Meghan and Harry: Royal Baby

[Carm_88]

I am so tired of the media's obsession with Diana. Her death was tragic and I am sure that her sons miss her every single day. But everything does not need to be about Diana, every child does not need to honour her. Every daughter does not have to be Diana, every son does not need to be Spencer. 

Her death was horrible and tragic, but for the love of god, let her rest.

[just_ordinary]

12 hours ago, Carm_88 said:

I am so tired of the media's obsession with Diana. Her death was tragic and I am sure that her sons miss her every single day. But everything does not need to be about Diana, every child does not need to honour her. Every daughter does not have to be Diana, every son does not need to be Spencer. 

Her death was horrible and tragic, but for the love of god, let her rest.

I wish I could love your post a hundred times. The obsession with her (and other royals) is worrying sometimes. I can only imagine how strange that must be for the people who actually are her family.

[Glasgowghirl]

15 hours ago, Carm_88 said:

I am so tired of the media's obsession with Diana. Her death was tragic and I am sure that her sons miss her every single day. But everything does not need to be about Diana, every child does not need to honour her. Every daughter does not have to be Diana, every son does not need to be Spencer. 

Her death was horrible and tragic, but for the love of god, let her rest.

Agreed, I was 10 when Diana died and while I felt sad that she died and felt terrible for William and Harry. I thought at the time the whole hysteria surrounding her death was an overreaction. I still feel the same way and Harry, who was 12 at the time, said that he hadn't fully processed what had happened yet and couldn't understand why all these people were gathering and crying in the street for his mother, when he hadn't been able to do that himself yet. The Queen and Charles got a lot of hate at the time for not coming straight to London from Balmoral and not speaking publicly about it, I think staying in Balmoral with William and Harry was the right thing for them to do and at that point in time being a parent and grandparent to those boys came before public duty. 

I'm sure Diana is in their minds all the time and they don't need it brought up all the time. 

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, Glasgowghirl said:

Agreed, I was 10 when Diana died and while I felt sad that she died and felt terrible for William and Harry. I thought at the time the whole hysteria surrounding her death was an overreaction. I still feel the same way and Harry, who was 12 at the time, said that he hadn't fully processed what had happened yet and couldn't understand why all these people were gathering and crying in the street for his mother, when he hadn't been able to do that himself yet. The Queen and Charles got a lot of hate at the time for not coming straight to London from Balmoral and not speaking publicly about it, I think staying in Balmoral with William and Harry was the right thing for them to do and at that point in time being a parent and grandparent to those boys came before public duty. 

I'm sure Diana is in their minds all the time and they don't need it brought up all the time. 

Absolutely. I was around the same age as you and didn’t really understand either. There’s probably room to criticize the Queen and Philip for their reactions - I think someone on here has explained before - but I think they absolutely made the right choice by keeping the boys at Balmoral as long as they did. They might be a public family, but they were so young and this was a tragedy that impacted them more than anyone else in the world. They deserved a bit of private time with their family to be begin mourning without the eyes of the world constantly analyzing and judging them for it. 

It doesn’t matter which kid gets names referencing her or which one looks most like her. Diana will live on through her children and through the stories they share about her with their children and that’s whats likely most important to William and Harry.

[AliceInFundyland]

... Random aside.. Diana's death was the first time I took to the internet vs. TV to learn about a world event. It was late summer 97. So college had started. The computer labs were there. It was evening. Someone said something and my roommate and I went off to investigate. We weren't the only ones.

[WiseGirl]

On 5/10/2019 at 7:56 AM, VelociRapture said:

Meghan looks like she just gave birth because her bump is still front and center. Catherine did as well after all three of her births and that’s something I’m grateful for because it helps normalize having a postpartum bump

IMO This is so important for both women to show and help normalize.  Hollywood gives unreal expectations for women in post baby body bounceback race and it is nice to see both Duchesses keep it real.

[anjulibai]

Yeah, I never understood why the Queen got crap for keeping the boys at Balmoral, or for wanting a private funeral. The public was really selfish in their desire to gawk at the boys. Harry has since talked about how traumatizing it was for him to have all those people at the funeral yelling at him. 

[Emkay]

On 5/7/2019 at 4:53 PM, Glasgowghirl said:

Yes that is true that he was well cared for but the family still got hate when it was revealed about John. 

The Queen does technically have custody of the children under an old law but tends to avoid interfering and I don't see her vetoing a name unless it was something really bad they wanted to choose.

I remember reading somewhere that Diana wanted to take the boys and move to either Australia or Pakistan when she was involved with Dr. Kahn and the Queen vetoed it. Just as I’m sure she’d do if Meghan got tired of royal life and decided she wanted to take Archie and live in the States. 

