Prince Harry’s ‘Spare’ is reviving calls for reparations & republicanism

It’s really funny to me to watch the Duke and Duchess of Sussex include historical criticisms of the British monarchy within their recent projects. In Netflix’s Harry & Meghan, they included an informative conversation about the British Commonwealth, and how it’s just a rebranded British Empire. There was even talk, within the Netflix series, about the Windsors’ ties to the slave trade. In Spare, Harry wrote about colonialism and the monarchy’s ties to and profits from the slave trade too. It’s causing a lot of conversation – just not in the UK. This segment appeared on CBS Morning on Monday:

Again, the Windsors have never apologized for their role in the slave trade, nor have they apologized for the atrocities and genocides done in their name. The Windsors have always taken the position that if they apologize, those communities will want reparations. Meanwhile, Clive Irving at the Daily Beast seems to be the only one at that site who actually understands that Spare is an existential threat for the Windsors.

Here, for example, is Rebecca Mead, the London correspondent of The New Yorker, in her review of the book: “Spare is an unprecedented exposure of the Royal Family from the most deeply embedded of informants. The Prince in exile does not hesitate to detail the pettiness, the vanity, and the inglorious urge toward self-preservation of those who are now the monarchy’s highest-ranking representatives.”

And Helen Lewis in The Atlantic: “…this book still holds extraordinary power, not least as the best case yet against a hereditary monarchy.”

Or, more seriously because it comes from Australia, where moves to remove the British monarch as head of state are gathering strength, by Jenny Hocking, a leading republican: “The monarchy may rue the day it failed to recognize a rare opportunity for it to evolve, to embrace the contemporary reality of the post-imperial Commonwealth… this unedifying display of royal family discord will only hasten Australia’s move towards a republic.”

[From The Daily Beast]

I genuinely hope all of this is true. It feels like there has been a real move for common, everyday people to pick up a copy of Spare and read Harry’s words for themselves, all while American and British media tried to drive the narrative that Spare was an unimportant whine-fest. Peter Hunt is also one of the few commentators saying, no, this will fundamentally change the monarchy. Fingers crossed.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

84 Responses to “Prince Harry’s ‘Spare’ is reviving calls for reparations & republicanism”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Noor says:

    The tide for change is there long before Prince Harry ‘s book, Spare. The Commonwealth countries replacing the Queen as head of state is inevitable.

    • Seaflower says:

      Agree. It’s been a rising tide for years. More than H’s book, the Camilla affair/treatment of women (both Diana, Meghan and abused/minority women) and her friendship with Clarkson/Piss; the lack of work ethic by W&K; and especially the debacle with Andrew really killed much support for them here in Aust.

    • SussexFan says:

      ESPECIALLY for those in the Caribbean. Does Charles think that he can stay King of Australia and New Zealand and Canada–mostly white former colonies? Right. The monarchy’s going down for the third time there as well.

      • Coldbloodedjellydonut says:

        I hope I see them ousted in Canada within my lifetime. There is the issue of the treaties with the First Nations and how to transfer them, I think a lot of negotiation will be necessary first.

        I work with legal docs and every time I see an agreement or title that says His Majesty the King, I barf a little in my mouth.

  2. Amy Bee says:

    Let’s hope it does spur on further discussions about the relevance and usefulness of the monarchy.

    • AlpineWitch says:

      It already has.

      The book has been bought by a lot of republicanists – I haven’t yet because I was recently made redundant but as soon as the price goes down a little, I’ll be very happy to buy a copy #abolishthemonarchy

  3. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Harry dares speak “universal truths and actually be in touch with the conscience of humanity” regarding the Royal Family’s enrichment and financing of slavery. Well put. I’d like to see the fall of the monarchy in my lifetime, so please hop to it, UK and Commonwealth countries. Thx!

