Meghan and Harry: Royal Baby

[VelociRapture]

2 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

@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.

I’m curious to see if Meghan’s wardrobe budget drops this year. I would assume it would, but I could be wrong. Were her wedding clothes and accessories included in last year’s costs? That could have driven the total up a bit. I’m not sure whether her jewelry was borrowed or not other than the tiara, which came from the Royal vaults abd wouldn’t have cost anything. And is it possible what clothing she brought with her weren’t exactly up to standards for some reason*? If so then maybe that played a part too. 

*I honestly don’t care how other people dress, but I do understand why it would bother someone living in the U.K. I think the budget for clothing is somehow linked to tax money? I’m not sure about the specifics, but if that’s the case I do see why it would be an issue with the royals specifically and why they’d be subject to criticism on this.

2 hours ago, Glasgowghirl said:

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. 

If I remember correctly, Diana and Charles never spoke ill of the other’s parenting in the press. I think that probably says a good deal about how involved and attentive they both were. 

 

3 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

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.)

I like to think a lot of people would be sad about Michelle Obama and I have no doubt there’d be people who’d take the grieving much too far. Unfortunately, Michelle has been the target of a lot of hatred though. Some of that is linked to differences in politics, but a lot of it is linked closely to racism. I have absolutely no doubt a lot of people would be openly gleeful if something happened to the black woman who dared to rise above her proper “place.” 

[Palimpsest]

13 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

I’m curious to see if Meghan’s wardrobe budget drops this year. I would assume it would, but I could be wrong. Were her wedding clothes and accessories included in last year’s costs? That could have driven the total up a bit. I’m not sure whether her jewelry was borrowed or not other than the tiara, which came from the Royal vaults abd wouldn’t have cost anything. And is it possible what clothing she brought with her weren’t exactly up to standards for some reason*? If so then maybe that played a part too. 

Charles supposedly pays for both Kate and Meghan's clothes, not the taxpayers.  At least, he pays for their public royalling wardrobes.  It's not our business what they wear, except that Meg went absolutely nuts on the designer clothing.  It was unreasonable spending, insensitive, and conspicuous consumption in bad economic times, however you look at it.   

Charles may have cut Meg's clothing allowance drastically for 2020 though.  He's no fool and she's made herself look bad with her spending on clothes.  He's all about protecting the image these days.

Even if Meghan were building a royal wardrobe from scratch in 2019, she managed to outspend Camilla, Kate, and CP Victoria -- and probably all other royal ladies combined.  By a lot and with far fewer royal duties.  I know it is the Fail, but for once this is pretty accurate reporting and allows for inflation.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6581527/Cost-Kate-Middleton-Meghans-royal-wardrobes-revealed.html

Kate has always managed quite a nice balance by alternating very pricy clothes, and affordable stuff, so as not to offend and infuriate the proletariat too much.  That is good princessing and Meghan should take note.

I'm not being mean just for the sake of it.  I call this constructive criticism for Meghan.    

[VelociRapture]

27 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Charles supposedly pays for both Kate and Meghan's clothes, not the taxpayers.  At least, he pays for their public royalling wardrobes.  It's not our business what they wear, except that Meg went absolutely nuts on the designer clothing.  It was unreasonable spending, insensitive, and conspicuous consumption in bad economic times, however you look at it.   

Charles may have cut Meg's clothing allowance drastically for 2020 though.  He's no fool and she's made herself look bad with her spending on clothes.  He's all about protecting the image these days.

Even if Meghan were building a royal wardrobe from scratch in 2019, she managed to outspend Camilla, Kate, and CP Victoria -- and probably all other royal ladies combined.  By a lot and with far fewer royal duties.  I know it is the Fail, but for once this is pretty accurate reporting and allows for inflation.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6581527/Cost-Kate-Middleton-Meghans-royal-wardrobes-revealed.html

Kate has always managed quite a nice balance by alternating very pricy clothes, and affordable stuff, so as not to offend and infuriate the proletariat too much.  That is good princessing and Meghan should take note.

I'm not being mean just for the sake of it.  I call this constructive criticism for Meghan.    

Oh I know you’re not being mean just because. You were very fair in your criticism. 