[viii]

Bit of a difference, though. William and Harry were young, and they were the direct heirs. William has firmly established his line - he has three heirs that could rule. Archie will never rule, barring any severe tragedy. I don’t think there would be an issue if they relocated to the States for a period of time, especially since they’re raising him titleless. 

[louisa05]

On 5/10/2019 at 6:56 AM, VelociRapture said:

 

2. Harry held the baby! I don’t even know why I like this so much. Maybe because it’s nice that Meghan got a bit of a break or something? I don’t know, but Harry just looked so protective and thrilled to finally be holding his own baby. I keep getting reminded of my own husband when we welcomed our daughter when I see those photos of Harry with Archie and it’s honestly making me feel a lot calmer and more excited about welcoming our final baby this year.

 

I'm not sure you meant it this way at all, but probably because I've seen so much "Look how Harry and Meghan are so superior to William and Kate!" all over the internet, this one bugged me. 

William held George for a bit at the photo call after his birth. They actually switched during it. Proof: 

https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/photo-gallery/44896920/image/44940215/love-first-sight-William-holding-newborn-George-2013

 

[VelociRapture]

11 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

I'm not sure you meant it this way at all, but probably because I've seen so much "Look how Harry and Meghan are so superior to William and Kate!" all over the internet, this one bugged me. 

William held George for a bit at the photo call after his birth. They actually switched during it. Proof: 

https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/photo-gallery/44896920/image/44940215/love-first-sight-William-holding-newborn-George-2013

 

Huh? I wasn’t even thinking of William and Catherine when writing that. I was merely commenting that it was nice he was the one holding the baby. A lot of times it’s mom holding the baby regardless of royal status. I honestly just thought it was cute because he was obviously so excited about it all.

Are people really being tools to William and Catherine about something that stupid? 

(You don’t have to answer that. The answer is obviously yes because it’s the internet and we can’t have nice things on the internet. )

[Palimpsest]

16 hours ago, anjulibai said:

Yeah, I never understood why the Queen got crap for keeping the boys at Balmoral, or for wanting a private funeral. The public was really selfish in their desire to gawk at the boys. Harry has since talked about how traumatizing it was for him to have all those people at the funeral yelling at him. 

Meh.  One could also ask the Queen and Charles why, in the name of all that is decent, those two young boys were forced (or permitted after their own request to do so, depending who you ask) to do that Godawful walk behind the damn casket!  I don't think the GBP demanded or expected it.  I don't think there is any evidence that a royal child has ever done that forced march before.  I was disgusted.

As for the public funeral, apparently Charles wanted it too.    And yes, the Queen keeping that boys at Balmoral and wanting a private funeral nearly caused a constitutional crisis.  I think the 2006 film The Queen (with Helen Mirren) is a pretty accurate depiction of what went down.

The mass hysteria surrounding Diana's death was something I never want to see again.  It was totally irrational.  IMO, It had a lot less to do with Diana as a person than it had to do with the general political and economic situation in the UK in the 90s, and the fact that the popularity of the monarchy was at an all time low.  Quite aside from all the royal divorces and scandals, the tax payer funded Civil List was overloaded with minor royal drones, it has been trimmed since.  Also Her Maj and Charles were finally persuaded (kicking and screaming all the way) to pay some taxes on their vast fortunes.

Diana and her death just became a symbol of all that was wrong with the country and people acted out.

I should add that the mass hysteria extended to the US.  I was living in Boston at the time and a store on Newbury Street was displaying one of Diana's dresses.  The whole sidewalk outside was blocked with huge heaps of rotting bouquets of flowers.  In front of a dress in a store window!

I was moderating a panel at a big conference that week.  First, I had to fight through a big weeping crowd lining up to sign a Diana condolence book at the venue before I could get to the right room.  Then, when the panel had finished the presentation, as moderator I asked for questions.  I still have a very noticeable British accent.  One person stood up, tears in his eyes, and said something like:  "I have a question, but first I want to express my condolences to you, Palimpsest, on your terrible loss." 

I was like a deer in the headlights.  I said something like: "Thanks, it is always a tragedy when a young mother is killed so tragically and unnecessarily.  Er, you had a question about the abuse of vulnerable adults and seniors  ..."  I thought afterwards that I should have promised to pass on his condolences to the Queen the next time I was invited to tea at Balmoral.

