Royal ennui: Harry and Meghan want out. Sort of.
British royals Meghan and Harry must have gotten tired of all those ceremonies:
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex delivered the announcement on Wednesday that they plan to reduce their roles in the royal family, split their time between the U.K. and North America, and earn their own keep.
The news has just about everyone coming up with their own answer to the question of the week: Are Harry and Meghan spoiled brats who want to keep the fun parts of being royalty (castles, allowances, butlers) and ditch the parts they don’t like (not being able to earn potential millions, being dictated to by the queen), or has the royal family and the press truly made their lives a living hell?
Now personally I could not care less what Harry and Meghan do as long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses. The question that does interest me – ever so mildly – is whether a royal can successfully renounce the duties and responsibilities that go along with the office, and claim more elements of personal freedom while retaining some of the perks. Seems to me the two go together as part of the job.
Then again, this is a job Harry never chose; he was born into it. That’s one of the problems inherent in modern royalty: a person is born into a role that once, long ago, might involve some power (although it could also involve losing one’s head if the person was seen as too challenging to the monarch’s position) but nowadays is merely symbolic.
No one asked Harry if he wanted to be a prince or to do whatever is involved in having that status by birth. Although it’s a very privileged role (that word has gotten overused these days, but I think in this case it’s the correct one), it’s also a rather rigid job consisting of many tasks and little freedom to speak out as the person might wish. Then again, the only reason the public is interested in what Harry does or says is because he’s a royal. And many of us are not all that interested, period.
Meghan, on the other hand, chose this life knowing what it entailed. Maybe not every single detail, but who isn’t aware of the sort of existence a British royal leads these day?
Many Brits are unhappy about the couple’s decision – for example:
“Harry & Meghan – a £30 million pound taxpayer-funded wedding, £2.4 million taxpayer-funded renovations to a house they were GIVEN, 34 million in the BANK, but you HOPE to be financially independent? I’m sure all the folk queueing at the food banks feel your pain,” an angry resident tweeted.
Will the couple be giving up all their money and starting from scratch, a kind of “prince is a pauper” scenario? I doubt it.
You know I never quite understood why we Americans were so interested in the British Royal family. We fought two wars not to be under the British crown.
Matthew:
Same reason so many people are interested in any celebrity. Plus, the family aspects. And the clothes and jewels.
That’s about it, as far as I can see.
Did it occur to anyone opining on this subject that his cousins, two of whom have royal styles, do not receive any stipends from the Civil List / Sovereign Grant, have workaday jobs / businesses, and limit their public appearances to a short menu of ceremonial occasions and philanthropic promotions? Why is their such vociferous objections to Prince Harry and his wife having a similar arrangement?
And . . . surprise, surprise . . . I just saw this Newsweek headline ‘MEGHAN MARKLE BEING A BLACK WOMAN IN THE ROYAL FAMILY WAS NEVER GOING TO WORK’.
Their lifestyle is mostly funded by the Duchy of Cornwall, which belongs to Prince Charles, it’s not public money. They won’t be financially independent though.
It’s funny how we’ve inverted things: the royal family used to own the public and now the public owns them.
I think a free people can have a monarchy and that Elizabeth has been an excellent monarch for a free people. But there definitely should be a way for members of the royal family to opt out.
“Harry & Meghan – a £30 million pound taxpayer-funded wedding, £2.4 million taxpayer-funded renovations to a house they were GIVEN,
They weren’t given the house. It’s a Crown Estate property. They’ve been tenants there. It’s a historic property so is periodically renovated to keep it in passable repair. A number of the Queen’s relatives and retainers have berths in Crown Estate properties. They used to occupy them for nominal sums at the ‘grace-and-favour’ of the Queen, but there’s been so much kvetching about that in the Labour Party caucus that the occupants been compelled to pay rent to a public fund.
But there definitely should be a way for members of the royal family to opt out.
Forty-odd years ago, the Queen’s cousin, Richard of Gloucester, and the wife of another, Princess Michael of Kent, were compelled to abandon the business and professional concerns in which they worked. It was permissible to serve in the military or to write books, but not to be engaged in ‘buying and selling’. That began to change ca. 1985 when Prince Edward took a job as a schoolteacher and then another working for Andrew Lloyd Webber’s outfit. After that, he was permitted to set up his own production company and his wife was permitted to continue working after he married her (for a time. PR problems forced them to abandon the arrangement).
Will the couple be giving up all their money and starting from scratch, a kind of “prince is a pauper” scenario? I doubt it.
The royal family has personal property, as do the Spencers. It’s a reasonable wager that a portion of the personal property has been distributed to his generation and provides him with a private income. His household and his brother’s have received allotments from the Civil List / Sovereign Grant, but his cousins do not. It’s a reasonable guess from their expenditure patterns that they have interest and dividend income in addition to their salaries and fee income.
In 10 yr Harry will either be divorced or a drunk. Or both.
In 10 yr Harry will either be divorced or a drunk. Or both.
Remember when your math teacher told you to show your work?
Two households, both alike in dysfunction….
Lynn, I hope for Archie’s sake, Harry’s neither divorced or drunk, but I fear that his estrangement from the family firm can do little to settle his life and keep the wolfish press from his door. In spite of his often spoken disdain for the hounding the press/media he and his late mother received, neither he, his wife or his mother lived a life that would have precluded that. He can’t help being born a royal, but his choice of a wife, a divorced, bi-racial American actress, practically begs for press intrusion.
Now, I suspect their desire to “work” toward financial independence will, if it hasn’t already, include trademarking their “brand” and monetizing their semi-royal status as best they can. We can be sure to see their faces on many magazine covers in the years to come. If they want to step back from their royal duties, let them. I hope their son doesn’t resent their depriving him of a portion of his birthright.
Lynn, I hope for Archie’s sake, Harry’s neither divorced or drunk, but I fear that his estrangement from the family firm can do little to settle his life and keep the wolfish press from his door.
His cousin works for a museum in London. Another cousin has a marketing job in a commercial company. Are they ‘estranged’ from their families?
Now, I suspect their desire to “work” toward financial independence will, if it hasn’t already, include trademarking their “brand” and monetizing their semi-royal status as best they can.
Maybe it will. Now, which of his collateral relatives have done that?
Two households, both alike in dysfunction….
Which two, and what’s the dysfunction?
