Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Current Events 2: April-September 2020

[soapstar]

The young Pakistani officer concerned stated that Harry had personally phoned him up and apologised for the remark. He said he did not regard Harry (who was 21 at the time of that incident) as being racist and he regarded the incident as closed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...there-are-no-hard-feelings-after-apology.html

I’m glad Ahmed was able to forgive Harry (I recall his family wasn’t so forgiving), but this wasn’t just about one officer. Harry’s words hurt so many people and I don’t believe he fully grasped that. I have family members (and friends) who are still hurt by his comments and think his apology was inadequate.

I don’t see the problem with Meghan and Harry (or any royal) speaking out about racism. We should all be doing so. My only issue is that Harry has made a few racist comments (he once told a black man that he didn’t “sound black”), so if he really wants to make a difference, then he should come out and acknowledge his past comments and fully apologize. I think that would go a long way and show that he has truly grown and changed.

 

[poppy7]

Even to this day in the summer of 2020, there is a whole group of people that still love to do the "blackface" thing the very natural way. I will bet that some of us here are among them. Its not considered racist. Its not considered odd and it even has its own profitable enterprise to aid and assist these people to achieve the look they're looking for.

I'm talking about the beach. Look at all the people aiming and working to get that perfect deep, dark tan. Wonder how many people had suntan lotion on them as they headed to recent protests, rallies and demonstrations?

Maybe I'm being facetious a bit here but we're all stuck with the amount of melanin our bodies produce and even sometimes go out of our way to produce more so we get darker.

History is filled with peoples of different levels of melanin as a society that conquered and displace other people with different levels of melanin. Melanin defines the shade and color of skin. Attitudes and egos drive the measuring of melanin as a body's worth along with pretending they have the longest nose to look down at people and deem their worth.

Judging Harry on his past behavior concerning diversity, to me, is kind of like looking at me and deeming "you used to wear the shortest, indecent miniskirt! How dare you speak on fashions today?" It doesn't wash as a argument.



This is action. This is putting in perspective what Meghan talks about. No foundation yet or money rolling into the bank account but an initiative done virtually during a pandemic because it needs to be done. ?

It is not at all like a mini skirt. He has repeatedly displayed racial ignorance. At best. It is something you need to own up to if you are going to taken seriously I discussing the unconscious bias. Harry could talk about his own experience.

 

[Eskimo]

Meghan will be part of the Girl Up Leadership Summit next week

https://twitter.com/x/status/1280471628711751681

Oh yipee! We have another meaningless buzzword salad masquerading as activism to look forward too

 

[Osipi]

It is not at all like a mini skirt. He has repeatedly displayed racial ignorance. At best. It is something you need to own up to if you are going to taken seriously I discussing the unconscious bias. Harry could talk about his own experience.

I guess there is an upside to all this. The more Harry gets involved with speaking out on diversity, the more he learns and the more he learns, the more educated he becomes on the issues. Learning by doing hands on. As time passes, he'll be able to more clearly look back at himself and shake his head wondering how he could ever have said that or done that.

Gotta crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run. ?

 

[poppy7]

I guess there is an upside to all this. The more Harry gets involved with speaking out on diversity, the more he learns and the more he learns, the more educated he becomes on the issues. Learning by doing hands on. As time passes, he'll be able to more clearly look back at himself and shake his head wondering how he could ever have said that or done that.

Gotta crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run. ?

Of he did say that. He hasn't he just shouts platitudes.

I respectively disagree. Some people have never uttered the comments he has and that is to do with challenging such language early on in peoples life.

 

[Denville]

Really? I remember it being headline news. It was literally a tracker on CNN and the BBC. The ridiculousness of it all. I’m sure the many articles are still up. The debates about how she “broke protocol” was quite the Morning show chatter.

Headline news? In what papers?

 

[Amelia]

....


