First off, I’m an American, though I have lived in England for a few years. I have just finished watching the series "Harry and Meghan" and it strikes me that the Royal Family seems to operate like a cult.

For example:

1 - Strong Hierarchical leadership structure with a clear understanding with who’s on top.

2 - Control - All 4 types of control used in Steven Hassan’s BITE model are present. The royal members still in the system are expected to act, dress, behave in a particular manner or face the consequences.

2a - Information control. There seems to be a lot of lies flying about trying to take other members down a peg or two.

3 - System over Family or Self. When faced with a choice of not embarrassing the system, members of the Royal Family are thrown under the bus. The cult comes first.

4 - Nothing says “It's a cult!” like a good shunning. That seems to be the norm for family members who fall out of line or who outshine others.


While watching the series I got the strong feeling that Harry is learning what it is like to leave a family in a cult. He talks about his awakening and living outside the bubble a few times.

I can relate to Harry’s journey because I also found true love from a smart woman and that gave me the strength to really question my mormon beliefs and eventually exit the system.

Am I off-base here? If so please let me know. Perhaps someone can explain to me how a system that controls its members and shuns them when they leave isn’t a cult unless there is a religious element to it.

It's an interesting question and your perspective is insightful.

I offer an alternative: your description of the royal family resembles a tightly controlled corporation. The difference between a business and a cult is not personal belief but rather public behavior.

1) Clear hierarchy: check for both models.

2) BITE control: I don't think this fits the cult model. The royal family does not attempt to control the individual's beliefs, just the individual's commitment to the institution. S/he is free to believe or say anything s/he wants in private. What is controlled is public behavior, which applies to many publicly and politically sensitive organizations.

3) System over self: check for both models.

4) Shunning: check for both models. In the corporate world the fired employee is often escorted out of the office by security, violations of NDAs are enforced in court, and reputations are often ruined. So I think the royal family is more of a corporation than a cult.

In short, the one defining difference between a tightly organized firm and a cult is whether the control is over or just behavior. The royal family does not punish private speech and feeling any more than other families do.

But your analogy is good in multiple ways, particularly when you mix family with the corporate form. There is no question that corporate behavior is incompatible with the needs of the individual and that the effects of quarrels gone public resemble what happens when people leave cults. In short, families become dysfunctional when they function like businesses.

Also, your description clearly fits the way the church operates if not centrally then locally: a business at the top, a cult at the bottom. Neither is good for families and children.

I don't think that Harry and Meghan are being shunned. The Queen allowed them to leave and begin a new life abroad, and Charles gave them the financial means to do so. The problem is that they are making their grievances (real or imagined) public, and thereby bringing harm to the family. Personally, I tend to think that the royal family probably had their own complaints about them as well. We are hearing Harry and Meghan's side of things, but I tend to think it's far from the whole truth of the situation.

The sad thing is that Harry seemed to be doing so well prior to meeting Meghan. After a wild youth, he seemed to be settling down. I like to think that he gained respect for his military service, and for his work with disabled veterans. I think the veterans trusted him, because he walked the walk. He was leading a useful and productive life.

For whatever reason, they couldn't make it work as a royal couple, and were given the opportunity for a graceful and prosperous exit. But evidently that was not enough for them. Their litany of complaints is not a good look, IMO.

I could compare them to Queen Elizabeth's youngest son, Edward, and his wife, Sophie. I've read that the both of them would love to have continued with their former careers, but as working royals, that's just not possible. Sophie became a key person that the Queen relied upon greatly for royal appearances and errands. I know that she represented the Queen, and by extension Great Britain, on at least one trip abroad, and probably a whole lot more than that. Both Edward and Sophie have done the necessary without whining in the slightest. Sophie was a commoner as well, and was able to make the adjustment to royal life.

Something stinks about the Harry/Meghan situation, and IMO it's not the other main players in the royal family.