Neo, I never understood our American obsessions with celebrities either. I mean that for reasons beyond the fact that most celebrities are liberal nitwits. The celebrity worship in our culture just bores me.
I can never tell if the people who are obsess with celebrities look up to them for some reason? Or are they enjoy looking down on them? If the first, there are plenty of people with greater achievements than many say the Kardashians. (Though some celebrities do have genuine achievements at acting, singing and so on.) If the second it is obnoxious and the sin of pride.
Neo, I never understood our American obsessions with celebrities either.
It would help your understanding if you used the term ‘obsession’ correctly. A woman who spends three minutes reading an article in People at the beauty parlor isn’t obsessed. She’s killing time.
Maybe it’s all down to Kate and Meghan = Yoko and Linda. Or not! 🙂
I really don’t give a hoot about Harry or Meghan. Based on reading headlines only, I thought from the start that this relationship might not work out. But the whining about the publicity involved in being a lower-tier royal doesn’t impress me much. This was an American entertainment celebrity marrying into the British royal family. They’re surprised that the tabloid press is interested? Please.
I do occasionally click on links showing the Duchess of Cambridge and what she’s wearing. I am grateful to her for having brought elegance into the fashion picture. When my daughter was married four years ago, she had no trouble finding a wedding gown which made her look like a bride and not a sleazy prom-goer. Before Kate, it might have been more difficult.
But there definitely should be a way for members of the royal family to opt out.
There is, of course: renounce your title, all the perquisites that came with it, and move on.
But, that would be too easy for H&M….
I really don’t give a hoot about Harry or Meghan.
Then why are you commenting?
Based on reading headlines only, I thought from the start that this relationship might not work out.
It might not. However, they haven’t announced a separation, so your comment makes zero sense.
But the whining about the publicity involved in being a lower-tier royal doesn’t impress me much.
1. They’re not lower tier. They’re one of seven households with a Civil List / Sovereign Grant income and an office staff. The whole point of their statement was to announce that they’d like to give that up and do other things with their time. Reading comprehension. It’s great stuff.
2. Where did they whine about anything?
There is, of course: renounce your title, all the perquisites that came with it, and move on.
Again, their collateral relatives are not receiving state subsidies. They’ve announced their intention to forego state subsidies. This is not that difficult.
Art Deco:
Surely you’re aware that it’s possible to comment on a post about someone without giving a hoot about that person. One reason would be to comment on some aspect of the situation. Another would be just for the fun of the discussion. I would even submit that it’s possible to have an opinion on something a person is doing or saying and to not really care much about that particular person, except in the general sense of caring about humanity and about people and their foibles.
I live in the Commonwealth & have no damns to give. Neither Harry nor his progeny will ever get within a good grenade toss of the crown. They’re also-rans behind big brother William & his kids. He & Meghan are excess baggage; in many ways like grand-dad, Andrew, Anne, etc…all the never-will-be king/queens.
They can self-imolate and once the smoke clears…good riddance to bad rubbish.
Surely you’re aware that i
What I’m aware of is that I’ve posed a number of questions to people whose statements and dispositions in regard to this matter are a puzzle. None of them can be bothered to answer.
…good riddance to bad rubbish.
I take it Prince Harry stole your girlfriend, or was it your lunch money?
Matthew:
Not so very long ago, Donald Trump was one of those celebrities I hardly paid attention to 🙂 .
Perhaps some of the people whose comments are puzzling prefer to stick to the topic of the post and not indulge in irrelevant questions.
Good riddance. She has no concept of protocol or etiquette and has has always ignored the protocol officers. This is but one example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNg7qsMM28I.
This is from few days ago at Canada House in London. https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Meghan_Markle_directs_Prince_Harry_to_sit_down.gif
This is but one example
No ordinary person who sees that video (which shows her having a brief and inaudible exchange with an unidentified official) is going to be able to make sense of your high dudgeon.
Perhaps some of the people whose comments are puzzling prefer to stick to the topic of the post and not indulge in irrelevant questions.
Since I have stuck to the topic and asked you relevant questions, your complaint is nonsensical.
Humans are hard-wired for gossip and particularly when it comes to high status folks. Much of what our big brains are about is doing the social calculations for our groups, then scheming to increase our status.
Tom Wolfe coined the word, “statusphere,” as a snappy umbrella term for the never-ending status competition in human society. It’s a big part of his writing.
Ho ho ho… But I repeat myself.
Burn the NPD Coal, Pay the Toll.
He’s (cucked) Toast. Before this is over he’ll wish he’d gotten himself decently killed back in Afghanistan and died a Man.
Next!
Recommend watching The Crown as an intro to the tribulations of royalty in the modern era, and as a survey of cultural change through the 50’s and 60’s.
Two households, both alike in dysfunction….
Which two, and what’s the dysfunction?
The Windsors and the Markles. I have led you to water and will do no more.
Neo, I didn’t pay much attention to Trump then either (barring watching a few episodes of the Apprentice.) If you had told me he would be president I would have been astounded. That he would be as good one as he is was beyond belief.
There are few remaining stable monarchies. In these, the members of the royal family are understood to be born into a heavy social responsibility, for which they are handsomely compensated by their societies. In an open society with a free press, there are no secrets for such celebrities; consequently, royals in such society cannot long maintain an empty facade of integrity and dignified behavior. They must live even their private lives in keeping with their born position.
Some members of the royal family would rather define their personal obligations downwards to make the role personally easier on themselves. When their position is entirely irreconcilable with their preferred manner of life, they abdicate.
But the question of how the crown and the society should handle such optings-out or the defining-down remains very open: What few norms exist don’t seem stable or sustainable.
Queen Elizabeth II seems to have recognized the maintaining of personal dignity and decorum as an obligation, and lived up to it. She even remains morally credible as a member in good standing of the Church of England, even by the moral standards of 1950 or earlier (which makes her moral example a good deal more stable than the moral theology of the upper Anglican clergy, but that’s a topic for another day).
I don’t suppose, though, that anyone feels either Prince Charles or Prince Andrew have been as well-suited to the role. The less said about Charles’ unseemly intercepted phone calls with Camilla, the better; and then there is the Epstein affair with Andrew. They seem to follow the behavioral example of Elizabeth’s uncle Edward VIII. The latter abdicated…but, of course, remained well-heeled at the expense of British taxpayers for the rest of his life. Charles and Andrew remain not only well-heeled at taxpayer expense but remain in the line-of-succession.
