InfoBrics
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Johanna Ross, journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland…
When the Queen gave her annual speech at Christmas, she spoke of the ‘bumpy path’ that she and her family had been on over the past year. She was of course referring to one of the worst scandals ever to have hit the royal household – that of Prince Andrew’s relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his flawed attempt to conceal it. In the most damaging interview give to the media since Princess Diana famously revealed all regarding her relationship with Prince Charles back in the 90s, Prince Andrew gave a car-crash interview to the BBC last year which sealed his fate; he would never again play the same active role in public life.
But the Queen it seemed was not quite prepared for the announcement that Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, were to cut their ties with the Royal household and ‘carve out a progressive role’, becoming financially independent. It was reported by The Times on Thursday that the Queen was not even aware of the statement, which was released on Wednesday by the Duke and Duchess’ communications team. The press release expressed Harry and Meghan’s desire to have ‘space’ for family life and detailed plans to split their time between Britain and the US, Meghan’s home territory. Buckingham Palace nevertheless issued a swift, brief, and rather terse response 90 minutes later, trying to play down the explosive nature of the news and stressing that there were ‘complicated issues that will take time to work through’. Not exactly praising her grandson’s decision.
Indeed there have been signals of late which indicated that all was not rosy between Harry and the family. The obvious omission of Harry and Meghan from the family photos pictured next to the Queen on Christmas Day spoke volumes, as did the decision by the Duke and Duchess to spend Christmas not at the palace, but with Meghan’s mother in Canada. Then there was the photograph depicting the four generations of the family: the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and his son George which reportedly upset Harry and Meghan as they had been excluded. But it would be naive to say that their decision to break with the royals has come as a complete shock.
In fact we have to be honest: Harry has always been, as his mother was, a bit of a rebel. From being photographed dressed as a Nazi at a party in his youth to being captured on camera naked inside a Las Vegas hotel room, he has brought his fair share of controversy to the door of the Palace in the past. He has never quite toed the line when it came to royal etiquette and his marriage to Meghan Merkle was in itself testing the boundaries of the Queen’s tolerance. For the 21st century it may be, but for Prince Harry to marry a working class girl from LA, of African descent, would have been unthinkable only a few years ago and we’d be extremely foolish to think that Her Majesty and Prince Phillip looked on this match favourably. She was never going to be fully accepted into the Royal family; she would never be ‘one of them’. But on the other hand, clearly Meghan doesn’t want to be; she’s had a flavour of royal life and it’s clearly not the life she envisages for her new family. The court case she and Harry announced last year against the Daily Mail for ‘untrue stories’ demonstrates the extent to which they are now calling the shots; they won’t be at the mercy of the powers that be any longer.
It’s important however to see this move also in the wider context of pressures on the monarchy. For another incident last year demonstrated more than any other the obsolete nature of what many people now consider an outdated institution. The prorogation of parliament by Boris Johnson, for which he had to seek to the Queen’s permission, but which was ultimately ruled as illegal by the courts, showed just how pointless Her Majesty’s role is. For if even the Queen herself is at the mercy of the underhand scheming of a dishonest Prime Minister, what is the value of such a head of state? Her position is purely symbolic and constitutes nothing more than an anachronism. Increasingly, people are asking if the millions of taxpayers’ money is worth it, particularly the amount they receive has been increasing year on year.
And so this could be the beginning of a downsizing of the British monarchy. The UK wouldn’t be alone either – the King of Sweden announced last year that he would be removing five of his grandchildren from the royal house. It makes sense to do this: the monarchy’s survival as an institution could depend on it…
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
On the contrary, the Royals will be better off without Harry’s Hollywood thot, the second coming of Wallis Simpson. History repeats itself.
Have to agree, the hollywood tart detracts from the royals, they are better off without the stupid cow.
The worst part is that she is so rude and demanding to the help. No compassion or understanding. A social climber who thinks she is better than anyone else. I don’t need her friends or relatives to tell me who she is. Her behavior toward her assistants tells the whole story. Too bad for Harry if he compares this woman to his mother. Princess Diana was exactly the opposite and she was an aristocrat whereas Merkle is only a third rate actress.