Back to topic:

Cute kid, Harry and Megan.  Nicely done.  I'll not comment on the name.  Now Megan, please could you scale back a bit on buying expensive designer clothes, even if Charles is paying for them.  Being so incredibly spendy on your togs is beginning to irritate some of us serfs out here.

 

[louisa05]

@VelociRapture There are a lot of crazy Meghan "fans" out there. They seem to show up anywhere the BRF is discussed. They are making quite the fuss that Harry is a much better father than William and apparently William didn't even want any of his kids (the first based on his being happy about the birth; the latter based on absolutely nothing). So they latched on to Harry holding the baby and pronounced it the first time a British royal father ever publicly held his baby. Of course, it isn't. Prince Edward carried Lady Louise when they left the hospital some three weeks after her birth. I'm sure there are others. (Of course, some Meghan fans seem to know nothing of the family besides H&M and W&K and the Queen). 

On the other side of the coin are a lot of Meghan haters who have decided that the baby is definitely not hers and that's why Harry held him instead of her. 

Because you are correct, we can't have nice things on the internet. 

 

 

 

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

@louisa05, I saw this one of Prince William leaving the hospital as a newborn.

The other shots of Diana holding him get shown more often, of course.

[tabitha2]

To hear some of the media Charles saw the boys once a month and he never had anything to do with them while Diana was So amazingly flawless  as a mother she made  Mary Poppins and Maria Von Trapp look like deadbeat slackers;)

[Carm_88]

The mass hysteria around Diana and the perpetual mourning is something that boggles my mind sometimes. I get that people felt attached to her, but does it need to be made a big deal of every year? I get it in say 2017, oh it's been 20 years, let's talk about it; but every year is far too much in my opinion. 

I was young when Diana died and I remember watching the funeral and the look of absolute confusion and heartbreak on Harry's face still haunts me. He was far too young to have done that walk. 

Now, as someone who has only recently been interested in the Royal Family February and March of 2002 were the bane of my existence. I was 13 and when Princess Margaret died, everything on CBC was about her for a bit. They talked about her being a wild child and the Queen and blah blah blah blah blah. It went on for a while. It died down and then the Queen Mother died and the dragged all the stuff on Margaret out again and then stuff about the Queen Mother and every bit of footage of both was pulled from the archive and played. Then they played it again, then there were made for TV movies and oh my god. I didn't watch strictly CBC, but for the love and honour of all that is holy, let it go! 

[louisa05]

6 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

The mass hysteria around Diana and the perpetual mourning is something that boggles my mind sometimes. I get that people felt attached to her, but does it need to be made a big deal of every year? I get it in say 2017, oh it's been 20 years, let's talk about it; but every year is far too much in my opinion. 

I was young when Diana died and I remember watching the funeral and the look of absolute confusion and heartbreak on Harry's face still haunts me. He was far too young to have done that walk. 

Now, as someone who has only recently been interested in the Royal Family February and March of 2002 were the bane of my existence. I was 13 and when Princess Margaret died, everything on CBC was about her for a bit. They talked about her being a wild child and the Queen and blah blah blah blah blah. It went on for a while. It died down and then the Queen Mother died and the dragged all the stuff on Margaret out again and then stuff about the Queen Mother and every bit of footage of both was pulled from the archive and played. Then they played it again, then there were made for TV movies and oh my god. I didn't watch strictly CBC, but for the love and honour of all that is holy, let it go! 

I love Margaret. She really was a wild child. I saw someone going on about how Diana was the first truly beautiful princess ever in the BRF, the first actually stylish person ever in the family and how she was the first rebel on a page the other day. I was all, "Uh, Princess Margaret begs to differ!". Diana had nothing on her in the rebel department. And not really in the style department either. And she was definitely a beauty as a young woman. 

[just_ordinary]

I am in the royal (not just BRF) sphere for quite some time now. Meghan has brought many new visitors and fans/haters. And while it is generally nice to hear new voices it gets tiresome how they swamp all comment sections with blind adoration/hate and stupid assumptions about how the European monarchies work (especially if a quick google/Wikipedia would have cleared it up). I feel like the tone was rather balanced before with criticism and  praise for them. The spending habits and fashion sense of the female royals have always been a big part and apart from that everyone had pet royals but we knew that none of them are pure evil nor an angelic humanist. This has changed tremendously. You can obviously only completely love Meghan and be a good, liberal and PC person or you are a racist internet bully. I will not deny that there are horrible racist and utterly mean things about her on the internet. If I were them I would employ a team to report everyone of them. This has to stop. But criticising her hairstyle or clothes or demeanour is NOT necessarily coming from a racist hateful background. I don’t hang around the nasty sites so the criticism I have actually seen was never worse than what royals tend to get though I know there is bad stuff out there. I hope this hype dies down soon and we can all go on about the superficial fun the royals are as before.