    • Mary Pester says:

      And that’s what they can’t stand. Harry has Shone a light, not just on the way they treated his bi racial wife, but the way they look down on everyone who isn’t “them”, or like “them”. None of them have earned their money and privilege. They have just grabbed everything they could with both hands and kicked others out of the way to grab it. Their whole lives have been ones of greedy entitlement, so in their eyes, “how dare Harry strike out on his own and succeed

  4. Jenna says:

    The book, as well as the series addressed this. I couldn’t believe that the slave OWNERS were given reparation from losing their slaves.

    Just a horrible part of our past. It makes me sad and angry. The royal family needs to return all of its stolen jewels and money. It’s ridiculous that, in this day and age, they can’t let go of just ONE of their billions to repay the people they enslaved.

    • Fortuona says:

      The Government spent the money on paying for freeing the slaves and then the same amount on the African Fleet for 70 years where the created Sierra Leone from nothing

    • Fortuona says:

      Private companies bought and sold humans on license to the HMG but at that point the monarch had not been in charge for a 150 years that died in 1690 with the last Stuart the King was not in charge

      The East India Company bought the gems in Asia under the Lord Mayor of London. And it was the same in the west with Private companies buying humans doing it under License to HMG from Dahomey etc

      Slavery was legal , we decided to make it illegal so there had to be a pay out . And remained so in Asia,Africa ,Americas and is still happening now

      When legal guns were made illigal after Dunblane in 1997 HMG had to pay for every gun and the ammo to be destroyed despite it was then illegal

      • goofpuff says:

        Guns are not people. So I wouldn’t do that comparison.

        They paid the slave owners because in fact, they were just paying themselves and their cronies who made bank on all of the slave trade and plantations and colonies so they wouldn’t oppose making it illegal.

      • ChillinginDC says:

        What weird history book have you read?

      • Fortuona says:

        post 1830 the plantations were still legal , it was just slavery and inendture that was banned and pre 1829 is was all legal

        Common Law says if something is being bannned HMG have to pay to make it happen

        Guns aside there is a massive list of thing HMG want banned but every time they have to cough up

      • SussexFan says:

        @Fortuona: Benedict Cumberbatch may not be facing reparations, but his ancestors sure did own some black people and were compensated. See

      • Fortuona says:

        History books

        The same years they freed the slaves the African Squadron was establish fully for the next 70 years . From the slaves they rescued they set up in what is now Sirerra Leone

        Then moved to the East Coast and raided Zanzibar to break the Arab trade ubder guidance from David Livigstone who died at the slavers hands

        Also born 5 mins from DL’s birthplace and – those hypocritical African leaders clearly new noyhing as they tour round DL’s home and names cities after him

      • Fortuona says:

        Sussex Fan

        So they should have just broke the law over something that was legal the day before – remember the only place on earth that did it (Haiti asside) and then ran naval operations for 70 years in support of it

        It is in the Common Law that freed

        David Olusoga on how Sierra Leone was created

    • May Bench says:

      Don’t forget that the RF was very involved and hugely profited off selling opium in China during the Opium wars. The RF enslaved people by getting them hooked on drugs besides selling them for profit.

      • Fortuona says:

        Once again not true

        It was the EIC a private company . The Opium Wars was down to them as was Hong Kong

      • Kkat says:

        lol @ fortuona
        That’s lots of revised history in your comments 🙄😂

      • Fortuona says:

        What is revised ?

        EIC lated from 1600 till the year in went bust in 1870 odd and HMH took over and 1690, the Monahs to

        They sold the slaves , ran the colonies ,were busy captuirng lamd from Canada (eg Taboo),Bengal with HMG sendng troops in EIC was it trouble (earlry and late Sharpe – that is why Wellinton was there),looted India (Sharpe and Holmes ) had an Army and they own forts paused and ,moved on to China where they caused 2 wars for tea . realized to make the amount of taels they needed so took to selling Opium which is why 40 yrs later they ended up with HK at the end of the 2nd war (Clavell Tai-Pan to Gai- Jin)

        So what did I alter ?

