Ahead of Saturday’s coronation, Princess Anne gave a very rare television interview to CBC, the Canadian network. As it turns out, she also gave this interview ahead of what will be Anne’s first tour/trip to Canada during her brother’s reign (she’s going later this month). She was interviewed by Adrienne Arsenault about the future of the monarchy, the “slimmed-down monarchy,” and what she’ll be wearing for the coronation, especially given that her brother appointed her as his Gold Stick in Waiting (some kind of archaic bodyguard position). Some highlights:
At the coronation, she’ll ride in uniform with the Household Cavalry unit. “I have a role as the colonel of the Blues and Royals in the Household Cavalry regiment as the Gold Stick [in Waiting], and Gold Stick was the original clothed protection officer. That is a role I was asked if I would like to do for this coronation, so I said yes, not least of all, it solves my dress problem.”
How Charles is adjusting to being king. “Well, you know what you’re getting because he’s been practicing for a bit, and I don’t think he’ll change. You know, he is committed to his own level of service, and that will remain true.”
Senior royals are figuring out what they need to change. “For the rest of us, it’s more a question of, we have to shift the way we support, and that’s what we need to do. There was an order to the years, because my mother didn’t change very much. We knew what the rhythm of the year was, so things like that will change.”
On the relevancy of the monarchy: “I think it’s perfectly true that it is a moment where you need to have that discussion. But I would just underline that the monarchy provides, with the constitution, a degree of long-term stability that is actually quite hard to come by any other way.”
On the idea of a “slimmed-down monarchy.” “Well, I think the slim down was said in a day when there were a few more people around to make that seem like a justifiable comment. [The world] changes a bit. I mean, it doesn’t sound like a good idea, from where I’m standing, I have to say. I’m not quite sure what else we can do.”
[From People & Vanity Fair]
“I think the slim down was said in a day when there were a few more people around to make that seem like a justifiable comment…” Most people are taking this as a reference to the Sussexes, which is weird. The “slimmed down monarchy” plan was bandied around while the Sussexes were working royals, and while Charles always emphasized that Harry and Meghan were part of the slim-down, the Windsors certainly didn’t treat them that way. In fact, when Harry and Meghan offered to still work for the monarchy in 2020, they were shut down. Oh well! As for Anne disagreeing about the slim-down… it was never going to affect her either way, she was always going to do her work and be very important to Charles.
Additionally, British and American media didn’t pay much attention to this clip and Anne’s statements here, but Omid Scobie posted this – Anne speaking about her brother authorizing some research into the monarchy’s role in the transatlantic slave trade. Her reaction is utterly bizarre.
During her @CBC interview, Princess Anne was reluctant to discuss King Charles’s decision to support research into the the Royal Family’s historical links with transatlantic slavery: pic.twitter.com/ondezlYvSU
— Omid Scobie (@scobie) May 2, 2023
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar, Cover Images.
-
- Not Available For Publication In The UK – London, UK -20220605- The Platinum Jubilee Celebrations Final Day -PICTURED: Prince Charles, Princess Anne -PHOTO by: John Rainford/Cover Images/INSTARimages.com -51635010.jpg This is an editorial, rights-managed image. Please contact Instar Images LLC for licensing fee and rights information at sales@instarimages.com or call +1 212 414 0207 This image may not be published in any way that is, or might be deemed to be, defamatory, libelous, pornographic, or obscene. Please consult our sales department for any clarification needed prior to publication and use. Instar Images LLC reserves the right to pursue unauthorized users of this material. If you are in violation of our intellectual property rights or copyright you may be liable for damages, loss of income, any profits you derive from the unauthorized use of this material and, where appropriate, the cost of collection and/or any statutory damages awarded
-
- Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and Princess Anne, The Princess Royal, at the Platinum Pageant on June 05, 2022 in London, England. The Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II is being celebrated from June 2 to June 5, 2022, in the UK and Commonwealth to mark the 70th anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II on 6 February 1952.,Image: 697194778, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: -, Model Release: no, Credit line: Anthony Harvey / Avalon
-
- Princess Anne, The Princess Royal attends a Commonwealth Day Service at Westminster Abbey, London, England, UK on Monday 13 March, 2023.,Image: 762484210, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Please credit photographer and agency when publishing as Justin Ng/UPPA/Avalon., Model Release: no, Credit line: Justin Ng / Avalon
-
- Britain’s King Charles, Camilla, Queen Consort, Prince William, Prince of Wales, Catherine, Princess of Wales, Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, Princess Anne, the Princess Royal and her husband Vice Admiral, Timothy Laurence, watch dancers perform, as they attend the Commonwealth Day service held at Westminster Abbey in London, Britain, March 13, 2023.,Image: 762521173, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: HANNAH MCKAY / Avalon
-
- The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence depart the annual Commonwealth Day Service at Westminster Abbey in London. Picture date: Monday March 13, 2023.,Image: 762521294, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: Jordan Pettitt / Avalon
-
- Princess Anne The Princess Royal departs a Commonwealth Day Service at Westminster Abbey, London, England, UK on Monday 13 March, 2023.,Image: 762532610, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Please credit photographer and agency when publishing as Justin Ng/UPPA/Avalon., Model Release: no, Credit line: Justin Ng / Avalon
-
- King Charles , The Queen Consort, Princess Anne and Prince Andrew attend the Easter Sunday Service in St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle.,Image: 768362206, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: -, Model Release: no, Credit line: David Dyson / Avalon
-
- Royals head to Easter Mattins Service at St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. Featuring: Camilla Queen Consort, King Charles III, Anne, Princess Royal, Prince Andrew, Duke of York Where: Windsor, Berkshire, United Kingdom When: 09 Apr 2023 Credit: Yui Mok/PA Images/INSTARimages **NORTH AMERICA RIGHTS ONLY**
Her reaction to the research question was word salad. Many words nothing said. Hmm…. wonder why.