And I'm finding all these comments about "a platform based on years of oppression" both ridiculous and offensive. Royalty dates back for many centuries. Are Anglo-Saxon tribal chieftains oppressors now? Or are we talking about the Normans oppressing the Anglo-Saxons? And how is any of this Harry's fault?

Good to know you view the opinions and grievances of those who’s country, culture and people still deal with the horrific ramifications of British colonialism ridiculous. What’s offensive is your straw man argument liking British colonialism to the Norman conquest. Not a single person has blamed Harry, or his grandmother for that matter, for the results of colonialism. However unlike Harry the queen has the self awareness to realise that for many in former colonies her family is the symbol of it. At its very peak the British empire was Victoria’s empire - she was the living embodiment of the great British empire. An empire which murdered, oppressed and stole. Harry’s privileged, his platform arises from being an member of the BRF. He didn’t choose to be an member of this family and both blaming him for it and expecting him to repent for it is absolutely absurd. However for him to be so stupid as to lecture people on systemic racism when he had just recently fought to maintain his own systemic privilege is just unbelievable. For him to lecture former colonies on how to address their histories of the oppression by the British is downright insulting.

 

[Eskimo]

Here is a disclaimer that appeared on the QCT website:

DISCLAIMER The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust (QCT) is an independent organisation. Views expressed on the QCT website do not represent views of the Royal Family or the Royal Household. The QCT website offers a free and open forum where young people can share insights, expertise, advice and inspiration and come together to discuss issues that matter to them. The content and discussions shared by QCT are only intended to reflect the perspectives of those engaging with the platform.

 

[Amelia]

I guess there is an upside to all this. The more Harry gets involved with speaking out on diversity, the more he learns and the more he learns, the more educated he becomes on the issues. Learning by doing hands on. As time passes, he'll be able to more clearly look back at himself and shake his head wondering how he could ever have said that or done that.



Gotta crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run. ?

Ah but you can only learn if you listen and if you’re too busy speaking then you can’t listen. As I’ve said before Harry’s voice is not the one that is needed in these discussions, he needs to allow those who are living this to be seen and heard. He needs to step back and share his platform. He needs to accept that if he is truly interested in this then this is one of those times when he needs to ask others what they need him to do and not use his unearned platform to tell others what he thinks they should be doing.

 

[Osipi]

At its very peak the British empire was Victoria’s empire - she was the living embodiment of the great British empire. An empire which murdered, oppressed and stole.

Ever since that time, there have also been disagreements as to who oppressed, who murdered and who stole what from whom.

Let's take one example of a history of something going way far back into history to present an argument that, to this day, hasn't been resolved. Its one object that could fit in the palm of someone's hand. What is it? The Kohinoor diamond of course that is one of the brightest jewels in the British jewelry box.

Take a peek at the argument. Is it much different than the arguments being presented now when it comes to the oppression of people?

https://www.rediff.com/news/interview/the-kohinoor-was-not-gifted-to-the-british/20160419.htm

 

[Osipi]

Ah but you can only learn if you listen and if you’re too busy speaking then you can’t listen. As I’ve said before Harry’s voice is not the one that is needed in these discussions, he needs to allow those who are living this to be seen and heard. He needs to step back and share his platform. He needs to accept that if he is truly interested in this then this is one of those times when he needs to ask others what they need him to do and not use his unearned platform to tell others what he thinks they should be doing.

Actually this is one of the wisest posts I've read so far. And true. Everything doesn't necessarily have to be "HarryandMeghan" as one entity. In the case of this couple, they *do* come from totally different backgrounds that shaped their views on racism. Meghan lived it. Harry pretty much was sheltered from it because of who he is.

Thanks for your words.

 

[Denville]

Actually this is one of the wisest posts I've read so far. And true. Everything doesn't necessarily have to be "HarryandMeghan" as one entity. In the case of this couple, they *do* come from totally different backgrounds that shaped their views on racism. Meghan lived it. Harry pretty much was sheltered from it because of who he is.