Harry and Meghan look to be in the position to have their cake and eat it too: They have enough money to be permanently comfortable, but by exiting royal life can abdicate all responsibility for ceremonial functions while retaining celebrity status.
The result, I think, must be a set of precedents and systemic incentives which tend to undermine, rather than help preserve, the monarchy.
If, after all, the average royal born can live reasonably royally without the burdens and headaches, then abdication would seem to offer little fear. But in that case the fear of exclusion from life as a royal has no teeth as a restraint upon one’s personal behavior. Why not pal around with Jeffrey Epstein & Co., as Andrew seems to have done, if you probably won’t get excluded from the family over it, and if your exclusion wouldn’t much hamper your lifestyle if you were?
If, over time, the behavior of royals declines (as seems likely, given how humans usually respond to the reduced incentives for good private behavior), one can only expect public respect for the royals to correspondingly decline as episodes of undignified behavior progressively become publicized.
Yet support for subsidizing those royals probably leans heavily on the public’s respect for them as persons. When that respect is gone…what then? Another republic?
Harry’s shallow choice of bride won’t, by itself, bring down the monarchy.
But if half the royals of the next two generations increasingly say “screw this” about their duties…more or less with impunity?
The Windsors and the Markles. I have led you to water and will do no more.
Which Windsors and which Markles?
There are few remaining stable monarchies.
Which monarchies today have a consequential republican movement?
But if half the royals of the next two generations increasingly say “screw this” about their duties…more or less with impunity?
The Queen, each of her four children, her oldest grandchild, and his wife, are pre-occupied with philanthropic promotions. A number of other family members appear on ceremonial occasions and have some patronages. What is your conception of what share of her proximate relatives should do one and what share should do the other?
Dwaz on January 10, 2020 at 8:39 pm said:
Two households, both alike in dysfunction….
Which two, and what’s the dysfunction?
The Windsors and the Markles. I have led you to water and will do no more.
* * *
Really, you guys. SMH
“Two households, both alike in dignity
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents’ strife.”
– William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
It could be a type of undercover gig, and insurance policy.
One, the UK heads the Commonwealth. Two, populism creates uncertainty.
Harry and dad Charles dote on Africa – on its natural wonders, you know! Not on the 9 nations in the advance stages of qualifying to join the Commonwealth, the several others in the early stages … along with the bevy of Asian and Pacific nations also signaling interest.
Already a goodly chunk of the world, could easily in the medium-future be a strong majority. [What China was really trying to beat?)
The Crown needs to maintain a good rapport with its citizens, and current political & social conditions are particularly fraught.
Harry leans leftish anyway, and William leans rightish. At #6, he’s borderline disposable, anyhow.
And remember, Meghan was buddies with PM Justin Trudeau, with the younger set of his family, and with the younger Mulroney family (Brian M, PM 1984-1993). 7 years she spent there.
Her connections with leading Canadian families could well explain the Harry meetup. And ‘this’.
Harry leans leftish anyway, and William leans rightish. At #6, he’s borderline disposable, anyhow.
I’m amazed at the number of people who seem to have been flies on the wall in the various Windsor households.
Really, you guys. SMH
You fancy Prince Charles, Prince Wm. et al on the one hand and the households of Thos. Markle, his other two children, his quondam daughter-in-law, and her brotastic sons on the other, are analogues to the Montagues and the Capulets. Do I have that right?
Art Deco says: “I’m amazed at the number of people who seem to have been flies on the wall in the various Windsor households.”
At the facile observation that Harry leans left and William leans right?
It doesn’t take flies to suss-out the King’s Clothes.
It doesn’t take flies to suss-out the King’s Clothes.
I assume your math teacher also told you to show your work.
Art Deco; the king of the thread, just ask him.
Art Deco; the king of the thread, just ask him.
Do you have an answer to any question posed above?
Art Deco infers: “I assume your math teacher also told you to show your work.”
In the current context, Buckingham Palace is essentially in the same position as everyone else … like the CIA and all the other King’s Men and King’s Horses. In the dark.
You & I know as much about the most important stuff, as the most powerful.
2020? Brexit? 2024? What do they know, what can they know, that you & I don’t or can’t?
If eg they damn Trump … well, he already won once, and left assorted notables looking like they knew painfully less than they claimed. On the very most important stuff.
If they damn their own deplorables … well, now they got Brexit. Smooth move, geniuses.
Sure they have to cover diametrical possibilities. Sure Harry is a big boy, likes the brave aura, is the soft-heart type … and he volunteered, as is his wont.
My wonder is, did Meghan read-off this game-board for him, lo these years ago, Day One?
Art Deco:
Here you are – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-xI1384Ry4
What happens after Queen Elizabeth? She seems the only one holding up the monarchy as traditionally understood. I have to respect that.
I don’t imagine the monarchy going away — it is too ingrained in English history — but I can imagine it fading quite a bit more.
I watched Whit Stillman’s “Metropolitan” over the holidays (it is a sort of Christmas film) in which a group of NYC young people from the upper class circa late sixties, sit around in tuxedos and fancy dresses to socialize over the holidays. Towards the end they are watching a national debutante ball on television and speculating that it is probably the last one.
I vaguely remember you could see such things on the tube, although I certainly didn’t watch them. Wiki tells me debutante balls still continue. But they no longer seem to have any hold on the popular imagination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debutante#United_States
“Metropolitan” is worth watching. Stillman is a writer/director with a strong individual voice and a conservative to boot.
What happens after Queen Elizabeth? She seems the only one holding up the monarchy as traditionally understood. I have to respect that.
None of her grandchildren have generated any scandals as yet. Her youngest son washed out of the Royal Marines 35 years ago, but otherwise hasn’t generated any scandals. Her daughter hasn’t generated any scandals either (bar occasionally snapping at people in earshot of the press); it was her daughter’s 1st husband who generated the scandals. Her elderly cousins do the philanthropic promotions and ceremonial occasions as well.
As for Charles, he failed at being married to a woman who (over a time span of 20 years) had periods of estrangement from her mother, her step-mother, and two of her three siblings; who had retaliatory affairs with three men whose names are known (dying with one of them in an avoidable car wreck); and who was sufficiently jealous of the women hired to look after her sons that she sh!tcanned one and sliced another one up in the media (both women attended Wm.’s wedding and one attended Harry’s as well).
