Margaret Atwood: In another era, Prince Harry ‘probably would’ve been murdered’

Margaret Atwood is 83 years old and Canadian and she’s well into her “living legend” era. Which is why it sort of cracks me up when people ask Atwood about superficial things or royalty. It’s even funnier that she actually does have opinions on all of that stuff. Back in 2015, she even talked about how she was bored and disappointed in Kate Middleton’s “uneventful” princess style. Atwood is currently promoting a new collection of short stories, Old Babes in the Wood. The Times of London interviewed her about American politics, royalty, Russians and religion. Some highlights:

On the state of American politics: “We are already into not-quite-book-burnings and we are already into the ‘let’s control women’s bodies’,” she says, pointing to the US Supreme Court’s reversal of abortion rights. She finds it “incredible” that the works of Toni Morrison, the Nobel prizewinning novelist, are now being banned from some American classrooms. History has a habit of repeating itself, she says. It is the “wheel of fortune”, the tarot card representing life’s eternal cycle; somebody at the top crushes others, only to be crushed by those rising up.

On Prince Harry: An admirer of Game of Thrones, Atwood thinks Prince Harry, the self-described “spare”, is lucky to be born into a royal family that has been stripped of real power. Otherwise “he probably would have been murdered by somebody lower down the food chain to get him out of the way”.

On religion: She claims to have “no opinion” on the afterlife. “I am a strict agnostic. But atheism is a dogma like all the others,” she says.

On trans rights: Atwood is wary of the debate over trans rights, but she has firm views on the flexibility of gender. “There is a bell curve. This is why you need to know biology,” she says. Stuck in the desert, the writers of Genesis had no idea about the hermaphrodite sex lives of “snails and bivalves”, she points out. The trans issue has bitterly divided the feminist movement. “Has nobody considered the fact that there are agents provocateurs in the mix? People are pretending [and] saying outrageous things to get real trans people in trouble. If this isn’t happening, it’s the first time in history.”

On Me Too, due process & justice: On the upside, #MeToo “made a lot of guys think twice about keeping it zipped, especially if they were prominent”. But, she adds: “If you make pointing an infallible weapon, some people are going to abuse that.” This month she is launching #AfterMeToo with the Canadian Women’s Foundation, on how to report and investigate sexual harassment and assault fairly. “You cannot confuse beliefs with facts, especially if you are accusing somebody of a serious crime,” Atwood says.

[From The Times]

“Has nobody considered the fact that there are agents provocateurs in the mix? People are pretending [and] saying outrageous things to get real trans people in trouble” – yes, that’s happening, for sure, and even worse, people are now trying to outdo each other with increasingly bigoted hysteria. As for her comment about Prince Harry and the Windsors… like, does she realize that Prince William absolutely wanted to send his brother and sister-in-law into exile? While the Windsors might not have the “power” they once had, their medieval desires are still there and the Sussexes have absolutely faced mortal danger and, in Harry’s case, actual violence.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

86 Responses to “Margaret Atwood: In another era, Prince Harry ‘probably would’ve been murdered’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. kelleybelle says:

    Your point, Margaret? If I wasn’t disgusted enough with your statement, I am with seeing you standing next to Chuck’s side-corpse. Shame on you.

    • lanne says:

      Umm..the point being that Harry is seen as a threat, and threats were traditionally dispensed with–not that Harry SHOULD be murdered.

      • Kingston says:

        Yes, @lanne, but why single out Harry at all?

        First of all, he never “self-styled” himself the Spare…….he LEARNED (after decades of suffering its ignominy) to embrace and thereby neuter that soul-destroying thing that he was considered all his life.

        Secondly, why focus on Harry as one likely to have been murdered in his family of the past? Why not focus on the ones likely to have murdered him…such as chucky or Bully, on account of their JEALOUSY of Harry’s popularity. Why didnt she go there?

        That old goat is just yet another royalist scum. See photo evidence above as to what she really believes.

      • kelleybelle says:

        Yes Ianne, but it’s still very inflammatory, isn’t it? And that creature standing beside her didn’t help in the least.

      • kirk says:

        I don’t really get her point. Harry was previously 6th in line. What era is she talking about that someone would cut through 6 above to get to the top?

      • Robert Phillips says:

        Does she not realize that Harry could also kill William and become the heir? Or even take out Charles and become the King? Think of the differences in their actual intelligence and their strength. Harry could outdo either of them.

