@@lisafoodie8443 He's not going to do shit but live off of working class taxpayers and be gawked at like a carnival sideshow, just like the rest of this miserable lot.
This scene, however fictional it may be, certainly clearly shows how the duties and demands of "monarchy" warp normal human family relations, and help explain the sad dysfunction that persists to this day among various "royals"...
It's a great series. I didn't exactly see why they needed so many people to play the parts. I'm sure that the makeup department could handle aging. I didn't understand that.
Charles has certainly voiced his opinions on subjects like climate change and diversity. But he has no clue about the real concerns of people in this country.
Not only that, the Queen grew up on the values of the 19th century via King George V and Queen Mary. The world changed/progressed rapidly since her ascension to the throne in 1952 and her passing in 2022. It’s the same way religious fundamentalism keeps people stuck on the values of Ancient times, even though some of said values can be good, that don’t fit our lives in the 21st century.
The Crown. The production company always employed a consultant either a historian or a royal correspondent. Robert Jobson was the consultant on one of the series along with Jemima Khan who knew Diana well. Robert Jobson in an interview said he gave the the production company all he could but he had no control over the script which is where the scriptwriters sift his notes and can increase or decrease a character thus distorting history. As for Jemima Khan, she walked off the set for good because she thought the portrayal of Diana was nothing like real life.
She said the same thing chalres did when mary told her the less we say or think her response was or think breath feel 🤔 my guess is her passion died ☠💀along with her crown 👑
@@dillonlehane7134i never did envy these people im sure though they envy us commoners who have the liberty to behave in any manner we see for to speak our minds hearts bear our souls they cannot how sad that is😢
The royals understand the position they're in. The moment they raise their heads above the trenches they're done. It's not being heartless, it's about surviving.
I doubt any family would look good having their most challenging moments fictionalized for ratings. People don’t want to watch happy people doing happy things. Where’s the drama in that?
We have absolutely no idea how PRIVATE conversations were. This is a show. Made to entertain with a few facts and dates sprinkled in to keep our interest. It is NOT a documentary. It is in truth though the most horrible job you can be born into.
One of the sadder scenes of Elizabeth with her children, she’s not necessarily wrong but she was unkind with him. But honestly the saddest moment is subtle: when she has a one-on-one lunch with all of them and Philip says they all called him wondering why. Because it was out of character.
This is the whole problem with having a monarchy in a country with a democratic form of government, they really cannot work hand in hand; as soon as a monarch declares a position it can be seen as authoritarian or an abuse of power; in other words, you have no choice but to keep them as symbols, and after a while you pretty much ask yourself if it is even worth the while having them.
they are there for public relations only the people still want the royal family as of now but if the people stopped wanting them they would just go live in the houses they own and earn money from what ever business's they invested in like in germany most of what is left of the royal family makes wine. they would still be titled just not in power. the two titles lost would most likely be king/queen Prince/princess most likely be referred to as dukes or duchess.
@@JennFromTheBayWell, had the Royal Family just let him marry who the hell he wanted to begin with, none of the following heartache and terrible events would’ve happened. Diana grows up, matures before marrying and married someone who actually loved her. Charles married the person he always loved. And that’s the end of it. I’m tired of this song and dance of pretending Diana and Charles had some great love story that was spoiled, Diana didn’t love him either, she barely KNEW him when they married but people seem to brush off the fact that she wouldn’t of married him if he was a construction worker or baker. She married him previously because he was going to be king and she wanted the fame, despite ppl rewriting history Diana loved the attention until the attention wasn’t about adoring her and instead on her bad behavior, fortune because she wanted money, a cushy lifestyle and to be apart of the royal circle. That’s why she married him, for absolutely no other reason. AND she knew about Camilla BEFORE the marriage and CHOSE to still marry him even after he made it clear he would never stop seeing her, so whose fault is it at that point? If you know the score, how can you possibly be mad? She just knew it would get her sympathy at a time when the public was turning against her for her own bad behavior, which includes affairs with married men herself famously saying to one wife “if I wanted him all the time, I could have him so be lucky I don’t.”, so if she didn’t care about anyone else’s marriage why should anyone care about hers? At least Charles cheated with ONE women and it was the ONE WOMEN he wanted to be with it and again, had they just friggin let him, none of the rest would’ve happened. It was stupid then and it was stupid then. Diana wasn’t considered the saint she is now until after her death. You obviously don’t know how much bad behavior and selfish acts she did because history rewrites itself once someone is gone, that’s all, if she was still alive she wouldn’t be the adored person she is in history. Which is good bc that’s one of the only things Diana cared about behind money, being famous and adored by the public.