      • Tan says:

        Yes of course @Fortuana the EIC was just a lone company in the wind doing its slave trading and other activities while the poor poor colonial countries could only sit there being held by their thumbs – being like we’ve never benefited from any of this it’s not any or our fault or our armies or our laws or our crusades to go and steal land and other resources – it’s just the big bad faceless companies cackling in the corner besting all of us – dramatic plop onto a fainting couch

  5. girl_ninja says:

    We see how the islands that were under the commonwealth have left and/or are leaving. So this has been happening. Good if things like Spare brings the discussion to the forefront even more.

    • Fortuona says:

      They will stay in the commonwealth ,they will just be republics

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Fortuona, It will be interesting to see if the Commonwealth countries decide to replace the King with someone else. I could see that happening.

      • Fortuona says:

        They gave Chucky it for life but he will be the last Royal in charge because they do not trust Willy

  6. Miranda says:

    I know that Harry is still on a journey, and there’s obviously still room for him to grow with regards to understanding racism and prejudice and calling those things by their rightful names, but his testament is nonetheless remarkable and audacious. It’s probably the most epic “privilege check” that most of us will ever see, and I have faith that he’s going to keep it up.

    • Christine says:

      Agreed, Miranda. He’s on a one man quest, at this point, and I hope he keeps going and going. I am positive I will never see anything like this again, I never expected to see it once!

  7. UNCDancer says:

    I am always stunned when people are surprised by this, are surprised about the British monarchy‘s role in slavery. It’s like they forget that the United States was a British colony when slavery began. It’s not like slavery popped up organically like weeds. It’s so disingenuous.

    • Honora says:

      Yeah slavery didn’t just pop up then, not sure how far back it went but I know at the time of Mohamed it was said in the Quran it’s okay to have slaves but you have to do xyz. And from then on Muslims and Christians were invading each others areas and taking slaves, but each group didn’t take their own religion’s followers as slaves. When the Arabs got to morocco many berbers are said to have converted to Islam to avoid slavery.Vikings took English as slaves. China didn’t ban slavery until 1909. South Asia had slavery before English colonialism there. Anywhere that was « a power » seems to have had slavery in some form accepted in the culture. It’s weird to imagine living 500 years ago when values were so completely different that slavery was just a fact in many places. A good show to watch that features slavery is Ertugrul, it shows the relationships between Christians Muslims and Gengis Khan’s army. England was actually late to the game with slavery. I am surprised that people don’t realize that usa’s slavery has a British connection but a lot of people also seem to have the impression, erroneously, that the Europeans invented slavery in 1492, and they want all the apologies to come from europe/white people when China literally has slavery still happening practically in the open

      • Becks1 says:

        Who thinks Europeans invented slavery in 1492? If anything, comments like yours that detail slavery in other regions/empires/time periods are VERY common from people who are trying to diminish slavery in the Americas and the transatlantic slave trade.

        I’m not sure if that’s what you were trying to do or not, but its a very common argument from those who dont think we need to really do anything about the history of slavery in the US, because “everywhere had slaves, it wasn’t just us.”

      • C says:

        Oh I love when people write out these mealy-mouthed long-winded narratives trying to diminish the historiographical importance of the transatlantic slave trade because they want to pretend racism isn’t a thing or something. People like you need to pack it in, lol.

      • Shobha says:

        yes, slavery existed before The Atlantic Slave Trade. In fact, the word “slave” comes from the Slavs (white Slavic people) captured in the 9th century by the Ottoman Turks. Yet, The Atlantic Slave Trade redefined slavery so that we now think of it as a racial construct… Only black people are slaves when historically that wasn’t the case. In the New World as a society was created, you can tell how to separate between freed people and slaves by just appearances.

