Royal couple have the right to their own living and the right to independence

By SJ Otto

Usually everything I post about the royal family of England is negative. I have completely dissed the royal family, in the past. Things have changed.

The things I opposed of the royals is that they have lived on the taxes of the English people.

The royal family has existed off the “crimes” of the past.

How many people understand the explanation of “hung, drawn and quartered.”[1]   

So now that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are making a dramatic move to distant themselves from the Royal family. I have to admire the move. England should have ended the monarchy years ago. If they don’t do that, these two have removed themselves from the confinement of the royal dynasty. They simply want develop their own careers. There is nothing wrong with that. Both in England and the US, they have the right to open up their lives. They want to start earning their own money and that is a positive move on their part.

Why would they not want to earn money on their own abilities and earn an honorable living. They want to remove themselves from the horrible Royal trap that has snarled them. According to People:

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty, The Queen. It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.” 

Again, I would normally not focus an article on the Royal family in England. But this time I am considering the local angle of a family that is trying to split from the Royal family and trying to break out on their own, trying to develop so they have some independence of their own and not totally dependent on their family history—which includes the crimes of tyranny by a tyrannical family. 

I hope they are successful. No one needs to be confined to a job they never applied for. They have a right to their own successfulness.

Pix by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle quit the royal family

---

[1]To be hanged, drawn and quartered was, from 1352, a statutory penalty in England for men convicted of high treason, although the ritual was first recorded during the reign of King Henry III (1216–1272). The convicted traitor was fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where he was then hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered (chopped into four pieces). His remains would then often be displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge, to serve as a warning of the fate of traitors. For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were instead burned at the stake.

The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered a deplorable act demanding the most extreme form of punishment. Although some convicts had their sentences modified and suffered a less ignominious end, over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. They included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of Charles I.

Although the Act of Parliament defining high treason remains on the United Kingdom's statute books, during a long period of 19th-century legal reform the sentence of hanging, drawing, and quartering was changed to drawing, hanging until dead, and posthumous beheading and quartering, before being abolished in England in 1870. The death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998.