      • Christine says:

        I think that is her point. Look back at English history, it’s full of people killing other, in this case more charismatic, people because they were a threat to their power.

        There’s a reason we all still remember Anne Boleyn, for example.

      • Jenn says:

        I agree with almost everything you wrote, Kingston, except for the “royalist scum” part; I think it’s pretty clear from her writing that Atwood probably isn’t too big on monarchies. But I do feel she has a certain writerly responsibility to stick to the abstract when speculating on violence against individual people (and don’t get me started on her invoking bivalves, which is not the noble counterargument against “the binary” she may think it is). I get why people want to ask her about this stuff — her writing is as relevant as ever — but I agree she should decline to “spell it out” by drawing real-world parallels. After a certain point she’s just giving authoritarians ideas, y’know? I’m not even mad at her; I just think she should make better choices and choose her words more judiciously.

    • Ms single malt says:

      I adore Margaret Atwood. The image with Camilla happened when Atwood won the Booker Prize (best novel published in England/Ireland, written in English).

      Do we really need to call her an old goat? Sheesh.

      • Drea says:

        Seriously. These people are pearl-clutching.

      • kelleybelle says:

        Would you prefer Old Leather Guts, that someone else on here came up with? She’s a horrible person, colludes with abusers and an eyesore beyond belief. She doesn’t deserve to attend a dog fight, let alone have anything to do with British royalty.

    • Dizzy says:

      I believe this was taken when she won the Booker prize. That’s the other winner, Bernadine Evaristo. I don’t think she went out of her way to get a photo, just part of the ceremony

  2. HeatherC says:

    In another era it wouldn’t have been someone down the food chain looking to murder Harry. It would have been his brother or father, for the fear that enemies/opponents would form a rival court behind a more popular royal. The danger then would have been very very real.

    • Peachy says:

      Absolutely and it occured to me last night as I was reading CB comments from yesterday’s articles. Harry has evolved into a strong, charismatic, polarizing figure in the BRF and, in the past, this would have been handled differently than being “too busy” to meet. Anyone even remotely familiar with court intrigue of the past will know how dangerous Harry is to the…slugs…currently in power.

    • Dutch says:

      He wouldn’t have been murdered. He would have been married off to a princess of another European crowned head in order to seal some peace treaty or another and he’d go off to live in that court and regularly report the goings on there to his father.

    • Moxylady says:

      Another eta? Like the 90’s?

      • C says:

        Right? Like, even if someone holds the opinion the royals had nothing to do with Diana’s death, nobody can deny it still looks sus and we’re still discussing it for that reason, lol.

      • Ellie Lou says:

        Dead on.

    • Concern Fae says:

      Looking back on English history, Harry definitely would have been one of the younger sons who the nobles saw as a better leader than his older brother (and father). He would have been the brother sent to France to look after the holdings there. The younger, better brothers tended to get murdered when they raised armies against their older siblings.

    • Allyn says:

      The historical example I keep thinking of, oddly, is James, Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate first son of Charles II.

      Monmouth was one of England’s finest soldiers, more popular than his uncle, James, the Duke of York (and heir to the throne). Monmouth was also talked about as a potential successor to his father, in spite of his illegitmacy, due to his solid Protestantism, as opposed to the crypto-Catholicism of his father and open Catholicism of his uncle. For these reasons, Monmouth was effectively exiled to the Continent late in his father’s reign; there were plots and counterplots, York saw Monmouth as an actual rival. But Monmouth wasn’t really wanted on the Continent, either–his cousin and husband of York’s daughter Mary, William of Orange, was also a potential rival for England’s throne–and there were murder plots around Monmouth because as long as he lived he would be a threat to his rivals.

      Anyway, to make a long story short — Monmouth is reconciled with his father, but York will inherit the throne. After Charles dies in 1685 and York becomes James VII/II, Monmouth is convinced by his supporters and the French to invade the south of England while Scotland will rise in the north and force James from the throne. (The thinking was that Parliament would legitimate Monmouth if he drove James from the throne, as rumors had circulated for years that Charles had married Monmouth’s mother, Lucy Croft, rumors that Monmouth believed.) This goes badly for Monmouth, and he’s defeated by his friend, the Duke of Marlborough (and ancestor of Winston Churchill) at Sedgmoor. Monmouth is found hiding in a ditch and he’s beheaded in London. William of Orange, paying attention to all this, waits for a better opportunity and, in 1688, Parliament, finally having had enough of James and his Catholicism, sends a delegation to the Low Countries and asks William to invade and seek the crown. He does, James flees London (dropping the royal jewels in the Thames as he goes), and William and Mary are crowned co-monarchs in the Glorious Revolution.