Thanks for your words.

I wonder if Meg is aware of Harry's comments to the soldier...
but IMO he's just parrotting what she says.

 

[Osipi]

I wonder if Meg is aware of Harry's comments to the soldier...
but IMO he's just parrotting what she says.

Most likely that is something we're never going to know.

 

[Mbruno]

Good to know you view the opinions and grievances of those who’s country, culture and people still deal with the horrific ramifications of British colonialism ridiculous. What’s offensive is your straw man argument liking British colonialism to the Norman conquest. Not a single person has blamed Harry, or his grandmother for that matter, for the results of colonialism. However unlike Harry the queen has the self awareness to realise that for many in former colonies her family is the symbol of it. At its very peak the British empire was Victoria’s empire - she was the living embodiment of the great British empire. An empire which murdered, oppressed and stole. Harry’s privileged, his platform arises from being an member of the BRF. He didn’t choose to be an member of this family and both blaming him for it and expecting him to repent for it is absolutely absurd. However for him to be so stupid as to lecture people on systemic racism when he had just recently fought to maintain his own systemic privilege is just unbelievable. For him to lecture former colonies on how to address their histories of the oppression by the British is downright insulting.

Ironically, the Queen seems to be very popular in the African countries and in the Indian subcontinent, probably more so than in the "white Dominions" like Australia and Canada these days. Maybe because her reign coincided precisely with decolonization and the replacement of the Empire with the inclusive Commonwealth.

Ever since that time, there have also been disagreements as to who oppressed, who murdered and who stole what from whom.

As far as the Victorian Empire is concerned, I wouldn't say Queen Victoria was personally responsible for anything (regardless of her personal opinions on matters) because, even at that time, her ministers were already responsible for her official acts, constitutionally speaking that is.


And even the British government, in my opinion, was responsible only for the territories it ruled directly like parts of India after the 1850s. The Australian colonies (which became a federation in 1901), Canada (which became a Dominion in 1867), or the Cape Colony (which joined the Union of South Africa in 1910) were largely autonomous in their domestic policies from the 1850s onwards, and especially towards the late Victorian era and the reign of Edward VII. The ruling colonial elite in those countries is far more to blame for their policy towards native peoples than the British government and, in fact, in that respect, they are not different (maybe even slightly better) than the sovereign government of the United States for example at that time.



Amelia will probably shoot me, but I also disagree with her characterization of Ireland as a "colony". Ireland was a kingdom whose Crown was claimed (in personal union) by the kings of England and, later, Great Britain ( between 1707 and 1801). From 1801 until 1922, Ireland was a constituent part of the United Kingdom with representation in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords (through the elected representative Irish peers) and, in fact, the Irish MPs in particular were a decisive political force in many moments of 19th century British politics. That is very different from colonial status.

 

[Somebody]

Of he did say that. He hasn't he just shouts platitudes.

I respectively disagree. Some people have never uttered the comments he has and that is to do with challenging such language early on in peoples life.

Interestingly enough, Meghan gave him the perfect stepping stone in that encounter (around 5 min into the conversation):

Meghan: "... In that self-reflection it's acknowledging whatever mistakes we've all made, right? (...) But if you start at that macro level you also have to look on more micro level. Each of us, individually. What have we done in our past that we put our hand up. This is a moment of reckoning where so many people go you know what, I need to own that. Maybe I didn't do the right thing there. I knew what I knew however now it's time to reset in a different way and I think both of us, it is part of the conversations we've had quite a bit in our calls over the last couple of weeks surrounding the black lives matter movement for everyone to be a part of this conversation."

Harry: "When it comes to institutional systemic racism, it's there and it stays there because someone somewhere is benefiting from it. (...)"

Not sure why Harry made that leap. Very much a missed opportunity...

 

[Betsypaige]

Dam Wooten called Harry out for his comments, and I couldn’t agree more.

