What is it really all about ??

[kristina]

Many people are very much confused about the following:

... First she "dumped" her religion in order to marry a man with different believes and so she took on his religion ...
Then, after divorcing and "abandoning" her first husband plus his religion, she "converted" to a completely different religion and/because this came "automatically" with her new husband ... and she also took his prestigious family to her heart, whilst "ditching" her own family ...

... Then she abandoned her own father and "shelved" her sister ... then she began to isolate her new husband from his own family and all his life-long friends ... then she "abandoned" his family and convinced her husband to follow suit and do exactly the same ... then she made her husband "discard" his lifelong best friend, who also happens to be his brother ... then she and her husband had a baby (?) ...  and then she made her - by now totally isolated - husband to "forget about" his country plus his duty to his country and then she convinced her husband to live with her & baby on "the other end of the globe".

But ... during all that time she and her husband were paid for by the taxpayer not only for their extremely luxurious life-style and upkeep, but also for their personal security (costing about half a Million Dollars each year) ... and their living "accommodation" etc.

She and her husband were also invited to "buy" a huge comfortable "house" (Mansion...?) and this "House" was lovingly restored for them and all this was paid for again by the taxpayer ... 

... But now they have decided that the country is not treating them well enough and therefore they wish to leave, but nevertheless, they wish to keep everything, the taxpayer - so far - has provided them with ... 

Does anyone know what is this all about and does anyone know what's next ?

 

[MooseMom]

Well, not that it is the most important "news" item of the day, but at least it is diverting!

I guess that first we could look at the words in quotation marks.  When the media uses words like "dumped" and "abandon" and "ditch", it shows a bias and sensationalism.  I do not know either Prince Harry or Meghan Markle personally, so I can only speculate.  Plenty of people convert to a prospective spouse's religion in an effort to make life easier for everyone concerned and out of love.  Perhaps she was not all that religious in the first place and was happy to become C of E because, well, she sorta had to.

It is my understanding that her ex has remarried.  I think he was also in the entertainment business, and if that's the case. it's probable that their schedules meant that they had difficulty finding time to spend together.

It is also my understanding that Meghan's American family is somewhat dysfunctional, and I know that the British press will take any small nugget of information and make said molehill into a raging, erupting volcano.

I am not sure how Meghan Markle can "make" Prince Harry do anything he does not want to do.  He has never really been in the public eye that much.  I remember the days when he was reviled when he was caught wearing a Nazi uniform at a costume party and was also caught wearing next to nothing in a hot tub.  It didn't make much sense at the time, but since he has fairly recently begun speaking out on mental health issues, I do wonder if in those days, he was feeling lost.  Clearly, his mother's death made much more of an impact upon him than anyone in the public realized.

And that make me wonder, too, if this royal "departure" might be more his idea than hers.  He was obviously very much upset at the racial abuse aimed at Meghan by the British tabloids and by a disturbing amount of British people.  She has lived and worked in Canada, and perhaps that fact gave him the idea of spending more time there.  He is pretty far down the line to the throne, so I don't know why it matters so much.

Canada is hardly on "the other end of the globe".  It is a large part of the Commonwealth, perhaps its lynchpin (along with Australia).

Since so many British people complain how much money it takes to support the Royal Family, I would have thought they'd be happy that Prince Harry and his family would like to be "financially independent".  Is the argument over money?  Meghan Markle is a millionaire in her own right.  It is my understanding that Prince Harry and his wife still plan to represent the Royal family in Canada, and if that is the case, then wouldn't they be entitled to perhaps an even smaller percentage of the sovereign grant they receive now?

I think most of their money comes from earnings from the Duchy of Wherever  (Cornwall?) and not the British taxpayer, but I could be wrong about that.

I obviously don't know all of the specifics as Meghan Markle has not personally informed me, but to be honest, if I was her, I would not want to stay in Britain.  If the racist abuse hurled at her has been so bad that Prince Harry had to make a public and formal request to lay off, no amount of luxury funded by the taxpayers would make me want to stay, especially if I had my own money and my own "happy place".  Prince Harry, for good reason, has a particular enmity toward the British press.  That is no secret.