      Harry isn’t going to raise an army and invade Cornwall, though maybe Scotland will rise rise in the north, so I don’t think the parallel goes that far. But Harry being effectively “exiled” to California because his “rivals” feel threatened by him and want to see him endangered feels familiar.

    • Becks1 says:

      That was my thought too. It wouldn’t have been Prince Andrew who would have wanted to get rid of Harry, it would have been Charles and William (in medieval times.) he posed the threat to Charles and William, not those below him on the food chain.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      If things played out as they did in real life, Charles would have divorced Diana for adultery (or killed her) and had that marriage annulled. Both William and Harry might then be considered illegitimate, and Andrew would have a good claim for the throne (Andrew’s sexual assaults would not have mattered in the least).

      All that intrigue only shows how stupid this “inherited by the first born” system really is.

    • The Recluse says:

      Wars of the Roses – 2.0.
      Look at what Richard the 3rd and the Duke of Buckingham did to Richard’s brother the Duke of Clarence to get him out of the way.
      Harry is very lucky, because Camilla would have definitely done something to him – and William – to clear the way for her children. Shades of Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret of Beaufort? William would have either locked Harry up somewhere, possibly in a palace way out in the counties, or forced him into a European exile.

    • bisynaptic says:

      Agreed. And Harry would have had to raise an army, to defend himself. I’m surprised she got this wrong.

      • Ellie Lou says:

        Much easier to manipulate and triangulate for the person who has been behind the scenes for 45 years.

    • Christine says:

      This. Well said, Heather.

  3. Barbiem says:

    Was telling the hubby this. Some of the loud folks in the transgender movement have ulterior motives.

  4. girl_ninja says:

    Atwood is speaking specifically about Harry being assassinated, not just getting attacked by his trash, rage hating brother. If Charles could get rid of Harry and Meghan he would. That family is THAT unhinged and disgusting.

    • Mary Pester says:

      @girlninja, yep, just like his mother was gotten rid of by those bsds, because once out of their influence she became strong and independent, just like her son has and her words are echoing down the years, “that which they can’t control, they seek to destroy”. Please take care Harry

    • Nicki says:

      Exactly. Thank you. She totally gets what that family is doing to Harry. She’s just adding a bit of historical perspective and saying that in another era, the family would have eliminated the middleman of the unhinged tabloid press and outright killed Harry themselves.

      • Kingston says:

        Yeah she sure gets it. So why was she so gungho to mention Harry’s name, but could only manage a passive voice (would have been murdered) when she gets to who might have murdered him?

        Why not STAY gungho and state WHO would have wanted to murder him? Why not SAY that the monarch and his heir (even if she’s too cowardly to mention their names like she boldly mentioned H’s) might have wanted to murder the younger, more popular sibbling.

      • The Recluse says:

        Tindall is such a kiss up, he would have been the lower ranked lackey to do the dirty deed.

    • Anita says:

      Yeah, she’s not wrong there. I mean, if H&M stayed, the treatment by Harry’s family would probably lead to real, devastating consequences. They have already tried to figuratively assassinate Meghan’s character (and they persist in this endavor).

    • C says:

      What exactly makes you think it hasn’t been tried via the leaking of their locations and ignoring actual threats and god knows what else? Because for me, that question is not settled.

      Her answer is silly to me because in another era Harry’s issues wouldn’t even exist in this iteration. He would have married whoever was considered appropriate for him, or it would have been a morganatic marriage or something. There were printings of seditious little booklets here and there but there were no tabloids demanding intimate personal information from the sovereign in say, Tudor England.

      • Jennifer says:

        The cutting of his security and all the other security drama is passive-aggressive trying, I think.

      • Sona says:

        Hmm I disagree. Royal history is plagued with 1. People doing the “right thing”, what the family expects, and STILL get murdered.
        And 2. People who “rebelled ” and get murdered.

        I personally have many times thought this would be a very probable outcome. Because 100, 500, 700 years ago it was easier for murders to happen within royal families due to feuds, power, revenge, whatever. Royals could literally do anything and keep it an open secret and still hold absolute power.
        I believe horrible things would have already happened to a lot of People within and close to this family if this was 100 years ago.