As for the usefulness of the royal family, I will leave that to the people of Great Britain. But I do feel that the royals represent tradition and stability. I loved that the Princess Elizabeth gave a radio address to the children of Great Britain and the Commonwealth during the bombing of London. She stepped up at a young age to comfort other children who were frightened and suffering. She served in the military during the war as an example to others, that women could step up and help. As long as the royals exhibit and represent care and compassion for their fellow countrymen, they will have a role to play.

https://www.royal.uk/wartime-broadcast-1940

> I tend to think that the royal family
> probably had their own complaints about them as
> well. We are hearing Harry and Meghan's side of
> things, but I tend to think it's far from the
> whole truth of the situation.

Both sides can be correct in a situation like this.


--------------------
> As for the usefulness of the royal family, I will
> leave that to the people of Great Britain. But I
> do feel that the royals represent tradition and
> stability. I loved that the Princess Elizabeth
> gave a radio address to the children of Great
> Britain and the Commonwealth during the bombing of
> London. She stepped up at a young age to comfort
> other children who were frightened and suffering.
> She served in the military during the war as an
> example to others, that women could step up and
> help. As long as the royals exhibit and represent
> care and compassion for their fellow countrymen,
> they will have a role to play.

QE2 may prove to have been a unique and irreplaceable character. The institution is profoundly unsuitable for most modern characters, particularly given the ubiquity of today's media. It is easy to see the problems that creates for people who are "normal" or "aspiring to normality."

Charlies didn't fit the mold throughout his youth and into early middle age. Harry has faced all sorts of personal challenges from the loss of his mother to the mix of privilege and privation that defines royalty for the "spare." Diana was a terrible choice for her role, Meghan at least as bad. At some point the question ceases to be whether an individual can play the role but whether the role is compatible with the needs of people and families.

The other side of the coin is whether the people of the UK and the commonwealth want the monarchy, and that depends in part on the character and performances of the royal family. If it's impossible to reprise QE2's performance, the public "need" may diminish. Note, in that regard, that the Harry and Meghan fiasco is reifying historical and national misgivings across the commonwealth.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/the-harry-and-meghan-saga-is-stoking-the-fires-of-australian-republicanism/ar-AA15nI0d

A lot of the loyalty was less to the monarchy than to the monarch.

I think that Diana was great for the role, just not the woman that Charles wanted for his spouse. Meghan was a poor choice, but Harry just couldn't see it.

As for Charles, I really do think he will be fine. A lot of things that he championed early on (i.e. environmentalism and organic farming) have since come into fashion. And William and Kate seem made for the role.

Diana was great for "a" role, just not "the" role.

She had borderline personality disorder, an unstable sense of self, eating disorders, an inability to keep dirty laundry private, and a compulsion for publicity. She was a high-brow Amy Winehouse, always in the news although often for making her husband and her mother-in-law look bad.

Nothing exemplifies the problem better than what happened when she passed away. People went to her burial site in numbers so copious that the royal family and her family agreed to open her resting place to the public every year. Yet when Year Two came, there were no crowds. English Rose's following had died like a candle in the wind.

That's precisely the opposite of what a royal hopes to achieve. Whereas Diana's legacy was little more than an indictment of the monarchy, QE2 will be remembered for her dignity and commitment, her performance over many decades. So too Prince Philip, who played the First Spouse nearly flawlessly by staying in the background, and the very disciplined Kate. First and foremost, these people were and are discrete.

But that degree of discretion was impossible for Diana, as it is for Meghan, as it would be for virtually all humans. Were/are the two women bad people? Probably not, probably no more so than Charles or Harry or maybe even William. But being a good person is not the right standard for the job.

William will become king and the British family and their estates will continue to be the major tourist draw in the uk. what would London be without the changing of the guard.

and that was almost four hundred years ago.

The British have had several opportunities to dispense with monarchy over the last thousand years, but they keep it going.

It reminds me of the Nepalese tradition of selecting a young girl to be venerated as a living goddess who serves until she reaches the age of menarche and then her replacement is selected.

https://heavenhimalaya.com/goddess-kumari/

Nepalese worships a normal young girl as Kumari, the only living deity (goddess) in the world, turning her into a Goddess of Power with tantrism and different rituals.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/28/410074105/the-very-strange-life-of-nepals-child-goddess

Largely unknown to the outside world, Nepal's centuries-old institution of the child deity, the Kumari Devi, is deeply embedded in the culture of Kathmandu Valley. Young, beautiful and decorous, even a glimpse of her is believed to bring good fortune.