I'm not entirely sure what Prince Harry's "duty" to his country actually is.  He served in the British armed forces in Afghanistan, and there is no greater duty than that, putting your life on the line for your Queen and Country.  If that's not good enough for the British, I'm not sure what is.  He's not the heir, rather, he is the spare, and he knows that.

Good luck to them both.  I hope they will be happy. 

[Simon Dog]

Converting for marital reasons has always seemed a bit strange - as if one can "choose what they truly believe".

I've always believed that if you choose to believe something then it is not really a belief - and I did not choose to believe that particular belief, I have just always believed it to be a true belief, believe it or not. 

[MooseMom]

Converting for marital reasons has always seemed a bit strange - as if one can "choose what they truly believe".

I've always believed that if you choose to believe something then it is not really a belief - and I did not choose to believe that particular belief, I have just always believed it to be a true belief, believe it or not.

Your post interested me, so I thought I'd try to find a bit more information.  From what I can tell, she was raised Protestant but went to a Catholic school at some point.  I seem to remember that she decided to be baptized in the Anglican church as a kind gesture to the Queen, the Monarch being the head of the Church of England.  I do not think she so much "converted" as simply chose to observe what faith she does have according to the practices of the C of E.

I am not sure what would have happened, though, if she had been Catholic.  It might not have mattered because she will never be Queen, but an English Monarch cannot be Catholic. 

[kristina]

... I have always become a bit suspicious when someone changes their religion so publicly because of their marriage etc.  because religion then only appears to be " a means to an end" so to speak, which of course, has nothing to do with honest religious believes. Furthermore, religion is also supposed to be something very private which people think about (or do not think about) within themselves ... and it appears to be a bit suspicious when someone changes their religion according to the person they are (currently ?) married to ...

To my knowledge there was never any racial abuse aimed at Meghan by the British tabloids and/or by British people ... To my knowledge people here gave her every possible chance to feel as much welcome and at home as is possible for someone who is going to live in a "Golden Cage" as soon as they marry into the Monarchy with its many rules and regulations ...

People marrying into or being connected with the Monarchy get instantly every possible imaginable privilege ... but ... there is also a downside to it and that is the fact that one has to "obey" lots of rules and regulations and therefore one really can't have it all  ... and ... that is something one has to think about very seriously before one decides to go ahead and "get involved" ...

... Unfortunately it has become a bit fashionable these days to "play the race card" whenever anything goes wrong ... that is very sad and it often puts pressure on completely innocent people who have no problem with racial matters whatsoever...

[MooseMom]

Apparently, Prince Harry has long felt that the problem is way past merely "playing the race card".

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/meghan-markle-engagement-prince-harry-exposes-quiet-racism-n825516

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/08/prince-harry-lambasts-press-over-meghan-markle-coverage

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/08/in-rare-blast-at-british-media-prince-harry-says-his-american-girlfriend-meghan-markle-faces-wave-of-abuse/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/27/a-wave-of-abuse-how-prince-harrys-relationship-announcement-meghan-markle-attacked-the-press

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/royals/black-britons-know-why-meghan-markle-wants-out/ar-BBYNoxi?ocid=spartanntp

https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/aug/12/meghan-markle-why-all-the-hate      (this podcast is particularly enlightening!)

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/sep/21/edward-enninful-vogue-meghan-markle-criticism-racist    (This is an article about Meghan's Vogue co-editing experience and the backlash from some corners of British society that ensued.)

I have no doubt that there are many British people who do like Meghan, but there are other, much louder and influential voices that have taken the low road.  The fact is, whether we like it or not, that these voices have made a happy life for Harry and Meghan close to impossible.  The question is whether or not they have to be forced to endure it.  Are they Royal first, or are they a family first?  When they got married, many people remarked happily that she was the face of the future of the Royal family as they move forward in relevance.  I am sure it is true that the family embraced her, and I remember that the British people were charmed when she asked Prince Charles walk her partway down the aisle. 

Prince Harry is seeing what life is like when a white man marries a woman of color.  Being royal obviously has not shielded him from the consequences.  Perhaps he is merely doing what all good husbands do; he's protecting his wife because obviously the Royal Family Institution cannot.

No one, royal or not, should be forced to put up and smile through this sort of treatment.  I am sure the Queen and Prince Charles will work out some sort of accommodation.  It is generally believed that Prince Harry is a favorite of the Queen, and I am sure she wants to see him happy and will do what she can to make him so.