I wasn’t sure where exactly the funding comes from, but the source of the funds probably doesn’t matter very much. She’s a public figure that helps represent the UK now, not a private citizen who happens to be a celebrity. Even though the funds aren’t tax payer money it still looks bad and I get that it likely bugs the average citizen across the pond. I absolutely get why this is fair game for criticism. 

[tabitha2]

I just have a feeling and I may be very wrong that she wants to be a Royal and still be an American celebrity. 

[Palimpsest]

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

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. 

I'd have to see the poll, but perhaps they meant it as "most important moment, but not in a good way."  As in: "The time we all temporarily lost our minds and most importantly learned never to over-react like that again."

It was ridiculous.  And the problem is that all the drama and the backlash against Diana that followed it obscured what should be Diana's true legacy.

I think Camilla is good for Charles and doing her job well.  It should not be a battle between Diana and Camilla supporters.

Diana was a not very bright young woman with fragile mental health, who ended up in a bad marriage and the Royal Fishbowl.  She cracked, as many of us would, under the strain.  She probably would have been fine if she had married some minor aristocratic chinless wonder, had children who she loved and raised well, and opened the occasional village fete.  Instead she became the Princess of Wales.  Poor thing

As the Princess of Wales, Diana's legacy should be the good things that she did.  And that doesn't include her dress sense or any of the melodrama.

These include, but are not limited to:

1991:  Diana touches a person with AIDS without wearing gloves.   “HIV does not make people dangerous to know. You can shake their hands and give them a hug. Heaven knows they need it.”

Well yes.  For those too young to remember the AIDs hysteria and discrimination, or those not born yet, that may not sound astounding.  However, she lead the celebrity pack in understanding HIV, and this action was deliberate and way ahead of her time.  It shook the world.

The gesture came straight from Diana's essential loving and compassionate nature.  And in 1991 it was courageous.  She similarly hugged people with Hansen's Disease (leprosy) to help reduce the stigma against them, and was a dedicated Hospice visitor in her private time.  That is why many people admired her. 

Also, her work with the homeless, both public and private was similarly admirable.  Also her dedication to the victims of landmines.  She found those causes herself and, IMO was a role model for many.  And it was all very genuine.

I think she was a role model for Charles too.  She made him up his royal game instead of being the playboy prince because she was so compassionate towards others.  The Prince's Trust was established during the 1970s, but did very little (actually sod-all) until Charles either followed Diana's example or started competing with her in the compassion and popularity department in the 1980s and 90s. 

RIP, Diana.  I hope your true legacy gets appreciated some day.

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Palimpsest

[singsingsing]

Honest question, how do people even hear about what Meghan Markle is spending on clothing? I thought it was following them absurdly closely over the past few months (I always do for the babies and weddings, then completely forget about them), and I never saw a single thing about her designer clothing shopping sprees. Including from the tabloids. Into what circle of tabloid hell do you have to descend to come across this information?!

[Palimpsest]

1 minute ago, singsingsing said:

Honest question, how do people even hear about what Meghan Markle is spending on clothing?

Obsessed people in the general public and legitimate researchers (as in the study quoted in the Daily Fail article above) track and price every. single. item of clothing they wear in public.  I think the price estimates are probably accurate.  And royals (at least the British ones) are not supposed to grift stuff. 

And you cannot possibly have been reading the right tabloids! I don't follow the royals that closely, but Megan's wardrobe for the Australia trip got huge attention and criticism for its extravagance.

She's just a beginner at this royal game.  I cut her a lot of slack for her sartorial errors so far.

[nausicaa]

On 5/13/2019 at 9:18 PM, Carm_88 said:

February and March of 2002 were the bane of my existence... then the Queen Mother died 

Good Lord, that was 2002? I was sure you must have the wrong year and went to Google it, sure it was 2008 or 2009. How was it so long ago, and how has my once great memory become so terrible!?

[just_ordinary]

2 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Charles supposedly pays for both Kate and Meghan's clothes, not the taxpayers.  At least, he pays for their public royalling wardrobes.  It's not our business what they wear, except that Meg went absolutely nuts on the designer clothing.  It was unreasonable spending, insensitive, and conspicuous consumption in bad economic times, however you look at it.   

