Deluded prince claims he's helping the world

[Social Media]

 

Prince Harry claims speaking about trauma over mum Diana is act of service to world

Prince Harry sat down for an 'intimate' live-streamed conversation with trauma expert Dr Gabor Maté to discuss living with loss. It comes after he and Meghan Markle were asked to vacate Frogmore Cottage

Prince Harry tonight heaped more misery on his dad King Charles with a series of shocking admissions which included…

• Taking illegal drugs like cannabis and cocaine that changed him.
• Feeling different from the rest of the Royal Family.
• Questioning why Britain went to war in Afghanistan – and claiming he was a typical soldier from “a broken home”.
• Claiming that speaking about his trauma over his mum Diana’s death was an act of service to the world.

 

 

 

[Captain Monday]

[RayC]

He should probably be paid for his sacrifice and service ..... oh wait .....

[orchis]

who reads yesterday's papers?
this Tomorrowspaperstoday item is 2 weeks old (March 5).

Edited March 19, 2023 by orchis

[billd766]

Poor diddums.

 

He doesn't even live in the UK, so why would he care what happens to Frogmore Cottage?

 

Also he is not the only ex serviceman from a broken home. Most of them did not always have a home or a job to go back to and quite a few of them are sleeping on the streets in the UK.

 

Sadly, Harry has no idea of reality as he has been looked after and pampered all of his life (broken home/family or not).

 

He was fortunate that during his service career that he was not injured, lost any limbs or been killed in action.

 

IMHO as an ex serviceman of 25 years, he is nothing but a whiner and deserves the wife he is married to.

 

He has a job working with his wife for which he gets paid well, he has an ex military pension, he has the legacy (or what is left of it) from his mother, which is more than most Brits will ever earn in their lifetime.

 

So stop bleating and get on with your life.

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Also he is not the only ex serviceman from a broken home. Most of them did not always have a home or a job to go back to and quite a few of them are sleeping on the streets in the UK.

 

He is likely the only one whose mother's photo was splashed across the media for months after her death. Whose mother had photos of her topless on a boat as front page news, after her death. Whose mother's dead body was photographed and published. Whose mother's secret love life was published. Whose mother's death was sensationalised and speculated upon and still is. Whose grandmother was accused, by some circles, of being involved in his mother's death.

 

Many people bang on about the privileges that "an unelected head of state and family" get. Most of them forget the downsides.

 

Of all those who bleat on, how many would chose to do the job of the royal family? Not many, would be my guess.

Edited March 19, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[RayC]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

Many people bang on about the privileges that "an unelected head of state and family" get. Most of them forget the downsides.

 

Of all those who bleat on, how many would chose to do the job of the royal family? Not many, would be my guess.

Sounds like a good argument for having an elected HoS.

[youreavinalaff]

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

Sounds like a good argument for having an elected HoS.

Not as such.

 

More like a good arguement against gutter press.

Edited March 19, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[Lemsta69]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Of all those who bleat on, how many would chose to do the job of the royal family?

I wouldn't do it for all the tea in China. Life as a tourist attraction/sideshow must be Hell on Earth.

[transam]

Does the bloke honestly think he is the only person who has had to deal with bereavement.

Has he ever thought he is out there making money out of his.

Hypocrite....

I hope he and his sponger wife stay away from the UK, they are not needed or wanted..............

[ThailandRyan]

Read the OP headline and I thought they had finally interviewed the famous Nigerian Prince who has offered millions to folks to help get his money out of the country....then I found the story to actually be about a bed wetting Nancy Boy.

[OJAS]

Well one thing he's definitely helping the world in is by demonstrating to it what a deluded individual he is!

 

[OJAS]

17 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

He is likely the only one whose mother's photo was splashed across the media for months after her death. Whose mother had photos of her topless on a boat as front page news, after her death. Whose mother's dead body was photographed and published. Whose mother's secret love life was published. Whose mother's death was sensationalised and speculated upon and still is. Whose grandmother was accused, by some circles, of being involved in his mother's death.

 

Many people bang on about the privileges that "an unelected head of state and family" get. Most of them forget the downsides.

 

Of all those who bleat on, how many would chose to do the job of the royal family? Not many, would be my guess.

Well, all these points are, of course, equally applicable to his brother who, in stark contrast to him, isn't exactly whining and whinging about his lot in life, is he?

