Harry= Off the Derech?

amother

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 2:55 pm

I read this interesting article saying Harry is "Off the Derech" and comparing him/his situation to people who have gone OTD. Thoughts?

Quote:

These last couple of days, I’ve been obsessing over a story in the news. It’s about a young man who grew up in a very traditional household, one with very specific and onerous customs that go back hundreds of years if not more. The whole observance felt stifling to him; he’s a fan-loving lad. And then, he meets a woman: beautiful, vivacious, and as far removed from his insular and small circle as you could imagine. With her came promises of a life far freer: He could follow her away from home, shed the bothersome rituals he’d found so boring, and pursue nothing but his own exquisite pleasures.

He is, of course, Prince Harry, but he might as well have been every character in every Philip Roth novel ever written, the young male who marries outside the faith and relishes in removing himself from the airless quarters of the family and the Old Religion to which it still, for some strange reason, adheres. Take away the crown and Frogmore Cottage and the other machinations of the monarchy, and Sussex may very well be a Stein by any other name.

Which means that Queen Elizabeth is now learning the same lesson that had stung many a bubbeh, the painful realization that modernity is a mighty force that imperils any and all tradition, no matter how deeply rooted and fabulously endowed.

It is, of course, not a very new story. Leaping into life in 1894, Tevye the Milkman was already endowed with regrets; his way of life, he fretted, was being gnawed at by outside forces beyond his control, and his daughters swept away by outsiders with shiny visions for the future. John of Gaunt would’ve commiserated: He lived in the late 1300s, and when Shakespeare brought him to life two hundred years later, in Richard II, he delivered a timeless lament about England’s constant decline. “This royal throne of kings,” he howled, “this scepter’d isle… This little world, this precious stone set in the silver sea, which serves it in the office of a wall, or as a moat defensive to a house, against the envy of less happier lands” has now made a “shameful conquest of itself.” The English used to stand alone and apart; now, John kvetched, they were becoming ordinary, abandoning the zeal and the devotion that had made them unique.

Any rabbi in America might’ve delivered the same speech. And any president of any Jewish federation likely tried, as have the Windsors, to bring the franchise up to date. The family that had once resided in a mist of heavenly mysteries, ruling by divine order and inaccessible to any but the few and the fortunate, now communicates with the tabloids via PR flacks and opines on Twitter under the handle @Royalfamily. You can hardly blame Harry for sounding less like a prince and more like a Silicon Valley dudebro quitting his startup—all that talk of making transitions within the institution and “collaborating” with the Queen, as if she wasn’t Her Royal Highness but simply Lizzie from HR.

And so, Harry’s off the derech now. You may empathize with his frustrations, and even more so with those of his wife, who has had to endure more than her share of calumny, some it likely racially motivated. But none of that changes the picture in any fundamental way. Seen from the outside, the royal family, like the Jews, is small, stubborn, and senseless. Why insist on so much ceremony when the world has moved on to newer and cooler things? Why engage in prescribed charity work when you could be doing voiceovers for Disney? Why demand fealty to the family when everything outside your palace, from children’s books to graduate courses, insists that one must always be embracing and letting the whole world in?

There are, as the Windsors are now coming to realize, no good answers to these questions. And there is no Reform royalty. The Queen may take away Harry and Meghan’s titles, but when you call yourself the Firm, as the royal family reportedly does, you’re bound to learn that there are always bigger, richer, and more powerful firms out there happy to snatch away your prince. Instead, Buckingham Palace should look at any half-empty shul as a cautionary tale, and understand this: You can spend all the money in the world and you’re still not going to be able to buy continuity. If you want your values to live on, you have to live them fully and passionately and without reservations. You have to show your kids, not tell them, that the joys far outnumber the constrictions. You have to instill a sense of pride, not just duty.

These are guttural, instinctual sentiments. They’re not likely to occur naturally to someone as reserved and removed as Queen Elizabeth, who had thrived for so long precisely because she placed herself and her family in a carefully controlled bubble that is neither irritating nor particularly inspiring. To keep Harry—and, quite possibly, the future of the monarchy—the Queen should now make a passionate argument about why Britain needs a sovereign anyway. This argument shouldn’t be rational: It should draw much on the incomprehensible magic of yore, on those beliefs that move so many of her subjects yet fail to succumb to the harsh logic of balance sheets and pros-and-cons lists. She should set the young prince free while simultaneously showing him, and us, better reasons than money and titles to want to dedicate his life to this larger cause. Chabad has done all of this very well; the Windsors, too, can follow suit.

https://www.tabletmag.com/scro.....1NEhE

malki2

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:01 pm

Harry got smitten by a skank and she ruined his life. Does that sound better?

amother

Dodgerblue

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:38 pm

Harry didn't date an American by accident.

amother

cornflower

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:40 pm

They me on a blind date lol

amother

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 4:12 pm

amother [ Dodgerblue ] wrote:

Harry didn't date an American by accident.