Markle basically has all the symptoms of someone with Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
I agree that the Royal Family will be (much) better off without Markle. As for Wallis Simpson, I am not aware that she ever lowered herself to attack the family as Markle has done.
These two are stepping back, not stepping down, which means they’ll be back…..great, wonderful, and now I have to vomit.
What’s the big fuss about? As virtually anyone with a pulse understands perfectly well, Henry Spencer-Hewitt isn’t related to the Windsor family. He’s Diana Spencer’s love-child with James Hewitt. It’s to the benefit of young Mr. Hewitt and his wife to sever close links with the Windsors, who clearly don’t want them around. And doubtless the Windsors see it as desirable too, especially Charles, who’s been lumbered with this demeaning charade of pretending in public to believe what he knows to be false: that his foster-son is really his genetic child. Should any supposedly ‘widely-loved’ public institution be based on… Read more »
The James Hewitt spin is so boring, when you actually look at the colouring on his mother’s side. Together with the fact, he has many of Charles and Prince Philips features. Whether anybody likes it or not, he represents the Head of State and the Royal Family is akin to the American Flag, in terms of representing the people of the United Kingdom, like the American Flag represents the people of America. Nobody cares if he wishes to live abroad and care for his family. Isn’t his wife on her third marriage and completely alienated from her family, excluding mother,… Read more »
Princess Diana brought about a lot of “fresh air” into that stale palace. And now, with more fresh air…royalty catching cold. Pity them.
There were rumours going round that Princess Diana and her Egyptian fiancé Dodi were murdered by British and French secret services while driving through a tunnel in Paris. It is said that this happened because the British crown would not tolerate an Egyptian step-father for Diana’s sons, William and Harry.
It might be best if the Royal Family “abdicated” or would go “private”, without bothering the public and without receiving public funds for their upkeep. They are a very degenerate family, with high pretensions, which in my eyes are totally unjustified.
The Crown, is the City of London, who the Queen calls the firm. Remember, I think it was 1700 or was it 1760 when George III came to the throne and the Royal Family were bankrupt. He handed over the Crown Estate to the bankers, in return for an allowance, called the Civil List, with the rest going to the Government, excluding the administration fees. It is now the Sovereign Grant, with the Monarch of the day receiving 15%, to run the Royal Household and the other 85% excluding admin fee, going to the Treasury. So if the Crown were… Read more »
Who cares? It must be a slow day at Duran Towers when you have time and space for this non news.
Whatever one’s personal opinion of the royal family, I don’t think anyone can blame Harry and Meghan for wanting to get away from being constantly dogged by Britain’s rotten tabloid reporters. His mother was plagued to illness and finally to her death by them, and he and William were no doubt exposed to her distress and to being tracked everywhere themselves. Why would Harry want any more of this, and to having his wife and child suffer the same kind of intrusion into their lives? I don’t know of any other royal family that is subjected to such intensive media… Read more »
The marriage should be annulled. Floozie and royalty are not compatible.
HAHAHAHA! Agreed.
Yes. I think that would make a lot of Britons happy. She has undoubtedly tried hard to improve her public image but it hasn’t worked. She remains one of the two most unpopular members of the royal family, with only Andrew being slightly less popular. I don’t understand why Charles as next in line for the throne was allowed to marry a divorced non-royal. Princess Margaret was prevented from marrying Peter Townsend because many in the government believed he would be an “unsuitable husband” for her, and the Church of England refused to countenance her marriage to a divorced man.… Read more »
Times change, we move on.
I heard at least 3 years ago that Harry had been instructed by “the firm” to marry a woman of colour, so it’s not her genes that are the issue. Maybe they forgot to tell the British public.
We have nothing against her colour and do believe she is 75% white. However, we do have views with her regard to us being toxic, which is not a good look to the people you represent.