Ted Clayton, your comment leaves the impression you’ve been at the bong this morning.
None of her grandchildren have generated any scandals as yet.
Art Deco: All is well!
Art Deco – I don’t care much either way.
Just noting that the original quote was an obvious lift from The Bard.
What we have here . . .
Art Deco: My “Metropolitan” comment wasn’t about scandal, but about times changing. Big band dinner clubs are history today. So might the monarchy someday.
Whoever follows Elizabeth, even without a whiff of scandal, will, I bet, be a diminished figure in comparison. And we won’t see her like again.
Maybe we can read Harry & Meghan’s efforts as an attempt to make for the real artistocracy today — the royalty of the rich and the stars. H&M have certainly been polishing their woke, environmentalist credentials … while flying around in private jets.
Art Deco punts: “Ted Clayton, your comment leaves the impression you’ve been at the bong this morning.”
Diego Garcia, 1966. That’s where/when the current Commonwealth ball-motion started.
The anti-Royals salivate at QE-II’s passing, as they also anticipated President Hillary.
Presumably, most likely, Charles will be King. Not a great one, but that’ll work fine.
The longer the delay, the more likely William becomes, instead.
With the Brexit vote, Palace-stock got a big boost.
If Brexit occurs, make that an orbital launch.
Seems to me that Harry married himself a whole lotta trouble when he married a former TV actress who apparently wants to be in on all the latest Leftist Hollyweird trends and causes.
Then, there was the drama about Markel’s father.
You might also remember, for instance, when the happy couple announced that they intended to raise their son Archie in a “gender neutral” fashion. *
Not a good fit for the Monarchy. Thinkin’ ultimately a Wallace Simpson type disaster.
Wanting the perks and income of being a couple of “royals” couple but not the associated duties shows their attitude about all this, and it ain’t good.
* https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6764855/The-gender-neutral-Royal-baby-Harry-Meghan-plan-fluid-approach-child-rearing.html
On one level, it’s a frivilous-ish topic; the British Royals are more akin to America’s Hollywood than a political system; like the staff who play act at 18th century life in Colonial Williamsburg. However, it is a sincere indictment on the immaturity of the British system that the citizenry there allow the Monarchy to continue. A truly free people do not consider anyone superior to any other solely on lineage.
Their actions are sometimes amusing, sometimes noble, but the continued existence of the institution is an embarrassment to a nation that has done so much to promote freedom and equality.
We seem to instinctively understand that theocracies like Iran are anathema to freedom, yet a monarchy is not?
You might also remember, for instance, when the happy couple announced that they intended to raise their son Archie in a “gender neutral” fashion. *
I don’t remember that. I think that referred to the decor in the nursery.
https://www.realhomes.com/news/royal-baby-archie-starts-his-first-trend-the-gender-neutral-smart-nursery
A truly free people do not consider anyone superior to any other solely on lineage.
A truly free people aren’t hung up on status, which egalitarians invariably are.
Harry carefully avoided marrying a number of nice English girls, some from the nobility, some not, and then married an American/Canadian entertainment celebrity. His path appears to be his choice.
Oh, yeah, Snow on Pine, thanks for the reminder about the “gender fluid” rearing for Archie. I hope he turns out all right.
Maybe we can read Harry & Meghan’s efforts as an attempt to make for the real artistocracy today
Maybe we can read their efforts as an attempt to spend less time making the rounds and more time on things which interest them, as well as spending more time in loci with fewer photographers.
Harry carefully avoided marrying a number of nice English girls, some from the nobility, some not, and then married an American/Canadian entertainment celebrity. His path appears to be his choice.
You ‘carefully avoid’ marrying anyone you didn’t marry.
With the Brexit vote, Palace-stock got a big boost.
If Brexit occurs, make that an orbital launch.
Ted Clayton: Sounds like you’ve tracked this more than I have. Do you foresee a reinvigoration of the Royals?
Art Deco: I think you could use a couple bong hits in the morning!
Might loosen you up, give you a sense of humor. Do something about that irony deficiency.
Not a good fit for the Monarchy. Thinkin’ ultimately a Wallace Simpson type disaster.
Wallis Simpson. (1) MM isn’t barren; (2) she hadn’t been married to other men for nearly 20 years when she met Harry, (3) she wasn’t cavorting with Harry while still married to someone else ; (4) he’s not on the throne or heir to the throne; (5) the smart money says she wouldn’t have taken Adolf Hitler’s hospitality. Otherwise, the analogy holds.
Might loosen you up, give you a sense of humor. Do something about that irony deficiency.
Meet me half way. Say something funny.
Art Deco–“Wallace Simpson” in the sense of the apparently much stronger willed person in the marriage bulldozing the weaker partner.
Huxley asks: “Ted Clayton: Sounds like you’ve tracked this more than I have. Do you foresee a reinvigoration of the Royals?”
The demise of the Royals is like the twilight of religion. Squeezing that balloon really just makes it change shape.
The globalist/leftist camp (@ BBC et al) feel like they have a stake in down-playing royalty, and religion, and both for basically the same reasons. The presence of this thumb on the pan, notable in media & its allied politics, leads to more of a mirage, than a data-set.
And like the inevitability of Hillary, and the impossibility of Trump, the failure lies mainly with the narrative.
If the globalism element (has right-wing Establishment support too) gets back up in the saddle, then the Royals fall back & hunker-down, again. The EU bureaucracy grits it’s teeth over Royals, but their own real culture (EU enemy #1!) loves them.
So it depends, on 2020, Brexit, 2024 … but sure, Populism is great news for Buckingham.
“A truly free people aren’t hung up on status, which egalitarians invariably are.”
True, but that is no refutation of my statement, nor does it have any connection to it.
A truly free people don’t distribute government resources based on surname, and surname alone. Nor, do they willfully subjugate themselves to anyone due solely to lineage. It is disappointing that Brittain cannot advance politically beyond this outmoded form of Theocracy.
I am free to choose whether I want to be governed by any of the offspring of the Trump’s, Obama’s, Bush’s, Clinton’s and Kennedy’s and they are free to choose whether they want to seek political office. And someone whose family has no history of holding political office is free to run for any office he or she chooses.
Where does the daughter of a Newcastle coal miner go to apply for the position of Duchess of York? And how does her father vote out the House of Windsor?
Art Deco, in defending Mehgan Markle, thusly & so;
Yes, agreed, she’s fine, doing a great job … not buffaloing the boy; he after all having been buffaloed by the best.
