Harry and Meghan

[psi310398]

Lord Marylebone said:

For starters, that just isn’t true:

“ There are no obligatory codes of behaviour when meeting The Queen or a member of the Royal Family”

From the Royal families own website.

You are under no obligation, legal or implied, to behave differently towards the Queen or anyone under her.

I meant it metaphorically rather than literally.

The principle being the requirement to accept/defer/be 'loyal' to the unelected head of state of which I am citizen simply because he/she is someone's son/daughter?

[hutchst]

Lord Marylebone said:

For starters, that just isn’t true:

“ There are no obligatory codes of behaviour when meeting The Queen or a member of the Royal Family”

From the Royal families own website.

You are under no obligation, legal or implied, to behave differently towards the Queen or anyone under her.

I met the Queen many years ago. We were coached by a Palace aide beforehand.

I also met Dianna and Phillip (twice). No protocol or coaching involved.

[psi310398]

Dont like rolls said:

HRM or her delegated, you bend, kneel etc to the office/country NOT the person.

Maybe if you had a smattering of knowledge you would know that, blame your teachers not the Royal person

And if you had a smattering of knowledge you'd know that the two are inseparable in a monarchy - that's the sodding point.

[Dont like rolls]

psi310398 said:

And if you had a smattering of knowledge you'd know that the two are inseparable in a monarchy - that's the sodding point.

That is not correct, the "office" is inseparable not the person.

[anonymous-user]

psi310398 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

For starters, that just isn’t true:

“ There are no obligatory codes of behaviour when meeting The Queen or a member of the Royal Family”

From the Royal families own website.

You are under no obligation, legal or implied, to behave differently towards the Queen or anyone under her.

I meant it metaphorically rather than literally.

The principle being the requirement to accept/defer/be 'loyal' to the unelected head of state of which I am citizen simply because he/she is someone's son/daughter?

I would actually agree.

But I don’t like to get hung up on the details as long as on the whole, the Royal family are more of an asset to the country than they are a liability.

As I posted earlier, I think I they need downsized a bit with regards to members, but on balance I think they do good work for our country and are generally envied abroad.

I like to think of it as a business arrangement. If economists and government strategists can prove to me that our country will be better off financially and with regards to influence and standing without the Royals then I would be all for a republic.

[The Wookie]

Lord Marylebone said:

If it helps define my character, I was once compared to a cross between ‘Tim nice but dim’ from the Fast Show, and YouTuber Tim ‘Shmee150’ Burton.

<sucks air through teeth> aaarrrrrrgggghhhhhhh

<pats LM sympathetically on the shoulder>

[Mort7]

Lord Marylebone said:

psi310398 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

For starters, that just isn’t true:

“ There are no obligatory codes of behaviour when meeting The Queen or a member of the Royal Family”

From the Royal families own website.

You are under no obligation, legal or implied, to behave differently towards the Queen or anyone under her.

I meant it metaphorically rather than literally.

The principle being the requirement to accept/defer/be 'loyal' to the unelected head of state of which I am citizen simply because he/she is someone's son/daughter?

I would actually agree.

But I don’t like to get hung up on the details as long as on the whole, the Royal family are more of an asset to the country than they are a liability.

As I posted earlier, I think I they need downsized a bit with regards to members, but on balance I think they do good work for our country and are generally envied abroad.

I like to think of it as a business arrangement. If economists and government strategists can prove to me that our country will be better off financially and with regards to influence and standing without the Royals then I would be all for a republic.

It's more fundamental than simply being considered as a cost benefit analysis. It's whether it is appropriate, in the 21st Century, for one person to be expected to bow and scrape to another simply because, historically, their family had a bigger, more brutal, and richer gang than anyone else.

Respect should be earned, not granted by right of birth. I have a huge amount of respect for HMQ, but unfortunately many members of her family have no concept of this, and have such a sense of entitlement that they consider it perfectly acceptable to treat those whom they consider to be their inferiors with complete distain. I don't consider that to be acceptable, and if faced with that type of behaviour I would have no hesitation in saying so.

[mike-v2tmf]

I can see "H" for Hewitt

[SpeckledJim]

The Wookie said:

Lord Marylebone said:

If it helps define my character, I was once compared to a cross between ‘Tim nice but dim’ from the Fast Show, and YouTuber Tim ‘Shmee150’ Burton.

<sucks air through teeth> aaarrrrrrgggghhhhhhh

<pats LM sympathetically on the shoulder>

<with a very long pole>

<through the window>

<and pushes his daily poppadoms under the door>

[smn159]

Lord Marylebone said:

But I don’t like to get hung up on the details as long as on the whole, the Royal family are more of an asset to the country than they are a liability.

We don't know that they are though, do we? Tourism is usually cited as being entirely down to the Royals, as if no-one would visit London if the Queen wasn't home. The other 'benefit' touted is that Charles or whoever occasionally schmoozes some Saudi's into buying some more missiles that we have no way of knowing whether they would have bought or not.

There's really no way to test whether they are an asset to or a drag on the country.

[popeyewhite]

smn159 said:

We don't know that they are though, do we?

Sunday Post - "The royal family may cost us a mint – but they bring in much more"

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-...

[wolfracesonic]

Dont like rolls said:

Am I the only one that sees a blue dress? Anyway, doesn’t Sussex Royal sound like some sort of rare breed chicken?

[gregs656]

Dont like rolls said:

Note the Crown and the M at the top.......?? Why not a H&M or M&H, now let me think, Ohhh ...I wonder who influenced that design and who want to be a little Princess ?

Have you removed your foot from your mouth yet?

The outrage on here has been hilarious anyway but this is a new low.

[Rewe]

gregs656 said:

Dont like rolls said:

Note the Crown and the M at the top.......?? Why not a H&M or M&H, now let me think, Ohhh ...I wonder who influenced that design and who want to be a little Princess ?

Have you removed your foot from your mouth yet?

The outrage on here has been hilarious anyway but this is a new low.

Well that’s embarrassing!

[Dont like rolls]

gregs656 said:

Have you removed your foot from your mouth yet?

The outrage on here has been hilarious anyway but this is a new low.

outrage, LOL

"an extremely strong reaction of anger, shock, or indignation.", not really is it , what a melt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DtMdRhtlfk

Edited by Dont like rolls on Wednesday 19th February 15:24

[GCH]

[Dont like rolls]

You did not change those U's

[Halmyre]

Dont like rolls said:

HRM or her delegated, you bend, kneel etc to the office/country NOT the person.

Maybe if you had a smattering of knowledge you would know that, blame your teachers not the Royal person

I think most people went to a school that had better things to teach them than how to defer to royalty.

[Petrus1983]

Their last day is Fools Day - brilliant God Bless the Queen #gangster

[wolfracesonic]

Petrus1983 said:

Their last day is Fools Day - brilliant God Bless the Queen #gangster

She is coming across in a whole new light in this affair, sort of Don Vito crossed with Harold Shand, ‘The Sussex’s? I’ve st them’.