@bradenharris8718 this implies that Diana was some money grabber, when she was already a girl from a rich social group, which was the last thing she cared for. All she had to worry about was finding a husband she found happiness woth in the nobility. For it to be Charles, a man twice her age, from even stricker social standard, and would no doubt dominate her whole life, that is what we have to consider. He will always dominate the girl, whether or not they had married, with a mistress that he never put away (that we still frown upon, even today) and still demanding that people respect him despite running back to "I am above you and will never come into contact with you" is laughable if it weren't the reality of the world ppl live in
She was an empty vessel, devoid of feelings, lacking in a proper education & subjecting her own children to untold heartache. They “say” Andrew was her favorite. I’d love to know how he was treated differently & maybe that difference accounts for his arrogant behaviour
@@cberry6751 How do you know she was an 'empty vessel devoid of feelings'? You are conflating the public role with the private individual. The Queen was pretty enigmatic. .
@@cberry6751i have heard that she in private had many opinions on the people she met. That she was anything but an empty vessel. She just appears like that, because she is in official-mode when public
The minute the RF expresses an opinion, those with the opposite position will condemn them. It will cause a rift between the people. An "us against them" mindset.
@10293 But why "work hard to not cause more division?" When they're just figureheads anyway, what harm would it actually cause for them to just...not be royal? Then maybe they could get to just be people.
@@michaelplunkett8059 could you elaborate on that mostly because I am interested in the former Greek rule family past and present so I would love to hear how that contributed to their downfall
It makes you wonder if all the talk about duty and patriotism is just a front that Elizabeth puts up to justify trading her individuality for wealth and privilege.
Because that would be taking a stance on something, and for all the people that disagree with that emotion/opinion it then creates a divide between those people and the monarchy. If they don’t say or express emotion about anything, then they aren’t taking sides or taking the risk of upsetting anyone.
The monarch- in this case the Queen has to stay out of it- it’s been that way for centuries- it was a key motivator for the British civil war. After King Charles the first lost to Cromwell and lost his head on the chopping block, parliament was in charge of how the nation was run for the first time, rather than in name only as it had been before.
This scene alone does make me grateful I am not a royal. I understand having a duty especially one involving a Crown, a kingdom has an impossible weight to carry. Elizabeth had some troubles at first but over time, she became exactly what she was forged into. But what was given up in becoming Queen Elizabeth? She lost the love from her husband and her children. This scene is the prime example. They are human just like every other man, woman in the world. If I was Charles in this position of this scene and she said, “No one.” I would have walked away from the Crown, gave up my title and made a life of my own away from it all. Thanks for uploading.
Hahaha, this scene played out true after Charles became king. He tried to voice an opinion on climate change and Parliament shut him down real quick 😂 told him *respectfully* it was NOT his business as King anymore and to keep his mouth shut from now on. Got his royal peepee slapped.
I am just paraphrasing here…..but a quote I love says “Silence only aids the oppressor not the oppressed.” This family really needs to draw boundaries between their duties and love and respect for their family members, the latter being more important. I believe if they did this…the monarchy would not be at stake, as people could relate to them.
You seem to confuse "standing for nothing" and "standing above politics and personal whims in order to represent something binding rather than something controversial"
@@frname7665 k but what do they represent that's above politics and not controversial? I'm genuinely asking, if they aren't allowed to do or say anything that might influence anything or change anything, what do they represent, what is their role to you? Is it just the concept of power, is it wealth, is it security or status, what is it? And why is that more valuable to you than a more active leader?
The Country is ruled by the Civil Service, the Councils and call centres in India. The laws are made by unelected Judges. Political Party system is a joke upon the British people .
