Being Royal Is No Joke - Or Is It?

acai berry

https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex


HRH The Duchess of Sussex


I'm noticing Meghan is referred to with the title HRH (Her Royal Highness) in this article. When her forbear, King Edward VIII, abdicated the thrown, he was given the title HRH Duke of Windsor, but very pointedly, the woman he loved was only appointed Duchess of Windsor, without the HRH. This, at the time, was taken as a huge insult and sore point by her and her husband. The fact that Meghan has been given the HRH title is HUGE.

The Duchesses' classless half-sister is cashing in on her connections by taking part in Celebrity Big Brother in the UK. You can only imagine how embarrassing it's going to be. Also stretches the meaning of the term celebrity a fair bit. A cheap move on the sisters part but I'll be tempted to check it out for what I suspect is going to be the mother of all car crash tv shows.

I feel sorry for the girl, her extended family are letting her down badly. I wouldn't live their lives for any money, no day is their own and there's no such thing as privacy for any of them anymore. To Harry and the Windsors credit, they would have known her family were liable to let the side down, but it didn't stop them tying the knot. Good luck to them.

acai berry

Well said, Candle. I couldn't agree more. Her sister is a huge embarrassment. Yes, I agree, the Royal Family did very well in their treatment of Meghan during the wedding. Meghan walking half-way up the isle on her own and then Charles stepping out to offer his arm for the other half, was brilliant. Whoever thought of that is a genius.

That wedding made a fortune for the UK via the tourists and it's broadcast around the world was the biggest, longest, tourism promo ever made.

Windsor did look really beautiful and I do have a fondness for the pomp and ceremony, even if (as an English person) I'm not really a Royalist! I just like the tradition of it all, but I'd prefer it without the hereditary privilege.

acai berry

I've always had a fascination with Royalty even since childhood. I have huge admiration for the Queen - how she's stuck in there through thick and thin for so many years. Her children's marriages didn't really go according to plan, but now her grandchildren seem to be falling more in line with what's expected of them. So, there's a real strength in the Royal Fmily at the moment, in comparison to the last generation with all of those marriages falling apart.

It had to change and evolve. It still has to. I'm not especially interested in the Royals but I do think the Queen is an impressive lady. In all these years of representing the country, she's never made an embarrassing move and has been a picture of dignity.

Phil, on the other hand, is a different story.

acai berry

There were times when the Queen got some bad press, especially around the time of Diana's death. But, fair dues to her, she managed to weather all of these storms and come out better than ever.

I love how the Queen shows such an interest in farming and how her estates are run. She really is very down to Earth.

I've always found Prince Phillip to be very amusing. His role has not very easy.

When she dies, it's going to be an absolutely devastating event to a large percentage of British people. She's really loved and respected by many, and I can see the country virtually shutting down the day it happens. She's in her nineties, she could be gone any time and many people will feel a personal loss when it she goes. It'll be the end of an era.

acai berry

Candie wrote: »

When she dies, it's going to be an absolutely devastating event to a large percentage of British people. She's really loved and respected by many, and I can see the country virtually shutting down the day it happens. She's in her nineties, she could be gone any time and many people will feel a personal loss when it she goes. It'll be the end of an era.

Absolutely, Candle! It will be massive. She has held all of that massive family together, keeping them in line, so that they are where they are now.

Will anybody be able to replace her?

I don't know, AB. I do know that if someone does carry on in that tradition and garners the same affection and respect, it definitely won't be Charles. He's just not popular or liked in the same way his parents or his sons are.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

When she dies, it's going to be an absolutely devastating event to a large percentage of British people. She's really loved and respected by many, and I can see the country virtually shutting down the day it happens. She's in her nineties, she could be gone any time and many people will feel a personal loss when it she goes. It'll be the end of an era.

There will be 12 days of mourning.
She will lie for around 4 or 5 days for people to walk past.
The day of the funeral will be a state holiday, as such, as will the coronation of king Charles the 3rd or whatever he decides to be called.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

There will be 12 days of mourning.
She will lie for around 4 or 5 days for people to walk past.
The day of the funeral will be a state holiday, as such, as will the coronation of king Charles the 3rd or whatever he decides to be called.

I think they're going to have to keep her lying in State for around a week, since there will be members of the Commonwealth wanting to get to London for it and I think they'll want to accommodate that.

