Are They Celebrities Or Royalty Or Reality TV Stars?

Mizzkitt

Mizzkitt

Member
Location
Ontario
Different home pages list Harry & Meghan in different sections. Some list any news (no matter how small) about them under Royal News.

Others in the Celebrity News and yet another calls them Reality TV Stars.

So technically since she is not royalty yet but she is, or was on tv, maybe the latter fits....so confusing.

Where do they belong? :)
 

He is royalty and in line to the throne and always will be....she is a TV celebrity, until which time she will marry Prince Henry Charles Albert David Windsor (known as Harry) , and he will (similar to his brother)..on his marriage have a Dukedom bestowed upon him, ( most likely the Duke of Sussex as there's a vacancy there )) therefore Rachel meghan Markel soap opera actress (known as Meghan markel )...will become HRH Duchess of Sussex ( therefore royalty but unable to ever ascend the throne as a Monarch )


One might suggest that the whole shebang is a Soap Opera...lol
 
hollydolly said:
He is royalty and in line to the throne and always will be....she is a TV celebrity, until which time she will marry Prince Henry Charles Albert David Windsor (known as Harry) , and he will (similar to his brother)..on his marriage have a Dukedom bestowed upon him, ( most likely the Duke of Sussex as there's a vacancy there )) therefore Rachel meghan Markel soap opera actress (known as Meghan markel )...will become HRH Duchess of Sussex ( therefore royalty but unable to ever ascend the throne as a Monarch )


One might suggest that the whole shebang is a Soap Opera...lol
Click to expand...
You got that right!!
 

They're just a guy and a gal getting om with their lives.

The press and TV only push out the stuff hat people like us want them to, otherwise they go out of business.
 
What I don't get is why people care about them. As far as I'm concerned the entire group of so-called "royals" are just parasites on the U.K.

What makes them "royal" in the first place ? Just being born?
 
Members of the Royal Family belong to the British people.
They lead very restricted lives of service, unlike some other potentates I won't bother to list.
As an Australian I respect them but I don't love them.

Somehow they embody a core value that is at the heart of the people.
I see stability and I see loyalty. They transcend politics.
All of the pomp and circumstance is just the setting for the acting out of the living institution that is the monarchy..
 
Warrigal said:
Members of the Royal Family belong to the British people.
They lead very restricted lives of service, unlike some other potentates I won't bother to list.
As an Australian I respect them but I don't love them.

Somehow they embody a core value that is at the heart of the people.
I see stability and I see loyalty. They transcend politics.
All of the pomp and circumstance is just the setting for the acting out of the living institution that is the monarchy..
Click to expand...
My point of view, exactly.
 
Traveler said:
What I don't get is why people care about them. As far as I'm concerned the entire group of so-called "royals" are just parasites on the U.K.

What makes them "royal" in the first place ? Just being born?
Click to expand...

Yes it's the way things are done in ancient famines. Titles are passed from parents to children.

The Cmte de Paris is still King of France, there is still a King of Greece, Italy, Albania, and they could all, however unlikely, be invited back, just like the King of Spain was.

There are still Highlanders who, when drinking the Loyal Toast, pass their glasses over the water jug in memory of of "The king Over the Watt", and I have seen it done.
 
Warrigal said:
Members of the Royal Family belong to the British people.
They lead very restricted lives of service, unlike some other potentates I won't bother to list.
As an Australian I respect them but I don't love them.

Somehow they embody a core value that is at the heart of the people.
I see stability and I see loyalty. They transcend politics.
All of the pomp and circumstance is just the setting for the acting out of the living institution that is the monarchy..
Click to expand...

Thank you Warrigal. I live in Canada and the Queen is our Head our State and I admire her very much.
Other members of the Royal family do good work for charities but their efforts are often overlooked.
 
RadishRose said:
http://www.abroadintheyard.com/real...age-which-would-have-changed-british-history/

Real King of England dies in Australia – the true royal lineage which would have changed British history



View attachment 50161


View attachment 50162

Click to expand...

There are Plantagenet, Tudor, Stuart and other claimants all over the place.

I saw the TV presentation of the Australian claim, and did not think it credible.

Victoria's claim to the throne was very convoluted and many believed, and still do, that the descendants of Charles Edward Stuart, still living in France, have a better claim. If the much loved Princess Charlotte had lived Victoria would have lived out her days in relative obscurity.

However, at the time of Victoria's succession the butchery and barbarism of the putting down of the 45, when the English chose a German, and not a Svottish king, was still a recent memory, and the Scots still restricted.

On a personal level, speaking of my own country, I regard the true Prince of Wales, Descendant of Llewellyn, to be a gentleman living in a small house in Chester, a town in the north of England, and Charles Windsor, also known as Saxe Coburg Gotha, to be a usurper!

If you're born into these things, they matter!
 
Harry wrote the last three letters I received himselfscan0010.jpg, my wife ancestor was a foot guard to Queen Victoria, of course there were about 300 of them.
 

Attachments

  • scan0001.pdf
    262.6 KB · Views: 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top