Meghan was in Canada for 7 years, with Suits. She became very intimate with 2 of the most illustrious political & cultural families of the nation’s history – Trudeaus and Mulroneys.
Remember her running her face about all the cool things she did with them? Me neither. Right there, big indicator: the girl is serious – takes herself serious.
All this stuff about how “hard” it is? About how you hurt my wittle feelings, boo-hoo? Not a half-bad actress to-boot, eh? Yeah … she weathered worse with each phase of the Moon, as a public TV personality.
My theory is going to be, this arrangement went through the Canadian pantheon, first, who sketched it out with the Palace … and only then did the ‘happenstance’ meeting take place.
Meghan is every bit as good an undercover trooper as her husband.
The British monarchy doesn’t govern any more. It’s a national symbol, which the British populace still find very valuable. The actual governance is in Parliament, which is elected. It seems reasonable to think that once Britain leaves the EU and has more sovereignty over itself, the national symbol’s prestige will be enhanced. At least the Queen will be the monarch of a nation, not of a political subdivision actually ruled from Brussels.
Here’s an idea- Harry and Megan start a movement for an independent Canada, sort of a Canexit, if you will. The breakaway could pay homage to Great Britain by choosing to become a monarchy in the British tradition. Alas, who shall be the monarch? None other than the spare, Prince Harry. Thus, Megan would be queen after all.
Here’s an idea- Harry and Megan start a movement for an independent Canada, sort of a Canexit, if you will. The breakaway could pay homage to Great Britain by choosing to become a monarchy in the British tradition. Alas, who shall be the monarch? None other than the spare, Prince Harry. Thus, Megan would be queen after all.
start a movement for an independent Canada
Canada has been sovereign since the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
True, but that is no refutation of my statement, nor does it have any connection to it.
I can explain something to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.
I am free to choose whether I want to be governed by any of the offspring of the Trump’s,
Look up the definition of ‘parliamentary system’ and get back to me.
Art Deco–“Wallace Simpson” in the sense of the apparently much stronger willed person in the marriage bulldozing the weaker partner.
I see you’ve been a fly on the wall at Kensington Palace and Frogmire Cottage as well. Must be interesting.
Meet me half way. Say something funny.
Art Deco: Apparently you don’t read my comments carefully or (and more likely) you don’t have a sense of humor.
I’d say the nerf ball is in *your* court. Give it a shot. If you dare.
I’m always amused at the things that grown adults go all fan boy over and defend to the end.
Art Deco: Apparently you don’t read my comments carefully or (and more likely) you don’t have a sense of humor.
1. You’re not funny. No amount of assertion will make you funny, to me or to anyone else.
2. As for the rest of them:
” We fought two wars not to be under the British crown.”
“In 10 yr Harry will either be divorced or a drunk. Or both.”
“Two households, both alike in dysfunction….”
” there are plenty of people with greater achievements than many say the Kardashians. ”
“I really don’t give a hoot about Harry or Meghan. Based on reading headlines only, I thought from the start that this relationship might not work out. But the whining ”
“good riddance to bad rubbish.”
“A truly free people do not consider anyone superior to any other solely on lineage.”
“Harry carefully avoided marrying a number of nice English girls, ”
” It is disappointing that Brittain cannot advance politically beyond this outmoded form of Theocracy.”
Real thigh slappers.
“I can explain something to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.”
You seem to be stuck on refutations detached from what you pretend to be refuting.
I was once hard-headed about the British Royals — don’t want no monarchy on me! We fought wars etc.
But given that the monarchy’s power is largely symbolic (though there is the interesting counter-example in which the Queen played a significant role in the dismissal of Australian PM Gough Whitlam in 1975*), the Royals seem more importantly a matter of cultural tradition and cohesion, which has its points IMO.
As I said earlier in the topic, I think this stuff is hard-wired into humans. We’re going to focus on someone at the top of the status pyramid. I’ll take Queen Elizabeth over, say, Taylor Swift.
_____________________________
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
I’m always amused at the things that grown adults go all fan boy over and defend to the end.
You might take time out from that to ponder the phenomenon of grown adults being gratuitously hostile to two persons they’ve never met who are not known to have done anything injurious to any other person (bar whatever she did to go through a divorce proceeding at the end of a brief, childless marriage and whatever he did in combat). This includes attributing to them things they haven’t said or done, some of which no one living outside their personal household would know much about. The places I frequent have had several threads on this question (those at Althouse ran to over 160 comments). I’d say about 20% of the participants offered observational comments on some tangential matter, while the other 80% produced one long electronic slam book. There is something really off about that, but no one’s bothering to explain their sentiments (bother the chump who says he is offended by the very idea of orders in society, a notion he might consider abandoning before the box car takes him right over the cliff).
You see this fan boy stuff like in this comment section in the entertainment world all the time. Taylor Swift fans going at it with Katy Perry fans and in country music look out for the Carrie Underwood fans vs. the Miranda Lambert fans. It’s all so personal to some people.
It’s always struck as so immature that anyone would care so much about these things that they feel the need to defend people they don’t even know like this.
I am free to choose whether I want to be governed by any of the offspring of the Trump’s,
Look up the definition of ‘parliamentary system’ and get back to me.”
Again, refuting something different. So, the Parliament is the only political body in the U.K. and the queen and her relartions have no political duties, nor benefit from any public funds? Got it.
“For the rest of the armed forces, including the British Army and the Royal Air Force, the oath includes swearing to God “that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty”
Got it, Art Deco. Exactly like our armed forces pledging to defend the Constitution.
Art Deco,
Wow, you are super defensive on this one. Whatever, I guess we all have our thing.
Again, refuting something different.
Rufus T. Firefly: That is the standard Art Deco ploy.
the Queen played a significant role in the dismissal of Australian PM Gough Whitlam in 1975*
That was the governor-general John Kerr, who was later so harassed by Labour Party spear carriers that I think he left the country.
I think the Queen did choose the prime minister in 1957 and had some role in sorting out the assembly of a ministry after the 1974 election – in Britain, not in Australia.
Wow, you are super defensive on this one.
No, I merely offered a defense (which explained my perspective, not that you noticed). You’ll get over it.
So, the Parliament is the only political body in the U.K. and the queen and her relartions have no political duties, nor benefit from any public funds? Got it.