The current Kumari of Kathmandu, age 9, is the best known of several girls who are worshipped in Nepal, and is revered by many though she lives an isolated and secretive existence inside the house and is rarely seen.

At her home, caretaker Gautam Shakya says the building's square shape stabilized it in the recent tremors. Yet nothing so mundane was involved, insists Udhav Man Karmacharya, one of the main priests attending the Kumari.

"It's the power of the goddess; it's about faith," the priest declares. "It's been the home of Kumaris for ages and we believe the force of that goddess made the house safe."

Kumaris are drawn from the Newar community, the original inhabitants of the Kathmandu Valley for whom planets, karma and an array of gods play a vital role in day-to-day life. Gautam Shakya, in the eleventh generation of Kumari caretakers, says they are Buddhists who adopted the Hindu caste system and embody harmony.

"One doesn't discriminate against the other. We Newars are Buddhist. The Kumari is from a Buddhist family — but she is a Hindu goddess," he says.

There's at least one major drawback to being a Kumari. You must relinquish the position when you reach puberty and return to the ranks of mere mortals



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2022 08:18AM by anybody.

Just think, the UK could give up the continuity of its system of monarchy that has stood it in stead for a millennia and become just like all the perfect Republics out there.

That sentence exemplifies the problem. The monarchy has not in fact stood the UK in good stead for millennia for the simple reason that the UK has only existed for 301 years.

Even England has only existed as a unified country for a little over one millennium. In much of that period the monarchy played a very positive role--in some eras a very positive role not just for England/Britain/UK but for the Western world in general--but the nature of that institution evolved every bit as much as the polity itself--from a true monarchy to today's symbolic entity with very limited political power. In short, it changed as required by the nature of the state and the people.

As I've said before, I am agnostic about what form of organization is appropriate to the UK. But whether the institution should survive is different from whether it will survive. Today's challenges are different in nature and magnitude than ever before and pose an historically unprecedented challenge.

Perhaps I should have prefaced for the larger part of the union with only the eleven years of Cromwell as the exception; and they were quick to return to the monarchy shortly after his death. Whether Scotland remains in the union is open to debate but I do not believe the foreseeable future will see an end to the monarchy. How exactly do you see its demise contributing to a richer, healthier, stronger Britain.

> Perhaps I should have prefaced for the larger part
> of the union with only the eleven years of
> Cromwell as the exception; and they were quick to
> return to the monarchy shortly after his death.

Yes, that is a more accurate statement. But even then the monarchy evolved beyond recognition over those many centuries, from a feudal kingdom in which the monarch's power was highly dependent on semi-autonomous regional powers to the definitive constitutional monarchy with greater and more centralized power, followed by an imperial monarchy, and finally to a symbolic monarchy albeit one in which symbolism was and remains very important.

At some point generalizations become misleading. Treating the monarchy as if it has been constant substantively as well as nominally obscures as much as it illuminates. Kings and queens from as recently as the late 19th century would be shocked to see what the institution has become today.


---------------
> Whether Scotland remains in the union is open to
> debate but I do not believe the foreseeable future
> will see an end to the monarchy.

I was careful not to argue that the monarchy would end soon. What I indicated was that some *commonwealth* countries *may* decide to become republics, causing the monarch's overseas realm to shrink. I implied nothing about Scotland, at least in the short term.


----------------
> How exactly do
> you see its demise contributing to a richer,
> healthier, stronger Britain.

As I wrote, I have no opinion on that issue. It is easier for me, as an outsider, to perceive increasing threats to another country's institutions than to understand whether a particular outcome is preferable in its domestic context.

You know this, of course, but like religiosity in the UK (and for that matter the US) support for the monarchy is highly age-dependent.

The trend augurs ill for the future of the institution, particularly if embarrassments like the Harry-Meghan fiasco continue to occur.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/

read up on the British royals. generations of embarrassments there.

Uh, yeah, I am familiar with the royal family's history of scandals.

But as I said, the frequency and the public exposure has increased considerably since the days of Edward VIII. The gulf between personal expectations and the demands of the monarchy has widened dramatically even as the ability of the media to ferret things out has strengthened.