Sounds like she had no idea about this research or Charles’ approval. It’s not even a subject of conversation, so she had to say something off the cuff. It’s not really word salas, but it’s also not the message that Charles or the royal family want to be sending.
I can’t stand this woman. While she works more than the rest of her family (though not even remotely like the rest of the world), I still see her as an outright racist (made clear again by her comment on slavery), a misogynist (yes, women can be this too) and an arrogant, overbearing narcissist who thinks she’s something better.
So, you agree with Anne then is what you’re saying?
There would have to be an acknowledgement that the monarchy actively participated and became wealthy from the slave trade; that will never happen during chuckles “reign/rain.” While it’s perhaps somewhat true that the “modern royals” had nothing to do with this abhorrence centuries ago, they are the beneficiaries of that ever-growing wealth. Anne’s PR people didn’t think AA (one of Canada’s best reporters) would go “there.” AA is always going to go there! The firm needs to up its PR game and brief Anne properly, giving her substantive answers to possible questions at a bare minimum.
Slavery exists, perhaps it appears different than what we imagine. Where I live, it appears in nail salons or “spas.” Exhausted-looking young women with no English, sitting on back-breaking little stools as they work on other women’s feet. There are so many nail salons/spas, one or two in every strip mall; how do they all survive? These are money laundering facilities. The young women’s families paid criminals posing as businessmen who were promising a better life in Canada.
As “temporary foreign workers” brought over by Tim Hortons (as a real example, I’m sure TH is not alone in this), franchise owners who make them all live in the same house and work long shifts while taking control of any monies they may earn because they’re told Canadian Banks can’t be trusted. Dozens of Mexican workers brought up to pick fruit in the Okanagan/berries in the Fraser Valley; all shoved into a tiny falling-down house with one bathroom, sleeping in shifts because there isn’t enough beds.
The “overseas nanny culture” where a young woman looks after multiple children, cleans, cooks, does the laundry and may get a few hours off on a Sunday, all for much less pay. Modern-day slavery is alive and well in North America. This is a “citizens of the earth” issue, far beyond the scope of a few people born into a “royal” family.
@Farmer’sWife: just a fellow Canadian chiming in with a 👏
I get what Anne is trying to do with her comment: deflect from her family’s centuries-long profit due to the Transatlantic slave trade by suggesting modern slavery is the more relevant issue. Guess what? We can call out the evils of historical slavery and it’s current forms at the same time. We can offer reparations and restorative justice while working to end forms of exploitation happening now. But the BRF and the UK govt have shut down those calls repeatedly (and again very recently).
It was difficult to follow what she was saying. I’m still confused about it.
But to me she seemed to think the interviewer was asking about modern slavery. She seemed to be saying yes to research into historical ties, but no into research of modern ties….. is she suggesting there’s been recent involvement in slavery????
It’s seemed like she was deflecting or misdirecting when she brought up modern slavery. The way she said of course at the end made me mad. Idk there was just something so patronizing about it.
I think she was trying to say, as some people do to deflect, that slavery still exists, or that other people had slaves, so the enslavement of African peoples to work in the Americas is just part of a continuum or something & not something extraordinarily evil or something that requires reparations. It also seemed as though she were saying, yeah don’t put too much stock into what my brother says, he may say they’re investigating our family’s ties to slavery, but come on, let’s get real here.
Bizarre response by Ann. I don’t think it’s that she didn’t want to commit herself either way, I just think she’s not that bright or educated enough to have examined the topic and have well-informed views. A bit thick like most of that generation of royals.
When did she mention ‘salad’.
So because slavery existed before and since the time period the RF was involved, let’s not “focus” on what they might have done? I wonder if she’s trying to get Zara or Peter “working” royal roles and that’s why she doesn’t like the slimmed-down idea.