Harry wasn’t a child when he dressed up as a Nazi, he knew exactly what he was doing. Apology be damned; did he ever try to repair that damage by working with Jewish organizations? I am Jewish, and I had moved on from this incident, but it is a stain on his character. As well, Harry is spitting on his heritage.

Link:


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12056...ture-the-queen/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[poppy7]

Amelia will probably shoot me, but I also disagree with her characterization of Ireland as a "colony". Ireland was a kingdom whose Crown was claimed (in personal union) by the kings of England and, later, Great Britain ( between 1707 and 1801). From 1801 until 1922, Ireland was a constituent part of the United Kingdom with representation in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords (through the elected representative Irish peers) and, in fact, the Irish MPs in particular were a decisive political force in many moments of 19th century British politics. That is very different from colonial status.

Well yea, that too. The relationship between Ireland and England is complex and multifaceted. What isn't in doubt however is that many now consider that period of direct rule as an occupation. But its comes and their are many sides to the history of that time. Which is why I refrain from ever commenting on. I will however discuss my own experience of.growing up in a country with a civil war up the road and that from the earliest age ai learnt people are defined by religion. It is a very different place now.

 

[poppy7]

Interestingly enough, Meghan gave him the perfect stepping stone in that encounter (around 5 min into the conversation):

Meghan: "... In that self-reflection it's acknowledging whatever mistakes we've all made, right? (...) But if you start at that macro level you also have to look on more micro level. Each of us, individually. What have we done in our past that we put our hand up. This is a moment of reckoning where so many people go you know what, I need to own that. Maybe I didn't do the right thing there. I knew what I knew however now it's time to reset in a different way and I think both of us, it is part of the conversations we've had quite a bit in our calls over the last couple of weeks surrounding the black lives matter movement for everyone to be a part of this conversation."

Harry: "When it comes to institutional systemic racism, it's there and it stays there because someone somewhere is benefiting from it. (...)"

Not sure why Harry made that leap. Very much a missed opportunity...

Because he wasn't listening. It was prepared. He didnt hear one thing anyone else said. Neither did she probably.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Ironically, the Queen seems to be very popular in the African countries and in the Indian subcontinent, probably more so than in the "white Dominions" like Australia and Canada these days. Maybe because her reign coincided precisely with decolonization and the replacement of the Empire with the inclusive Commonwealth.







As far as the Victorian Empire is concerned, I wouldn't say Queen Victoria was personally responsible for anything (regardless of her personal opinions on matters) because, even at that time, her ministers were already responsible for her official acts, constitutionally speaking that is.


And even the British government, in my opinion, was responsible only for the territories it ruled directly like parts of India after the 1850s. The Australian colonies (which became a federation in 1901), Canada (which became a Dominion in 1867), or the Cape Colony (which joined the Union of South Africa in 1910) were largely autonomous in their domestic policies from the 1850s onwards, and especially towards the late Victorian era and the reign of Edward VII. The ruling colonial elite in those countries is far more to blame for their policy towards native peoples than the British government and, in fact, in that respect, they are not different (maybe even slightly better) than the sovereign government of the United States for example at that time.



Amelia will probably shoot me, but I also disagree with her characterization of Ireland as a "colony". Ireland was a kingdom whose Crown was claimed (in personal union) by the kings of England and, later, Great Britain ( between 1707 and 1801). From 1801 until 1922, Ireland was a constituent part of the United Kingdom with representation in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords (through the elected representative Irish peers) and, in fact, the Irish MPs in particular were a decisive political force in many moments of 19th century British politics. That is very different from colonial status.

Not Amelia, and my knowledge of Ireland history is minor, and a good size of it comes a bit from a couple of documentaries and one wonderful semi fiction book called “The Princes of Ireland” and it’s 2nd part “The Rebels of Ireland” (both of which i’m sure had missing information and some fact distortion)

But to my understanding you are right, Ireland was not a colony. It was conquered land, for centuries! Dating back to the days of The Tudors.