I agree with you about religion, that is should be private and such.  But again, the rules of the Royals (and Parliament and the government) come into play.  I'm not sure that regular American Protestantism is so vastly different from C of E; both fall under the umbrella of Protestantism.  Remember the role religion played in "the King's Matter".  While Britain is largely secular, the role of the Church plays an influential role among the Royal Family.  It is not like Meghan Markle converted to Christianity as she already was one.

Anyway, I am sure things will work out to everyone's benefit.  I hope the British people will come to believe that a person's mental health and happiness is ultimately the most important thing here. 

A Golden Cage is still a cage.  Again, I would think that all of this would be good news to the British taxpayer.  Two fewer royals to support!

[Paul]

... First she "dumped" her religion in order to marry a man with different believes and so she took on his religion ...Then, after divorcing and "abandoning" her first husband plus his religion, she "converted" to a completely different religion and/because this came "automatically" with her new husband

I have absolutely no idea if God exists or not, and consider anyone who says either "God defiantly exists" or "God defiantly does not exist" to be an idiot. There is no real evidence either way, we will only find out for certain when we die. However, that said: IF He does exist I believe all religions are worshipping the same being in some form (except those deliberately worshipping the Devil, or his equivalent). It does not matter what religion you follow, it is the same guy.

[Paul]

... Then she abandoned her own father and "shelved" her sister ...

From the reports I read, her father and sister were not particularly nice people, and she would have dumped them whatever happened.

[Paul]

I think most of their money comes from earnings from the Duchy of Wherever  (Cornwall?) and not the British taxpayer, but I could be wrong about that.

Sort of correct. The royal family get NO MONEY WHATSOEVER from the tax payer, but only a some of it comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. Basically what happened (several monarchs back) was that the government took over all the Monarch's assets and started paying the royal family a small percentage of the profits. At the moment (and for the past few years) this has been set at 15%, before that it was a lump sum that was somewhere near that percentage. So basically, not only does the tax payer not give the royal family a penny, the royals are actually paying 85% income tax, by far the highest in Britain, and I suspect the world.

The "old wives tale" that the tax payer pays the Queen and family a lot of money is basically a lie spread by Republicans (by which I mean people who want to abolish the monarchy, not the American political party). It is something easy to complain about, so the fiction gets well spread and well believed.

[Paul]

To my knowledge there was never any racial abuse aimed at Meghan by the British tabloids and/or by British people ...

Oh believe me, it was there. It was subtle and deniable, but it was there. And it was not only the tabloids, but some of the more respectable news organs as well.

[kristina]

To my knowledge there was never any racial abuse aimed at Meghan by the British tabloids and/or by British people ...

Oh believe me, it was there. It was subtle and deniable, but it was there. And it was not only the tabloids, but some of the more respectable news organs as well.

... I feel I must reiterate again that I have never noticed anything of that sort. Mind you, I am not looking for it either... and I do come across papers/magazines etc. but I have never read anything of that sort in the papers/magazines etc.

[kristina]

... First she "dumped" her religion in order to marry a man with different believes and so she took on his religion ...Then, after divorcing and "abandoning" her first husband plus his religion, she "converted" to a completely different religion and/because this came "automatically" with her new husband

I have absolutely no idea if God exists or not, and consider anyone who says either "God defiantly exists" or "God defiantly does not exist" to be an idiot. There is no real evidence either way, we will only find out for certain when we die. However, that said: IF He does exist I believe all religions are worshipping the same being in some form (except those deliberately worshipping the Devil, or his equivalent). It does not matter what religion you follow, it is the same guy.

... Try and convince some people in Northern Ireland about this and you might find yourself in a bit of bother ...
Mind you, essentially speaking, I agree with you, but it still looks a bit strange if a person changes their religion according to the person they share their life with at a particular time in their life ... would you not agree ?

[kristina]

... Then she abandoned her own father and "shelved" her sister ...

From the reports I read, her father and sister were not particularly nice people, and she would have dumped them whatever happened.

... What you say might be true, but, if I remember well, did her family and her former husband plus some people who know her not "only" try to warn other people of her character and her strange behaviour pattern etc. ?