[Palimpsest]

@just_ordinary, I agree.  Thanks to you, I just donned my haz-mat suit and took a look at some royal sites.  What a mess.  The royal-humping Royal Forums are suspending members right and left.  The nasty Royal Dish has banned any discussion of Harry and Meg for reasons.  I see that Royal Gossip is still allowing people to post really strange conspiracy theories.  Yuck, that one may have made a hole in my haz-mat suit, I need a hot shower with disinfectant ...

But whatever happened to Royal Splendor and when did it go dark.  Darn, I'll miss that one for great tiara coverage and reading rational discussion.

I mean, seriously.  I get why people are interested in Megs.  A commoner bi-racial linberal feminist American marrying into the stuffy old RF -- fan-bloody-tastic.  I wanted to watch it and rejoice.  But now I'm seeing much overt and inexcusable racism.  Disgusting.

I am also seeing a woman who is making a few unforced errors in a culture alien to her.  But one who is spending money like water in a very insensitive way.  I feel sorry for her but a bit annoyed by her too.  Wake up, smell the coffee, and try to shape up, Megs.  You would look great in some affordable high street gear too. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean that it looks good.  Or try bespoke clothing like the Queen.  It is much harder for people to guess the cost then.

I find Royal Obsession a bit strange, especially from Americans who seem to forget why they had a revolution.  But we all have our hobbies.  I occasionally dip in because I like history and pretty clothes, and I simply adore tiaras.

The Royals (including them all not just the BRF) are mere tourist attractions and, IMO, obsolete.  They are treated like animals at the Zoo.  People tend to forget they are human beings.  They have their good points, their foibles and their faults and are not immune from criticism.  No-one should worship them or blindly admire them for their inherited titles.  That is so last century.

I am not a monarchist.  I see the royal families as something of an endangered species in the Zoo of Life, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.  I would prefer to have British taxes support breeding programs for Giant Pandas and Tigers, instead of enabling pampered royals who have massive inherited personal fortunes.  So sue me.

[Glasgowghirl]

On 5/13/2019 at 11:22 PM, tabitha2 said:

To hear some of the media Charles saw the boys once a month and he never had anything to do with them while Diana was So amazingly flawless  as a mother she made  Mary Poppins and Maria Von Trapp look like deadbeat slackers;)

The press liked to make Charles out as horrible man and Diana as a saint when in reality both of them cheated through out the marriage. I think they did have love for eachother but both realised quickly that they were not in love, Charles still loved Camilla and Diana had her affairs with James Hewitt and Dr Khan. They should have split years before they did.

William and Harry have said that after their parents split they spent equal time with both parents and that they both made sure they were well taken care of. Charles and Diana also were not fighting all the time the way the press made them out to be either, for the most part they were civil with eachother and in the year between the divorce and her death they had been getting on well. 

[tabitha2]

@PalimpsestI agree with most of what you say but I must add most royals don’t have unlimited fortunes and are certainly not payed for by the government but for Royal duties they perform. Most of the Queen cousins, nieces/nephews ETC. pay rent to live in Kensington Palace which not particularly grand or luxurious and sure don’t have money for huge country houses.They are very wealthy at best. The Queens Grandchildren other than the Princes  have to work and/or live off trust funds. They have very few Servants or staff Either FWIW.  

 

As for Royal Forum. Well shit. If you say you don’t like Meghan’s shoes  the Humpers and the Worshippers will attack from all sides... you're a hater, a racist, soo Judgmental, And Oh My Goodness don’t you understand Meghan is the most stylish beautiful free spirited royal ever and LESSER MORTALS LIKE YOU JUST DON’T  GET IT!!

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by tabitha2

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

Most of the Queen cousins, nieces/nephews ETC. pay rent to live in Kensington Palace which not particularly grand or luxurious and sure don’t have money for huge country houses.They are very wealthy at best. The Queens Grandchildren other than the Princes  have to work and/or live off trust funds. They have very few Servants or staff Either FWIW.  

I mentioned above that the Civil List was reformed and drastically trimmed in the 1990s.  That stopped an awful lot of minor royal drones, who performed few royal duties, from sucking at the public teat.  Some of them (Prince Michael of Kent, I'm looking at you) actually had to get jobs and start paying rent back then. Before that he, and his wife, made a career of unpleasant behavior unbecoming to anyone, let alone a royal. The grace-and-favour dwellings are still heavily subsidised and Her Maj is unlikely to let anyone end up in the poor house.  