But it can’t be a time period before the RF was involved because they are all descendants of the kings and queens of the past. That’s the whole freaking point of a blood monarchy. Her answer was absurd.
For the UK, her answer was absurd. But for other countries, like Egypt, slavery existed before British kings.
Charles II launched Britan’s role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. She knows full well how the BRF benefitted from hundreds of years of slave trade.
Elizabeth 1 was the first to invest in the slave trade. Charles 2 started the Royal African Company and gave it the monopoly on trading slaves.
Britain had gotten rid of slavery (in Britain) by the 1200s, because they realised it was wrong.
There were black people in Britain when Henry 8 was King who were freemen, equals, a normal part of society, considered normal human beings. Britain didn’t start off as racist.
Then Elizabeth and her countrymen got greedy when they saw how much money could be made from slavery. They had to portray Black Africans as less than human to justify doing something they knew was wrong to do to humans.
By the time of Charles 2 a lot of people considered slavery normal and thought of Africans as different. I think Elizabeth was worse because she and her people knew it was wrong, and knew black people were normal human beings.
Life was cheap in general in Tudor times and Elizabeth was callous. During an outbreak of the plague she retreated to Windsor castle and gave orders that anyone who arrived there after her, was to be hanged, in case they were carrying the plague. She had her own cousin Mary Queen of Scots beheaded. She was popular with the public, and still is, but she was actually not a nice person.
Anne was always adamant that her children not be royals which was partly why she and her husband turned down an earldom. The queen and prince Philip put a lot of pressure on them to accept because it was the tradition but both of them wanted to be more normal, and for their children to be completely normal.
She and her husband were supposed to be Earl and Countess of Somewhere. Their children were supposed to be TRH Prince Peter of Somewhere and Princess Zara of Somewhere. Anne broke tradition by refusing to accept the titles.
Princess Alexandra and her husband also refused an earldom but they were much further down the line of succession and their children wouldn’t have been prince or princess.
^^ If Anne and Mark Phillips had accepted the Queen’s offer of an earldom for Mark, their two children would have been Viscount So-and-so, and Lady Zara, NOT ‘Prince/ Princess.’
The Queen Mother also put pressure on Anne and Captain Mark Phillips to accept an Earldom as Margaret and Antony Armstrong-Jones did so Anne’s children would be titled but not Royal. The style of HRH only passes through the Sovereign and through males.
Peter would have been Lord Peter, Viscount Something.
Zara would have been Lady Zara Phillips.
Oh yes, you’re right, sorry.
It doesn’t matter her children are both trading off being royal and their partners. Zara and her husband will definitely make sure their faces are in the newspapers this Coronation.
The absurdity and arrogance of these folks is blessed assurance this institution will not last much longer. Dismissive of slavery (the past) while living off generational wealth is offensive and arrogant.
Yes!!!👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼Bravo Maxine Branch!
“Don’t be too focused on time scales and periods, history isn’t like that”. Wtf?? History is Exactly like that!
I know!!!! We are now witnessing that Anne is just as arrogant, flippant and ignorant regarding slavery as entire Monarchy and the British Parliament!!! Does she not understand the impact of history and how it’s trickled into the lives of the descendants of slavery role of society????
My gawd Anne. Please educate how your ancestors enriched themselves with slavery and pay attention to the CURRENT actions to which the Monarchy/Parliament is committing against the Windrush generations!!!! All of Britain, more importantly your entire family and country was resurrected by the millions of Caribbean people to restore Britain after WWII and here you ALL are booting them back to their foreign lands after 7 plus decades!!!
I am utterly disgusted.
The monarchy needs to be slimmed down out of existence.
Yes. Forced to pay reparations and return all their ill-gotten gains. That will take care of all their wealth.
If Chuck wants a slimmed down monarchy he can start with low hanging fruit : the gazillion workers/pages/medal-shinners/toothpaste squeezes etc at his multiple mostly EMPTY castles/estates/palaces and plantations.
That would be a start.
I still believe the “slimming down” was to get rid of the queen’s cousins and their children and grandchildren. Charles wasn’t talking about the people he actually considers family. For a while there, it looked like the famous balcony would collapse under the weight of all the people that squeezed onto it.
“Slavery hasn’t gone away, just ask the official royal researcher into the subject, my little brother Andrew!”
I think everyone is afraid of Anne. Rightly so.
“ You know, he is committed to his own level of service, and that will remain true.”
That is a sic burn.
Also the preceding sentence: “you know what you’re getting because he’s been practicing for a bit, and I don’t think he’ll change”. Ouch!
She does not seem like a person you’d ever want to cross.
Charles has talked about a slimmed down monarchy for many years, well before Meghan came into the picture. Like, maybe decades. Maybe I’m making that last bit up. But this is not anything to do with the Sussexes.
