Meghan Markle was visiting a primary school and visited one of the class rooms.
They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings.
The teacher asked meghan if she would like to lead the discussion on the word "tragedy".
So the the attention seeking soap star asked the class for an example of a "tragedy".
One little boy stood up and said: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a 'tragedy',
"No" said Meghan, "that would be an accident."
A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying fifty children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"I'm afraid not," explained Meghan "That's what we would call a great loss."
The room went silent, no other children volunteered.
Meghan searched the room.
"Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of tragedy?"
Finally, at the back of the room, little Johnny raised his hand...In a quiet voice he said: "If the aeroplane carrying you and your husband was struck by a "friendly fire" missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy.
"Fantastic!" exclaimed Meghan. "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?"
"Well," said Johnny "It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either!
Best Posts in Thread: Harry & Meghan
You can see already that I am NOT a Royalist - but I consider Harry and Meghan the best of the bunch. They have (some) integrity - I think they made a good decision to cut free from what is a very dysfunctional family. But, like most of the Royals, they preach what they do not do themselves - especially on the subject of climate change and 'saving the planet'. Charles, the future King, is even worse as he preaches to the people about not using energy and then flies around the World (and even short distances within the UK) in private jets - he spent £400,000 on transport on one trip to the Caribbean. People are becoming more aware of the hypocrisy. One thing I very much dislike is how most people see Charles wearing about 12 medals in public engagements and assume he fought bravely at some time - but all his medals were given to him by his mother! To me, that lessens the value of those who earned them by sacrifice.
So, to get to your main point my friend: Harry saw what happened to his mother (he was very young at the time but is well aware now of how she was treated by the Royals) and does not want the same for his wife. I admire him for that. But they will never fully break away from being Royals - it is like a snake which wraps itself around them and will never let go. The UK media mostly follows what the Royal Family want and they have severely attacked Meghan (note: they lessen the attacks on THE one who was born Royal and attack the 'intruder') - comments from the public in the right-wing press supports this and Harry is said to be manipulated by 'Markle' (as if he has no brain). This suits the narrative - a Royal family who have given 'years of service' (i.e. they get carted around the World having free holidays and fabulous lunches, each usually own many homes (all being heated, even when they are not there - so much for conserving energy!) and being looked after by a string of servants (the Queen and her husband were reported to be at Windsor Castle (one of their many massive homes) during lockdown "with a very small skeleton staff of only 23"!)
In my opinion, the Royal family is an anachronism and will eventually disappear - but not in my lifetime. Harry & Meghan made a very sensible decision to get out - the Royals have a history of racism anyway (King Edward 7th was a supporter of Hitler).
One major reason the Royal family continues is because the Monarch controls the armed forces - were anybody to try to overthrow the aristocracy, the Monarch would be able to order the armed forces to respond. So, the aristocracy feels safe whilst their 'leader' can use arms against the people and can also continue to feed the aristocracy with Honours. The 'Establishment' (the dominant group of the Elite) uses the Royals, the government, the Church, the armed forces, the aristocrats, the media (often owned, of course, by the wealthy elite) and all those who can ensure their survival. To even speak against the Royal family is seen almost as treasonous.
That is my opinion and I am happy to hear from anyone who believes the Royals serve a purpose - I have tried very hard but cannot see one.
- Like x 4
Yes I am a brit and agree that the royal family these days is disfunctional and a load of freewheelers taking advantage of their privaleged positions, examples are Prince Andrew, Prince Charles and on and on. However the queen does a great job as good as can be done over the years and in terms of value add, in tourism revenues alone and based on her sterling reputation, pays for herself. However all the hangers on are in it for their own self interest countless example of corrupt practices, tax evasion, surpressed sex scandals and lack of transparency. All of it from a bygone era and no longer acceptable in modern society. It is all somehow linked to the class system which although less nowadays is still a huge factor in british society and blocks so much talent that could otherwise add to the productivity of the country, old boys networks, public schools ect. Probably the main reason I left UK so many years ago. Could go on but whats the point!
- Agree x 2
But we do brilliant Cakey tea. Jam first as we ain’t ashamed of us cream unlike those Devon folk. They hide it beneath the jam. Tis a shame. Kernow bys verreken!
- Like x 1
- Winner x 1
Nothing wrong with what they are doing, I do enjoy a good monkey dance from celebrities. Extra content for me to consume is great...but they can't possibly think that sane humans take them serious or actually give a crap about their lives. They are just the modern day version of a circus freak act.
- Agree x 2
I thought this was a succinct definition by Hamilton Nolan (These Times, 9 march, in the NYT, or a commie, depending on ur point of view <grin>). IMHO, the monarchy is a irrelevant anachronism:
<< The existence of a monarchy is an admission that a government can’t, or doesn’t care to, solve people’s problems. Instead, it offers spectacle. It has always been easier to elevate one family to a fairy-tale life of luxury than to do the dreary work of elevating every single family to a decent standard of living. The common people fund the lifestyle of a tiny, exalted and thoroughly unworthy elite, rather than the other way around. Any nation that still has a monarchy in 2021 is proving itself to have a mortifying lack of revolutionary gumption.
America is guilty of many crimes against humanity, but this is one thing we got right. Our presidents may be national embarrassments, but at least Americans are not required to scrape and bow before some utterly random rich wastrel whose claim to legitimacy is being the child of the child of the child of someone who was, centuries ago, the nation’s biggest gangster. Yes, we have our own hypnotic capitalist addiction to celebrity, but monarchy is something altogether more twisted — as if the Bush family, the Kardashians and the Falwells were all rolled into one bejeweled quasi-religious fame cult, topped off with a bracing dose of imperialism.>>
British media is another story, something you'd find at the beginning of cheap market check out line.
- Like x 2