That's why the threat to the institution is arguably greater now than in the past.

the British Royal family are a monarchy in the traditional fashion but their power is more limited because they share their power with a parliament and operate regulated by a constitution.

I think it is a family business. If you want to work for the company there are requirements. Yes, you are expected to dress and behave in ways that are considered by the company to be appropriate. For instance, if you are going to a branch to look at a production problem or deal with a building issue you don't go in shorts and flipflops or a skirt slit up to your crotch. You don't go drunk or dance on the desks. This varies depending on the company. There is a big difference between a business built around an entertainer and a company that makes toothpaste. If you don't want to comply, you don't work for the business. You are still part of the family. Getting money from the company is a different story, you are not earning any. Limiting the number of family members working for the company and being paid makes sense depending on the current needs.

Harry and Megan didn't want to do the work or only the work that they wanted to do. That is not the way it works. Do you think it is some big thrill for Princess Anne to do her 10000000th hospital tour? The Oxford Farming Conference and Motor Neurone Disease Association panel discussion are sure to blow her skirt up right? You do what the company needs you to do. Harry and Megan opted out and now they don't want to live with the choice they made. They want all of the perks and "star status" while they do nothing to contribute. They want a lavish lifestyle because they want it. They blew right through the 6 million Charles gave them. With limited skills the easy way for them to get money is to dish crap so they do. Even if it is not true or skewed.

One instance that is not subjective - Nottingham Cottage 1324sq ft. FREE

Waaa waaaa, it's so small. I don't know who lived there before but they must have been short.

Harry lived there for four years before he met her and did quite fine. He took it over from his BROTHER who lived there for years till their first baby was born. William is 2" taller. Various other family members lived there over the years and Harry damn well knew it. The issue was that Megan wanted to live in Kensington Palace. A free cottage with a private garden wasn't good enough for her. OMG the persecution! It MUST have been because she is of mixed race. When she got pregnant Queen Elizabeth let them have Frogmore Cottage and she whined about that too.

She had an idea in her head about what her life should be like and when that didn't happen she struck out at those around her. She still is. There is a reason they don't have long term employees and few of their old friends around. A big chunk of that is on Harry. William warned him when they started getting serious. They didn't know each other well enough and she didn't understand the position she would be put into. William and Kate took YEARS to make the decision. The demands on them are even heavier. Much heavier on them and their children. They are even more scrutinized and talked about in the press. Hell, now everyone is talking about her $35 sneakers.

Harry and Megan need to grow up, stop making excuses, stop thinking they are entitled to anything they want, get jobs and STOP THE WHINING. Life isn't all tiaras and red carpets and she is not "the new Beyoncé" (who makes her own money).

Bravo! I totally agree, Susan.

Ever since I heard Meghan say that she didn’t know who Prince Harry was and had never Googled him, I got the sense that she isn’t entirely honest about most things. Add that to the fact that her half brother tried to warn Harry about her, and she’s estranged from so many family members… well, she kind of reminds me of my husband’s ex wife.

I just hope that if and when she and Harry break up, she doesn’t alienate the children from him.

It is difficult to foresee Harry and Meghan together in 30 years, isn't it? He may have rejected the monarchy but he is still very, very British whereas the only way to hold the marriage together appears to be for him to become her particular version of Hollywood American.

The old role didn't suit him but the new one may ultimately be a bad fit too.

I don't see them going the distance, either. For one thing, I think he will get bored. Once his children are in school, how will he spend his time? He has no particular skill set apart from his military service. He could continue to do charitable works, but that won't pay him a salary.

I don't see him as a S. California gadfly movie star club type.
I think he will eventually come to miss the life he came from. I hope he hasn't peed in his cereal so much that he can't go back if that ever happens.

I have been following this train wreck of a relationship for a long time. Susan expressed so well what most of the Brits and Commonwealth think of these two. This will not end well.

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^

I agree with this post. Having found my true love 18 years ago and we are still going strong. Everybody said we wouldn't last a year and here we still are.

I get the strong impression that Meghan and Harry are truly in love.

To all of the posters who say otherwise, I think you probably didn't watch the documentary...?


Also, The Royal family DOES tell you what to believe. "Church of England or Nothing". Certainly no Royal will convert to Islam or anything else.