I know about the holidays, I meant it more figuratively! I was about ten when Diana died and I still remember the atmosphere in London then. You could feel something big and bad had happened.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

I think they're going to have to keep her lying in State for around a week, since there will be members of the Commonwealth wanting to get to London for it and I think they'll want to accommodate that.

I know about the holidays, I meant it more figuratively! I was about ten when Diana died and I still remember the atmosphere in London then. You could feel something big and bad had happened.

Yea, you're probably right. The longest serving British monarch, she will definitely lie for a week. Don't know has she out served the Thai king that died 18 months or so ago yet? If she does she will be the world's longest serving monarch. She could be two weeks lying!
Britain will basically shut down for the first few days, then again around the funeral.
I think it will be as much if not more than Diana, the British realise the massive contribution she has made, & I think they see her as the grandmother of Britain now.

acai berry

We have the Elizabethan Era relating to Elizabeth I and the Victorian Era relating to Victoria. I wonder what they'll call E II's era.

Of course, once E II's Era is mentioned that will immediately bring us into the Past, just as the Victorian and Elizabethan Eras are markers of the Past.

Lord only knows what the Future holds - and who'll hold the reins.

Oasis1974

acai berry wrote: »

Well said, Candle. I couldn't agree more. Her sister is a huge embarrassment. Yes, I agree, the Royal Family did very well in their treatment of Meghan during the wedding. Meghan walking half-way up the isle on her own and then Charles stepping out to offer his arm for the other half, was brilliant. Whoever thought of that is a genius.

But he went scarlet when she physically touched him. These people don't like Liquorice Allsorts I say a couple of sprogs to confirm he's not a poof then out on your arse Meghan. Shame on you Larry.....

Mod-Banned

acai berry

Oasis1974 wrote: »

But he went scarlet when she physically touched him. These people don't like Liquorice Allsorts I say a couple of sprogs to confirm he's not a poof then out on your arse Meghan. Shame on you Larry.....

You are speaking English, Oasis1974, or is this some rare dialect found only in the depths of Cork City?

acai berry

acai berry wrote: »

We have the Elizabethan Era relating to Elizabeth I and the Victorian Era relating to Victoria. I wonder what they'll call E II's era.

Of course, once E II's Era is mentioned that will immediately bring us into the Past, just as the Victorian and Elizabethan Eras are markers of the Past.

Lord only knows what the Future holds - and who'll hold the reins.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if Charles passed and let William at it, or if he only gave it a few years. He's waited so long, I can't imagine him jumping at it at his age when he's used to his comfortable life.

It'll be interesting times, that's for sure.

acai berry

Regarding Charles, there's the question of Camilla, of course. Her title and role would be bound to merit some discussion in Parliamment, should he take over as King.

I like Charles, I must say. Have just been watching him on Gardener's World.

whisky_galore

acai berry wrote: »

We have the Elizabethan Era relating to Elizabeth I and the Victorian Era relating to Victoria. I wonder what they'll call E II's era.

Of course, once E II's Era is mentioned that will immediately bring us into the Past, just as the Victorian and Elizabethan Eras are markers of the Past.

Lord only knows what the Future holds - and who'll hold the reins.

Think they have abandoned the practice of naming eras after monarchs since Edward VII.

acai berry

whisky_galore wrote: »

Think they have abandoned the practice of naming eras after monarchs since Edward VII.

Whether they have or not, I think they will name an era after E II. Like Victoria, her reign covers such a long peried of time. Designers, Sociologists etc, will find it convenient to name an era after her. Just like you have the Georgian Period here, that indicates a particular era in architecture.

whisky_galore

acai berry wrote: »

Whether they have or not, I think they will name an era after E II. Like Victoria, her reign covers such a long peried of time. Designers, Sociologists etc, will find it convenient to name an era after her. Just like you have the Georgian Period here, that indicates a particular era in architecture.

Sure. Why not. Whatever you think yourself.

riffmongous

acai berry wrote: »

Whether they have or not, I think they will name an era after E II. Like Victoria, her reign covers such a long peried of time. Designers, Sociologists etc, will find it convenient to name an era after her. Just like you have the Georgian Period here, that indicates a particular era in architecture.

I'd doubt it myself, or at least that it would gain any real currency outside of some forced attempts in certain areas.. for a start there's already plenty of phrases already in use to describe the time periods corresponding to her reign, e.g. Cold War, Post Cold War, Post-Colonial, Post-War..

acai berry

riffmongous wrote: »

I'd doubt it myself, or at least that it would gain any real currency outside of some forced attempts in certain areas.. for a start there's already plenty of phrases already in use to describe the time periods corresponding to her reign, e.g. Cold War, Post Cold War, Post-Colonial, Post-War..