You have to give Queen Elizabeth a A+ as leader of the monarchy. She also gets a D- as mother to her children. I base it not on the series but the scandals and divorces that resulted.
She never got to experience motherhood. She became Queen 3 years after Charles' birth. Then she had to travel every corner of the world to put the crumbling empire together..
Our Royal Person is a patrilineal Plantagenêt and a maternal Windsor. Here is what people need to know. Being legitimately begotten 'of the blood royal' is overwhelmingly fatiguing. The reason for monarchial governance is to do 'The LORD's work' on Earth and to shepherd the people towards righteousness. When one of royal blood or one who marries into royalty does not inherently know this, they are not a 'true royal.' It is incredibly selfish for any royal personage to overtly seek fame and glory by dishonest means. The people's needs are paramount because they need to bear witness to an example worth emulating. Monarchy is God's government on Earth and therefore, government and society at large automatically has structure and class distinctions. We royals are to be friendly but not have many friends. The whole point is to carry out our duties with as little interference and drama as possible. We all have work to do and we cannot be bothered with nonsense because the people need to be ruled over with values and principles for their own good. If the people lack a Shepherd, society suffers and real progress and innovation are delayed. A real man is kingly, and a true king is a real man, personally exercising will power and self-restraint. The problem with Charles and Diana is that she was a half-blood royal, having many lines of illegitimate ancestry back through the Scottish Stuarts. Charles is the first-born and Satan always attacks first-born children more than any others, because if he is successful in tarnishing the first, the rest will see his example and replicate it in kind. The only way to be a true royal is to be a TRUE Biblical Christian because the people cannot afford to have reprobates for their leaders. This is why America is now a God-forsaken country. The Creator will always distance Himself from impurity and iniquity, and moreover, will punish it severely. Royalty is about being decent, wholesome, and honourable, and even chivalrous. With this standard, men are Gentlemen and women are Ladies.
Rubbish! America is not God forsaken and royalty are not truly royal! Why then is the house of Windsor actually the descendants of a German bloodline? Princess Diana was a beautiful lady and yes had more royal blood then any of the queen’s descendants! She also had a heart of gold and a love for the people! A true princess and in my judgment Queen!
they took on the name windsor to cover up for the fact that they were related to the czar of russia and related to the german royal family whose both kingdoms had failed. actually its common known history that the family had a chance to save the romanofs who they were related with and allow them to live in england and they chose not to help and they died. they took on the name of windsor to cover up their german origins during world war 1 and 2 because of unpopularity towards germans. her fathers brother who abdicated was found to have been working with hitler to try to get his crown back. its all so twisted.
When you don't express an opinion, you rise above politics. You can be seen as noble, pure, mostly free from criticism. You're the ruler, steeped in ceremony and pomp. At least in their eyes. Truth is, the royal family reeks of politics just not of the governmental variety. As for emotions, well . Emotions caused Edward to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson. Love caused a king to renounce his duty and walk away. That one act has haunted, terrified, and dogged this family all their lives. Mostly thanks to the late Queen Mary and the late Queen Mother. Duty is sacred and strong. Emotions are human and weak and foolish. Prince Harry is this generation's Edward. Heaven forbid anyone say no thanks to toeing the line. The same dysfunctional patterns generation after generation. At least there aren't any more beheadings on Tower Hill. Now the Windsors rip their enemies to shreds on social media with the photo op or well placed 'leak'. Hooray for progress and a more relevant monarchy.
“King George IV took over the monarchy to prevent the abdication from becoming a constitutional crisis, for he knew the cold truth. The only thing strong enough to destroy the House of Windsor…is itself.” Yes I borrowed that quote from HOTD but you get the idea. What we are currently seeing now is that at the raw family are not leading their people through world, wars, and such they are destroying themselves. Because the queen and Prince Philip are dead, Megan and Harry and their two children who the four of them could’ve been assets are gone, nobody talks about the Duke or Duchess of Edinburgh, or the Princess Royal because of Charles‘s plan for a slim down monarchy therefore, the public things they are too boring to talk about so now we are left with a king who has cancer who is not as popular as his mother was a queen who is unpopular for many people due to decades old grievances, a prince of Wales, who had the reputation of being work shy and thinking of his position, something celebrity and status rather than a life of service a princess of Wales, who is without her fault out of action and therefore cannot do much and three small children who won or two of them will inevitably grow up to cause a scandal because that’s just how it works so what are we left with?
