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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
tommy100 said:
My only issue is that they referred to the past of the "Commonwealth" - they may have meant 'those countries in the Commonwealth" or the "Empire that went before the Commonwealth' but I can't see lots of evidence that the Commonwealth has had issues with racism itself, if anything I can see lots of evidence that the Commonwealth has tried to be a force for good in terms of racism and equal rights.

Of course there was serious racism and imperialism in the old Empire. That deserves being talked about in its own right but confusing the two doesn't help.
Click to expand...


Very well said. That is precisely the point !
 
IF he was speaking of the slave trade, that was something that happened way before the Comonwealth....
 
Fijiro said:
Prince Charles made similar statements about the Commonwealth/former Empires when he visited Ghana. Where was the outrage.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...confronts-slavery-first-time-speaks-britains/
Click to expand...

Not quite. Prince Charles, on behalf of the UK government, in Ghana actually acknowledged the past.

"At Osu Castle yesterday, it was especially important to me – as indeed it was on my first visit there forty-one years ago – that I should acknowledge the most painful chapter of Ghana’s relations with the nations of Europe, including the United Kingdom"
 
There seems to be confusion over the actions of the Commonwealth & its members. The links provided are not injustices perpetrated by the Commonwealth but by countries within it. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the actions of its members. The Commonwealth Charter is a clear & unambiguous statement of aims. It is not the Commonwealth’s fault if its members fall short.

Maybe the duke is implying countries should be expelled from the Commonwealth or sanctioned in some manner? It has happened before. But, as previously with his interventions, we don’t actually know because he talks in generalities.

Prince Charles did make statements about slavery but:

1 The slave trade was perpetuated by Britain not the Commonwealth
2 This was an official visit & whatever he said would have been approved by the Foreign Office as part of a carefully considered diplomatic process. And still nothing whatsoever to do with the Commonwealth.

It is interesting as has already been mentioned that there is now a very clear disclaimer on the QCT website:

“Views expressed on the QCT website do not represent views of the Royal Family or the Royal Household.”

I wonder when that was put on if anyone knows? It is also on the official QCT you tube clip.
 
Last edited:
Same thing and better put.

Harry and Meghan were not talking about the Commenwealth and to be fair not even all countries of the Empire suffered as they implied. They didnt know what they were talking about and I would be against looking at the multifaceted commonwealth as a homogenous group.

What they were talking about was prejudice. Which is different. Again multifaceted and indeed and beyond bland overarching comments.
 
Durham said:
There seems to be confusion over the actions of the Commonwealth & its members. The links provided are not injustices perpetrated by the Commonwealth but by countries within it. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the actions of its members. The Commonwealth Charter is a clear & unambiguous statement of aims. It is not the Commonwealth’s fault if its members fall short.

Maybe the duke is implying countries should be expelled from the Commonwealth or sanctioned in some manner? It has happened before. But, as previously with his interventions, we don’t actually know because he talks in generalities.

Prince Charles did make statements about slavery but:

1 The slave trade was perpetuated by Britain not the Commonwealth
2 This was an official visit & whatever he said would have been approved by the Foreign Office as part of a carefully considered diplomatic process. And still nothing whatsoever to do with the Commonwealth.

It is interesting as has already been mentioned that there is now a very clear disclaimer on the QCT website:

“Views expressed on the QCT website do not represent views of the Royal Family or the Royal Household.”

I wonder when that was put on if anyone knows? It is also on the official QCT you tube clip. It is also interesting that a summary of the discussion on the QCT website does not include any of the controversial remarks made by the duke or indeed much at all of what the duchess had to day.
Click to expand...

Harry isn't saying anything, really is he? He has noting valuable to say, and given that he's made casually racist remarks himself, all he's done is give the papers a chance to point that out...
 
poppy7 said:
Same thing and better put.

Harry and Meghan were not talking about the Commenwealth and to be fair not even all countries of the Empire suffered as they implied. They didnt know what they were talking about and I would be against looking at the multifaceted commonwealth as a homogenous group.

What they were talking about was prejudice. Which is different. Again multifaceted and indeed and beyond bland overarching comments.
Click to expand...

It is the comments about the Commonwealth specifically that have caused a stir.
 
Denville said:
Possibly the queen likes being Head of it because she believes in it and wants it to be a force for good.

If Meghan and Harry took on a commonwealth role when they started their royal career, presumably they agreed that it was a force for good. So as they left their royal role, Im not sure why they didn't drop teh Commonweatlh trust as well....
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure that's the case.

I've no doubt that the duke & duchess would have been a great asset shining a light on the good works of the Commonwealth & lobbying discreetly behind the scenes for even further progress. I'm unsure why QCT was retained.
 