 

[OJAS]

14 hours ago, transam said:

I hope he and his sponger wife stay away from the UK, they are not needed or wanted..............

In particular I earnestly hope that they won't have the audacity and temerity to want to set foot in Sussex ever again, the county where I was born and whose proud name they have, as far as I am concerned, taken great delight in gleefully trashing through all their whinging and whining under the guise of their dukedom.

Edited March 20, 2023 by OJAS

[OJAS]

18 hours ago, RayC said:

Sounds like a good argument for having an elected HoS.

Depends on what powers said elected HoS would have, I think. If their role as President was a purely ceremonial one as in Germany and Ireland, for instance, that might arguably be a bitter pill worth swallowing eventually. But under no circumstances would it be acceptable in my eyes for the UK to run the risk of having clowns like Trump and Macron actively involved in running its affairs!

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by OJAS

[n00dle]

3 hours ago, OJAS said:

In particular I earnestly hope that they won't have the audacity and temerity to want to set foot in Sussex ever again, the county where I was born and whose proud name they have, as far as I am concerned, taken great delight in gleefully trashing through all their whinging and whining under the guise of their dukedom.

read it a few times now, and it still makes no sense. 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, OJAS said:

Depends on what powers said elected HoS would have, I think. If their role as President was a purely ceremonial one as in Germany and Ireland, for instance, that might arguably be a bitter pill worth swallowing eventually. But under no circumstances would it be acceptable in my eyes for the UK to run the risk of having clowns like Trump and Macron actively involved in running its affairs!

 

Imo irrespective of whether the role of President/HoS is purely ceremonial or a more active political one is largely irrelevant; it is a question of democracy (and accountability).

 

Whatever the merits of Presidents Trump and Macron, they were both elected by a democratic process and therefore had/have a mandate to govern.

[billd766]

On 3/19/2023 at 1:51 PM, youreavinalaff said:

He is likely the only one whose mother's photo was splashed across the media for months after her death. Whose mother had photos of her topless on a boat as front page news, after her death. Whose mother's dead body was photographed and published. Whose mother's secret love life was published. Whose mother's death was sensationalised and speculated upon and still is. Whose grandmother was accused, by some circles, of being involved in his mother's death.

 

Many people bang on about the privileges that "an unelected head of state and family" get. Most of them forget the downsides.

 

Of all those who bleat on, how many would chose to do the job of the royal family? Not many, would be my guess.

Are you personally responsible for your parents behaviour from when you were a child?

 

If you are offering Prince Harry as an example, I will offer you in exchange, his brother Prince William. He also went through the exact same "trauma".

 

Has he written a book trashing his family connections with his father? Made a TV series? Whined how hard his life is, now he is King in waiting as his father was for many years.

 

Or has he simply got on with his life, with its many perks and even more restrictions, along with his wife and their 3 children, who are ALL also in the public eye, without whining or complaining?

 

Would I do his job? At 78 I am too old thankfully.

6 hours ago, RayC said:

Deleted post. Sorry

 

[billd766]

6 hours ago, RayC said:

Imo irrespective of whether the role of President/HoS is purely ceremonial or a more active political one is largely irrelevant; it is a question of democracy (and accountability).

 

Whatever the merits of Presidents Trump and Macron, they were both elected by a democratic process and therefore had/have a mandate to govern.

But the British Royal Family does NOT govern the UK. They can and do advise the government, but whether the government acts on that advice, nobody really knows.

 

A government is voted into power in the UK and they are the ones who deserve the credit when things are going well, and the brickbats when things are going wrong.

[RayC]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

But the British Royal Family does NOT govern the UK. They can and do advise the government, but whether the government acts on that advice, nobody really knows.

 

I've not suggested anywhere that the British Royal Family do govern the UK.

 

My points were that imo 1) the HoS - whether it be a ceremonial or political position - should be elected 2) Presidents Trump and Macron were elected by a democratic process and therefore have/had a mandate to govern.

 

Those governing should be held accountable and responsible for their actions (good or bad).

Edited March 20, 2023 by RayC
Addition

[billd766]

10 hours ago, RayC said:

I've not suggested anywhere that the British Royal Family do govern the UK.

 

My points were that imo 1) the HoS - whether it be a ceremonial or political position - should be elected 2) Presidents Trump and Macron were elected by a democratic process and therefore have/had a mandate to govern.