        I think in these last 10 years doing something so blatant would destroy them for sure, they wouldnt be allowed by the public to get away with it. Well, at least the sane part of the public, not the crazy royalists.

      • Ellie Lou says:

        SONA, or 25 years ago.

    • Typical Virgo says:

      @GirlNinja- I agree, I think Atwood’s point is that Harry’s popularity would have made him dangerous, ESPECIALLY when William was still unmarried without children. A couple hundred years ago, William probably would have killed Harry when they were still fairly young, and Harry the only other possible contender for the throne.
      So Atwood got wrong WHO would have killed Harry, but she is certainly not wrong about the likelihood of him being killed

  5. Lurker 25 says:

    Speaking of style, like we are in the cowmilla threads, this dame has got it in spades. Love the mix of colors, prints, cuts. That kimono jacket thing? I’m going to create a Lookbook of her clothes for me in 20 years and I’m half her age

  6. Emmi says:

    No, in another era they would’ve gotten rid of Diana circa 1987/1988 and things would’ve turned out very differently. Why are people asking everyone about the Sussexes? It’s so boring at this point.

    I can’t really sort through her trans rights comments. What is she saying?

    • Lara (the other) says:

      She says, sex and gender exist on a spectrum, and that some of the extrem fringe “Trans-activist” are agent provocateurs to feed the Anti-trans-acitivist.
      I agree, since the right usually jumps on the outrages fringe takes which have nothing to do with trans-rights.

      E.g. “breaking the cotton ceiling” that it shoud be considered discrimination if a lesbian woman refuses to have sex with a trans woman. There seems to be one unhinged person with this take and it has been amplified by the the right wing Media.
      Similiar to to agent provocateurs who posed as feminist and wanted to put all men in slavery as reparition.

      • Lara (the other) says:

        For clarification:
        The eradication of trans women in lesbian spaces is an important topic.

        I specifically mean selfdeclared activist who claim a right to have sex with a lesbian woman and do not respect the right of every person to decide who they want to habe sex with.

      • Emmi says:

        I have never heard of this insanity so I couldn’t really pinpoint what she was talking about. Yikes. So … trolls? Ugh.

      • Stef says:

        I’m not trying to be rude, but I don’t really think that’s what they are trying to argue. It’s not that they think they have a right to have sex with lesbians or anyone, but to refuse someone just because they are trans seems a bit bigoted.

        It’s just like a man saying he would never date a trans woman. Well, why is that? It’s because he doesn’t view trans women as real women.

      • C says:

        Erm, there will always be complicated discussions and what someone else might consider “fringe” issues in a movement.
        But that is a far cry from the concept of “infiltrators” having “agendas” within a movement. I don’t think those exist, or in the form Atwood is arguing. You have infiltrators who become obnoxious “allies” but the idea there are people with an agenda in these groups that are successfully misrepresenting them is some weird “stab in the back” kind of thinking that right-wingers also can grab onto to justify their bigotry.

      • Ameerah M says:

        Those absolutely exist. And always have. I suggest reading up on the Black Panther movement and how the FBI infiltrated it.There’s literally an entire movie about it.

      • C says:

        I am aware of that. That isn’t what Atwood is describing imo, I read her whole interview. Her language is all coded between “good ones” and “bad ones”. Who are the “bad ones” in the trans movement who are trying to get “real trans people in trouble” (whatever this means)?
        And how she basically said that trans women are a risk in women’s jails, later in the interview.
        Atwood herself says she is a moderate, so, combined with the above, her comments are questionable to me.

      • Lara (the other) says:

        There is a legitime discussion about transphobia in the gay scene, the problem are trolls who attack every lesbian who does not want to have sex with them as transphobic. Especially if they are not transitioning physically, have a full beard and want to sue every lesbian woman for not having Sex with them (I once fell down a right wing twitter hole).
        I know, nobody has a right to junge who is a real trans woman, but this person seemed to be a man trolling and feeling right wing phobia and clichees.

  7. freddy says:

    I love Margaret Atwood’s take on those topics..and she’s correct: if the Windsors were an absolute monarchy, Charles would have had Diana beheaded and the Queen would have suffered an accident….

