOTS!

All in scrawly handwriting (and probably written in green ink on lined paper). It didn’t look good.

Then I saw a link to Vanity Fair, which just seemed an appropriately named title for tittle tattle.

So I clicked on that (link below)

Strewth! I didn’t get to the end, stopping at this point:

”Meanwhile, the royal family’s personal wealth, which encompasses castles and endless swaths of British countryside and crown jewels, including a 530-carat cut diamond, the world’s largest, to squabble over, has been estimated at $85 billion. ”

I mean, come on, that’s just total crap - albeit oft said and apparently widely believed.

So, it’s not looking good for Vanity Fair’s fact checking ability.

But... for me there’s always been a feeling that something’s “not quite right” about the story spinning around MM (formerly known as HRH). Just too good to be true.

And someone who was in “Suits” is a “star”? Really??

Of course the UK gutter press have had a field day - so I understand, I don’t read them.

So what’s the take in the US?

More importantly, why hasn’t US TV relaunched Soap using the Windsor / Markle craptastic plotline?

I’d watch it!    
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_(TV_series)

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/12/inside-the-meghan-markle-family-breakdown-thomas-samantha-markle

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Zombie

[Ron]

What?

[Talo Segura]

Forbes estimated in 2016 that Queen Elizabeth has an estimated private wealth of $530 million.

[Guest]

I lost interest in sexy Harry when the beard showed up. Both of them.

[wildone]

I've never been impressed with MM since she stole my once future husband

I used to keep up to date with the Royals, but not so much the ex-Royals.

They are merging the best of Coronation Street and Days of our Lives to real life. Maybe that is the whole idea of Harry and Megan, start a reality show called 'Slumming with the Sussex's'  

[Krista]

Meh, she'll take the little idiot for all he's worth. She is a fame seeker that happened upon a good fish to catch. When she realizes that she is merely tabloid fodder and has no real substance to her aside from being 'Harry's Wife,' she may settle down a wee bit. 

[Brayon]

For some ungodly reason, a lot of people I know here in the States, have a thing for the British Royal family. Though there is a case that MM can never hold office in the United States, at any level of government, as Titles of Nobility are expressly forbidden in our Constitution. (There's also an amendment from 1810, still on the books awaiting ratification by 26 states, now, to strip any US Citizen of their Citizenship by accepting a title.)

As for future husbands being snatched, Kate did that to William and dashed my hopes of a royal wedding.

[Zombie]

58 minutes ago, Brayon said:

For some ungodly reason, a lot of people I know here in the States, have a thing for the British Royal family. Though there is a case that MM can never hold office in the United States, at any level of government, as Titles of Nobility are expressly forbidden in our Constitution. (There's also an amendment from 1810, still on the books awaiting ratification by 26 states, now, to strip any US Citizen of their Citizenship by accepting a title.)

As for future husbands being snatched, Kate did that to William and dashed my hopes of a royal wedding.

ironic n’est-ce pas?

Curiously MM’s citizenship is unchanged - she’s still a US citizen, which probably suits  her just fine...

As to MM’s current and possible future positions under US law, this website digs deeper into the Emoluments Clause ( @Brayon you were referring to this?) and other exciting stuff...

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c4dec628-db01-474e-ab68-8bb0519e51fa

[Brayon]

28 minutes ago, Zombie said:

digs deeper into the Emoluments Clause ( @Brayon you were referring to this?)

It's part of the same clause in the US Constitution. The founders didn't want to create a Nobility class, and expressly forbade it.

[BrunswickSq]

Hi there, British Citizen here.

It's a bit boring from my perspective, I take the view that having the Queen is a benefit to us as she keeps politics out of the concept of the State.  I know that 50% of the UK would hate a president Johnson, and the other half would hate a president Starmer.  There's no win there.

She, Charles, William and George are really all that matter.  Let's be honest, the three heirs aren't all going to die so everyone else is a supporting actor, NOT a star.

As far as Harry is concerned, He's stuffed by being the spare (as eventually Charlotte and Louis will be) we don't need them, they haven't got a real job and they can't live like we do.