They receive income from Crown Estate properties, in re which the tenure regime doesn’t map very well to a dichotomy of state v. private property. The security detail is publicly financed, and (I’d wager) some of the upkeep on the Crown Estate properties. The queen has some political duties, mostly ceremonial. Her family is part of public life, broadly understood, but not political life.
Your objection was to orders in society. Now as a matter of course, we have all sorts of human associations that incorporate strata and patron-client relations. I’m not sure why I’d draw the line at the distinctions between crown, clergy, nobility and gentry, burgess, and peasant. But you go ahead and amuse yourself recycling Thomas Paine.
It’s always struck as so immature that anyone would care so much about these things that they feel the need to defend people they don’t even know like this.
Great. Now do sports teams and rock bands.
Commoner’s ennui, also a thang.
“You might take time out from that to ponder the phenomenon of grown adults being gratuitously hostile to two persons they’ve never met who are not known to have done anything injurious to any other person”
I’ll keep that in mind when Neo posts another Make-Over video and someone says the women transformed were merely sloppy and lazy.
Helen Mirren played Elizabeth in “The Queen.” Although Mirren is anti-royalist, she nonetheless came to admire Queen Elizabeth.
I’m not keen on royalty either, but I admire Queen Elizabeth. The job has its perks, but it also has its costs — which H&M aren’t keen on even as minor royals.
No one can know for sure who someone really is, but Queen Elizabeth sure looks like someone who has devoted her life to her country. Her death will be traumatic for Great Britain and throughout the Commonwealth.
I’ll keep that in mind when Neo posts another Make-Over video and someone says the women transformed were merely sloppy and lazy.
I said the results of these makeovers are unpleasant and should be foregone. “Sloppy” and “lazy” come out of your imagination. I don’t have it in for the recipient, though I think their judgment is deficient in these matters. I don’t have it in for the provider, either. I just wish she’d cut hair and leave it at that.
Art Deco has shown himself again to be the master of subtle wit and grace, we are truly blessed to receive his wisdom.
Art Deco,
‘sports teams’
Yeah I think that is stupid also and I’m a huge sports fan but I don’t get so into it that I take umbrage at people with different views. Those kind of people seem to be lacking a meaning in their lives and they become so invested in teams and celebrities and the like. Kind of feel sorry for them.
Anyway, have fun tracking down every last commenter.
I’m about halfway through “The Queen” with Helen Mirren. I don’t remember it well and I’m shocked that the film was 14 years ago about an event — the death of Princess Diana — that was 23 years ago. Time and all that. Excellent film, though.
Plus I had forgotten what a big deal Diana’s death was. The real newsreel footage of people’s responses is off the chart.
Maybe people should not be so invested in the royals — or in Diana’s case, an ex-royal — but they were and presumably still are.
I do expect the death of Queen Elizabeth to be huge, the end of a long chapter in British history. She has named Prince Charles as her successor. I wish him well. He has much to live up to.
Maybe people should not be so invested in the royals — or in Diana’s case, an ex-royal — but they were and presumably still are.
IMO, the problem is less the quantum of investment than the distribution of investment. When the Queen’s sister died in 2002, there wasn’t much public reaction at all. In light of that, the reaction to Diana’s death is puzzling. There is some distinction in that an elderly woman released from a menu of illnesses is a matter much less poignant than a young adult killed in an accident. The thing is, in schematic outline, they were the same sort of person. They’d lived all their lives in circumstances which made the somewhat disoriented about everyday life, they had important character and personality defects (albeit not the same defects), and they injured people around them consequent to those defects. However, one had a huge constituency and one was ignored and despised. It’s another manifestation of the high-school-never-ends principle. (The antagonism to Prince Charles is another one).
Also, the ‘investment’ in them generates a market for material which induces unscrupulous parties to palpably harass them – not merely paparazzi, but infiltrating people into domestic service positions, having people pose as those interested in business transactions, &c. And, of course, there are press campaigns against particular relatives of the Queen undertaken just for kicks. (Princess Beatrice has been a target of this). Again, high-school-never-ends.
I do expect the death of Queen Elizabeth to be huge, the end of a long chapter in British history. She has named Prince Charles as her successor. I wish him well. He has much to live up to.
The law is primogeniture. It used to be male-preference primogeniture. She doesn’t have any discretion over who succeeds her. (Some of the Arab monarchs do).
As much as I loved Helen Mirren as detective Jane Tennison in “Prime Suspect” and (guilty pleasure) watching her in an evening gown blaze away with a 50 cal. machine gun in “Red”*, “The Queen” is Mirren’s strongest performance.
Huxley Bob says check it out.
_________
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiMNb99KaYk
Art Deco, you’ll appreciate this, https://pjmedia.com/trending/fathers-rights-group-predicted-what-meghan-markle-just-did-to-prince-harry/
I would have gone with a Robin Givens comparison, rather than Yoko, but it’s a good photo shop.
Art Deco:
Another assessment of the Sussex situation Yoko also invoked; strange aint it. All is well, nothing to see, move along now.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/the-way-we-live-now-monarchy-edition.php
re: Markle and her hardships
Keith Richards once said, “how hard can it be to be a princess?”
Andy:
Unless you like endless ceremonies, it might be pretty hard to be a princess. On the other hand, there certainly are perks.
Maybe one of the reasons royalty used to marry royalty is that they knew what they were getting into in terms of the job description.
Huxley,
There is a terrific and fascinating article about the on going preparations for the day England loses Queen Elizabeth II. I don’t know how to link to it directly but it was the ‘Long Read’ in The Guardian (!) on March 17, 2017. You should be able to find it. Hopefully she will live as long or longer than her mother, but I predict a reaction to her passing that makes the mourning for Diana look down right casual.
Art Deco, you’ll appreciate this, https://pjmedia.com/trending/fathers-rights-group-predicted-what-meghan-markle-just-did-to-prince-harry/
I’d appreciate it only if I thought the author knew sh!t from apple butter. No clue how she got the idea in her head she knew the content of their domestic table talk. I can imagine someone speculating, not someone making categorical statements.
it might be pretty hard to be a princess.
I think you mean ‘pretty tiresome’.
Maybe one of the reasons royalty used to marry royalty is that they knew what they were getting into in terms of the job description.