Thing is Charles has mostly been an ok king. Nothing spectacular but good for him. I think he might have been a bit better if he'd been less selfish and more determined. First he should have stuck to his guns about not marrying till he was ready. He should have stayed loyal to his wife when he did decide to marry and he should have supported her. He should have stayed away from Camilla once he got engaged. He wasn't honorable and no matter how you try to escape it Karma comes for you and those around you. His family is paying the price with Harry and Mehgan. If he'd been tougher and a better person a some people might not be dead and his family might have been in a better place. That said his son William seems to be the stronger and will do well. He's left dealing with the carnage of his dad mistakes though. Harry and Megs need their titles stripped and to be cut off. They can whine all they want people now see them for who they are.
You are just pissed that he got away from that hellhole of a life. As far as whining, when someone is being constantly attacked only their bullies consider them speaking up for themselves "whining." It seems to me the word "whining" is nothing but a bully's way of trying to cancel out their victims telling of their mistreatment. Only fellow bullies approve of calling that "whining." So I guess we can surmise what you are.
She understands the position they're in. A royal must never leverage their position. Their 'leadership' must be silent and ceremonial. Or they'll go the same way as the French royals. (Hyperbole, I doubt anyone is actually dusting off a guillotine.)
@@KatMorriganthat's correct, because it relates they live in a constitutional monarchy, and whereas the absolute monarchy the monarch has ultimate power and can do and express anything, just like the French royal and Russia Imperial family
If the Queen really was so self obsessed and lacking in empathy. It's no wonder the Windsor s mare still at loggerheads. It's a very pinched way of seeing oneself and others. John😢
You base your view on prople based on a tv drama? Don't be stupid. The Crown may based on largely historical events. But the family drama is 90% fiction, and shat little 10% is left have been dialled up to 12. The Crown is not a historical documentary, and should not been seen as such. It is just drama.
Who do you wish you could silence?
No one.
King George VI in "The King's Speech": I HAVE A VOICE!
Queen Elizabeth II: No one wants to hear it.
Weak af...can't w8 for William to be king....
I definitely thought about that line when I first watched this scene.
@@lisafoodie8443 With her for a grandmother, and him for a father, I can't imagine why you would.
@@lisafoodie8443 He's not going to do shit but live off of working class taxpayers and be gawked at like a carnival sideshow, just like the rest of this miserable lot.
This scene, however fictional it may be, certainly clearly shows how the duties and demands of "monarchy" warp normal human family relations, and help explain the sad dysfunction that persists to this day among various "royals"...
All of them. They're all miserable and dysfunctional. That's why this relic should be disbanded.
Josh O'Connor was superb in this role, as was Olivia Coleman!
It's a great series. I didn't exactly see why they needed so many people to play the parts. I'm sure that the makeup department could handle aging. I didn't understand that.
@@Birdiebird-ym2zg I agree
Charles does have a hard time with this, even still.
Charles has certainly voiced his opinions on subjects like climate change and diversity. But he has no clue about the real concerns of people in this country.
Oh, my heart doth bleed! Bloody royals, waste of time
His voice is in Camilla’s purse.
he certainly knows how to listen to the WEF how convenient when it suits him to do as he is told
@@greekreWEF?
The Queen was taught about sacrifice by Queen Mary who was too strict. Hence the sad issues which followed.
Not only that, the Queen grew up on the values of the 19th century via King George V and Queen Mary. The world changed/progressed rapidly since her ascension to the throne in 1952 and her passing in 2022. It’s the same way religious fundamentalism keeps people stuck on the values of Ancient times, even though some of said values can be good, that don’t fit our lives in the 21st century.
The Crown. The production company always employed a consultant either a historian or a royal correspondent. Robert Jobson was the consultant on one of the series along with Jemima Khan who knew Diana well. Robert Jobson in an interview said he gave the the production company all he could but he had no control over the script which is where the scriptwriters sift his notes and can increase or decrease a character thus distorting history. As for Jemima Khan, she walked off the set for good because she thought the portrayal of Diana was nothing like real life.