And Anne saying Charles didn’t mean it, as in, there’s no fucking way we’re going to allow you to pin any bit of that shit on us and steal back our rightfully stolen wealth, is quite a take to take.
Does anyone know EXACTLY what Charles meant by slimmed down? I think we’re all just guessing. I’m sure he assumed Harry would be a part of it. I’m sure he also assumed William and his future wife would pull their weight. So, knowing what he knows now, has he recalibrated?
If he had, he’d be getting at least the York girls and probably Louise and James involved (going by which cousins did Royal work in the previous generations). The children of Royal daughters always got treated differently (see Margaret’s children) and to be fair to Anne, she and her husband could have taken a title for him if she wanted her children to be titled / involved in Royal work. I’m fairly sure he could have got at least an Earldom.
There is no suggestion that is happening so it looks like the slimmed down monarchy is going full steam ahead. Not surprising when you realise there’s been no reduction in funding so this means more money for each of the ‘working royals’.
I think Charles planned on retiring all the working cousins (Kents & Gloucesters), sidelining the Yorks (Andrew took care of that himself) as pinch hitters and giving the scraps (work no one else wanted to do) to Sophied Edinburgh with her husband allowed to tag along. The only full time working Royals (read funded) were to be the Princess Royal, Wiggington & Peggington, the Edinburghs and the Sussexes.
As Anne stated “this will not work”. The Wails are not interested in doing ANY heavy-lifting and the Sussexes have resigned from the family firm and started their own company.
I think the idea of a slimmed down monarchy was to not add any more working royals besides his sons and their wives. think of the picture on the balcony of the queen’s diamond jubilee – with just harry, william, kate, and charles and the queen and philip (I think Philip was there.) that was the plan IMO. Maybe he thougth he would encourage some to retire earlier than intended (cough duke of kent cough), but i think in general his plan was just to add more working royals. So no Beatrice and Eugenie, no Lousie and James, no Peter and Zara (who weren’t going to be working royals anyway.) none of the older royals’ (gloucesters, kents) children would be working royals. I think his big plan was that the working royals should just be the monarch and her/his children.
Problem with this idea was always the longevity of the Windsors. If this plan had played out, with no changes (ie Andrew and Sussexes still FT royals), then in 20 years you would have Charles, camilla, William, George, Charlotte, maybe Louis at that point, maybe not, Anne, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, Kate, Harry, Meghan.
so still 11.5 working royals (counting Louis as a half lol, since he would still be fairly young at that point). So not really that slimmed down overall.
the real slimming down would come if he had his siblings retire at a certain age, but he would still have to support them somehow, either through the SG or the duchy of lancaster.
This. Charles reminds me of terrible bosses I’ve worked for who get some buzzword into their head and then want to do everything through that lens, whether or not it fits the situation.
I think that “slimmed down monarchy” stands for all the work these other fools do doesn’t count. Unfortunately, he’s going to find it does. Also, that this plan relied on the younger generation stepping up and taking over for the older, but that’s not happening. We all hate on William for being lazy, but it’s probably at least partially a rebellion against his horrible father and the system he was born into. It fvcks over Charles, so perhaps not all bad?
If I recall correctly, his vision was that only the children (and grandchildren) of the reigning monarch would be full-time working royals. So, when he took the throne, it would have been him, his wife, William and his wife and children and Harry and his wife and children. Charles’s siblings and children would have been ‘retired’ from full time royal life and the dole.
@ Concern Fae, W isn’t carrying out his duties as a rebellious action against KFC. W is and has been a lazy, greedy, angry, narcissistic and arrogant man child who simply refuses to do any proper work as he has been coddled his entire life. W has absolutely NO intention or interests in putting forth any form of effort now, nor when he becomes king.
When will Charlie realise that Anne is the one who works hardest. Do I agree with the “Royal family”? As it stands HELL NO. Prejudice runs deep in their veins and no staged pictures will convince me otherwise. Not when I saw what they allowed the press and certain members of the family to get away with with their treatment of Megan and by association Harry. Yes Charlie, YOUR SON AND DAUGHTER IN LAW. You and Duke Dirty Bastard along with your vicious wife, inept Heir and his bone idle wife have sounded your own death knell. Especially when one of the major Daily papers prints a double page spread on the coronation that COULD have been if Diana was still your wife, so suck it up Charlie boy, you really “ain’t all that” to millions of people, both here and around the world.
You’re correct, the vague promise of a “slimmed down monarchy” has been floating around for decades. This is an excerpt from Ben Pimlott’s 1996 biography, The Queen:
‘A critical moment in the altering image of British royalty came with a television show in 1987 called “It’s a Royal Knockout.” The project was an enthusiasm of the Queen’s youngest son, Prince Edward, who had left the Royal Marines to work in the theatre.” … “It was a terrible mistake,” says one of the Monarch’s friends. “She was against it. But one of her faults is that she can’t say no.” … The programme was excruciating – “Give us a B. . .” bellowed the Duchess of York – and made the public stunningly aware that a sense of decorum was not an automatic quality in the Royal Family, and even that some members might be more deserving of their Civil List incomes than others.
