No royal wants to be king or queen, Britain's Prince Harry says

 

Britain's Prince Harry, on a promotional visit for the 2018 Invictus Games, visits the Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Center which will be a host venue in Sydney, Australia, June 8, 2017. REUTERS/Jason Reed

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prince Harry said no one in Britain's royal family wants to be king or queen and criticised a decision to force him to parade behind his mother Princess Diana's coffin after her death in 1997, according to an interview with a U.S. magazine.

 

"We are not doing this for ourselves but for the greater good of the people ... Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen?" Harry, 32, who is fifth in line to the throne, told the Newsweek magazine.

 

"I don't think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time."

 

Queen Elizabeth, 91, has been on the throne since 1952 and is currently the world's oldest and longest reigning monarch. Harry said they wanted to carry on her work but her family would not be "trying to fill her boots".

 

"The monarchy is a force for good," he said. "We don’t want to dilute the magic ... The British public and the whole world need institutions like it."

 

Harry, along with his elder brother William and William's wife Kate, has become a prominent mental health campaigner, citing his own anguish and emotional struggles following the death of his mother in a Paris car crash 20 years ago and disclosing how he sought counselling to help him cope.

 

In the interview, Harry said how the decision to make him walk behind her coffin as the funeral cortege slowly made its way through the packed streets of London in front of huge crowds of mourners when he was just 12 had had a lasting impact.

 

"My mother had just died, and I had to walk a long way behind her coffin, surrounded by thousands of people watching me while millions more did on television," he said.

 

"I don't think any child should be asked to do that, under any circumstances. I don't think it would happen today."

 

The prince, who is dating U.S. actress Meghan Markle, last year criticised the media for intruding into her private life and he told Newsweek that he tried to live an "ordinary life" despite the huge global attention he attracts.

 

He said even if he were king, he would do his own shopping.

 

"I sometimes still feel I am living in a goldfish bowl, but I now manage it better," he said.

 

"People would be amazed by the ordinary life William and I live. I do my own shopping. Sometimes, when I come away from the meat counter in my local supermarket, I worry someone will snap me with their phone.

 

"But I am determined to have a relatively normal life, and if I am lucky enough to have children, they can have one too."

 

(Reporting by Michael Holden; editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-6-22

44 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

The British public and the whole world need institutions like it."

really ?!

"We don't want anyone be king or queen," says Britain.

3 hours ago, YetAnother said:

really ?!

yes

*OP edited out*
Yeah righto.........


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Good guy. Participated in a real combat role in Afganistan. Although outed to the enemy by the despicable Bill O'Reilly. 

Whatever. Never seen they do anything good anyway.

Good bloke, been there, done that and probably wears the T Shirt 

with a little bit of luck the UK will no longer be a kingdom and will have a presidential system in the near future even though the American example is very poor at the moment, but at least hopefully only for four years.

Well, he won't be, but neither he nor any of the others, in line and not, are going to be queuing to relinquish such an excessively privileged lifestyle.

Post removed.  

I get it. There is no ambition to be the monarch like in the old days when people went to war over it, but they are honored to serve. As for their privileged life, is it really so? They are constantly hounded and spied upon and everything they say or do is dissected by talking heads and fed to the public.  I'd want the money but not the position.

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

No royal wants to be king or queen, Britain's Prince Harry says

If it comes to that, you could always abdicate, right?

Oh, but I forgot: there is the "duty" thing, the "common good", and all the other vague altruisms.

If he wants to stay out of the limelight, don't give interviews to magazines.

The present Queen (Elizabeth II) would disagree I'm sure. Her late father (George VI) who died in 1952, was immediate in her reaction to the call of duty, and became subsequently Queen, despite her personal loss.

 

It's ironic that Prince Harry is behaving almost in the same manner as her late mother (Princess Diana) who frequently aired her problems for the public to scrutinize , something the Queen would never contemplate. 

 

Many Monarchs have been asked this question, about being 'a royal', and most answer in a way, becoming of a Royal. Price Harry unfortunately is quite opinionated, which apparently is not quite aligned to protocol that must be upheld. This behavior defines if your the person for the job or not. Therefore, it seems Price Harry is not quite up to the mark.

 

Hopefully he will eventually align himself to the responsibility that lies ahead, and accept that being a Royal is a life-time duty to the people, without fuss or the need to divulge opinion that may damage the Monarchy.

2 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

If it comes to that, you could always abdicate, right?

Oh, but I forgot: there is the "duty" thing, the "common good", and all the other vague altruisms.

 

1 hour ago, car720 said:

Vague altruism.  Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

How is altruism ever vague?

altruism: the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others

in this case "duty", "common good" are altruisms

vague: unspecified, general

in this case: the above altruisms are unspecified and general - hence they are vague

therefore: vague altruism

 

oxymoron: a contradiction in terms - does not apply here, because altruisms can be vague and don't need to be specific per se

however, my point was that the Prince should specify what the benefits of his "duty" and "common good" are, and who gains from them most. He calls the Monarchy a Force for Good and even Magic..., but only because it benefits him in the end. If he was not part of the family, his view might be different.

16 hours ago, Sunderland said:

"We don't want anyone be king or queen," says Britain.

Oh no not another referendum...

 

So we elect a President... Just look at the mess over the pond 

President of England........ God forbid please.

Leave that rubbish to those funny people in the Americas

Genuine question.

 

I'm obviously a bit thick as I've never understood why the uk would require a separate 'head of state'?

5 minutes ago, car720 said:

The opening line of Wikipedia is not always the definitive line unfortunately.

When I read down a little further I also see this............."The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others."

Nothing vague about that unless one wanted to call those who did their duty and gave up their lives on the battlefield without thought for benefit, vague.

Those who "gave up their lives on the battlefield" were mostly conscripted or, having volunteered in patriotic/adventurous zeal - found it a lot harder/impossible to leave later....

 

Catch 22 anyone?

2 hours ago, natway09 said:

President of England........ God forbid please.

Leave that rubbish to those funny people in the Americas

but at least with a president you can get rid of them after four or eight years

8 hours ago, yardrunner said:

with a little bit of luck the UK will no longer be a kingdom and will have a presidential system in the near future even though the American example is very poor at the moment, but at least hopefully only for four years.

Why  a  President? A Parliamentary system can answer  to its electors.

He and William, keep going on about wanting to be normal. They will never have a normal life, have bills to pay, worry about job/future/finances. 

 

He sounds ungrateful, if you so desperately want to be normal abdicate and save the tax payer some money. 

Off-topic post removed.  

I think it would be fun to have a new King Thing every 2Years. By now we could have had Billy Connolly,Jeremy Clarkson,,Julian Clarey as Queen, thus giving the Royals a break for a while.?[emoji481]


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Inflammatory post removed.   Please keep the discussion civil.   

19 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Genuine question.

 

I'm obviously a bit thick as I've never understood why the uk would require a separate 'head of state'?

Info at the link below will hopefully shed some light why many in the UK support the Queen's role as Head of State, as I do as a UK citizen.

 

https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy

       The vast majority of people need things like monarchy and/or religion/metaphysics. They need belief systems to make themselves feel whole. A rare few of us have reached points of mental freedom - where we don't need a focal point (a person, icon, or family) to swear allegiance to.  

 

22 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Why  a  President? A Parliamentary system can answer  to its electors.

i wont argue with that

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

Info at the link below will hopefully shed some light why many in the UK support the Queen's role as Head of State, as I do as a UK citizen.

 

https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy

and many more do not support the queen as head of state as i don't as a UK citizen