    • Kingston says:

      Except she didnt go so far as to name the perpetrators, tho. She’s just another royalist coward/cowardly royalist who can find the strength to bully H&M but cower in their britches when it comes to calling out chucky and Bully for being Machiavellians.

  8. Amy Bee says:

    I’ve seen a lot of royalists praising or agreeing with her comments about Harry. That’s because they believe Harry got off easy and should be punished.

    • Erin says:

      Yep, they think he should be thanking his lucky stars that they can’t just gather a small army, go arrest him, conduct a shame trial, then impose the death penalty on him and his family.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Some speculated on here that a modern version of that is what William tried to do to Harry. He tried to engage Harry in a physical fight – goading him to ‘fight back like when they were kids’ – knowing his RPOs were waiting outside. Wm could call them in, say Harry had assaulted him, and had Harry charged with assault against the heir to the throne. Or had him arrested and tried to get him ‘sent away’ for psychiatric evaluation.

  9. Rackel says:

    I was just thinking a few days ago that Camilla would’ve been knocked off ages ago. If not by the queen mother, then prince philip, then queen e2, then Anne, a mountbatten, then Diana herself, then a cousin, then William or harry. Camilla is the truly lucky one.

    Next up would be William. One of the Windsor cousins would kill him fir being lazy.

    I think William would give harry a little piece of land to rule over if we was in olden days. Then snatch it back as soon as it became popular. He would do that for the rest of their lives. I also think William wouldn’t let anyone kill his bother. He might get him but dont you dare. You can get rid of kate however. Lol.

  10. nutella toast says:

    Don’t let facts get in your way lady. False reports (not false prosecutions) of S.A. are between 2% and 10% and anything above the 2% is allowing for reports when it’s difficult to get any corroborating evidence or facts…but due to the nature of the crime, that’s not uncommon (rarely witnesses, and what other crime can be so regularly defended as something else – robbery doesn’t get excused as “borrowing”). I’d love to say #metoo reduced S.A. by somehow scaring perpetrators. Statistically, it hasn’t. It just gave survivors a voice, which was desperately needed.

    • Malificent says:

      So does that make it OK for the 2% who are falsely accused to be convicted because they are in a statistical minority. You can’t just “round up” to 100% and call it a day. Replacing one set of inequities with another set is no more morally correct.

      • C says:

        It doesn’t make false conviction of those people any more acceptable than using those same people as an example to make sweeping and incorrect claims about sexual assault in general, which is what often happens – and has a major effect on the biases of the people enacting justice and on society at large.

      • Ellie Lou says:

        Oh, please!! Only about 1% of reported SA get convictions. Do you really think there are people who get convicted of it without evidence?? And only a tiny percentage ever even get reported.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Atwood seems to start out paying lip service to the idea, then negates that with her real views. She does it at least twice. She starts with the upside of #metoo with some men keeping it zipped, then goes on to explain why it’s actually a bad movement: people are going to abuse it, cannot confuse belief with fact, etc. She also does it with transgender rights, there is a bell curve . . . then goes on to give her real views that the trans issue is bad for the feminist movement, there are pretenders in the mix, etc. It’s like you have to ignore the first half of everything she said. This is what politicians do — pay lip service to an issue before saying what they really believe, in an attempt to play both sides of the field.

  11. C says:

    Given the threats to safety both Harry and Meghan have suffered, her words are not helpful and potentially dangerous.

    What she said here really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I copied it from the source:

    “Surely some vexed questions, such as where to imprison rapists who have self-identified as women, require an answer? ‘If you make a gate that people can go through without gatekeepers, and there are perks, some people will abuse that,’ she replies.”

    And here:

    “At the height of the #MeToo movement she wrote an article, “Am I a bad feminist?”, warning against “vigilante justice” after a Canadian professor of creative writing was fired without due process.”


    • tamsin says:

      Agree with you totally. Atwood is a really grim reaper herself, not just her work. Just seeing her always gives me the shudders.

      • Ms single malt says:

        The woman is 83. I think she looks great. I’m stunned at the critique of her appearance.

    • Ms single malt says:

      The prison issue is not black and white. Look up Isla Bryson case. Should this rapist be housed with female inmates?

      • C says:

        This statement is so ignorant and bigoted. People of ALL GENDERS commit crimes against women. Trans inmates are 9 times more likely to be attacked than cis. If you are so damn worried about cis women being targeted in prison by someone like Isla Bryson then advocate for stricter prison control and more awareness of trans issues if a person like Bryson is that much of a concern to you.