The practice of eschewing ‘unequal marriages’ (to the point in some venues of declaring them morganatic) started here there and the next place in the German states during the late medieval period. Don’t think it was general practice in Europe until the 19th century. The Russian law declaring unequal marriages morganatic was adopted 1821, to take one example. European monarchs still had consequential executive powers at the time and the landed interest was still the primary repository of great wealth. Also, in the late medieval and early modern period, you still had a society of formal orders. You didn’t have variegated occupational distributions. There was the crown, the nobility and gentry (the formal organization of which varied from one place to another), the clergy, the burgesses, and the peasantry. The agrarian system – which included land tenure regimes and the legal status of the peasantry – varied from one place to another. The burgesses were the most varied, but even there you had a limited range of occupations (whose members were ordered into masters, journeymen, and apprentices).
One can never observe a person’s behavior and social interactions and then make predictions about that person’s behavior. such predictions would be like telling feces from fruit preserves. Now if you had some statistics, well then you would be credible,
People aren’t social animals attuned to observations of behavior after all.
Another assessment of the Sussex situation
That’s not much of one. The author actually knows very little, just fills in the blanks from his imagination.
The general rule is, you get your politics and religion from your father, your manners from your mother. Not everyone adheres to the rule, but that’s the way to bet. Problem, what we know of Thomas Markle gives one no sense of any of that. The man’s salient feature is that he’s kind of a wreck. (The dope on her mother suggests the woman’s a new-age squish-head; no clue how true that is). The girl studied theatre at Northwestern in a program which has produced a great many famous names and she managed to earn a satisfactory living as an actress. People who perform for a living tend to be gliberals and leftoids, unless their performances are specifically pitched to deplorables. She ain’t Toby Keith. The actual political views of the various parties in the royal family aren’t well understood. Prince Charles has known opinions and interests, but they tend to be somewhat idiosyncratic and implicate political controversies only when politics influences the properties of the natural or built environment. His sister-in-law is known to have found Tony Blair’s wife repellent and viewed her as an enemy of the family. That’s about it. Most people do not follow public affairs, so you shouldn’t be all that surprised if members of the royal family take an interest only when something might impinge on their daily life. The Queen’s nephew has a business to run; no one’s asked him to run the local welfare department.
One can never observe a person’s behavior and social interactions and then make predictions about that person’s behavior.
Yes you can, but in their case, little of what you might observe makes it into the papers. What we know of Harry is that academics aren’t his thing, that he’s athletic and in shape, that he’s a combat veteran and was passably adapted to military life, and that he has good people skills. What we know of Meghan is that she’s previously married, that she’s an actress whose intelligence was sufficient to cadge a degree from Northwestern, and that the calibre of her paternal-side relatives is decidedly uneven. We also know that they’re capable of tastelessness in select circumstances. (See the bishop they selected to give a sermon at their wedding, or their selection of ‘Archie’ as a name for their son. Even the comic strip character was actually named ‘Archibald’).
“The Queen” is Mirren’s strongest performance.
If you say so. I didn’t find the character she created particularly plausible and have no clue what her source material was. It’s possible the Queen is like that, but if she is it is excellently concealed. From a distance, the Queen seems to be a woman of sanguine temperament who is pleasant by default, rather like the office manager at one place I worked. (Said office manager was capable of tears, but was like a gyroscope emotionally). The contemplative, ironic, and tetchy woman Mirren dreamed up doesn’t seem much like the Queen (more like Princess Margaret, or perhaps Helen Mirren on her off-hours).
Observations of the Princesses’ public behavior and social interactions are some of the reasons for the negative appraisal of that individual. Those are called a clues to her character. “Seen one princess, seen then all,” is not the rule. Let me look that up.
> it might be pretty hard to be a princess.
> ‘pretty tiresome’.
With such adversities in his family it seems that poor little Archie is the ideal candidate to be the poster boy for the next UNICEF campaign.
Observations of the Princesses’ public behavior and social interactions are some of the reasons for the negative appraisal of that individual.
I wouldn’t blame anyone for finding her unappealing. There’s some distance between saying ‘I find Meghan unappealing’ or ‘all kinds of red flags around that woman’ and stating categorically that you know precisely what her discontents and her objects are here (or what his are, while we’re at it). Personally, I’ve got the feeling that this will all end badly. But none of that’s happened, yet,
With such adversities in his family it seems that poor little Archie is the ideal candidate to be the poster boy for the next UNICEF campaign.
No, the ideal candidate for a character in a Somerset Maugham novel.
Art Deco:
Well yes, I think it’s obvious when I said that being a princess could be pretty hard, that I didn’t mean princesses were ordinarily out there working on the chain gang.
“Hard” in the sense of the constant scrutiny, and the tiresomeness of having to deal with near-constant ceremonial occasions. Some people like that sort of thing and some don’t. I would have thought, though, if a person purposely marries into it, they know what the job description is and accept that.
“I would have thought, though, if a person purposely marries into it, they know what the job description is and accept that.” Precisely. It’s been less than two years. Plus, the Duchess is an actress. Playing the role of the royal wife in public should be easier for her than for someone not accustomed to acting.
Markel’s marriage into the British royal family looks like it is shaping up to be a disruptive, a pretty complete disaster, one in which Markle seems to be playing the role of the frag grenade tossed into the room, as the Royal family was going about the tradition-bound business of being the Royal family.
“Playing the role of the royal wife…should be easier…”
Ah, but compared to torpedoing the British Royal Family?
This will be her biggest, most splendiferous, most spectacular, most talked-about role (Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra; Meghan Markle IS Cleopatra…to Harry’s Marc Antony) and it will land her in the history books…though under which category has yet to be determined.
Yes, the role of the ages for this drama queen, this prima donna, this not-so-merrye wife of Windsor.
Yes, the role of the ages for this drama queen, this prima donna, this not-so-merrye wife of Windsor.
I’ve recently come to the conclusion that George Soros likes to wreck stuff for kicks. Markle may be of that kidney, but it’s rather uncharitable to make the accusation just yet. (If you remarked on the conduct of her sister two years ago, you can see that the impulse to wreck stuff for the hell of it is found in that family).
Speaking of genes, it seems that that whole family emerged from somewhere downwind of Lower Slobovia….
As for the other side, there must be a recessive Windsor gene that somehow comes to the fore every several generations or so, expressing itself less virulently or more so.