None of the minor royals are searching under the couch cushions for pennies.  They have trust funds, and they can all get jobs.  As they should.

Some manage very well.  Look at David Armstrong-Jones, now Earl of Snowden, and Lady Sarah Chatto.  Hard-working pleasant people who prefer to live private lives and support themselves very nicely, thank you.

One good thing about Charles; he wants to keep the Civil List very short.  IMO it isn't selfishness to keep minor royals like Bea and Eugenie off it.  It is political savvy and reading the attitude of the GBP correctly.  They are not needed for full-time royal duties anyway at the moment.  If Alexandra retires or dies, like Anne she is a real work horse, bless her, Bea and Eug may pick up more royal duties and deserve pay from the Civil List.  Time will tell.

But I am using outdated terminology.  The Civil List was further reformed with the Sovereign Grant Act in 2011 or 2012.  I forget.  I'm sure you can google the details. 

Basically, the Queen gets a generous allowance from Parliament to support her lifestyle and that of her  various family members.  Also, she can petition Parliament for extra funds to make repairs to Buckingham Palace and other dwellings.   And to pay for fancy Jubilees, wedding security, and suchlike.  She's hardly on the breadline herself anyway. 

The Queen's actual personal income and inherited private fortune are a mystery.  She doesn't want us to know how much she owns.  However,  I see no sign of her putting Sandringham or Balmoral (both her personal properties) on the market to pay for her numerous relatives to live extravagant lives of luxury.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Palimpsest
missing words

[formergothardite]

On 5/13/2019 at 1:11 PM, Palimpsest said:

I should add that the mass hysteria extended to the US

I learned about Diana's death in church. The pastor got up and announced it first thing and people were sobbing. Having never followed the royal family I didn't get it. It was insane how people behaved when she died. 

[ViolaSebastian]

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I am in the royal (not just BRF) sphere for quite some time now. Meghan has brought many new visitors and fans/haters. And while it is generally nice to hear new voices it gets tiresome how they swamp all comment sections with blind adoration/hate and stupid assumptions about how the European monarchies work (especially if a quick google/Wikipedia would have cleared it up). I feel like the tone was rather balanced before with criticism and  praise for them. The spending habits and fashion sense of the female royals have always been a big part and apart from that everyone had pet royals but we knew that none of them are pure evil nor an angelic humanist. This has changed tremendously. You can obviously only completely love Meghan and be a good, liberal and PC person or you are a racist internet bully. I will not deny that there are horrible racist and utterly mean things about her on the internet. If I were them I would employ a team to report everyone of them. This has to stop. But criticising her hairstyle or clothes or demeanour is NOT necessarily coming from a racist hateful background. I don’t hang around the nasty sites so the criticism I have actually seen was never worse than what royals tend to get though I know there is bad stuff out there. I hope this hype dies down soon and we can all go on about the superficial fun the royals are as before.

Thank you so much for this. I felt like I was a step away from being called out as a racist *on this thread* for criticizing the amount that was spent on Meghan's New York baby shower. 

[nausicaa]

On 5/13/2019 at 1:11 PM, Palimpsest said:

The mass hysteria surrounding Diana's death was something I never want to see again.  It was totally irrational.  IMO, It had a lot less to do with Diana as a person than it had to do with the general political and economic situation in the UK in the 90s, and the fact that the popularity of the monarchy was at an all time low.  Quite aside from all the royal divorces and scandals, the tax payer funded Civil List was overloaded with minor royal drones, it has been trimmed since.  Also Her Maj and Charles were finally persuaded (kicking and screaming all the way) to pay some taxes on their vast fortunes.

I was thirteen, American, and found it so odd. I was old enough to remember the infamous "There were three people in this marriage" interview and knew who she was and why people liked her/hated Charles, etc. But the people I knew who were into it followed it all from a distance, like it was some real time soap opera, like people follow the Kardashians now. The insane gnashing of teeth and breast beating after her death seemed so insincere and it was bizarre to watch someone be canonized like that in real time. It almost felt like people were excited because they "got" to live through a famous death like we'd heard about with JFK and MLK.

I also remember a British poll in 2000 asking Brits to rank the most important moments for the U.K. in the 20th century and Diana's death was voted #1. Um...y'all fought TWO world wars in that century. You were literally bombed by the Germans on your home soil. You lost nearly 20,000 British subjects in one day at the Somme. 

(Don't mean this as some dig at the Brits. Americans were silly too. And I'm sure we would lose our collective shit if Michelle Obama died under similar circumstances. I'm just so turned off by mass hysteria like that.)