Last edited:
Durham said:
Yes I'm sure that's the case.

I've no doubt that the duke & duchess would have been a great asset shining a light on the good works of the Commonwealth & lobbying discreetly behind the scenes for even further progress. I'm unsure why QCT was retained.
Click to expand...

I'm also confused as to why they retained the QCT, particularly seeing as now they aren't even residents of a Commonwealth country. I wonder if this was one of the one's that they felt particularly strongly about and wanted to keep? I definitely think that they would have shone a light on many important issues if they'd stayed working royals and I'm sure they still can, but it feels a bit disingenuous for them to be representing the Commonwealth when they can't even bother to live in a Commonwealth country.
 
Durham said:
There seems to be confusion over the actions of the Commonwealth & its members. The links provided are not injustices perpetrated by the Commonwealth but by countries within it. The Commonwealth is not responsible for the actions of its members. The Commonwealth Charter is a clear & unambiguous statement of aims. It is not the Commonwealth’s fault if its members fall short.

Maybe the duke is implying countries should be expelled from the Commonwealth or sanctioned in some manner? It has happened before. But, as previously with his interventions, we don’t actually know because he talks in generalities.

Prince Charles did make statements about slavery but:

1 The slave trade was perpetuated by Britain not the Commonwealth
2 This was an official visit & whatever he said would have been approved by the Foreign Office as part of a carefully considered diplomatic process. And still nothing whatsoever to do with the Commonwealth.

It is interesting as has already been mentioned that there is now a very clear disclaimer on the QCT website:

“Views expressed on the QCT website do not represent views of the Royal Family or the Royal Household.”

I wonder when that was put on if anyone knows? It is also on the official QCT you tube clip.
Click to expand...

It was pointed out on another board that the disclaimer was not there prior to the H&M QCT event and only was put up after the Newsweek article implying that they had the Queen's blessing to say what they did
 
:previous:
Thanks, that's very interesting.
 
acdc1 said:
I'm also confused as to why they retained the QCT, particularly seeing as now they aren't even residents of a Commonwealth country. I wonder if this was one of the one's that they felt particularly strongly about and wanted to keep? I definitely think that they would have shone a light on many important issues if they'd stayed working royals and I'm sure they still can, but it feels a bit disingenuous for them to be representing the Commonwealth when they can't even bother to live in a Commonwealth country.
Click to expand...

Or they think it is a bigger platform?
 
Speaking in Thursday's Chopper's Politics podcast (which you can listen to on the player above), Lord Howell said: "I would think she fully understood the context. He's been very active and committed to Commonwealth activities.

"He's a real champion of the Commonwealth and I think he was trying to explain to others outside Government ... where we are going. I would have thought she understood it fully, frankly."

Lord Howell described the Commonwealth as "winding down the empire" and "a voluntary coming together of those countries who didn't feel too antagonistic or angry or furious about the past".

The modern-day Commonwealth had allowed them to be "joined together in repairing some of the bad aspects of the past and some of the abuses and atrocities, and all the rest", he said.

He added that the fact the organisation was "ceasing to be the British Commonwealth and becoming the Commonwealth... [was] a brilliant way of moving out of empire" and said: "I would challenge all historians to tell me a better ending to any empire in history."

Lord Howell's background in government and politics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Howell,_Baron_Howell_of_Guildford
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think the Queen did fully understand. After all the things he lost, he and Meghan's positions seemed to be the one thing no on the list.
 
But he didnt lose this particular charity which has the most potential to be controversial....
 
Curryong said:
Speaking in Thursday's Chopper's Politics podcast (which you can listen to on the player above), Lord Howell said: "I would think she fully understood the context. He's been very active and committed to Commonwealth activities.

"He's a real champion of the Commonwealth and I think he was trying to explain to others outside Government ... where we are going. I would have thought she understood it fully, frankly."

Lord Howell described the Commonwealth as "winding down the empire" and "a voluntary coming together of those countries who didn't feel too antagonistic or angry or furious about the past".

The modern-day Commonwealth had allowed them to be "joined together in repairing some of the bad aspects of the past and some of the abuses and atrocities, and all the rest", he said.

He added that the fact the organisation was "ceasing to be the British Commonwealth and becoming the Commonwealth... [was] a brilliant way of moving out of empire" and said: "I would challenge all historians to tell me a better ending to any empire in history."

Lord Howell's background in government and politics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Howell,_Baron_Howell_of_Guildford
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.
 
The Telegraph headline is misleading.

