@divegeester
We hardly ever read about that couple. If and when we do, it's simply a piece of news among other news, whereas many here are in favour of the British Royal family, and I think the Queen is still amazing.
-Removed-The Queen was brought up to follow the royal traditions and protocol, and she has done a remarkable unselfish contribution. Our Queen Silvia was a commoner, as was the Norwegian Queen Sonja - a difficult task for them which they have managed very well. We are lucky to have the Crown princess Victoria to follow, pretty soon I would guess. I wouldn't want it any other way.
In American media, frequent comparisons are made between how Meghan is treated vs. Kate (Catherine).
Meghan seems to be treated in racist ways by the British media and public. A presenter for the BBC was fired after using a racist slur regarding Meghan's baby, for example.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/exclusive-meghan-markle-targeted-by-hundreds-of-racist-and-sexist-tweets-amid-plan-to-step-back_n_5e1f5b28c5b673621f6f7965
Examinations by the University of Sunderland (conducted for HuffPo UK) found hundreds of racist tweets aimed the couple, including people calling Harry a “self-loathing race traitor”.
It seems many people in Britain were upset with the idea that the Royal bloodline may have a nonwhite person.
-Removed-I've always thought very highly of the Brit's, but their royal family (and royal families everywhere) can best be described as "decaying gentry" Other than occasional military service, these people rarely do anything useful. Why doesn't the British government simply disband this group, use their wealth for the good of the all the British subjects, let them go and support themselves?
@mchill saidBecause I doubt that they would have the consent of the electors to do that; at least not as long as Elizabeth is reigning and maybe Charles too. Personally, I doubt the British - in my lifetime anyway - will ever vote for a new system in which their head of state would be a president.
Why doesn't the British government simply disband this group, use their wealth for the good of the all the British subjects, let them go and support themselves?
@fmf saidI fear it might lead to total confusion. If it wasn't the Royal family, where would the money go to? Who says it would go to the common good?
Because I doubt that they would have the consent of the electors to do that; at least not as long as Elizabeth is reigning and maybe Charles too. Personally, I doubt the British - in my lifetime anyway - will ever vote for a new system in which their head of state would be a president.
@fmf saidIf the Brit's are happy with that arrangement, that's fine with me, but it seems these people should be doing something more than going on vacations, presiding over charity events, giving out awards, and getting their photos taken. Maybe they are the British version of the Kardashians.
Because I doubt that they would have the consent of the electors to do that; at least not as long as Elizabeth is reigning and maybe Charles too. Personally, I doubt the British - in my lifetime anyway - will ever vote for a new system in which their head of state would be a president.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 30613
@mchill saidOr perhaps you simply have a poor understanding of the British Royal family and how they bring in much more to the economy than they cost.
If the Brit's are happy with that arrangement, that's fine with me, but it seems these people should be doing something more than going on vacations, presiding over charity events, and giving out awards. Maybe they are the British version of the Kardashians.
It costs each Brit something like £1.25 a year (67 million in total) while they bring in an approximate 600 million through tourism etc.