      • Chantal says:

        Yes slavery has existed for millennia in one form or another. But it became more atrocious as time passed bc the evilness of men knows no bounds. Most slavery was due to war/strife/conquering lands. Some later became renamed as indentured servants. Some could even buy their freedom. Then came was the horrific Transatlantic slave trade (and the ultimate evil – American chattel slavery), where the vast majority of Africans were abducted (a smaller number were sold by tribal chieftains), transported to other continents in abhorrent conditions, auctioned and sold. In the US, attempts to enslave Native Americans were unsuccessful and deadly. The slave trade changed that. In chattel slavery your family name, history, culture, language and religion were beaten out of you, reading and learning to read were punishable by death, you were forced to accept and practice their form of Christianity, slaves were “inherited” from generation to generation, family members of slaves were constantly broken up and sold at a moments notice to other slave owning families, and children of slaves were birthed into slavery for generations/centuries. After the slave trade ended, and unable to procure more, many Southern US slave owners r*ped their female slaves to produce more slaves (they were before but the potential economic devastation provided more “justification and incentive”). The complete erasure of African identity and forced renaming is why some Black American rappers refer to their given birth name as their government name. This shameful history is why many White Americans are actively trying to rewrite and reframe US history.

      • Lukie says:

        *Transatlantic theft and enslavement of African people.

        Let’s call it what it was.

      • HamsterJam says:

        @Honora – Thank you for that amazing short history lesson. Now I am off to research more. I love reading about interesting parts of history that are new to me. I knew that slavery still exists in some places, but I had never heard anything about China having slavery. I mean, I figured being a peasant was crappy enough, but outright slavery?

    • AnneL says:

      Right. Slavery actually existed when the colonies were founded. It came to be practiced on a wide scale in the Southern colonies (as well as in English colonies in the Caribbean) because of the nature of crops there. Extensive production of sugar and tobacco was profitable but required a lot of land and labor. White laborers could be bound through indentured servitude (usually in exchange for passage, room and board), but only for a contractual period of seven years or so. When they wanted a permanent labor source, they turned to Africa. They turned to slavery, and built their economy and wealth on it.

      • Shawna says:

        Exactly. What the transatlantic slave trade did is change existing practices of slavery into a form of what we’d now call mass production. Rather than slavery being a byproduct of war or being a condition that was not necessarily passed down from parent to child, the transatlantic trade truly turned people into commodities, perverted sex/pregnancy/birth into a production line, and made it an obscenely profitable industry that grew by devising ever-more inhumane policies. The fact that all of these British and European and American people deliberately made all these decisions to make slavery a modern, “efficient,” inhuman industry is part of the shame that white people like myself should feel. In no way is the prior existence of other forms of slavery an excuse.

  8. Becks1 says:

    I really liked the few comments in the beginning (maybe the first 50 pages?) where Harry is talking about traveling to South Africa with his father and meeting with a historian (I think?) and they are talking about a battle and Harry is using the terms he learned but also correcting those terms – I should go look it up but its too early for that lol; but he says things like “lands were given” and then corrects it to say “lands were stolen” or something like that. It’s clear he’s starting to break from the narrative and history he learned his whole life.

    That said, he’s obviously still pro-monarchy, at the end he talks about how little the monarchy costs and the good works the royal family does which got an eyeroll from me, but then he also says the bit about how the monarchy got its wealth (I don’t think he touches on slavery there, rather just how its an institution built on inequality and so much of the wealth comes from a different time when it was obtained through dubious means, so guess that could be a slavery reference.) So I do think he’s processing the monarchy and its role in the country and the world and I will be interested to hear his position on it in 5 or 10 years.

    But also, I just the book itself is one big case for republicanism. You have this extremely messed up system and family that either CAN’T change or WON’T change, and as a result it damages almost everyone it touches, family-wise.

    • Jais says:

      My eyes rolled at that exact same part, becks1. He is a monarchist…who’s writing a book that in spirit does not support the monarchy as it currently is. However, in one of the interviews, with Strahan I think, he says something like the monarchy does not fit modern society unless it changes from how it is now. Something like that. Like you, I think it’ll be interesting to see if his thoughts stay the same or change over time.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Jais I agree, his comments to Strahan were more nuanced on this topic, about how the monarchy needs to change to survive long-term. It’s clear he thinks it should survive but even acknowledging it needs to change significantly is a big step I think.