On the website for Chopper’s Politics it states that he is on the podcast to explain:

“why he believes The Queen understood what Prince Harry meant in the Commonwealth history row”.

So it would seem that Howell doesn’t really know what The Queen thinks. He says "I would have thought she understood" so again he doesn't know. He’s an enthusiastic pro Commonwealth anti EU Conservative politician. He’s also made some rather questionable statements on other issues lately so I don’t know how credible a figure he is really.

It’s interesting that there’s a deafening silence from the rest of the Conservative Party & nothing at all from the Royal Commonwealth Society in support of Howell’s view about the duke. I'm not aware of any great groundswell of support for the duke's comments in Britain. Quite the reverse in fact.

This whole controversy feeds further into the politicisation of the duke. Speaking as Mr Mountbatten Windsor is one thing but speaking as the Duke of Sussex is quite another. Maybe a choice needs to be thought about.
 
Last edited:
Durham said:
The Telegraph headline is misleading.

On the website for Chopper’s Politics it states that he is on the podcast to explain:

“why he believes The Queen understood what Prince Harry meant in the Commonwealth history row”.

So it would seem that Howell doesn’t really know what The Queen thinks. He says "I would have thought she understood" so again he doesn't know. He’s an enthusiastic pro Commonwealth anti EU Conservative politician. He’s also made some rather questionable statements on other issues lately so I don’t know how credible a figure he is really.

It’s interesting that there’s a deafening silence from the rest of the Conservative Party & nothing at all from the Royal Commonwealth Society in support of Howell’s view about the duke. I'm not aware of any great groundswell of support for the duke's comments in Britain. Quite the reverse in fact.

This whole controversy feeds further into the politicisation of the duke. Speaking as Mr Mountbatten Windsor is one thing but speaking as the Duke of Sussex is quite another. Maybe a choice needs to be made.
Click to expand...

Its one thing to say that he THINKS the queen would understand Harry and another to say that she'd agree with his views or that others agree with his views.
No, I don't get the feeling that people are in support of Harry's rather vague comments.. and a lot of the press are just using it to bash him...
Harry seems to be parrotting Meghan's liberal American Democratic party viewpoint these days and I suspect he did not take much notice of politics before he married her.. and I suspect that Meghan isn't all that well aware of the difference between the British Empire and the Commonwealth.. and I always DID wonder why the queen gave him the role of "Commonwealth Royal"...
It is possible that the queen left them with the CW trust in hopes that they would choose to come back to the UK in the next year and they'd have that patronage to work with..but possibly they wanted to keep it also because it is a bigger platform esp. if they want to be philanthropists, than their other patronages...
They've gotten some notice for participating in this discussion.. and may be hoping that it will lead to more publicity and notice for them when they set up tehir own charity.... But they don't seem to notice/care that it is not going down that well in the UK,,,
 
Yes indeed, even if Howell could prove that HM understood Harry's comments it wouldn't therefore follow that she actually supported them. She could understand & oppose them.
 
Denville said:
But he didnt lose this particular charity which has the most potential to be controversial....
Click to expand...

Given that Harry is the founder of the QCT, I don’t know if it can be taken away from him
 
This is some of what Harry actually said in that video discussion. He didn't attack Granny or anybody else. He did not attack the Commonwealth organisation as such.

"(There is) no way that we can move forward unless we acknowledge the past. So many people have done such an incredible job of acknowledging the past and trying to right those wrongs, but I think we all acknowledge there is so much more still to do. It's not going to be easy and in some cases it's not going to be comfortable but it needs to be done, because guess what: Everybody benefits."

The vast majority of the countries of the Commonwealth are in the organisation because they were colonised by the British. I hope no-one here is going to deny that colonisation contained some bad/inhumane aspects. All he is saying IMO is that we in the realms and other countries within the Commonwealth have to recognise our pasts and acknowledge that various aspects of it were not good.

And speaking for myself, as an Aussie, there are commentators and others around today in Australia who still deny that the Stolen Generation (aborigine children who were taken from their parents 'for their own good', for several decades, to be placed in missions and Homes, supervised and cared for by white people (some well meaning, some not) and assert that these children were mostly taken away because of parental neglect. That process by several State Govts caused trauma to every family member, that lingers on, in spite of Prime Minister Rudd's heartfelt official Apology to the Stolen Generation about forty years too late.

This took place in the 20th century in an Australia that was a Commonwealth member during that time and had signed up to its Charter. Did the Commonwealth as a whole rap Australia (or Canada) over the knuckles about these policies or ask them to change their attitude to the indigenous population, to recognise what they were doing was wrong? No! As an organisation it failed, as a talking shop at successive CHOGMS in the 1950s/60s/ it failed. And I say that as a proud Aussie and supporter of the Commonwealth.
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
This is some of what Harry actually said in that video discussion. He didn't attack Granny or anybody else. He did not attack the Commonwealth organisation as such.