Lovely reference to an earlier lesson
that the Queen herself had to learn...
👑
Yeah, didn't she say the same thing to Queen Mary that Charles said to her? The bit about "or think? Or feel? Or exist?"
@@dillonlehane7134 Indeed!
She said the same thing chalres did when mary told her the less we say or think her response was or think breath feel 🤔 my guess is her passion died ☠💀along with her crown 👑
@@dillonlehane7134i never did envy these people im sure though they envy us commoners who have the liberty to behave in any manner we see for to speak our minds hearts bear our souls they cannot how sad that is😢
I think this royal family is in some degree heartless. Not being able to have your own voice in the family sounds debilitating.
Perhaps it happens in more families more than we know. Yes it is difficult to keep ones own council and say nothing. But such is life.
The royals understand the position they're in. The moment they raise their heads above the trenches they're done. It's not being heartless, it's about surviving.
I doubt any family would look good having their most challenging moments fictionalized for ratings. People don’t want to watch happy people doing happy things. Where’s the drama in that?
@KatMorrigan What are they 'done' with exactly?
We have absolutely no idea how PRIVATE conversations were. This is a show. Made to entertain with a few facts and dates sprinkled in to keep our interest. It is NOT a documentary. It is in truth though the most horrible job you can be born into.
One of the sadder scenes of Elizabeth with her children, she’s not necessarily wrong but she was unkind with him.
But honestly the saddest moment is subtle: when she has a one-on-one lunch with all of them and Philip says they all called him wondering why. Because it was out of character.
This is the whole problem with having a monarchy in a country with a democratic form of government, they really cannot work hand in hand; as soon as a monarch declares a position it can be seen as authoritarian or an abuse of power; in other words, you have no choice but to keep them as symbols, and after a while you pretty much ask yourself if it is even worth the while having them.
The answer to that is easy.
they are there for public relations only the people still want the royal family as of now but if the people stopped wanting them they would just go live in the houses they own and earn money from what ever business's they invested in like in germany most of what is left of the royal family makes wine. they would still be titled just not in power. the two titles lost would most likely be king/queen Prince/princess most likely be referred to as dukes or duchess.
I hate Charles because he’s a cry baby who cheated on his wife without shame and spoiled.
King Charles was pushed into marrying Lady Diana Spencer
Where's your heart, why do you choose hate instead of understanding?
@@williambonds6909 - give me a good reason why I should be team Charles - I’ll wait
@@JennFromTheBayWell, had the Royal Family just let him marry who the hell he wanted to begin with, none of the following heartache and terrible events would’ve happened.
Diana grows up, matures before marrying and married someone who actually loved her. Charles married the person he always loved. And that’s the end of it. I’m tired of this song and dance of pretending Diana and Charles had some great love story that was spoiled, Diana didn’t love him either, she barely KNEW him when they married but people seem to brush off the fact that she wouldn’t of married him if he was a construction worker or baker. She married him previously because he was going to be king and she wanted the fame, despite ppl rewriting history Diana loved the attention until the attention wasn’t about adoring her and instead on her bad behavior, fortune because she wanted money, a cushy lifestyle and to be apart of the royal circle. That’s why she married him, for absolutely no other reason. AND she knew about Camilla BEFORE the marriage and CHOSE to still marry him even after he made it clear he would never stop seeing her, so whose fault is it at that point? If you know the score, how can you possibly be mad? She just knew it would get her sympathy at a time when the public was turning against her for her own bad behavior, which includes affairs with married men herself famously saying to one wife “if I wanted him all the time, I could have him so be lucky I don’t.”, so if she didn’t care about anyone else’s marriage why should anyone care about hers? At least Charles cheated with ONE women and it was the ONE WOMEN he wanted to be with it and again, had they just friggin let him, none of the rest would’ve happened. It was stupid then and it was stupid then. Diana wasn’t considered the saint she is now until after her death. You obviously don’t know how much bad behavior and selfish acts she did because history rewrites itself once someone is gone, that’s all, if she was still alive she wouldn’t be the adored person she is in history. Which is good bc that’s one of the only things Diana cared about behind money, being famous and adored by the public.