        I do think that just as time passes and he is more and more able to separate “the monarchy” from “Granny” he will start to see the monarchy differently. Right now he can’t be anti-monarchy because that was everything his grandmother stood for and he adored his grandmother.

      • Midnight@theOasis says:

        Yes, I think it was the Strahan interview where Harry brought up the actions by the Kings of Norway and the Netherlands and pointedly said the BRF has to take similar action.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        Even the “modernized” and “reformed” Scandinavian monarchies find themselves facing calls to be abolished. Something based on inequality and privilege cannot be reformed. I think Harry will eventually see that, but for now, you are probably correct. He cannot reject the very institution his beloved granny devoted her life to preserving.

      • Lucy says:

        I heard that bit too. He does talk about how he and Meg saw thought the monarchy could be – unifying national symbol that uses the platform to improve real people’s lives with real solutions.

        This goes back to exactly what I always thought the culture clashes at KP were. H&M thought they were there to do real projects and help people, W&K thought they were there to take pictures with people.

        The fact that he thought this would be something the family would be excited about shows how… I don’t know if blind is the word. But he deeply believes that people can heal, can do great things, can accomplish greatness as a group. And that’s egalitarian, which at its core is opposed to aristocracy.

        I was also glad to hear him learning thorough history that corrected what he knew. If a prince who was probably related to someone in the story can hear the corrections and accept them, everyone else just isn’t trying.

    • SomeChick says:

      he is very, very recently out of a cultlike system. the conditioning and thought patterns (and thought stopping) all take a while to wear off. and he has some good memories. it’s confusing and truly a process.

      also as he sincerely hopes for his kids to know their british relatives, this is by far the wisest tack to take while still telling the truth. it’s not really his problem whether the monarchy sinks or swims, how many countries leave the commonwealth, etc. he wants his family to be family to him.

  9. C-Shell says:

    “The Prince in exile does not hesitate to detail the pettiness, the vanity, and the inglorious urge toward self-preservation of those who are now the monarchy’s highest-ranking representatives.”

    I’ll admit to some surprise at how revealing Spare is, I feared that Harry would pull his punches, but — as I’ve said many times — Harry has titanium b*lls. I would LOVE to know what was in the 400 pages they cut. If Spare is an existential threat to the fakakta monarchy, the stuff on the editors’ and lawyers’ floor is devastating.

    • Lorelei says:

      @C-Shell, that’s what I’m dying of curiosity about, too. This book was SO BAD for the BRF but there are 400 more pages that make them look worse!? Like…how??

      He included William violently assaulting him and that made it in, so whatever was left out must be…yikes. I know this is pettyAF, but I wouldn’t be upset if a BRF-hating employee at PRH decided to somehow leak the parts that were edited out…like that disgruntled Twitter employee who deactivated 45’s account right before leaving, lol.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think he cut himself off a LOT in the last 50 or 75 pages or so. He starts making more and more references to William’s staff leaking, and I think at a few points indicates that it was only happening with William’s approval. He clearly was holding himself back from saying a lot about William in that final section. Like he references the Sun having the story about them stepping back first, and then later he talks about the “sad little man” who was paying off the close friend of one of William’s employees but doesn’t draw a clear line between the two – the sad little man being Wootton and Wootton having the Sussexit story. But I feel like he really wanted to.

        I honestly feel like he is still really processing William’s betrayal and treatment of him and Meghan and what he says about him in a year may be very different than what he says now.

      • Midnight@theOasis says:

        I felt the last chapter of Spare felt rushed and Harry left a lot out. Now hearing that the book was edited down from 800 pages, it seems that section of the book probably was edited the most. Harry definitely paints a clear picture though that lets the reader know, that the actions taken by his staff were by Willy’s direction.

      • Emily says:

        I wonder if some of the 400 pages takes place before his mother’s death. The book begins at the beginning of his “public life.”

        He also seems to cut things off at the end.