Fortunately, ERII has been able—mostly—to channel her mother’s gravitas and grit (legend has it that Shicklgruber referred to the Queen Mother, when she was Royal Consort, as “the most dangerous woman in Europe”); but then Elizabeth was brought up to serve and absorbed the obligations of the Royal family wholly and willingly.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/hitler-s-most-dangerous-woman-gets-warm-97th-birthday-reception-1.94054
Alas, Harry seems defenseless in the face of those same forces of nature that knocked his great-grand-uncle David practically senseless (though there are those who argue that he hadn’t all that much sense to lose in the first place).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBn06A-sdok
Of course, if one is of a romantic bent….
(As for Soros, he is just another example of the tremendous danger that emerges when huge intelligence, and ambition, is wedded to equally huge perversity—a character out of Ian Fleming…or Shakespeare….)
So, as I predicted above:
“Markel’s marriage into the British royal family looks like it is shaping up to be a disruptive, a pretty complete disaster, one in which Markle seems to be playing the role of the frag grenade tossed into the room, as the Royal family was going about the tradition-bound business of being the Royal family.”
My next prediction is that the luckless Harry–shorn of the Royal glamour that likely initially attracted Markle–(who discovered that being a “Royal” carried a lot of attached obligations with it, which she apparently soon wearied of) will fairly soon be dumped by her, and poor Harry will then be forced to crawl back to try to reenter the Royal Family’s good graces.
You may be right, Snow on Pine. The other possibility is that Harry, always the royal wild child, actually wanted out of all the pomp and circumstance and to have an independent life. Whether Meghan is the right partner for this, and whether the marriage will endure, remains to be seen. Being in favor of fidelity in marriage, I hope so. But I think this could all have been handled better on Harry’s part.
I think you’re all reading too much into this. It’s like a Rorschach inkblot for the lot of you.
Alas, Harry seems defenseless in the face of those same forces of nature that knocked his great-grand-uncle David practically senseless (though there are those who argue that he hadn’t all that much sense to lose in the first place).
Come again? ‘David’ (Edward Viii) had no trouble attracting women. He couldn’t be bothered to build a domestic life with any of those he did attract. Then he finds just the ticket: barren, currently married, and with a previous husband to boot. There is just no accounting for taste, at least some people’s taste. (Two of his brothers reached into the Scottish peerage for a wife; the third, who was a terrible roue, married a 2d cousin who hadn’t been married before and gave him three children).
Neo,
Yeah … no. Harry’s moves & words now clearly lack credibility.
Harry knew stone-cold in the earlier iterations, that he was not going to hang out any business shingle with any Royal Title carved into it.
He could split his time between Family stuff, and innovative private pursuits, sure … with suitable caveats.
That makes this drama a “set up”. He pretended to be talking about one kind of new arrangement, then asked for terms in the big pow-wow that would never be forthcoming (so ‘they’ could look like the hard-noses) … on which there was never the shadow of a doubt.
So now he’s Out. For Meghan? In antipathy for the Tabloids? His mom died and that was bad, the press was bad … but Diana was scarcely free of taint, or provocation, herself. He knows at least a functional version of the truth about is mom. Plus, his buddies died in Afghanistan etc; Life is not a Cost-Plus contract, and he has better data in hand on reality, than the average citizen. And Meghan’s own family is a heavy contributor to the media-mess.
So what happened to Harry?
1.) Is Meghan really his type? Harry has History with females, and we see strong recurring themes in his choices. Meghan is not a close match.
2.) He has a keen sense of Duty … but relatively weak self-awareness. That’s how he got halfway through a military career, before discovering his incompatibilities.
3.) He is a globalist, of the Progressive persuasion. He was more disturbed by Brexit, Trump and MAGA than eg William. This is a fraught transition for the Royals, and the hazards for their standing are real.
It’s currently worded as a one-year deal. That’s easily interpreted as ‘depending’ on the 2020 Elections. Maybe Meghan wants to get serious in US politics. Her Bio includes remarks about some day maybe being President. Or something … paired up with Obama? And Canadian leadership?
Without it being real clear what the actual game, plan or outcome is? Check, check, check.
Yeah … no. Harry’s moves & words now clearly lack credibility.
What are you talking about?
The understanding is that he and MM re-imburse the Crown Estate for the costs of renovating Frogmore Cottage (seems harsh unless the Cottage was in satisfactory shape for use by other parties before it was renovated), they’ll stop making use of certain titles – HRH Princ(ess) Harry of Wales (seems harsh as their cousins are permitted to use such titles while living a life apart from the f/t royal family), and they’re off the Civil List / Sovereign Grant. They also have to pay rent to the Crown Estate for the use of Frogmore Cottage; such residences used to be had at the ‘grace-and-favour’ of the Queen, but the crypto-republicans in Parliament and in the media made such a stink about it that the Queen’s relatives and retainers now pay rent; not clear if they had the option to eschew Crown Estate properties and rent their personal pied a terre in Britain. They’ll also live in North America much of the time.
So what happened to Harry?
Nothing we know about. Everything which follows this rhetorical question is your imagination.
Oh yeah, there is now a mayor inconsistency in how Harry has spun his conflicting proposals.
At first, in the earlier presentation, he was going to split time between America and England, using his Rank to organize & lead projects here that would include earning money. Which yes is ok, or certainly can be … if the specifics were well-chosen, And Ran Past The Palace, first.
Some of his plan sounded pretty vague, but I figured, ‘Well, he had to have gotten this lined out with the Crown’. But then comes pow-wow day, and it turns out he had nothing of the sort arranged.
Just like when in military uniform, or in the employee of a corporation … getting Ideas is Good … just make sure to run them up the Chain of Command, before putting anybody on the spot. Indeed, the Queen calls the ‘family’ a Corporation.
It’s impossible that Harry did not know his money-making ideas would breach acceptable uses of formal Titles. There can be such uses, and he is qualified to judge. Others indeed are engaged in remunerative activities, with their Colors & CoA discretely on display. The devil is in the details.
My original interpretation was that Harry (with Meghan) is setting himself up to assume an undercover role (related to Commonwealth policy, in which the USA is discretely but importantly involved (see eg Diego Garcia)). Which would give the Crown plausible deniability if the venture sours. Buckingham can then work both sides of the Brexit-MAGA vs Establishment-EU divide … and is set up to be on the winning team, whichever side proves victorious. Plus, Meghan cannot be President, and Duchess
They don’t call it Palace Intrigue for nothing.
My original interpretation
The voices in your head are just that.