Did he ever date an American or have any other American girlfriends besides for Meghan?

amother

Ecru

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 4:21 pm

malki2 wrote:

Harry got smitten by a skank and she ruined his life. Does that sound better?

Shtus he was always a bit of a rebel, hes not future king n has no interest in walking the walk when it gets him nowhere. He honestly has more fun to do

amother

cornflower

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 4:23 pm

I dont think so
the last american who dated a royal was wallis simpson she made the king abducate the throne not just move a royal to canada they lived their lives exiled from england

zaq

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 4:29 pm

Just want to point out that sentiments can hardly be “guttural” unless they’re being described in German. “Guttural” means a harsh sound formed in the throat, like the “ch” in kuchen.

I believe what the author meant was “gut” feelings. Maybe s/he thinks “gut” is déclassé and “guttural” is a more elegant term for the same thing. A common mistake, thinking that using three syllables make a person sound smarter than using one. What a faux pas.

Back to our regular programming.

An amusing premise as an analogy, but insulting to religion and trivializing the gravity of the problem. Going OTD involves more than flouting “traditions that go back hundreds of years.” If your dc decides to stray from your tradition of living in a certain type of neighborhood, dressing a certain way, and following a certain tradition of naming children, he may be off YOUR D but not off THE D, provided he is still keeping kosher, observing Shabbat, and if married, observing TH. This may be painful to you as you would like your dc to be a clone of you, but it’s nothing to bemoan.

OTOH, truly going OTD is not even in the same ballpark as rejecting parental lifestyle. It is not “getting with it” or “ breaking away from archaic customs” and it’s not something parents need to accept as necessary to survival. It’s rebelling against G-d and rejecting the very foundations of our faith. There is no comparison.

amother

Mustard

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 4:29 pm

amother [ cornflower ] wrote:

I dont think so
the last american who dated a royal was wallis simpson she made the king abducate the throne not just move a royal to canada they lived their lives exiled from england

She was hoping to marry a king. She didn't force the abdication.

malki2

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 4:33 pm

amother [ Mustard ] wrote:

She was hoping to marry a king. She didn't force the abdication.

She’s [not classy]. She’s not queen material. Unlike her SIL.

Amarante

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 4:53 pm

malki2 wrote:

She’s a skank. She’s not queen material. Unlike her SIL.

You don't think calling a married woman who you know nothing about except from tabloids a "skank" is an appropriate thing to post?

And, at least in my opinion, it is posts like these multiplied by the millions that is the reason why any sane person would try to go in the direction they are which I think they are hoping will take the spotlight off them.

allthingsblue

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 4:56 pm

The vicious hatred for Meghan is something I will never understand.

amother

Firebrick

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 4:59 pm

malki2 wrote:

She’s a skank. She’s not queen material. Unlike her SIL.

Why is it so important to you to call her like this?
I don't recall having to use this on a human being in my 30 plus years on this planet.

I can tell without asking that you live in the UK. So much hatred towards her there.
It's because she is biracial and Ameican.

Harry is not this nebby little boy that was controlled by his wife. Come on.

amother

cornflower

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:04 pm

amother [ Mustard ] wrote:

She was hoping to marry a king. She didn't force the abdication.

the twice divorced simpson tried to call it off she didnt want to marry him and wanted her husband

malki2

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:41 pm

amother [ Firebrick ] wrote:

Sorry. She gives off an impression to me of being low-class. It’s just my feeling. I hope that you are not personally insulted.

amother

Dodgerblue

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:45 pm

malki2 wrote:

Sorry. She gives off an impression to me of being low-class. It’s just my feeling. I hope that you are not personally insulted.

not that poster - when people talk like this, it makes me uncomfortable.

amother

Cyan

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:51 pm

allthingsblue wrote:

The vicious hatred for Meghan is something I will never understand.

I really don’t get it. Everything Kate does is idolized and Meghan is always looked down on.

amother

Cyan

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:54 pm

malki2 wrote:

She’s a skank. She’s not queen material. Unlike her SIL.

You are so right! Catching the prince’s eye by parading in lingerie is definitely more queen material.

amother

Firebrick

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:58 pm

malki2 wrote:

Sorry. She gives off an impression to me of being low-class. It’s just my feeling. I hope that you are not personally insulted.

I'm not insulted but from your expressions it looks like you were personally offended by her.
Looks like many in the UK are offended that an outsider dared entering their sacred enclave. Like she took away their holy untarnished image.

amother

cornflower

Wed, Jan 15 2020, 7:22 pm

Megan markle was on a show called deal or no deal wearing scantly clothing in high heels ever week the host of the show Howie mendal didn’t even remember her she was in some very racy scene s in film