@bradenharris8718 this implies that Diana was some money grabber, when she was already a girl from a rich social group, which was the last thing she cared for. All she had to worry about was finding a husband she found happiness woth in the nobility. For it to be Charles, a man twice her age, from even stricker social standard, and would no doubt dominate her whole life, that is what we have to consider. He will always dominate the girl, whether or not they had married, with a mistress that he never put away (that we still frown upon, even today) and still demanding that people respect him despite running back to "I am above you and will never come into contact with you" is laughable if it weren't the reality of the world ppl live in
I would love to know what Queen Elizabeth really thought or how she really felt on so many topics.
She was an empty vessel, devoid of feelings, lacking in a proper education & subjecting her own children to untold heartache. They “say” Andrew was her favorite. I’d love to know how he was treated differently & maybe that difference accounts for his arrogant behaviour
@@cberry6751 How do you know she was an 'empty vessel devoid of feelings'? You are conflating the public role with the private individual. The Queen was pretty enigmatic. .
@@cberry6751i have heard that she in private had many opinions on the people she met. That she was anything but an empty vessel. She just appears like that, because she is in official-mode when public
Too bad he didn't listen to her!
That was cold.
Charles is such a baby. Even today he is a baby. He wanted Camilla because she kissed his fragile ego.
The minute the RF expresses an opinion, those with the opposite position will condemn them. It will cause a rift between the people. An "us against them" mindset.
but they already are, monarchists and anti-monarchists, anglicans vs non-anglicans, they are deviding just by existing as any human is
@@maavet2351So you should understand how they have to work hard to not cause more division then
And was the downfall of the Greek royal family.
@10293 But why "work hard to not cause more division?" When they're just figureheads anyway, what harm would it actually cause for them to just...not be royal? Then maybe they could get to just be people.
@@michaelplunkett8059 could you elaborate on that mostly because I am interested in the former Greek rule family past and present so I would love to hear how that contributed to their downfall
So Cold.
It makes you wonder if all the talk about duty and patriotism is just a front that Elizabeth puts up to justify trading her individuality for wealth and privilege.
I still dont get why they cant express their emotions and opinions?
Because that would be taking a stance on something, and for all the people that disagree with that emotion/opinion it then creates a divide between those people and the monarchy. If they don’t say or express emotion about anything, then they aren’t taking sides or taking the risk of upsetting anyone.
@@fghjgfjgfhjgfh Fair enough
Parliment is the government, not the Royal Family. The Magna Carta settled that centuries ago!
The monarch- in this case the Queen has to stay out of it- it’s been that way for centuries- it was a key motivator for the British civil war. After King Charles the first lost to Cromwell and lost his head on the chopping block, parliament was in charge of how the nation was run for the first time, rather than in name only as it had been before.
The monarchy means nothing. It needs to end.
This scene alone does make me grateful I am not a royal. I understand having a duty especially one involving a Crown, a kingdom has an impossible weight to carry. Elizabeth had some troubles at first but over time, she became exactly what she was forged into. But what was given up in becoming Queen Elizabeth? She lost the love from her husband and her children. This scene is the prime example. They are human just like every other man, woman in the world. If I was Charles in this position of this scene and she said, “No one.” I would have walked away from the Crown, gave up my title and made a life of my own away from it all. Thanks for uploading.
Hahaha, this scene played out true after Charles became king. He tried to voice an opinion on climate change and Parliament shut him down real quick 😂 told him *respectfully* it was NOT his business as King anymore and to keep his mouth shut from now on. Got his royal peepee slapped.
Grow up.
@@l.a.3479 It’s the truth. Less than a month after he was King he “had a voice” moment 🤣
I am just paraphrasing here…..but a quote I love says “Silence only aids the oppressor not the oppressed.” This family really needs to draw boundaries between their duties and love and respect for their family members, the latter being more important. I believe if they did this…the monarchy would not be at stake, as people could relate to them.
What's the point of a symbol if it stands for nothing?