[Simon Dog]

I have absolutely no idea if God exists or not, and consider anyone who says either "God defiantly exists" or "God defiantly does not exist" to be an idiot. There is no real evidence either way, we will only find out for certain when we die. However, that said: IF He does exist I believe all religions are worshipping the same being in some form (except those deliberately worshipping the Devil, or his equivalent). It does not matter what religion you follow, it is the same guy.

Do you consider any one who says that there is no teapot in orbit between the  Earth and Mars to be an idiot?   The evidence is the same.  Google "Russel's teapot".

And if God were to exist, what would cause you to assume this entity is a he rather than a she?

[Michael Murphy]

For some people the form of their religion is the controlling force in their lives, for others it’s a guiding force that is not as restricting.   It’s not like she left for life as a pagan.

[iolaire]

People covert all the time in order to wed the person they love.  I’m a non believer and don’t know why it’s an issue.

[kristina]

... Most of our newspapers are full of front-page-articles about "Harry and Meghan"... and their future ... and suddenly there comes along a new thought :  .... i.e. could it just be some diversionary tactic to take our attention away from the real problems of ...  Brexit ?

[Paul]

I have absolutely no idea if God exists or not, and consider anyone who says either "God defiantly exists" or "God defiantly does not exist" to be an idiot. There is no real evidence either way, we will only find out for certain when we die. However, that said: IF He does exist I believe all religions are worshipping the same being in some form (except those deliberately worshipping the Devil, or his equivalent). It does not matter what religion you follow, it is the same guy.

... Try and convince some people in Northern Ireland about this and you might find yourself in a bit of bother ...

Oh yes, but I am in England, so are the Happy (or unhappy) couple. In England the main religion is Atheist. Atheists pretty much have the same view as Iolaire.

[Paul]

Do you consider any one who says that there is no teapot in orbit between the  Earth and Mars to be an idiot?   The evidence is the same.

I have no idea if there is a teapot in space, one may or may not have been dropped by an astronaut and been trapped in orbit.  However the problem here is that you misunderstand Russell's point. He is not saying "if you cannot prove it exists, it does not exist", he is saying "if you cannot prove it exists, it may or may not exist, you cannot claim one or other view as fact without proof". In other words, he is saying exactly the same thing as I said. Another way of explaining Russell's teapot is "I have absolutely no idea if God exists or not, and consider anyone who says either "God defiantly exists" or "God defiantly does not exist" to be an idiot. There is no real evidence either way".

And if God were to exist, what would cause you to assume this entity is a he rather than a she?

I was brought up as a Catholic and sent to Catholic school where we were taught more than any human needs to know about the Bible. It clearly refers to God as"He" on many occasions.

Of course that is just the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God. Other religions have a woman God. One even has an elephant as a God.

And tomorrow I will be worshipping at the shrine of Doctor Who. He used to be a man (for about 54 years Earth time) but is now a woman.

[Paul]

To my knowledge there was never any racial abuse aimed at Meghan by the British tabloids and/or by British people ...

Oh believe me, it was there. It was subtle and deniable, but it was there. And it was not only the tabloids, but some of the more respectable news organs as well.

... I feel I must reiterate again that I have never noticed anything of that sort.

I think the problem here is that you do not read newspapers often, then post about what you think might be in them. It is impossible for you to have read a broad spread of papers without coming across this. In another post you site the Daily Mail to make your point. The Daily Mail is one of the worst papers at doing this. If you have read that regularly, you will have seen many articles that, using much politer words, basically say "GO HOME DARKIE, AND LEAVE OUR ROYAL FAMILY ALONE."

[Paul]

... Then she abandoned her own father and "shelved" her sister ...

From the reports I read, her father and sister were not particularly nice people, and she would have dumped them whatever happened.

... What you say might be true, but, if I remember well, did her family and her former husband plus some people who know her not "only" try to warn other people of her character and her strange behaviour pattern etc. ?

Well - they sold stories to the newspapers in order to make money from her new found fame. Most (but not all) of her other family members have come out and said these are lies. But, as I (and pretty much most of Britain) have been saying, the papers have it in for her, so are biging up these bad stories, then hiding the "most of her family say it is not true" stories to small articles, buried deep in later issues (or not mentioning them at all).

Incidentally, these stories were part of the "let's get Meghan Markle" campaign that the papers have been running. So if you are aware of this article, you are aware of the vicious way the press treated her, it just went over your head.