I think we should let him and Megan get on with their lives and not get hung up on what they do and where they do it.

[Zombie]

3 hours ago, BrunswickSq said:

Hi there, British Citizen here.

It's a bit boring from my perspective, I take the view that having the Queen is a benefit to us as she keeps politics out of the concept of the State.  I know that 50% of the UK would hate a president Johnson, and the other half would hate a president Starmer.  There's no win there.

She, Charles, William and George are really all that matter.  Let's be honest, the three heirs aren't all going to die so everyone else is a supporting actor, NOT a star.

As far as Harry is concerned, He's stuffed by being the spare (as eventually Charlotte and Louis will be) we don't need them, they haven't got a real job and they can't live like we do.

I think we should let him and Megan get on with their lives and not get hung up on what they do and where they do it.

Hi Ian, and welcome

You’ve got to the heart of it:

- the only ones that really matter and “everyone else is a supporting actor”, and

- let H + M get on with their lives and not get hung up on what they do and where they do it

Because a support act is there to do just that - support the main act, the Crown. Just like Princess Anne has done. She is the exemplar of how to do this through a real sense of public service, duty to the Crown and consistent bloody hard work which the press have mostly ignored - good works never made good copy.

So MM had a choice. Use her new position (she was never going to be a wallflower) to make a personal and lifetime commitment to use her undoubted charismatic skills in support of the Crown through duty and public service, or by trading on her new uplifted status to “do it my way”.

We can see that her plan has not exactly... gone to plan 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Zombie

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Zombie said:

So MM had a choice. Use her new position (she was never going to be a wallflower) to make a personal and lifetime commitment to use her undoubted charismatic skills in support of the Crown through duty and public service, or by trading on her new uplifted status to “do it my way”.

I think that three very high profile cases of wives rebelling against the restrictions of the role (Diana, Fergie, MM) suggest that adjustments need to be made for modern society. Only Sophie and Catherine seem to have been able to adjust – so far. While the British royal duties aren’t quite as restrictive as the Japanese Imperial roles, they’re certainly not in the same league as the much more relaxed Scandinavian models.

The horsey one was raised from childhood to expect to do what she is doing. Plus the antics of her brothers have kept the spotlight off her. And Mark Phillips had his own problems…
;–)

[Zombie]

The fact is they all have choices, just like the rest of us.

Anne chose duty ahead of pleasure (unlike the Queen’s sister, Margaret, or her Great Uncle Edward...). The younger one - just call me “Eddie” - wanted both the royal position and a career. That didn’t end well either...

Also, Anne eschewed the royal trappings - she wanted to do the work and have her children be just plain Mr and Mrs. 

Contrast that with MM who seems to have wanted everything including perpetual ennoblement for her offspring.

Don’t understand your point about “British royal duties” being more “restrictive” than Scandinavian models. Seems each member of “the firm” is pretty much free to choose their own causes across all of society - from AIDS to land mines. 

It all begs the question - didn’t MM do ANY research around exactly what she was marrying into...?   
 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Zombie said:

Don’t understand your point about “British royal duties” being more “restrictive” than Scandinavian models. Seems each member of “the firm” is pretty much free to choose their own causes across all of society - from AIDS to land mines. 

It’s my understanding that Scandinavian royals are treated more like ordinary citizens than ‘special’ people due to their ancestry. The European pedigrees can’t be traced as far back as the Japanese Imperial family in any case.
;–)

But I think ‘royalty’ in a democracy is silly and pointless.

[Zombie]

15 minutes ago, droughtquake said:

It’s my understanding that Scandinavian royals are treated more like ordinary citizens than ‘special’ people due to their ancestry. The European pedigrees can’t be traced as far back as the Japanese Imperial family in any case.
;–)

But I think ‘royalty’ in a democracy is silly and pointless.

Sorry, I was confused by “restrictive” v “relaxed”. 

The “go for pomp” choice was really made by Queen Victoria, and this is the model that’s been developed ever since: be seen to be believed. And that’s also what the significant numbers of tourists (pre-plague) have expected to see and spend their money on seeing...