Before you post to this blog PLEASE watch all of the parts to this documentary. Thank you.

Praydude, three points.

Being in love and being able to stay in a relationship for decades are not the same thing. Harry and Meghan may well be deeply and truly in love, but they may be so different in character that the relationship breaks down despite that love.

Second, separating from Meghan and going back to the royal family are not the same thing. I don't think Harry could, or would want to, go back to his role as Spare. But that does not mean his marriage to Meghan will endure till death.

Third, you are again assuming religious participation and actual belief are the same thing. They are not. I bet at least 1/3 of the royal family are closet agnostics or atheists just like the senior Catholics, senior Protestant leaders in Scandanavia, and the Q15. In all cases the doubters play the religious role for reasons that are not entirely, or even primarily, religious.

Look at how they live their lives. Did Prince Charles live the CoE way when he cheated on, and planted rumors against Diana? Did Diana? How about Prince Andrew when he was bedding Epstein's teenage masseuses? Did Queen Elizabeth punish anyone for their sins against God or only for their public scandals? Have you ever heard a royal testify yo the CoE are attempt to proselytize for it? There's very little evidence any of them are true believers.

The royals are expected to play their assigned religious roles, not to believe the stuff.

instead of "Protector Of The Faith."

I agree with you as well, Susan. Meghan always struck me as being spoiled. Harry appeared to be on the right track prior to his marriage, but she shoved him right off of it, IMO.

Susan I/S, I hope you know Meghan just crossed you off her Xmas card list.

Susan, a great summary.

One additional issue that Meghan did not understand relates to UK employment law. The Royal family is an employer that has to conduct employer/employee relations according to UK laws, which define the rights and responsibilities for both parties. Failure to do so...costs and consequences.

There is much discussion about the Royal household not releasing details of their investigation into complaints. It is essentially a grievance procedure and no employee/employer would release that for public scrutiny, regardless of any NDAs in this particular instance. They are not covering up, they are acting within the law, and protecting all parties, including M&H.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2022 06:39PM by taratoo.

Best I've heard it put, Susan. Bravo.

I think the monarchy has evolved mostly into a living, dynamic, modern art performance intended to inspire and unify people through tradition and pageantry. The quality of the performance depends on the abilities of the lead performer, Charles at the moment, and if he can't keep things on point, people may decide to stop going to the show. The ongoing drama offers the King the chance to keep things interesting. There is every opportunity for him to mix tradition into this contemporary culture of Kardashianesque capitalization of drama for drama's sake but he needs to figure out how to stay on top as the protagonist. Maybe he needs his own Netflix series.

I agree with Humberto's assessment.

Another good analogy is the pushback against the recent NFL/BLM kneeling player controversy.

I remember several fans complaining that "they weren't paying for a political protest, but a show" and the players were "there to 'perform'."

There are also vested interests who want to keep the show going, it's not going to end anytime soon.

Within the institution, most people nowadays just aren't aware of the protocol and pecking order -- who gets to wear what colours, who goes first, etc., going back to the Middle Ages.

There's an old story about a king from one of Germany's African colonies being seated next to the Kaiser at a state dinner and complaints from lesser nobility being seated below a black man. According to legend, the Kaiser replied, "He may be a black n****r, but he is still a King and you are only a Count."

I think you need to study up on what a cult really is. I've done a lot of study about this as I am writing an article on it.The Royals are not a cult. But Meghan has all the characteristics of a cult leader. Or rather, of someone employing mind control. Meghan has isolated her victim (Harry) from family and friends. Given him a new name (H) played on his fears (of being irrelevant/the Spare. Of not rescuing his mom)and promised to be the solution to them. She is, arguably, a charismatic leader (of him.) She love bombed him - look how fast they got married. She gave him a transcendent cause (protect me from the evil media,royals, racists etc) and she's willing to lie (multiple proven lies) to achieve her agenda. Mind controllers like Meghan are obsessed with making money (as we've seen) and try to control information. She is constantly trying to control what the media says about her and responds vindictively when she receives negative press. Also, that ridiculous Netflix show was pure, Momon-style propaganda- nauseating music, one sided, claims w no proof.