      • Jais says:

        The book’s afterword ends with Harry saying, “Thank you for wanting to know my story in my words. I am so grateful to be able to show it thus far.” The thus far part is doing a lot. I was like oooh la. More to come.

  10. Brassy Rebel says:

    If this book ignites a serious debate about all these issues, including whether the monarchy should continue to exist, it will be a valuable contribution to society. The British public will wake up one day and wonder where all the world’s goodwill toward Great Britain went if they do not take a very long, hard look at the royal institution. They should be asking themselves, is this really the hill we want to die on? Comforting themselves with YouGov polls cannot sustain them forever.

    • Ruby says:

      The yougov poll was around 2000 people in surrey If I remember correctly, the number may be different but these posh white folks in suburbia are not reflective of the entire UK and never have been. Yougov are notorious for how they select the people to poll on various issues – it’s like reading a tabloid for facts.

      A lot of british people, are not in favour of the monarchy in any form – especially not spending the insane amount of money they are to coronate 72 year old man during a unprecedented cost of living crisis where children and the elderly are either starving or unable to heat their homes. It was minus 2 today at 11am in London. People are cold and hungry and the Monarchy don’t GAF. William will likely never see the throne, people under 50 have had enough and the younger generations will get them abolished at some point.

    • Rnot says:

      The book bringing an end to the monarchy would be his greatest act of service yet, even if that wasn’t his conscious intention in writing it.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Brassy Rebel, I think the British people need to take a clear look at their media and try to get some laws passed to help with the outright lies and disinformation. I believe that Harry is determined to change the media by the hacking lawsuit and the burglary, hacking, etc. lawsuit. He’s going to make them go to trial because he has evidence that he wants the world to know about. Then he wants people arrested.

      People talk about Levinson 2 never happening (I hope I got the name correct). He could make sure that this does happen and maybe even more.

      Who isn’t showing any mercy? I’ll put my money on H.

  11. aftershocks says:

    Let’s hope that change does happen. If it comes, it will be slow, and the effects will not be seen in this generation. No significant change, much less brave leadership will come from weak, ineffectual Charles with his dependency upon praise from Camzilla and the BM to feel good about himself!

    Harry (and his ghost writer) have produced a beautifully written, deeply resonant coming-of-age/ dysfunctional family story. Not grief, nor firm/ family abuse, nor tabloid smearing, nor tragedies of war could defeat Prince Harry. Love, military discipline/ service, his experiences in Africa, and beneficial therapy saved him. The BRF don’t seem to realize how much Diana’s youngest son is trying to save them, or at least open their eyes. Harry’s memoir resonates for all of us who find lessons for our own lives within its pages.

  12. Snappyfish says:

    I find that Interesting since in his book Harry basically said it costs the average citizen about the cost of a pint. He doesn’t seem to want this so why would those supporting him.
    At no point in Spare does he suggest such a idea

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Harry made it clear that if the monarchy doesn’t change it will not go well. He’s right about that. The UK under the Tories have become more and more isolationist. How will it fair into the future like that? If the Monarchy refuses to acknowledge and welcome the diversity of its subjects (good Lord that word), it will simply crumble away or be booted.

      You can’t stay static and hope for the best. You have to keep moving forward. In my opinion, the Monarchy has left it too long. I simply don’t know that it will be possible for it to modernize. Especially since it will take the population to back it up in order to do so.

      I do see where Willem-Alexander hasn’t buried his head in the sand. He’s been addressing teaching the history of The Netherlands and its slave trade connection. He recently commissioned a three-year study of the Monarchs role in the slave trade. It’s a start. Teaching the new generations the true history of their country and the slave trade will, I hope, change perspectives. I wish the schools in the US started teaching about unconscious bias and institutional bias. If we can keep the Dems in power long enough, I think we can accomplish that. I hope. I pray.

      Do you see how far behind the British Monarchy is?

  13. Valerie says:

    Republicanism in Australia has been a thing before Harry was even born. It is known Queen Elizabeth’s charisma was the only thing keeping Australians from taking the next step. Well, that, and the tediousness of the process itself. But rest assured, if Australia does choose to make the move towards becoming a Republic, it will have nothing to do with Harry at all.