 

Those governing should be held accountable and responsible for their actions (good or bad).

The government IS held accountable and responsible for their actions (good or bad) at election time held in the UK every 5 years maximum, but it can be shorter If the PM at the time desires to do so.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election

 

The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 received royal assent on 24 March 2022 and entered into force the same day. The prime minister can again request the monarch to dissolve Parliament and call an early election with 25 working days' notice. Section 4 of the Act provided: "If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met." For the MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election, who first met on 17 December 2019, this means the fifth-anniversary date of 17 December 2024 and the latest possible polling day 25 working days later, which is 24 January 2025.

 

There is more in the link.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

The government IS held accountable and responsible for their actions (good or bad) at election time held in the UK every 5 years maximum, but it can be shorter If the PM at the time desires to do so.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election

 

The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 received royal assent on 24 March 2022 and entered into force the same day. The prime minister can again request the monarch to dissolve Parliament and call an early election with 25 working days' notice. Section 4 of the Act provided: "If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met." For the MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election, who first met on 17 December 2019, this means the fifth-anniversary date of 17 December 2024 and the latest possible polling day 25 working days later, which is 24 January 2025.

 

There is more in the link.

I've not suggested anywhere that the UK government is NOT held accountable and responsible.

 

Ministers are accountable to Parliament in the first instance.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/ministerial-accountability

[billd766]

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

I've not suggested anywhere that the UK government is NOT held accountable and responsible.

 

Ministers are accountable to Parliament in the first instance.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/ministerial-accountability

Your points are immaterial simply because the UK Royal Family has NO power to affect the running of the country.

 

That is already done by the political party elected to power by the people of the UK every 5 years or less.

 

It has worked reasonably well for many years and they are the people who select those who will run the country for better or for worse.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/british-election-can-queen-vote-royal-family-prince-william-kate-middleton-622958

 

BY JOSH LOWE ON 6/8/17 AT 8:12 AM EDT

 

If you replace the Queen by King Charles and things run as they have done for many decades already, Then

 

There is nothing in written British law barring the current monarch King Charles lll from voting in an election. But, as the Brits might say, it just isn't done. "Although not prohibited by law," the U.K. parliament website says, "it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election."

 

The rules governing royals beyond the queen are less firm. But a Buckingham Palace spokesperson tells Newsweek that "by convention," members of the royal family "close to the queen" do not exercise their right to vote.

The spokesperson would not confirm how many royals that covers, but said it would include "senior members" of the royal family such as Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, and Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge.

And, just like the Queen, senior royals are expected to stay politically neutral in public, though the media often tries to tease out their views.

[RayC]

24 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Your points are immaterial simply because the UK Royal Family has NO power to affect the running of the country.

 

That is already done by the political party elected to power by the people of the UK every 5 years or less.

 

It has worked reasonably well for many years and they are the people who select those who will run the country for better or for worse.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/british-election-can-queen-vote-royal-family-prince-william-kate-middleton-622958

 

BY JOSH LOWE ON 6/8/17 AT 8:12 AM EDT

 

If you replace the Queen by King Charles and things run as they have done for many decades already, Then

 

There is nothing in written British law barring the current monarch King Charles lll from voting in an election. But, as the Brits might say, it just isn't done. "Although not prohibited by law," the U.K. parliament website says, "it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election."

 

The rules governing royals beyond the queen are less firm. But a Buckingham Palace spokesperson tells Newsweek that "by convention," members of the royal family "close to the queen" do not exercise their right to vote.

The spokesperson would not confirm how many royals that covers, but said it would include "senior members" of the royal family such as Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, and Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge.

And, just like the Queen, senior royals are expected to stay politically neutral in public, though the media often tries to tease out their views.

I don't know what point you are trying to make?

 

In any event, I'd suggest that it's naive to think that the King has no political influence. Although he has no direct role in the day-to-day governing of the UK, he does have a constitutional role and, as a result, the ability to  plunge the country into constitutional crisis e.g. if he withheld Royal Ascent. Yes, unlikely to happen but why should these powers lay with an individual who owes his position to an accident of birth? In addition, the King's weekly audiences afford him the opportunity to make his views known directly to the PM (a privilege not open to any other of his countrymen).

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/08/king-charles-iii-monarchy-mother-nation