None of this applies to the British Royal family.

I'm going to reply quickly to your and Humberto's insights.

First, could it be that Meghan is just an insecure woman who suffers from inadequate attachment and hence is insecure and manipulative? Such people can become charismatic leaders, to be sure, but the basic borderline/codependent dynamic may be a simpler explanation for what's going on in that relationship.

Now for Humberto: how long will the Kardashian family be in the spotlight? A generation, maybe less? And is their sort of fame helpful for a monarchy? Are they respected or just entertaining in a porn flick/train wreck sort of way?

Meghan, and Diana before her, pushed the monarchy toward a more "pop" celebrity status but that wasn't helpful for an institution that is supposed to embody the prestige of an ancient nation and state for many decades if not centuries to come. What Charles and William must do is to pull the royal family back from the tabloids and re-establish a sense of dignity and decorum of the sort Elizabeth unfailingly exhibited.

I submit that the sort of candle-in-the-wind notoriety of Diana and Meghan is the last thing the monarchy needs. The Netflix drama to which we are all constantly subjected shortens rather than lengthens the duration of the kingdom.

CAgirl, that's an interesting take. I know of a demi-celebrity who shares some of the same characteristics as Meghan, who is in a whole lot of legal trouble right now because she is money-hungry and refuses to see herself as being in any way at fault.

Lottie, I have come to agree with you. Kate (the current Princess of Wales,) is perfect for her role. She's attractive without being too charismatic. Diana, Meghan, and Fergie were all a bit too much pop culture.

> Lottie, I have come to agree with you. Kate (the
> current Princess of Wales,) is perfect for her
> role. She's attractive without being too
> charismatic. Diana, Meghan, and Fergie were all a
> bit too much pop culture.

On several occasions I've annoyed Kentish by wondering whether the monarchy may not last much longer. I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me that a few things have changed over the last century--a statement that sort of makes the point because everything changes over such a long period--and that make "being royal" a lot more difficult.

One, the individual royals want more personal freedom than their ancestors were allowed. The life for which Kate (and Camilla) are obviously so well suited is not an easy one, and more of those born into the role seem to be unhappy. Surely the appalling Andrew belongs in that category, but Charles himself kicked against the traces in his 20s and 30s and Harry is doing that even more now. Modern people are understandably somewhat less willing to play the role into which they were born.

Two, the social barriers between royals and non-royals have eroded. Wallis Simpson--a twice divorced American--was part of the reason King Edward (there was also that Nazi thing) was forced to abdicate in the middle 1930s, but now marrying mere nobility, commoners, or other people who aren't reared in the traditional strait jackets has become more acceptable. Fergie, whom you bring up, is an excellent example; so too is Meghan. I would add Diana to that category because while she had a good pedigree her personality was not suited to the job. The problem is that as the monarchy opens the doors to outsiders, it becomes harder to keep everyone inside.

Three, all of this is exacerbated by the increasingly intrusive media. There was a time when the royals were treated with such discretion that all sorts of misbehavior was overlooked. Now, however, the restraint is gone and the press profits greatly from uncovering and exacerbating royal scandals, a profit that Meghan in particular is determined to share.

The problem for the monarchy is that none of these trends is going to reverse. The members of the royal family have every human right to the pursuit of happiness and should be free to marry whomever they please. We aren't going back to the Georgian or even the Victorian period. Meanwhile the media is not going to stop feeding the parasitic royal watchers and the ravenous public anytime soon. The question therefore becomes whether the monarchy can survive without its ancient dignity. . .

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... the social barriers between royals and
> non-royals have eroded. Wallis Simpson--a twice
> divorced American--was part of the reason King
> Edward (there was also that Nazi thing) was forced
> to abdicate in the middle 1930s, but now marrying
> mere nobility, commoners, or other people who
> aren't reared in the traditional strait jackets
> has become more acceptable.

Two major personal areas "the establishment" involves itself in for those born "royal": Divorce & Virginity

From Town&Country (Nov/22)

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a29309328/prince-charles-camilla-parker-bowles-did-not-marry-reasons/

“Even if Charles had wanted to settle down, he would have encountered those with serious doubts about whether Camilla was an appropriate bride for the heir to the throne. As Charles's relative Patricia Mountbatten told Bedell Smith, there were "obvious problems" with the idea of Camilla marrying the future King."