I've heard those time periods referred to, riffmongous. Nevertheless, I don't think any of them bring up the idea of E II - what her long reign encapsulates or suggests to us. Maybe there is a name out there, that has not been thought up yet. It's really only in hindsight that we can categorise a time period. Right now, we're in that period and maybe it's too soon to be able to summarise it.

riffmongous

acai berry wrote: »

I've heard those time periods referred to, riffmongous. Nevertheless, I don't think any of them bring up the idea of E II - what her long reign encapsulates or suggests to us. Maybe there is a name out there, that has not been thought up yet. It's really only in hindsight that we can categorise a time period. Right now, we're in that period and maybe it's too soon to be able to summarise it.

When you say to 'us', do you mean British people? Whatever chance there is in the UK and maybe parts of the Commonwealth where it could be pushed through, it'd be very unlikely to gain wider international appeal, the 'historical centre' of western history has shifted very much away from Britain to the US during her reign

acai berry

riffmongous wrote: »

When you say to 'us', do you mean British people? Whatever chance there is in the UK and maybe parts of the Commonwealth where it could be pushed through, it'd be very unlikely to gain wider international appeal, the 'historical centre' of western history has shifted very much away from Britain to the US during her reign

By "us" I mean the world we live in. We don't have to be British to refer to the Elizabethen or Victorian age. Only time will tell whether the US or Britain will give a name to that period, during which E II reigned. Are we going to have the Trump Era or The Brexit Era? LOL! Elizabeth II has provided a type of predictablility and stability to the period of her reign. Let's say the Monarchy is abolished some time later, then people will refer to the time prior to that as E II's Era, will they not? Just surmising!

pleas advice

And then there's brexit, she could find her kingdom shrinking fairly rapidly if things turn out as bad as they are predicted to...

acai berry

pleas advice wrote: »

And then there's brexit, she could find her kingdom shrinking fairly rapidly if things turn out as bad as they are predicted to...

I think Brexit will have its own era. LOL!

meeeeh

acai berry wrote: »

By "us" I mean the world we live in. We don't have to be British to refer to the Elizabethen or Victorian age. Only time will tell whether the US or Britain will give a name to that period, during which E II reigned. Are we going to have the Trump Era or The Brexit Era? LOL! Elizabeth II has provided a type of predictablility and stability to the period of her reign. Let's say the Monarchy is abolished some time later, then people will refer to the time prior to that as E II's Era, will they not? Just surmising!

I'm not Irish or British. I still don't overly know what Elizabethan period means but if you mention to me reformation, realism, naturalism, fin de seicle, neoclassic, romantic period I would know exactly what you are referring to. Naming periods after British monarch is fine in Britain but completely irrelevant in countries where their influence stretches to sales of a few tabloid magazines.

valoren

Candie wrote: »

The Duchesses' classless half-sister is cashing in on her connections by taking part in Celebrity Big Brother in the UK. You can only imagine how embarrassing it's going to be. Also stretches the meaning of the term celebrity a fair bit. A cheap move on the sisters part but I'll be tempted to check it out for what I suspect is going to be the mother of all car crash tv shows.

I feel sorry for the girl, her extended family are letting her down badly. I wouldn't live their lives for any money, no day is their own and there's no such thing as privacy for any of them anymore. To Harry and the Windsors credit, they would have known her family were liable to let the side down, but it didn't stop them tying the knot. Good luck to them.

Markle is clearly a clever woman who understands that they only way for her to deal with her toxic family is to not deal with them. She knows not to bite at the attention seeking and hoovering from her family. Also, it's the BB producers who are the **** stirrers here. They contacted her sister (or her agent) and obviously she took the gig.

Roger_007

valoren wrote: »

Markle is clearly a clever woman who understands that they only way for her to deal with her toxic family is to not deal with them. She knows not to bite at the attention seeking and hoovering from her family. Also, it's the BB producers who are the **** stirrers here. They contacted her sister (or her agent) and obviously she took the gig.

Markle also knows that in this #MeToo era she cannot be criticised in the media no matter what she does. If any of the media dare to publish anything other than fulsome praise for any activity or behaviour, (past, present or future), on her part, the 'misogyny' card will be played.
This puts her in a powerful position which she will be clever enough to exploit.