… After Knockout, the quality press joined in too. Over the next few years the Sunday Times played an important part in establishing the idea of a “royal problem” in the minds of a middle-class readership. The tone was not cheeky, as in the tabloids, but admonishing. Soon it was being pointed out that royal tax immunity was not an historic right but, on the contrary, had only been acquired in the 20th century. Taxing the Queen at 40% would yield more than 200m a year, “enough for a dozen hospitals,” The Sun suggested gleefully. Before long even a staunch royalist such as Lord St John of Fawsley was conceding that the exemption had become hard to defend. In November 1992 – the annus horribilis – the Prime Minister announced that the Queen would begin to pay tax on her private income.
However, the cheekiness of the tabloid, and quality, press did not diminish. Calls for a slimmed-down monarchy became widespread, and the Queen, who had no critics who dared to reveal themselves early in her reign, now seemed to have few defenders among journalists and politicians.’
All this was happening in the lead-up and fallout of Diana and Charles’ divorce. After this, she was fed to the wolves and the press descended on her instead of holding the royals to account. This tactic and Diana’s tragic end successfully kept the media at bay for a while, but these same calls are being kicked up again and they’ve fed Meghan to the wolves to try and save their own skins once again.
She is nasty piece of business and her chuckle at the beginning of the question says it all.
agree- that snort was contempt. for the question of course but also for the subject matter.
eewwww.
This! Her smugness and arrogance was oozing out of every pore.
I agree. Her sneering arrogance and dismissal of the subject as beneath her notice was palpable. It’s very clear to me now that the most intelligent thing QEII ever did was to keep her mouth shut and avoid doing tv interviews during her reign. They all come across as uneducated, insular fools when they speak out, even under controlled conditions. No wonder Diana, Harry & Meghan bemused them, natural humanity and empathy are clearly way beyond their understanding.
Same. No respect for her whatsoever. I wonder why she’s coming to Canada? Chuckie doesn’t want to deal with the First Nations land claims or their stolen heritage?
@Lady D: Anne has a patronage with one of the New Brunswick regiments, who are commemorating a milestone anniversary this year. So she’s definitely not coming to offer any kind of acknowledgement re: TRC
Exactly. Reading/hearing stuff like this, I’m not sure why anyone still likes/respects this b*tch at this point. I’m not here for her “work ethic.” The “work” that these people do does not make up for their archaic beliefs and aristocratic-style bigotry.
💯 this. People always talk about Anne like she’s the “real deal” of the monarchy., better somehow than Charles et al. But she has shown herself to be as arrogant and entitled as all the rest.
Honestly, this interview made me so deeply unimpressed with Anne. Literally felt like taking a shower after listening to her condescension. It’s really wild how turned off this made me.
I would love to hear what she thinks of Willy and Katie.
All it tells me is that the “slimmed down monarchy” was just a narrative Charles and the media used to make them look more progressive & with the times, just like the “slavery research” narrative. Charles wasn’t actually planning to slim down the number of working royals or the cost to maintain them. They only started beating a horse with the narrative when Harry & Meghan left and they needed a reason to punish them.
I’m sure Charles does want to cut down the number of royals – mainly so he doesn’t have to share the spotlight. He wouldn’t allow the queens own children on the balcony on her jubilees which I think was madness, they were a part of her reign whether he liked it or not, and the jubilees were to celebrate HER reign, not his.
He didn’t invite many dukes and other peers to his coronation. He doesn’t want anyone taking attention away from him.
Word, Hail.
All of this to say, in 50 years, if this family is allowed to continue as a monarchy, Kitty will look like she was prescient, for recognizing that the first years of any human’s life are very, very important. This is the wheel this family turns on. Slight of hand, pretending to care about things the normies are worried about, so basically nothing.
I am LOVING how not ONE of the grown ass folk’s in King Charles’ putrid family that live in England are doing him ANY FAVORS!
NOT. ONE😡😆☹️
OMG yes! They are all over it! Even his closest sibling is like “whatever when will this end?”
Especially given that these criticisms are coming from his OWN sister who happens to be the hardest working royal within the entire family!!
Anne’s declaration of truth regarding the “slimmed down” Monarchy as an epic disaster is a beautiful chefs kiss 💋!! Now who would have thought that Anne would be the one to go rogue????
The whole interview is available on YouTube.. the slavery comments are … BAD and I wish it got more attention. Basically, from what I understand, she is saying you cannot judge history with a modern lens, that “history doesn’t work that way”.