“Though it seems almost comically old fashioned now, the fact that Camilla had a dating history was a major strike against her." (Translation: She was not a virgin).

"The conventions of the time called for the heir to the British throne to marry a woman who at least appeared to be virginal," writes Bedell Smith."

"You didn't want a past that hung about," Mountbatten said.”


Camilla married Andrew Parker Bowles in 1973. They had two children. They divorced in 1995.

Charles married Diana in 1981. They had two children. They divorced in 1996.


The article states: “A change in the Church of England's rules about remarriage after divorce, which took effect in 2002, made it possible for Charles to marry Camilla.”

Charles and Camilla “… married in a civil ceremony at the Guildhall in Windsor, and then had their marriage blessed by the Church in St. George's Chapel. While the Queen approved of the marriage, she was not present at her son's wedding ceremony. But she did attend the church blessing and reception.”


Due to being the head of the Church of England the Queen skipped the civil ceremony but reportedly she did approve of the marriage.

Yes, there are a lot of rules. Not a lot of room for the major royals to choose their own destiny or live their lives the way they would perhaps rather choose. For some it can be a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't - i.e. they can't do anything that pleases everybody.

Born royal may sound appealing but what price personal autonomy?

Because public funds go towards upkeep of the monarchy (members, buildings, activities, etc) a feeling of ownership develops, as in the people own the members of the monarchy and many feel they have the right to make certain demands.

I can understand Harry's frustration with being the "spare" as he has strict rules to follow (if he wants to stay in his role which, of course, he chose not to) and if he doesn't he faces a lot of blowback from family and the public (as has occurred).

I have some sympathy for him in that regard as he had little personal choice within the confines of the family. Some of his choices seem to have backed him into a bit of a corner, no doubt.

While we're talking about him, in a bit of a tangent I'll mention too that I had great sympathy for him about his mum. What a horrific shock her sudden death was, especially as he was so young. I can see how continued press intrusion could make him totally freak, as has occasionally happened. It could well be a recurring nightmare, with flashbacks, for him. That I do not find difficult to understand at all.

Too, it must be disheartening to be the centre of so much intrusion and speculation and the subject of so much criticism. I'm sure he often feels that the adage "damned if you do, damned if you don't" was made for him. I hope he can find peace.


> The question therefore becomes whether the
> monarchy can survive without its ancient dignity.

Yes. Certainly an issue to be seriously considered.

Maybe it's true you can't let them see behind the curtain.

Same as with Mormonism, to swing wildly back onto topic for a moment. I've mentioned here before how my "convert" friend and I would whisper in SM while the sacrament was being passed: "The Emperor has no clothes" and laugh as we said it.

Yet really it wasn't funny at all...

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . .to swing wildly back onto
> topic for a moment. . .

I had no idea you were a wild swinger, Nightingale!

If you all only knew.

Good thing we're anon here. :P

We should be talking about Prince Andrew does, not Prince Harry. The whole affair reeks of manufactured news. It's probably keeping other things off the headlines.

We should also discuss the current king's friendship with Jimmy Savile. Charles even used to go and stay and Savile's cottage in Glencoe, Scotland.

Spotify cuts Harry and Meghan loose after 12 podcasts...and $20M.

$1.67M per episode. Nice work if you can get it.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/spotify-parts-ways-harry-meghan-after-paying-them/

And Harry made millions off of his book. Their Netflix deal is still active. They won't be short of funds anytime soon.

Perhaps, but they will likely still fall off the radar with a good $40-50 million dollars or more. If they can't live off investments from that fund, I'd be happy to go over their budget with them.

Their strongest supporters on here mostly happen to live in a republic. ;D

"The less money Harry and Meghan make, the more dangerous they may be to the monarchy."

I'm not sure about that.

If they had to work real jobs, they'd have neither the time nor the energy to launch their periodic Worldwide Privacy Tours.

Coming soon to a city near you: HazMeg's Worldwide Humility Tour.

What is the USA cult that is similar to that of the UK Royal Family?

In a perverse way, one might advance the Jenners and Kardashians as possibles.