|
|
Well, the Oprah interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle was over a month ago, but I still see plenty of articles about it. It's really "stirred up" things in the Royal Family. |
|
|
Well, I guess it put "a bee in the royal bonnet." Although, I would not believe everything you read. Right after the interview, I read several articles suggesting the monarchy should end with Queen Elizabeth. I cannot imagine that happening. |
|
|
Oh, that isn't anything new. It's been going on for a long time; there was even talk of it when I lived in England decades ago. All the interview did was further encourage those who are already advocating it. |
|
|
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, but as I said in our Banter Bite, Talk About Getting The Royal Treatment, the Royal Family does seem to have "issues" in terms of race relations and dealing with mental illness. I can understand why people are questioning whether the monarchy, with its "old-fashioned" traditions and beliefs, is still relevant. |
|
|
But it's not like that's the only place those issues exist. Just pick up a newspaper, turn on the news – it's everywhere! Unfortunately, the Oprah interview put a very public face on it – The Royal Family, or The Firm, which is how the family and institution refers to itself. |
|
|
Who nicknames themselves The Firm? It sounds like a Netflix series, but with less class than " The Crown." |
|
|
It always reminds me of one of my favorite Tom Cruise movies, "The Firm," based on the John Grisham novel. Anyway, I admit I love Tudor history, but I'm certainly no expert on the history of the British monarchy or Royal Family. But nicknames aside, I do think they serve an important purpose. |
|
|
Especially in terms of money. It is big business, which may explain the nickname. According to a recent Forbes article, the amount of money they bring in (primarily due to tourism) is estimated to contribute $2.7 billion a year to the U.K. economy (pre-pandemic). That makes the $550 million cost of running The Firm a smart investment. |
|
|
Wow! Those are some pretty big numbers. And leave it to you to have a financial perspective, but that wasn't what I was thinking about. I was thinking that during the 20 th Century, the Royal Family played an invaluable role in getting a nation to pull together, and stay together, as they fought not one, but two, World Wars. |
|
|
I defer to you when it comes to history, but that was a long time ago. World War II ended in 1945. How is that relevant today? |
|
|
Sometimes the mere existence of a well-established institution, and its pomp and circumstance, can remind people that they're a part of something bigger than themselves. That there's a history that binds you. In this case, as a country. I believe the Royal Family creates unity amongst the British people, including all its territories, around the world. |
|
|
Maybe during the last century, but I do not think that holds true today. Just look at how the British have reacted to the Oprah interview. It shows how opinions are strongly polarized, and instead of creating unity, it is now causing division. In many ways, it is similar to the polarization caused by Trump. And although he is no longer president, the polarization of the American people remains. |
|
|
That's an interesting analogy, but it does point out how far the American political system has changed. It used to be, by and large, about public service. Back when I was in college, the best and the brightest went into politics. Now, I feel that for so many politicians, it's just a job. |
|
|
A well-paying job with good benefits that can lead to many other opportunities. I am sure some are still doing it for public service, but the funny thing is that there are so many other ways to make a difference – including in the business sector, and working for non-profits. |
|
|
Which is what Prince Harry and Meghan say they're going to do. I appreciate they don't have to be part of the Royal Family to make a difference, but members of the Royal Family were always looked upon as great role models. They represented values that were worth trying to emulate – commitment, love of country, honor. And I think Queen Elizabeth still does. |
|
|
What about the others in the Royal Family? Do they just not care about the issues facing "commoners" or are they merely out-of-touch? And, do you think it is possible to take something as old and established as the monarchy and make it relevant in today's world? |
|
|
Too many questions all at once, but I think the Royal Family can play an important role. But it will take everyone being committed to the "bigger picture" and re-focusing on public service – not roles and titles. I know that Prince Charles has waited his entire life to be King, but in many ways, I think the Royal Family stands the best chance of survival if Prince William was to reign, as he represents a more modern Great Britain. |
|
|
I know nothing about Prince William, but know it is not a function of age – but of mindset. Finding balance between your position of royalty – where you are Head of State but must remain neutral with respect to political matters – and yet understanding the challenges facing society. And, although not making the rules, setting an example. |
|
|
Which is why, as I alluded to in my More Than Just A (Royal) Family Feud post, it's too bad that Prince Harry and Meghan aren't still "working members" of the Royal Family. I think they could've brought a much-needed reflection of modern society into The Firm. |
|
|
Well, I do not wish anything but the best for Queen Elizabeth, but it will be interesting to see what happens to The Firm when it is under new management. |
Want to read other columns? Here's a list.
| Based on the "hints" in your Ghosting post, it sounds like your recent "romance" wasn't quite a Lady GaGa "bad romance", but, well, a frustrating one. |
| Interesting comparison, as years ago Gaga revealed that she is drawn to bad romances, but is not sure if she goes after them or they find her. Regardless, my "relationship" ended in the dating stage and never really became a romance. Either when I dated him almost 30 years ago, or recently. Although, this time, I thought it had potential. |
| I was amazed that you were even willing to "rekindle" the relationship as you're not exactly a believer in "recycling" relationships, as I think you once phrased it. In fact, I thought you were pretty adamant about the concept of not repeating your mistakes. |
| True, you should learn from your mistakes, not repeat them. But with most things in life, timing is everything. And, just because someone is not "Mr. Right Now" does not preclude them from being "Mr. Right" at another time in your life. |
| That sounds good, but neither time did you date very long. Maybe there's a reason for that. A reason why you should've left the past in the past. |
| It is funny you say that because that was my first thought. Then, I thought about where each of us was in our lives at that time. I was still climbing the corporate ladder and was not interested in ever having children. He was building his business and had young children. However, what made us incompatible back then was no longer applicable. |
| That all makes sense. But, at the risk of making you sound warm and fuzzy, you have described him in glowing terms – very intelligent, caring parent (and now grandparent), loyal friend to many people, and all-around nice guy. |
| And, we both collect art, enjoy fine red wine, and have similar tastes in restaurants and hotels. Not to mention being almost thirty years older and looking at life from a different perspective. |
| You sound totally compatible. Which, as you've told me over the years, is critical to a successful relationship, especially when all the "lovey-dovey" romance gives way to day-to-day reality. |
| I think that may be where we disconnected. We each need to have realistic expectations, and then decide if we are compatible. He may have decided that he wanted someone more romantic, and less pragmatic; therefore, I was not a good fit. Which I would have accepted. But, instead of telling me that, he went radio silent. |
| I'm not condoning his behavior, but I can understand it. Speaking as a "mere mortal", I can see why he might want to avoid having such an uncomfortable and difficult conversation with you. Especially if he's ever seen the "debate queen" side of you. But this isn't the first time he dated you. Doesn't he know you're a Vulcan? |
| Intellectually, he knew that I am not a physically demonstrative person, especially in public. Nor do I immediately get carried away with the idea of "being in love". |
| Excuse me? This from the woman who I used to say got engaged instead of dating? |
| Fast-forwarding past the "games" and "infatuation stage" of dating to see if a relationship has long-term potential is very different from thinking infatuation is true love. |
| Don't you know most people, if they like someone, want to jump in quickly and enjoy getting "carried up in the moment"? |
| That is fine, as long as they know that infatuation is only infatuation. It may be the beginning of a long-term relationship, or the spark may die. Unfortunately, it may result in a dating process that eliminates those who have the potential to be a lasting relationship, instead focusing on those who want to get carried up in the moment. |
| I'm almost afraid to ask, are you talking about someone in particular? |
| Sometimes you wonder why, in their determination (and rush) to find a lasting relationship with one person, they cannot see everything that has made them lifelong friends to so many people took time. |
| You didn't answer my question, but if you are – maybe you should remind them of that. |
| Maybe I will send them this post. |