    The reaction in Australia to Harry’s book has ranged from not caring at all to laughing at how insignificant and harmless most of the anecdotes he shares are, to cringing at his oedipal complex and fantasies about his mother while he applies cream to his penis. Meghan and Harry are not particularly liked here. I guess it’s because we’re another salty, racist, hateful island ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    • Emily says:

      And yet it is the bestselling book on Australian Amazon with over 9000 reviews already, most very positive(4.4 star average) so it seems like lots of people are enjoying it. None of the reviews I read were mocking or dismissive. Twitter and mainstream media don’t always reflect the man/woman on the street.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Whelp, the troll tried it and failed.

    • ChillinginDC says:

      I mean you are. Aren’t you the same country that recently had a white man murder an Aboriginal boy? Aren’t you the same country that has to have an inquiry after 40 plus years of gay hate crimes?

      We get it, you are proudly racist. You popped up here thinking anyone cares what your racist self had to say. Bye.

    • equality says:

      So someone should believe you are Australian and don’t know that it’s a continent, not an island?

    • Mary Pester says:

      Well my family in Australia give a completely different view to yours. They say the book has been VERY well received and that Harry has really opened a lot of people’s eyes about the “Royal Court and it’s nasty little habits

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Valerie, wait . . . Elizabeth had charisma? Can you give me a date and time? I’ll look it up.

  14. Naomi says:

    Down with monarchy & neocolonialism. The British Parliament just blocked Scottish Parliament from passing a bill that would make it easier for people to transition/ gender change. Fingers crossed for a Scexit.

    • AlpineWitch says:

      Fingers crossed!!

    • Emily_C says:

      This is going to hasten Scottish independence. Britain can just come in and cancel their laws? STILL? Yeah, Scotland’s out. Wales will also leave, though it will likely take longer. As for Northern Ireland, well, Star Trek: The Next Generation predicted it would be 2024.

      • Fortuona says:

        But Scotland wants to keep the royals

        And the law they tried to change was outside of Devo Plus as is the taking another Reffy Vote (they have to negotiate for it same as the Catalans)

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Forftuona, and what if they had an election to find out if people want to become a republic? Couldn’t they do that? And if the majority wants a republic will Scotland be blocked from holding an election on whether or not to become a republic. I think that’s what they should do.

        It must be very galling to have someone have that type of control over the country, when the only time anyone visits is for holiday or to make sure a bill doesn’t affect the Monarch.

  15. HeyKay says:

    That headline says it all, doesn’t it?

  16. ChillinginDC says:

    No country should have to pay for a freaking monarchy. I don’t care what anyone says.

  17. QuiteContrary says:

    Rebecca Mead stated this brilliantly: “The Prince in exile does not hesitate to detail the pettiness, the vanity, and the inglorious urge toward self-preservation of those who are now the monarchy’s highest-ranking representatives.”

    This describes the behavior of Charles and William perfectly.

  18. Lov3zone says:

    Go HARRY GO….#onlytrueRoyal

  19. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    There should be some way for people to get reparations from the governments and individual families who profited from slavery and other atrocities. International criminal court? International court of justice? Something?

  20. notasugarhere says:

    Tuesday Jamaica’s PM called (again) for the govt to move forward rapidly with becoming a Republic.

  21. blunt talker says:

    I saw that segment on CBS morning news-his book is getting people to think more critically about what a monarchy is and what does it suppose to be doing-for one thing King Charles should appogize for any and all atrocities committed in the royal family’s name to all Commonwealth countries in Asia-Africa- and the Carribbean-that would be a good start to reestablish connections not based on colonialism and slave trading-they should look at each country in the Commonwealth to see what can be done to repair some damage to each country’s society as a whole-trading partners one thing but doing something extra in each country would be a great way to improve from plantation owner to equality with each country. Harry definitely said it in more precise way for people to understand.