You seem to confuse "standing for nothing" and "standing above politics and personal whims in order to represent something binding rather than something controversial"
@@frname7665 k but what do they represent that's above politics and not controversial? I'm genuinely asking, if they aren't allowed to do or say anything that might influence anything or change anything, what do they represent, what is their role to you? Is it just the concept of power, is it wealth, is it security or status, what is it? And why is that more valuable to you than a more active leader?
The Country is ruled by the Civil Service, the Councils and call centres in India. The laws are made by unelected Judges. Political Party system is a joke upon the British people .
You have to give Queen Elizabeth a A+ as leader of the monarchy. She also gets a D- as mother to her children. I base it not on the series but the scandals and divorces that resulted.
She never got to experience motherhood. She became Queen 3 years after Charles' birth. Then she had to travel every corner of the world to put the crumbling empire together..
Is this why he talks to the trees?
charles should not be king.
Our Royal Person is a patrilineal Plantagenêt and a maternal Windsor. Here is what people need to know. Being legitimately begotten 'of the blood royal' is overwhelmingly fatiguing. The reason for monarchial governance is to do 'The LORD's work' on Earth and to shepherd the people towards righteousness. When one of royal blood or one who marries into royalty does not inherently know this, they are not a 'true royal.' It is incredibly selfish for any royal personage to overtly seek fame and glory by dishonest means. The people's needs are paramount because they need to bear witness to an example worth emulating. Monarchy is God's government on Earth and therefore, government and society at large automatically has structure and class distinctions.
We royals are to be friendly but not have many friends. The whole point is to carry out our duties with as little interference and drama as possible. We all have work to do and we cannot be bothered with nonsense because the people need to be ruled over with values and principles for their own good. If the people lack a Shepherd, society suffers and real progress and innovation are delayed. A real man is kingly, and a true king is a real man, personally exercising will power and self-restraint. The problem with Charles and Diana is that she was a half-blood royal, having many lines of illegitimate ancestry back through the Scottish Stuarts. Charles is the first-born and Satan always attacks first-born children more than any others, because if he is successful in tarnishing the first, the rest will see his example and replicate it in kind. The only way to be a true royal is to be a TRUE Biblical Christian because the people cannot afford to have reprobates for their leaders. This is why America is now a God-forsaken country. The Creator will always distance Himself from impurity and iniquity, and moreover, will punish it severely. Royalty is about being decent, wholesome, and honourable, and even chivalrous. With this standard, men are Gentlemen and women are Ladies.
Rubbish! America is not God forsaken and royalty are not truly royal! Why then is the house of Windsor actually the descendants of a German bloodline? Princess Diana was a beautiful lady and yes had more royal blood then any of the queen’s descendants! She also had a heart of gold and a love for the people! A true princess and in my judgment Queen!
they took on the name windsor to cover up for the fact that they were related to the czar of russia and related to the german royal family whose both kingdoms had failed. actually its common known history that the family had a chance to save the romanofs who they were related with and allow them to live in england and they chose not to help and they died. they took on the name of windsor to cover up their german origins during world war 1 and 2 because of unpopularity towards germans. her fathers brother who abdicated was found to have been working with hitler to try to get his crown back. its all so twisted.
When you don't express an opinion, you rise above politics. You can be seen as noble, pure, mostly free from criticism. You're the ruler, steeped in ceremony and pomp. At least in their eyes. Truth is, the royal family reeks of politics just not of the governmental variety. As for emotions, well . Emotions caused Edward to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson. Love caused a king to renounce his duty and walk away. That one act has haunted, terrified, and dogged this family all their lives. Mostly thanks to the late Queen Mary and the late Queen Mother. Duty is sacred and strong. Emotions are human and weak and foolish. Prince Harry is this generation's Edward. Heaven forbid anyone say no thanks to toeing the line. The same dysfunctional patterns generation after generation. At least there aren't any more beheadings on Tower Hill. Now the Windsors rip their enemies to shreds on social media with the photo op or well placed 'leak'. Hooray for progress and a more relevant monarchy.