@poppy7
Your description of Ireland and the realities you encountered and grew up in, struck a cord for me as an Israeli.

 

[Durham]

An important issue here is also not just what they are saying or whether they have the right to publicly comment . Members of the royal family have a voice like anyone else. Maybe Princess Margaret held strong opinions on US requests for British involvement in the Vietnam War. The Prince of Wales probably didn’t like the social impact of Mrs Thatcher’s economic policies. The Princess Royal may have wanted to involve herself in feminist discussions over the rights of women prior to the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975.

They have always had a voice. It’s rather whether they should become involved & use it publicly.

What is the utility in having members of the royal family tell us what they think? Is that their purpose?

In our society we have the media, we have pressure groups & popular movements, we have political parties, indeed everything necessary for robust democratic engagement with each other in the public sphere.

But what place within this public domain is there for members of the royal family? Do they really belong there at all? Is their presence appropriate?

The royal family surely exists to be a unifying force. But what if members of the royal family say or do things that don’t unify us. What indeed if their actions or comments do the exact reverse & cause disagreement or division.

What then? What questions does that raise?

 

[Amelia]

......


Amelia will probably shoot me, but I also disagree with her characterization of Ireland as a "colony". Ireland was a kingdom whose Crown was claimed (in personal union) by the kings of England and, later, Great Britain ( between 1707 and 1801). From 1801 until 1922, Ireland was a constituent part of the United Kingdom with representation in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords (through the elected representative Irish peers) and, in fact, the Irish MPs in particular were a decisive political force in many moments of 19th century British politics. That is very different from colonial status.

Colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

The true colonisation of Ireland by the English first began in the 1500s. It saw the seizure of lands from Irish ownership which were transferred to English settlers. It saw the attempted eradication of both Irish language and culture and significant religious persecution. Penal laws and the disenfranchising act originally prevented the Irish from voting. Later, following the removal of these, property requirements often meant that they again had no vote. The representation you speak of in the House of Commons and lords was more often than not Protestant landowners who did not truly consider themselves to be Irish - as Nelson himself supposedly said with regard to having been born Irish “if a gentleman be born in a stable, it does not follow that he should be called a horse”. Any representative in parliament was not focused on protecting the rights of Irish, as the action of the British during 1845-1849 demonstrate, but rather to protect the English settlers. The people of Ireland did not wish to be under English rule. They fought against it consistently for 100s of years. They had their land seized, they were prevented from speaking their own language, engaging in their own culture and practicing their own religion by a foreign power. Ireland was a colony.

 

[Denville]

Colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

The true colonisation of Ireland by the English first began in the 1500s. It saw the seizure of lands from Irish ownership which were transferred to English settlers. It saw the attempted eradication of both Irish language and culture and significant religious persecution. Penal laws and the disenfranchising act originally prevented the Irish from voting. Later, following the removal of these, property requirements often meant that they again had no vote. The representation you speak of in the House of Commons and lords was more often than not Protestant landowners who did not truly consider themselves to be Irish - as Nelson himself supposedly said with regard to having been born Irish “if a gentleman be born in a stable, it does not follow that he should be called a horse”. Any representative in parliament was not focused on protecting the rights of Irish, as the action of the British during 1845-1849 demonstrate, but rather to protect the English settlers. The people of Ireland did not wish to be under English rule. They fought against it consistently for 100s of years. They had their land seized, they were prevented from speaking their own language, engaging in their own culture and practicing their own religion by a foreign power. Ireland was a colony.

It was teh Duke of wellington, an Anglo Irishman, who is reputed to have said that if a man was born in a stable it didn't make him a horse.

 

[poppy7]

Not Amelia, and my knowledge of Ireland history is minor, and a good size of it comes a bit from a couple of documentaries and one wonderful semi fiction book called “The Princes of Ireland” and it’s 2nd part “The Rebels of Ireland” (both of which i’m sure had missing information and some fact distortion)

But to my understanding you are right, Ireland was not a colony. It was conquered land, for centuries! Dating back to the days of The Tudors.