Does she think no one objected to slavery before the present era? The abolitionist movement was very much in existence during the time when William IV, before he was king, gave a speech in the House of Lords against the abolition of slavery. He even insulted William Wilberforce in his speech saying that he, and other abolitionists, were either fanatics or hypocrites.
Kate Middleton is indirectly descended from one… how could she forget?!
Yeah, the more the Windsors talk the less educated the sound. Not to compliment Chucky but he seem to be the only one who actually reads a book occasionally. Anne sounds annoyed at having to acknowledge he family’s past. Umm sweetie your family’s past is exhaustively documented including their participation ne’ passion for the slave trade. Read a book I mean beside Anne and Charles the rest have plenty of down time.
Sounds like she had no idea about this research or Charles’ approval. It’s not even a subject of conversation, so she had to say something off the cuff. It’s not really word salad, but it’s also not the message that Charles or the royal family want to be sending.
This was bad, especially considering she gave this interview to the CBC, our national broadcaster in Canada where just last week it came out how few Canadians support the monarchy. More comments like this from the BRF and maybe my dream of a Canadian Republic will come true!
Lordy, after listening to the interview, I gotta say, she came across as a gigantic asshole. Anne ain’t not better than the rest of them.
Absolutely! Now I think for some if not most of them, the wisest decision was to never say anything. They are arrogant and unintelligent. We just didn’t know it because we had never heard them talk. Remember Edward on the carribean tour.
I was surprised and disappointed when I saw that Edward clip because I thought he was nice. Now I sort of feel that way about Anne, though I’m still not quite sure what she was trying to say.
What did Edward say ?
Yeah she came across somewhat like Andrew in his car crash BBC interview.
Her comments are trash but I must say that I love her coat, it’s a cool pattern.
Agreed! Love the coat.
Her arrogance and condescending tone reminded me of Tucker Carlson.
The entire purpose of Anne’s interview is a soft pitch to Canada for maintaining the British monarch as head of state. She is visiting Canada for the 175th anniversary of the 8th Canadian Hussars, a reserve unit. But the real purpose of this visit and interview, is to campaign for the value of her brother’s role as Canada’s head of state, emphasizing the view that monarchy provides “stability.” Yet our own Governor General, Mary Simon just stated publicly that Canada has has never felt as much “affection” for KCIII as they did for his mother, and she foresees a day when Canada will have to have a conversation about the future of the monarchy. Significantly, Mary Simon is Canada’s first Indigenous GG, so her comments hold even more significance. Also, she would not have made these comments without some kind of discussion with our PM. Regarding her response to the research linking the monarchy to slavery, Anne is deflective, inappropriate and tone deaf. This response defeats the entire purpose of her interview, which is to demonstrate the British monarchy’s relevance in today’s Canada (and elsewhere).
Anne is here? Huh. *goes back to her life, muttering about paying for those wastrels*
C&C’s last Cdn tour in 2022 cost aprx. $1.2 million. Saw one tabulation that this was around $25,000 per hour. Canada covers transport, internal travel, food, entertainment, accommodation, security, related rentals like venues or boardrooms. There is a 2019 report that Canada spends aprx $58 million per year on the monarchy. We do not pay the monarchy directly, but the money is spent the GG salary and expenses, as well as those of all provincial Lieutenant Governors, plus Royal tours in Canada. This really needs to stop. We have a cost of living crisis of our own, plus the institution is out of touch, racist and outdated.
Glad you noticed that. Also all the Balmoral talk. This family is determined asf to keep the UK & Commonwealth Realms. Let it be known now that it was KC3 who lost Britain, the UK – Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, the Commonwealth Realms & the Commonwealth of Nations. Prince WillHe Be King gonna be plain ole King of little England
Apathy and inertia is the only thing keeping. Charles as head of state in canada. Outside of a small group of monarchists, Most Canadians do not care about the British monarchy and they are not an important part in Canadian life.
This is another comment based on an Angus-Reid of 1539 respondents out of 34,000,000.
A poll done by people who never heard of the 1995 Quebec Referendum, and bringing home the Charter of Rights in 1982 and the Charlottetown Accord 1992, to mention a few.
Not one of them can present a better alternative to the present, to maintain a functioning Democracy. No one have the appetite to go through debates in ten provinces.
I would not dare speak for Canada, but add my two cents based on logic and context.
Her assertion that the monarchy provides stability is pretty weird in view of everything that’s happened in the last few years. And I don’t just mean H&M.
I kind of get it. With quickly rotating Prime Ministers and the fact that a general election could drop at any time, knowing that “a Windsor” will always be around provides a kind of national brand-recognition…a mascot?