I am beginning to think that your viciousness against Harry and Megan in your first post and several others is not (as I originally assumed) because you are very "anti royal" but because you have been reading the hatchet jobs the press have been publishing, and believing them to be true.

[Paul]

... Most of our newspapers are full of front-page-articles about "Harry and Meghan"... and their future ... and suddenly there comes along a new thought :  .... i.e. could it just be some diversionary tactic to take our attention away from the real problems of ...  Brexit ?

It is possible, but if so I would guess that if it is (big IF) it is more to divert us from the Prince Andrew story. After all, he is Harry's uncle.

[Simon Dog]

I have two Budda statutes, some angel figurines and crosses, and a brass Ganesh (the elphant got of Hinduism) that I bought in Bangalore displayed in my house, and a few Tarot decks lying around somewhere.   Budda has a less impressive provenance than Ganesh, having been bought at Pier One Imports.   An Indian visitor scolded my wife for having Ganesh on a low shelf, so he has been raised to a high one.  I also have a brass Shiva that sits on the top shelf of the ordnance locker as that seemed an appropriate location.

As to the teapot - claiming an absurdity and them asserting the claim must be given "might be true" credibility is not a reasonable way of evaluating claims.  More appropriate is LaPlace's principle that states that the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportional to the evidence, commonly cited as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".   Of course no theological discussion about old guys with funny names would be complete without mention of Pascal's Wager.

I do agree on on thing - I have no proof there is no orbiting teapot and there is a slim chance one exists, right on par with that of an omniscient diety existing.   But, there is that theory (even cited by Dilbert so it must have merit) that we are all just a simulation in some high order being's lab.

I have no idea if there is a teapot in space, one may or may not have been dropped by an astronaut and been trapped in orbit.

Russel's claim is the teapot orbits the sub between Earth and Mars, not Earth.

It clearly refers to God as"He" on many occasions.

Reflecting the power structure of the time, which is why God is also white.

I wonder how future linguistic archeologists will deal with explaining the morphing the use of "they" from plural to singular when referring to an individual, but only if that individual is not identifying itself as one of the two traditional sexes.

[Paul]

As to the teapot - claiming an absurdity and them asserting the claim must be given "might be true" credibility is not a reasonable way of evaluating claims.  More appropriate is LaPlace's principle that states that the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportional to the evidence, commonly cited as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

You are aware that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed aren't you? He may or may not have been God's son, but he did exist. As to the existence of God, there are miracles that indicate he (or some powerful deity) exists. There is no evidence whatsoever that he does not exist. I'm not saying this to prove that he exists (my original claim about my lack of knowledge still stands), however - If you wish to quote Russel and LaPlace their philosophies indicate that, on the balance of evidence, God does exist. And if you want to throw in Occam's Razor ("the simplest solution is most likely the right one") then, on the balance of evidence, you have to accept that God definitely exist.

Of course, I prefer to believe that all we have proved is that philosophy is bunkum, and philosophers should be considered a waste of a good brain. Sure philosophy is good for pointless but deep discussions, but to use it to "prove" or "disprove" anything is a path that leads to madness.

[Paul]

I have two Budda statutes, some angel figurines and crosses, and a brass Ganesh (the elphant got of Hinduism) that I bought in Bangalore displayed in my house, and a few Tarot decks lying around somewhere.  I also have a brass Shiva that sits on the top shelf of the ordnance locker

So I take it you are covering all bases? Whoever God is, you have something to point at to say "Look I worshipped you, so let me into Heaven/Paradise/give me a good reincarnation.

Heck, if you include you avatar, you are even covered if God turns out to be a plate of spaghetti and meatballs!

Your post reminded me of one of the Mummy Movies ("The Mummy Returns" I think). The Mummy is closing in on one of the archaeologists who holds up a crucifix to ward him off. The Mummy smiles and grabs the crucifix, throwing it away. The archaeologist then holds up a Star Of David (Jewish religious symbol) which has as little effect as the crucifix. The archaeologist then works through a series of religious symbols, one after the other, all of which have no affect on The Mummy.

I have a vision of The Mummy breaking into your home, and you desperately grabbing effigy after effigy in an attempt to ward it off!