Charles did not marry Camilla in church, but, registry office and they are expecting an argument whether Camilla will be allowed to be Queen, when the time comes. Charles allegedly wants her to become Queen Consort, but, Camilla does not want the title, owing to not wishing to offend public opinion. That is also why she does not use the title of Princess, which she is entitled to use, but, is happy with Duchess of Cornwall.
That would be her 2nd annulment, together with a divorce thrown in, via one of her other ex-husbands.
The floozie Wallis wasn’t compatible either. It happens, just as it has happened throughout the history of the kings and queens of England and Scotland.
He can get away, just hand back title and perks. Remember, his brother, who he has fallen out with, shared the same mother and will be the future King. Which his wife cannot get her head around, in pursuit of her own agenda. Hasn’t she been married three times and also estranged from her own family, by her own choosing? Allegedly, besides coming back to the UK to announce their decision to move on, but, keep all the perks and titles, the day before his sister-in-laws birthday, the wife was in negotiations to work for Disney as a Voice Over.… Read more »
For heavens sake, the photos on the table show her husband and the line of succession, starting with her father, continuing with her son who will be king and his wife who will be queen, consort; grandson and his wife, who will likewise be king and queen consort, along with their children, the oldest who is presumptively king at some point. The queen is 93, of course the focus is on the future of the monarchy. With regard to the photo of the queen and those directly in the line of succession, Harry and his wife are spoilt children. Harry… Read more »
Harry always used to refer to himself as “the spare” (William first, then Harry the Spare). After the Queen dies, Prince Charles will become king (and hopefully that awful creature he married will be not be named queen). The next in line after Charles is his firstborn son William. If William had had no children, Harry would be next in line after William. Since William and Kate have three children, Harry is no longer the “spare” but is now the sixth in the line of succession. So, the current line of succession is as follows: The Prince of Wales (Charles)… Read more »
The whole royal brood is “spare”. These spare tires cost the taxpayer too much money.
Not as much as a President. The thought, going back a few years, to Tony Blair becoming President, with Cherie as First Lady, well you could see them renting out ‘Buck House’ by the hour (taking tips from the Clintons) and flogging the Crown Jewels on E Bay. Completely put me off getting rid of a Royal Head of State.
How much did Obama cost, during his Presidency and not forgetting the Clintons?
Agreed! I’d rather keep a Royal Head of State as my representative than have (with a very small handful of exceptions), practically anyone who is or has been Britain’s PM, or anyone who is the former or present leader of any other country.
Why the shock/surprise? All monarchies were to be destroyed. That’s part of the protocols. The agenda moves forward. The []controllers[] have a timetable to keep.
An excellent protocol. Who needs monarchies nowadays? Nobody does.
As far as I am concerned, ALL monarchies should be done away with. Today “royal” countries can’t really afford these parasites of society. Good on Harry and Meghan…striving for fresh air.
Careful, little Vera, lest your prescription for murder apply to parasitic things much closer to home for you than the British Royals.
Your opinion. However, we like having a Royal for Head of State and not somebody you can change every 4 years or drum up an impeachment, if you do not agree with the public vote.
I wonder where the real baby is?
Have you noticed you never see him with Ma and Pa and even the late Christmas Card he was super-imposed on.
So Harry Hewitt wants some distance between his young family & the rather creepy bunch of degenerate old Saxe Coburg Gothas? He wants to become a tad more self-sufficient? Good luck to him, I say, & I wish them well. I shudder at the thought of the terminally dim doomster Charles becoming King. He’s forever prophesying the end of the world, based on the non-existent dangers from plant-food CO2, Carbon Dioxide. He’s too dim to realise how dim he is, & he is by nature a meddler, a messer Perhaps the Queen could suggest he steps aside for William? Charles… Read more »
Check out the past 1,000 years plus of the history of the kings and queens of England and Scotland. This generation is not dissimilar.
Unbelievable amount of the blame game going on here. Appears to be based again on bipartisan views, demonizing Meghan, then Harry or the royal firm. How about there is not a fit for Harry and Meghan with the royal family. It just does not work and vice versa. Blaming, vilifying, gossip mongering and taking so much to extremes can end. They tried, it was not workable for them. Let them all wish each other the best and move on from here.