  12. JCallas says:

    Her comments about Harry are tone deaf given the what happened to his mother and the real security threats he faces.

    • lanne says:

      I think she’s merely stating the grim reality of what happened to popular potential rivals to monarchs and heirs. Queen Elizabeth 1 would have placed Harry and Meghan under house arrest, separately (like Katherine Grey sister of Jane Grey and her husband, and later Mary Queen of Scots). Edward 4th and Richard 3 would have each likely had Harry murdered (or done it themselves. Richard 3rd would have murdered the children as well). Henry 8th would have had Harry arrested on a trumped-up charge and then executed. Medieval kings would have sent Harry off to fight in the Crusades. English royals have long had a nasty habit of eliminating all rivals and potential rivals.

      • Tessa says:

        Had Henry VIII been Harry’s father he would not have him arrested. IMO needed sons to succeed and ultimately his line died out. His legitimate male heir Edward died young and so did his illegitimate son the Duke of Richmond. His two daughters did not have children.

    • jenna says:

      Diana was a virgin who submitted to the Royal ‘required’ gyno examination before Charles could marry her while Charles was publicly known to be sleeping with Camilla. Everyone knew about the affair, even Camilla’s husband and children. It was open knowledge and when Diana found out she was told by Prince Phillip she was free to take a lover, as well. This is openly accepted in Europe, even to this day, as an unspoken ‘arrangement’ between married couples. Sick, sick, sick.

      • Tessa says:

        Princess Margaret also knew and told a friend before the wedding that she hoped Camilla would”give up Charles.” Even the Archbishop who married C and D was said to know about Camilla but performed the wedding ceremony on C and D anyway.

  13. Lili says:

    It’s great having all these perspectives on dream scenarios, but in another time we wouldn’t have even got here. Edward would have ruled not giving a chance for Elizabeth,’s line to get a look in so Harry would have Married Meghan and there would have been no fuss. I’m still of the belief that people should refrain from answering any Harry and Meghan questions, because it does them no good , I don’t even know what she was plugging whatever it was has been over shadowed by what ever her thoughts are on The subject. She has enough clout with the whole handmaids tale she doesn’t need to jump into this.

    • LadyO says:

      Sticking up for her good friend Camilla?

      • Ms single malt says:

        Where do you see a friendship between Camilla and Margaret Atwood? Simply from the pictures taken at an event celebrating literacy and Booker Prize winners?

  14. equality says:

    In another era, PH would have likely never been born because Andrew would have gotten rid of Charles.

    • Rackel says:

      I can see that but the likely scenario would be Philip offing Andrew whenever he got the chance and after Edward was born.

  15. tracy says:

    Several biographies published in the 90s before Diana’s death described numerous ‘car accidents’ happening to several people who challenged the royal family. This is why she stated they might do this to her for not shutting up. In the end, she planned to marry an Academy Award-winning filmmaker, a clear message there could be a film with Diana’s ‘assistance’ about the royal family and Britain’s blocking of wealthy immigrant Al-Fayed’s political efforts at every turn.
    According to several biographers, Prince Phillip was quietly in charge of all ‘statesman’ type ‘matters’ with MI5, which is the ‘CIA’ of Britain. Does Harry know this? Is that why he waited until Prine Phillip was on his deathbed to make his moves?
    Interesting that Prince William has now expanded his role to include ‘statesman’ type visits with international leaders. Why? Because there is no end to political power’s influence. Even today.

    • Tessa says:

      Diana may well not have married Al Fayed. She may have reconciled with Dr. Khan.

    • Rackel says:

      Everyone waited for Philip to die to make their move. It really started after queen e2 mom passed. If Philip was alive queen margethe of Denmark grandkids would still have titles.

  16. Tessa says:

    How would they have treated Andrew, Ms. Atwood. Oh that’s right, he is not to be mentioned, just Harry.

  17. jferber says:

    I’m worried about his safety right now in THIS era.

    • tamsin says:

      Me too.
      Monarchies are violent institutions because violence is usually required to ascend a throne. When speaking of monarchies, there is very little peaceful transition of power, because there is always more than one person vying for a throne.

  18. KrystinaJ says:

    She was my neighbour for years when I was younger… She’s ALWAYS been a bit crotchety and very straight forward, lol.