The monarchy providing stability and continuity is a major talking point of royalists. I never noticed before, but Anne really lives in a bubble. Her head is where the Queen’s head was. Her word salad answer about slavery is proof of that. She has never given it a thought. I felt what she said about accompanying her mother’s casket through Scotland was heartfelt, and her remark about getting to wear military uniform at the coronation a nice solution to her problem gave me a good chuckle. Charles talked about the slimmed down monarchy when his mother had three of her cousins and their spouses working. They are all going to retire now, I assume. That leaves three lack lustre couples to carry on. I was surprised at the sychophantic tone of Adrienne for the interview. The woman used to be a war correspondent and was very good at reporting the facts as well as the human costs. Personally, I don’t want all royal tours to Canada to stop. They are simply an anachronism and serve no real purpose. Canadians on the whole have become rather indifferent to the monarchy, but at the moment it is too big a lift to get rid of it. It is already irrelevant to a majority of the population. Among other things, we are leaving it for future generations to solve and we should be ashamed of that.
I think that as one of the hardest working royals Anne is all too well aware with Will and Kate’s woeful level of ‘work’ that it will be less chance for her to ease back in future as she gets older. Especially without Harry and Megan being around.
One thing I do know is as the patron of RCOT she has always been well prepared and well briefed in past. She doesn’t just turn up and look pretty in too many buttons!
I can see her being keen on the York’s sisters to do a few appearances or even Zara once she retired from her sporting endeavours.
It could have been me manifesting, but did I discern a hint of scorn and sarcasm *discreetly* levelled directly at W&K? Re their number of engagements and the amount of *work* they do? Or is Anne just always this blunt?
I think that’s absolutely what she’s referring to. She implies that’s she’s already doing as much as she can—“not much more to do”—and if other people don’t pull their weight, the remaining few cannot make up the difference.
Even her comments on Charles and “his level of service” reads as shady to me. She is saying that he won’t change as King. The Charles you saw is the Charles you get.
She did another interview a while back where she basically said that people need to stick with what works and while many took it as a critique of H and M, it was also an obvious critique of William and Kate who claim they want to do things differently and yet do very little overall.
@Nic919 – That comment about “stick with what works” was from a Vanity Fair article profiling Anne on her 70th birthday.
As you stated, the comment was directed towards Peggington & Wiggington Wails NOT the Sussexes. Easily reading between the lines of the article, it is not difficult to see the comment was squarely a critique of the Wails’ work habits.
Is the diversity tsar in charge of this slavery research? Oh right, the diversity tsar never existed and neither will this slavery research. This family loves to play in people’s faces like we can’t see the truth. Their attitudes obviously haven’t changed and some of them, like Special K can’t even hide their true feelings about Black people. They are perfectly content to let their racist flag fly.
She’s right about the slimmed down monarchy, esp when people start asking more uncomfortable questions about the all too frequent absences of the lazy undynamic duo. The ever increasing price tag of the ClownFest won’t help the RF either.
The slimmed down monarchy idea doesn’t just predate Meghan, it predates Harry hitting puberty. It was the brainchild of the Way Ahead committee back after the Windsor fire when the royal family faced backlash in the face of all three of the monarchs married children divorcing and money being asked for to repair Windsor.
The Crown literally did an episode about this.
It’s also why Louise, unlike the York girls, wasn’t called Princess/ HRH from birth.
But also please note the deep misogyny of the royal family. Anne’s kids were never going to be working royals, way ahead committee or not, because the sovereigns grandchildren of the female line never are. I’m the preceding generations see Princess Margaret’s kids and Princess Mary kids as proof.
What does this even mean??? You are living off of funds stolen from countries and derived from trades just like slavery – and you’re right – it hasn’t ended in modern times, and neither has the RF involvement. STILL profiting off of countries impacted by centuries of being raided and “owned” by people who have no business being their leaders (and caring less about the people in them than whether or not they’re wearing a crown of flowers or stolen jewels). The “Duchy” funds are problematic as F (STILL stealing land). I know stealing land and slavery are not the same thing, but they grow from the same vines – greed, disregard for human life, entitlement, and power. This is just. so. bad. I guess she feels like she’s gonna be gone before it impacts her pockets so who cares? But also, doing this interview the week of the stupid event…that family must really hate each other.
Anne said, “But I would just underline that the monarchy provides, with the constitution, a degree of long-term stability that is actually quite hard to come by any other way.”
Not true many countries without a monarchy are stable and democratic.
The interviewer lets Anne gloss over many important topics like slavery
Does the UK have a constitution?
@BayTampaBay: yes, the UK has a constitution, but unlike the USA’s it is uncodified – it does not exist in one, singular, coherent and supreme document. It is more a constitution by convention, where precedent is set across a number of documents, institutions, rulings, and norms.
Can some Brits explain to me what she’s on about with “long term stability”….? I hear this from monarchists all the time but the King/Queen doesn’t actually DO anything. So what’s is stable- that these people are mascots? How is that adding stability to anything?
