I don’t have any figures or details but I’ve heard the concept of the royal family is way more popular in america than england and that the royal’s biggest draw is tourism and tabloids.
I do wonder if Meagan had american ideas of being royal, not realizing the royal family and tabloids were so interlinked.
I saw a news item about the two - they're expecting another kid. This was breaking news the Seattle Times saw fit to email me. I did click on the link, but there were no pictures, and I was disappointed.
It looks like it's going to be an interview with Meghan, with Harry showing up later.
"Winfrey will first speak with Meghan “in a wide-ranging interview, covering everything from stepping into life as a Royal, marriage, motherhood, philanthropic work to how she is handling life under intense public pressure,” according to a CBS release shared with HuffPost earlier this week.
The duke will join later in the special to discuss the couple’s “move to the United States and their future hopes and dreams for their expanding family.”
I agree, he's not going to say anything that could come back to bite him.
I think they are both kind of naive, in that they think that they can have it both ways, half in and half out of the royal family. Seems to me it's all or nothing.
I just started watching The Crown - I'm late to the party - marrying into that crowd isn't for the faint of heart. (I wonder if I'm ever going to see Jared Harris in a role where he doesn't die.)
I agree monarchy is an absurd way of selecting a head of state.
But electing a president, which seems a much better system, unfortunately results in some spectacularly crappy heads of state too.
We need a better system of choosing a head of state. Maybe a simple lottery would work, but I'm open to other suggestions.
I like the idea of separation of heads of state and heads of government, which we do not have. Monarchy isn't inherently bad, except for maybe hereditary monarchy which seems more calcifying than stabilizing. I like the idea of an upper house electing a ceremonial head of state or something. Like in Italy where they elect some elderly person who is too old for career to be President. Maybe Italy is not the best example.
Also it occurs to me that I can't actually tell if monarchy is patently absurd or just the British monarchy, because the British one is the only one that US media routinely pays any attention to. Maybe there are others that are less clownish. Even there, maybe they are clownish mostly because of the choice to treat them as celebrities rather than salaried functionaries.
Monarchy is inherently bad, they're like landlords on steroids.
"The Crown Estate is one of the largest property managers in the United Kingdom, administering property worth £14.1 billion,[12] with urban properties valued at £9.1 billion[13] representing the majority of the estate by value. These include many properties in central London, but the estate also controls 792,000 ha (1,960,000 acres) of agricultural land and forest and more than half of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other traditional holdings and rights, including Ascot Racecourse and Windsor Great Park.[14] (Occupied royal palaces, such as Windsor Castle, are not part of the Crown Estate.[15]) Naturally occurring gold and silver in the UK, collectively known as "Mines Royal", are managed by the Crown Estate and leased to mining operators." Crown Estate - Wikipedia
__________________
Ishmaeline of Domesticity drinker of smurf tears
Last edited by Qingdai; 02-20-2021 at 06:31 AM.
Reason: source
I agree monarchy is an absurd way of selecting a head of state.
But electing a president, which seems a much better system, unfortunately results in some spectacularly crappy heads of state too.
We need a better system of choosing a head of state. Maybe a simple lottery would work, but I'm open to other suggestions.
I like the idea of separation of heads of state and heads of government, which we do not have. Monarchy isn't inherently bad, except for maybe hereditary monarchy which seems more calcifying than stabilizing. I like the idea of an upper house electing a ceremonial head of state or something. Like in Italy where they elect some elderly person who is too old for career to be President. Maybe Italy is not the best example.
Also it occurs to me that I can't actually tell if monarchy is patently absurd or just the British monarchy, because the British one is the only one that US media routinely pays any attention to. Maybe there are others that are less clownish. Even there, maybe they are clownish mostly because of the choice to treat them as celebrities rather than salaried functionaries.
Re: Harry & Meghan
..
Linear Mode