@poppy7
Your description of Ireland and the realities you encountered and grew up in, struck a cord for me as an Israeli.

Well I consider my country's past, and therefore every countries past to be beyond reductionism and am aware of the varying experiences and stories and opinions within it. So all I can do is speak of what I saw, heard and felt. In its truest sense I believe that that is what history is. I resist historic narratives on all sides as there is a reason they exist and it is often little to do with actual events. Which are complex and resist narrative structure.

I once looked at an education study which looked at cross cultural training for teachers in Israel and Palestine. It was inspiring.

 

[poppy7]

It was teh Duke of wellington, an Anglo Irishman, who is reputed to have said that if a man was born in a stable it didn't make him a horse.

Because he didn't want to be considered Irish.

 

[Amelia]

It was teh Duke of wellington, an Anglo Irishman, who is reputed to have said that if a man was born in a stable it didn't make him a horse.

Actually it’s now believe that it was a statement made about the duke of wellington by Daniel O’Connell during a rally. It appears in some court documents from when he was being tried for conspiracy in 1844. Of course in Ireland it’s often attributed to poor Nelson when discussing how they blew up the pillar. Ultimately it’s used to demonstrate that the ruling class in Ireland did not consider themselves to be Irish. Unfortunately as is often the case if it was ever really said by anyone will never be truly known.

 

[poppy7]

Colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

The true colonisation of Ireland by the English first began in the 1500s. It saw the seizure of lands from Irish ownership which were transferred to English settlers. It saw the attempted eradication of both Irish language and culture and significant religious persecution. Penal laws and the disenfranchising act originally prevented the Irish from voting. Later, following the removal of these, property requirements often meant that they again had no vote. The representation you speak of in the House of Commons and lords was more often than not Protestant landowners who did not truly consider themselves to be Irish - as Nelson himself supposedly said with regard to having been born Irish “if a gentleman be born in a stable, it does not follow that he should be called a horse”. Any representative in parliament was not focused on protecting the rights of Irish, as the action of the British during 1845-1849 demonstrate, but rather to protect the English settlers. The people of Ireland did not wish to be under English rule. They fought against it consistently for 100s of years. They had their land seized, they were prevented from speaking their own language, engaging in their own culture and practicing their own religion by a foreign power. Ireland was a colony.

I think there are also numerous narratives in the story of hundreds of years of co existence. Complex, multifaceted and difficult. And that is before you get into the experiences of the diaspora. The Irish being themselves leas than 'white'in America. The days of all Irish being considered terrorists in the UK of the no...no...no Irish. But the necessity to immigrate and the fact these countries gave opportunities to better yourself and make a life. We did not cover ourselves in glory once the British left. It is a vastly difficult history.

 

[Alison H]

What is the utility in having members of the royal family tell us what they think? Is that their purpose?

But what place within this public domain is there for members of the royal family? Do they really belong there at all? Is their presence appropriate?
does that raise?

I think there are many issues on which they can speak out, and on which their speaking out has a very positive effect. I wasn't a huge fan of Diana, but she played a big part in showing people that you couldn't contract HIV just from social contact. William and Kate are doing a great job of raising awareness of mental health issues, and Camilla is doing a great job of raising awareness of domestic violence.

Perhaps slightly more controversial are all the comments which have been made about conservation, because, whilst they're widely supported in many countries, game hunting is still legal in others. Or Prince Charles talking about architecture ... I don't suppose anyone's going to get hugely offended because someone doesn't like their style of building, but he was still being critical of something. But I don't think any of that's really caused controversy.