Otherwise, as you rightly say, the whole thing is pointless.

As for silly, that’s an entirely legitimate point of view in the UK - and mandatory, I would have thought, for a rebellious ex-colony...  
 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Zombie said:

Sorry, I was confused by “restrictive” v “relaxed”. 

The “go for pomp” choice was really made by Queen Victoria, and this is the model that’s been developed ever since: be seen to be believed. And that’s also what the significant numbers of tourists (pre-plague) have expected to see and spend their money on seeing...

Otherwise, as you rightly say, the whole thing is pointless.

As for silly, that’s an entirely legitimate point of view in the UK - and mandatory, I would have thought, for a rebellious ex-colony...  

The Japanese model is apparently more regimented and controlled by the household staff. Members of the Imperial family are only allowed to choose spouses from a small handful of families with sufficient pedigrees. Of course, in the distant past, they probably had unofficial outlets for ‘relaxation and release’.

[BrunswickSq]

7 hours ago, droughtquake said:

with sufficient pedigrees

I recommend the operetta The Mikado, in particular the functionary Pooh-bah.

[BrunswickSq]

Oh dear, why don't you like that?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, BrunswickSq said:

I recommend the operetta The Mikado, in particular the functionary Pooh-bah.

An outsider’s offensively stereotypical view of an ancient culture.

[BrunswickSq]

In 1885 pretty much every view would be stereotypically offensive.  I still like Sullivan's music.

[Zombie]

1 hour ago, droughtquake said:

An outsider’s offensively stereotypical view of an ancient culture.

Ah, an American outsider’s offensively stereotypical view of an ancient culture.

Maybe.

The Mikado was never written, performed or intended for an American audience, let alone to be performed in America through the cultural lens of contemporary American society and the myriad of multicultural issues currently in play in the US.  No, it was written, performed and intended to be performed as a comic satire on Britain, British politics and British institutions. It is a nineteenth century piece of frothy light comedy entertainment written for an English Victorian audience.

There has been a long established English satirical tradition of oblique self-mocking by setting characters in a different time and/or place at least since Shakespeare, when to do otherwise could have severely impacted on life expectancy...

G&S were less concerned about losing their heads than selling lots of tickets to audiences all over the country and getting them to enjoy the satire regardless of individual politics - which would have been difficult, perhaps impossible, had the setting been in Victorian England.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Zombie said:

Ah, an American outsider’s offensively stereotypical view of an ancient culture.

That doesn’t mean I still can’t be offended.

[Talo Segura]

13 hours ago, droughtquake said:

I think ‘royalty’ in a democracy is silly and pointless.

If you take account of the ranked list of democratic countries it is interesting to note that the United Kingdom is classified as a full democracy, Japan and the United States of America are classified flawed democracies, the Scandanavian countries are all near the top of the full democracy list. I don't therefore think a monarchy has a bearing on democracy or that it is silly and pointless, simply being a republic in no way guarantees democracy. I am not a huge fan of the British royal family, but the Queen as head of state, the army, the police, and everything else, perhaps offers a stability and in someway rather bizarrely guarantees freedom.

[Zombie]

10 hours ago, droughtquake said:

That doesn’t mean I still can’t be offended.

Of course you have every right to be offended by anything you choose to be offended by.

The question, here, is what are you choosing to take offence about? Some American musical theatre’s interpretation of another country’s 150 year old out-of-date musical comedy? Or why America has any interest in British cultural entertainment like G&S when, unlike Shakespeare which has universal themes, Gilbert’s writing has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to anything American?

And I’m puzzled why you struck out your own word “ancient”.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Zombie

[AC Benus]

8 hours ago, Talo Segura said:

If you take account of the ranked list of democratic countries it is interesting to note that the United Kingdom is classified as a full democracy...

Must have been written by an Englishman (and yes, obviously a man wrote such crap ). But when the crown-subjects of the UK finally get a Constitution and full 'citizenship' in the form of a Bill of Rights (or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) to protect them from snobs, Lords, potentates, and corporations, then we can talk about the topic again.  

Edited April 30, 2020 by AC Benus