"(There is) no way that we can move forward unless we acknowledge the past. So many people have done such an incredible job of acknowledging the past and trying to right those wrongs, but I think we all acknowledge there is so much more still to do. It's not going to be easy and in some cases it's not going to be comfortable but it needs to be done, because guess what: Everybody benefits."

The vast majority of the countries of the Commonwealth are in the organisation because they were colonised by the British. I hope no-one here is going to deny that colonisation contained some bad/inhumane aspects. All he is saying IMO is that we in the realms and other countries within the Commonwealth have to recognise our pasts and acknowledge that various aspects of it were not good.

And speaking for myself, as an Aussie, there are commentators and others around today in Australia who still deny that the Stolen Generation (aborigine children who were taken from their parents 'for their own good', for several decades, to be placed in missions and Homes, supervised and cared for by white people (some well meaning, some not) and assert that these children were mostly taken away because of parental neglect. That process by several State Govts caused trauma to every family member, that lingers on, in spite of Prime Minister Rudd's heartfelt official Apology to the Stolen Generation about forty years too late.

This took place in the 20th century in an Australia that was a Commonwealth member during that time and had signed up to its Charter. Did the Commonwealth as a whole rap Australia (or Canada) over the knuckles about these policies or ask them to change their attitude to the indigenous population, to recognise what they were doing was wrong? No! As an organisation it failed, as a talking shop at successive CHOGMS in the 1950s/60s/ it failed. And I say that as a proud Aussie and supporter of the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...


With all due respect the Commonwealth is not responsible for any of that. It is the process of immigration, discrimination and settlement. Which is not a crime of empire. Neither are the empire responsible for apartheid. They are responsible for many things, trafficking people slavery, developing concentration caps, the division of India etc. etc.

What they are mainly referring to is the African counties (and India) and what they mainly had a point on was the African American experience in America and the experience of my black Britain's. So basically they weren't talking about the Commonwealth but around a general issue of race which will vary in its context from country to country.

So for instance the BBC have been doing excellent Echoes of Empire segments. Went to Ireland, interviewed secondary school children, who were not alive during the troubles, and their attitude to colonisation was blasé. We have moved on, it doesn't make us angry. When asked how they are so relaxed about it they said because we weren't taken from our homeland, it may be different if our identity was taken from us. Which goes to show that really Meghan and Harry's comments are really just too broad and essentially discussing the immigrant experience in either America and probably Britain. Not at all about the actual crimes of empire which the Commonwealth have nothing to do with.
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/ce...role-the-queens-commonwealth-trust-president/



What actually appeared in the media about the new Queen's Commonwealth Trust in 2018. It doesn't repeat the story that Harry founded the QCT at all.
Click to expand...



There’s nothing on their own page or Wikipedia to dispute or confirm this. Wikipedia has an unconfirmed comment that Henry “gave” The Queen the QCT for her birthday as a thank you for her commitment to the younger generations throughout the years.

It seems to be connect to The Queens Canopy work with Henry was also a part of.
 
The heart of the matter isn’t really about the duke per se. The bigger picture is how members of the royal family interact in the public forum with social or political issues. Up until now there has been an unwritten convention which has worked well. It preserves the royal family for the most part as a unifying force in the life of the nation. They have been, except for the odd & well publicised exceptions, uncontroversial & unthreatening. It means that their continued existence is accepted by most, even if often grudgingly by some.

People might cheer on a member of the royal family who champions a viewpoint that they support but how will these people react if the same individual then moves onto to endorse something that they disagree with?

Once the precedence is established that members of the royal family are in fact free to say whatever they want on anything they choose then we are in very different & unchartered territory. This issue will become even more stark in the next reign when the individual concerned is the monarch’s son & any lingering reluctance to question & examine the role of the royal family has been removed by the death of The Queen.

It might be Sussex today but who will it be tomorrow? This will not end well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -
36 37 38
Replies
1K
Views
134K
Curryong
C
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia's Current Events 5: June 2024 -
Replies
21
Views
4K
iceflower
iceflower
iceflower
  • Sticky
Prince Albert II of Monaco Current Events Part 35: September 2024 -
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
iceflower
iceflower
iceflower
Princely Family of Monaco: Current Events Part 11: November 2024 -
Replies
7
Views
908
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Marengo
  • Sticky
King Felipe's Current Events 6, June 2024-
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
8K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom