Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
|
Why? The goal is to show friendly ties between two countries. Regardless of commonwealth status. Charles visited Barbados right after they chose to leave the commonwealth. |
Charles was invited as the last representative of the monarchy on the day of transition. Will + Kate were invited to test their candidacy, found wanting, and their people - angry already at the refusal to make a simple apologize - push the matter forward at lightening speed. No matter how you spin it, two countries announcing they are denouncing the monarchy, while you are still ON TOUR - is unimaginable. I'm curious how the palace responds - if the Wessexs will still be sent this time next month and if the Cambridges will ever be let outside the UK again. |
|
If the Wessex don't go to the 5 Caribbean countries they're scheduled to visit beginning April 22nd - its a de facto announcement from the BRF that they don't want the rest of the Caribbean and you can start republics ASAP. Or if they do the same but still send Anne to Papua New Guinea.
But if they do go and don't do as terribly as the Cambridges, which essentially is the low bar of not having the monarchy discarded mid-tour, then its not a good look for the future King. Wessex: Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines |
|
The Caribbean countries do not need permission from the BRF to go. Jamaica and Belize have given notice. BRF has been dumped. Trying to spin this as the BRF doesn’t want them looks rather pathetic after getting dumped.
The BRF and palace staff was stupid enough to think that these trips would keep countries in the commonwealth. The BRF absolutely wants to keep as many countries in as it contributes to the myth of their prestige. The monarchy survives on myth and perception. It provides no value to anyone other than the monarch’s. |
You don’t see the difference between: -Charles visited after they chose to leave the commonwealth And - They chose to leave the commonwealth after William and Kate visited? |
It seems a little strange to say that William shouldn’t be held responsible for centuries of British misconduct because he can’t help the family he was born into when the ONLY reason he has any role or authority is because of the family he was born into. It just reveals the bankruptcy of a hereditary monarchy where authority (such as it is) is passed down solely based on who your parents are, but if your are going to have that system you can’t also disclaim any responsibility for what has occurred in the past. |
Umm, the head of state has already been divested of powers. The revolution happened a while ago, dear. Someone upthread posted that the BRF are lousy at being worker-bees and fritter away their money. That's how the system has been configured - the inheritance taxes crushed the hereditary titles and the caste system forbids a lot of ways of making money. More and more, some have opted out and have chosen to live like regular people. But while Harry can get away with that, William can't. Or at least, it would be much more difficult for him to do what Harry did. |
|
It occurred to me that the Cambridges might not have been seeking re-newed ties to a legacy of colonialism, slavery, and anti-minority history. They might have wanted to wear the dress whites with all the fancy badges and medals to one up a certain brother who can't wear those things. Remember when Harry was forbidden from wearing his military uniform at Phillip's funeral this time last year?
This might have been William thumbing his nose by scheduling an event where he could and have the images broadcast for the world to see. Unfortunately for him his idea took on a whole different context on the world stage and for the locals as well. And if that was the case - he couldn't admit it because its a mistake that makes him look like a petty loser instead of just a racist. |
| I don't personally know anyone that don't like William and Kate. I only hear about Harry and Megan's feud with them. |