I’ve also heard “well bc of our monarchy we would never have Donald Trump!” Orly? Would the monarch completely overturn an election? I very much doubt it.
My personal Definition of “long term stability” with regards to the BRF: The British Monarchy, with its traditions, is a source of conservative resistance to a world of constant progressive change.
I think it’s “long term stability” of the Royal Family’s wealth and privileges.
We wouldn’t have President Trump. He could only be Prime Minister Trump. He probably wouldn’t bother running for PM.
We would have had President Blair.
The Monarch existing means less power to the PM and much less fame, influence, popularity, media attention.
The armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch so in theory a Military Commander couldn’t use them to stage a coup.
The main purpose of the monarch is to represent/symbolise the country and most people would much rather have Elizabeth 2 representing Britain than Trump, or Blair or any of the other recent PMs.
Having the same figurehead for 70yrs is seen as giving stability versus a constant change of Presidents and PMs. The same family for hundreds of years.
In the past if the family were no good, they could be assassinated and replaced with another family. Now we’re stuck with the one family.
I kept up with Anne gossip slightly. Just cause it was unique. But She has been put on a pedestal. she isn’t a good spare. I think Margaret her aunt did a better job.
Anne could’ve followed Charles into learning. Her father tried to push her into being accomplished. All Anne does is show up. She is a horse woman but her mother paved the way. It doesn’t take much when your mother already has the infrastructures.
Of course Anne doesn’t want a slimed down monarchy. Her daughter is auditioning, in the laziest way, to be a working royal.
Her father actually stared the idea of a slim down. He didn’t like how Elizabeth had to carry all her cousins.
Carrying her cousins is better than marrying them.
Oh, wait. NVM.
OMG, she should have used her famous wit and told him that, esp if he was off on one of his affairs at the time
I watched the interview and on top of her answers her facial expressions told a lot. On the answer about Charles being ready she had this smirk at the end that every sister recognizes when talking about their brother. It just told that he’s been in the background telling everyone what to do. And for her answer about the slimmed down monarchy she made a joke at first (Adrienne did too) that they can’t really slim it down because she already is the hardest worker and there’s not more she can do. I saw it as a slam to the Wales and how little they do and would need to pick up the slack not here. The slavery thing was just so weird though. The whole interview is apparently on the CBC YouTube.
Slavery is “not really a subject of conversation that I would even go down”????? Holy crap, Anne, at least pretend that you care a tiny bit about the people who were enslaved to enrich your family. The cluelessness, the arrogance, the utter contempt of this response are galling.
And, as others have noted, her contemptuous laugh when the subject of slavery was introduced in the conversation … she’s as despicable as the rest of the British royals.
And big surprise that the system of governance she thinks provides the most stability is the one that most benefits her and her family. Abolish the monarchy.
She really showed how uneducated she is. This is what her father was talking about. She didn’t expand her interest.
It’s a new age. With Andrew gone Anne will need to speak more. Andrew has always acted more like the spare. And now we see why Elizabeth tried with him.
Andrew was the spare. Anne was lower in the line of succession, after Edward. The law was changed to apply to Princess Charlotte but not Anne. She’s still ranked after Edward because she’s female.
If William Harry and all their children died, Andrew would be King.
I’m stuck on: “He (Charles) is committed to his own level of service and and that will remain true.” Am I detecting…that she thinks her brother is kind of a lightweight? Like he’s obsessed with his very own issues but not much on the day to day? That tracks, honestly.
And as for “we have to shift the way we support” and changing their work year to get with the times, good luck with that! The Queen always being at Balmoral for the summer was the Keenbridge’s excuse for a 2 or 3 month vacation.
I was just scrolling down to comment on that! I was like, DAAAAAAMN, someone crown Anne the Queen of Shade.
It’s kinda hilarious to think about how much these people just down-and-dirty HATE one another.
There’s a typo in the article. It should be the gold stick was the close protection officer, not the clothed protection officer.
Oh, I thought that might be the British way of say ‘plain clothes’ officer. Thanks for the explanation!
I thought the same thing too.
Where’s the surprise with this malignant person? The monarchy stops and the gravy train she and her extended “family” are on ceases. It doesn’t matter that some of them don’t have titles — they’re still living off the backs of British citizens and have since the crown’s inception. Disingenuous much, Arrogant Anne?
She’s as arrogant, clueless, and altogether awful as any of the BRF. None of them are doing themselves any favors
“Utterly bizarre” is absolutely spot-on
Princess Anne reminded me of an old white southerner on that last bit.
Ugh. Just UGH. What bothers me is these hateful fascist women just can’t help but proudly out themselves during a recorded interview. There’s no difference between this Karen and the Karen being filmed on someone’s phone being racist, blowing her dog whistle and having a oh my gosh the sheer amount of over privilege has gone to my head and I can barely contain myself…..Gross!