“King George IV took over the monarchy to prevent the abdication from becoming a constitutional crisis, for he knew the cold truth. The only thing strong enough to destroy the House of Windsor…is itself.” Yes I borrowed that quote from HOTD but you get the idea. What we are currently seeing now is that at the raw family are not leading their people through world, wars, and such they are destroying themselves. Because the queen and Prince Philip are dead, Megan and Harry and their two children who the four of them could’ve been assets are gone, nobody talks about the Duke or Duchess of Edinburgh, or the Princess Royal because of Charles‘s plan for a slim down monarchy therefore, the public things they are too boring to talk about so now we are left with a king who has cancer who is not as popular as his mother was a queen who is unpopular for many people due to decades old grievances, a prince of Wales, who had the reputation of being work shy and thinking of his position, something celebrity and status rather than a life of service a princess of Wales, who is without her fault out of action and therefore cannot do much and three small children who won or two of them will inevitably grow up to cause a scandal because that’s just how it works so what are we left with?
i don't believe this happened.
They were all completely unhappy. Miserably unhappy. The royalty wrecked them
R not most of british like that?
LOL that last time I visited the UK they were ALL definitely like that
Too bad charles was never able to show people who he was.
Cold hearted b
Queen Elizabeth was right no one wanted to hear Charles complaining when he had a very privilege life .
He’s a whiner just like his Dad.
Both has cause to be dissatisfied with their acceptance and treatment.
Thing is Charles has mostly been an ok king. Nothing spectacular but good for him. I think he might have been a bit better if he'd been less selfish and more determined. First he should have stuck to his guns about not marrying till he was ready. He should have stayed loyal to his wife when he did decide to marry and he should have supported her. He should have stayed away from Camilla once he got engaged. He wasn't honorable and no matter how you try to escape it Karma comes for you and those around you. His family is paying the price with Harry and Mehgan. If he'd been tougher and a better person a some people might not be dead and his family might have been in a better place. That said his son William seems to be the stronger and will do well. He's left dealing with the carnage of his dad mistakes though. Harry and Megs need their titles stripped and to be cut off. They can whine all they want people now see them for who they are.
I see where Hazbeen gets his whineyness from.
You are just pissed that he got away from that hellhole of a life. As far as whining, when someone is being constantly attacked only their bullies consider them speaking up for themselves "whining." It seems to me the word "whining" is nothing but a bully's way of trying to cancel out their victims telling of their mistreatment. Only fellow bullies approve of calling that "whining." So I guess we can surmise what you are.
@@peachygal4153 omg Haz is that you ?!
What is she mad at?
Why didnt Tampax Charlie grow a third arm to pat himself on the back, he and his hand wringing whiney @ssed voice etc. Good on QEII
Very heartless woman.
Love hurts
She understands the position they're in. A royal must never leverage their position. Their 'leadership' must be silent and ceremonial. Or they'll go the same way as the French royals.
(Hyperbole, I doubt anyone is actually dusting off a guillotine.)
@@KatMorriganthat's correct, because it relates they live in a constitutional monarchy, and whereas the absolute monarchy the monarch has ultimate power and can do and express anything, just like the French royal and Russia Imperial family
@@taymur0804 Denmark had an absolute monarchy where it ended bloodlessly and is one of the more good examples of monarchy that still exists today.
@@Ranchor489 Wow, I thought their's was always constitutional, I had no idea
If the Queen really was so self obsessed and lacking in empathy. It's no wonder the Windsor s mare still at loggerheads. It's a very pinched way of seeing oneself and others. John😢
In so many words, Prince Harry is saying the same thing, and yet his father and others are condemning him!
When was he condemned by his family?
@@windycityliz7711 by his book
She was a hard woman and Charles the same.
Presenting Elizabeth II as an emotionally abusive mother. This is the last scene of "The Crown" I ever watched and the day I cancelled Netflix.
who cares🙄
I was a fan of Elizabeth before i saw The Crown. Not a fan of the monarchy when they destroy innocent lives.
Well that’s just…. Stupid ngl, totally nonsensical to base your feelings for the royal family on a television series drama.
You base your view on prople based on a tv drama?
Don't be stupid.
The Crown may based on largely historical events.
But the family drama is 90% fiction, and shat little 10% is left have been dialled up to 12.
The Crown is not a historical documentary, and should not been seen as such. It is just drama.