However there are some areas where I don't think anyone would feel it appropriate for them to speak out, such as advocating one political party's policies over another's. It's a question of where the line's drawn. And most of the others seem to be OK with that. Prince Charles has had the odd moment, but it's very unusual to hear anyone say that a member of the Royal Family has spoken out of turn. There are always unwritten rules. Most kids know how far you can push a teacher before you get into trouble. Most people know how far you can push your boss before it causes a problem. It feels like Harry isn't getting when it might be best not to speak. I'm not saying that he isn't entitled to, just that sometimes it's better not to.

 

[poppy7]

Actually it’s now believe that it was a statement made about the duke of wellington by Daniel O’Connell during a rally. It appears in some court documents from when he was being tried for conspiracy in 1844. Of course in Ireland it’s often attributed to poor Nelson when discussing how they blew up the pillar. Ultimately it’s used to demonstrate that the ruling class in Ireland did not consider themselves to be Irish. Unfortunately as is often the case if it was ever really said by anyone will never be truly known.

Never once heard it attributed to Nelson. But if he did say it Wellington had a point. He spent a large part of his childhood in Belgium.

Nationality itself is a 19th century construct. And the way various European countries created the nation state is fascinating and has left divisions in most countries to this day. From the railroading French who declared have your personal life but you are all French now, to Bismarck and his wars.

Nationality is itself a social construct. Much like race.

I will always remember my history teacher saying
We didnt have it so bad. We could have had the Belgians...which leads me to think we were looking at colonisation in Africa at the time.

But you know yet again, I don't need to hear Harry talking about looking at the past to move forward. Countries have been doing that for ever. And doing it very well. The Aussies never stop apologising.

 

[Durham]

I think there are many issues on which they can speak out, and on which their speaking out has a very positive effect. I wasn't a huge fan of Diana, but she played a big part in showing people that you couldn't contract HIV just from social contact. William and Kate are doing a great job of raising awareness of mental health issues, and Camilla is doing a great job of raising awareness of domestic violence.

Perhaps slightly more controversial are all the comments which have been made about conservation, because, whilst they're widely supported in many countries, game hunting is still legal in others. Or Prince Charles talking about architecture ... I don't suppose anyone's going to get hugely offended because someone doesn't like their style of building, but he was still being critical of something. But I don't think any of that's really caused controversy.

However there are some areas where I don't think anyone would feel it appropriate for them to speak out, such as advocating one political party's policies over another's. It's a question of where the line's drawn. And most of the others seem to be OK with that. Prince Charles has had the odd moment, but it's very unusual to hear anyone say that a member of the Royal Family has spoken out of turn. There are always unwritten rules. Most kids know how far you can push a teacher before you get into trouble. Most people know how far you can push your boss before it causes a problem. It feels like Harry isn't getting when it might be best not to speak. I'm not saying that he isn't entitled to, just that sometimes it's better not to.

There is no doubt that the family can be a force for good in the sense that they can bring publicity to certain issues. But as you imply the parameters for this are relatively narrow.

There is a difference I feel between this & them telling us their political & social philosophy however.

As an aside, Charles' involvement in architecture is not universally welcome & has had impacts in the real world - the extension to the National Gallery was not built as originally planned. This despite having gone through the required process. It was derailed in effect at the whim of the prince.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I’ve been watching twitter exchanges today between journalist Andrew Neil and numerous members of the public where he raised a good point repeatedly.

The message from Henry and Meghan was one of forgiveness, but what does the commonwealth specifically have to ask forgiveness for?

The Commonwealth is not the British Empire which is an institution that has a lot to apologise for, it’s been highlighted many times in this thread.

The Commonwealth is a completely voluntary organisation, which was formed from both the remnants of the British Empire and non-colonial countries as well. Countries have requested to be part of this organisation. A lot of British colonialism is being projected onto The Commonwealth perhaps because of its links to the BRF, when actually I don’t think they have anything to ask forgiveness for.

Could they encourage conversations about topics that aren’t widely discussed? Absolutely. I think they are doing so and will continue to.