Charles may have cut Meg's clothing allowance drastically for 2020 though.  He's no fool and she's made herself look bad with her spending on clothes.  He's all about protecting the image these days.

Even if Meghan were building a royal wardrobe from scratch in 2019, she managed to outspend Camilla, Kate, and CP Victoria -- and probably all other royal ladies combined.  By a lot and with far fewer royal duties.  I know it is the Fail, but for once this is pretty accurate reporting and allows for inflation.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6581527/Cost-Kate-Middleton-Meghans-royal-wardrobes-revealed.html

Kate has always managed quite a nice balance by alternating very pricy clothes, and affordable stuff, so as not to offend and infuriate the proletariat too much.  That is good princessing and Meghan should take note.

I'm not being mean just for the sake of it.  I call this constructive criticism for Meghan.    

Many royal ladies have been the target of this kind of criticism. Kate did well in the beginning but she also got and gets some well deserved backlash on her spending habits especially compared to her working numbers. CP Mary from Denmark is another example. Though she learned pretty quickly. Meghan is just the newest member of this illuster circle.

I honestly don’t see the younger royals to be equipped to bring the monarchy into the future. My guess is that Wiliam will be the last king if he even gets crowned.

[VelociRapture]

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

I just have a feeling and I may be very wrong that she wants to be a Royal and still be an American celebrity. 

It’s certainly a possibility. It’s also possible she’s simply facing a big learning curve and will adjust as she learns. Time will tell either way I suppose. 

 

3 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

I'd have to see the poll, but perhaps they meant it as "most important moment, but not in a good way."  As in: "The time we all temporarily lost our minds and most importantly learned never to over-react like that again."

It was ridiculous.  And the problem is that all the drama and the backlash against Diana that followed it obscured what should be Diana's true legacy.

I think Camilla is good for Charles and doing her job well.  It should not be a battle between Diana and Camilla supporters.

Diana was a not very bright young woman with fragile mental health, who ended up in a bad marriage and the Royal Fishbowl.  She cracked, as many of us would, under the strain.  She probably would have been fine if she had married some minor aristocratic chinless wonder, had children who she loved and raised well, and opened the occasional village fete.  Instead she became the Princess of Wales.  Poor thing

As the Princess of Wales, Diana's legacy should be the good things that she did.  And that doesn't include her dress sense or any of the melodrama.

These include, but are not limited to:

1991:  Diana touches a person with AIDS without wearing gloves.   “HIV does not make people dangerous to know. You can shake their hands and give them a hug. Heaven knows they need it.”

Well yes.  For those too young to remember the AIDs hysteria and discrimination, or those not born yet, that may not sound astounding.  However, she lead the celebrity pack in understanding HIV, and this action was deliberate and way ahead of her time.  It shook the world.

The gesture came straight from Diana's essential loving and compassionate nature.  And in 1991 it was courageous.  She similarly hugged people with Hansen's Disease (leprosy) to help reduce the stigma against them, and was a dedicated Hospice visitor in her private time.  That is why many people admired her. 

Also, her work with the homeless, both public and private was similarly admirable.  Also her dedication to the victims of landmines.  She found those causes herself and, IMO was a role model for many.  And it was all very genuine.

I think she was a role model for Charles too.  She made him up his royal game instead of being the playboy prince because she was so compassionate towards others.  The Prince's Trust was established during the 1970s, but did very little (actually sod-all) until Charles either followed Diana's example or started competing with her in the compassion and popularity department in the 1980s and 90s. 

RIP, Diana.  I hope your true legacy gets appreciated some day.

 

I was too young to remember much firsthand, but my mom told me about some of it. I remember being kind of unimpressed about touching someone with AIDS, but I changed my mind after mom explained why it was such a big deal. I do remember seeing photos of Diana with children who had been injured by landmines though and that was pretty self-explanatory. I think she walked in a field with landmines at some point, but I could be remembering wrong.

Regardless, you’re absolutely correct that she did a LOT of good in her time alive. It’s sad she can’t simply be remembered for the good she did without people dredging up the negative stuff every single time. It’s been over 20 years now. It’s well past time for the public to move on. 

[FluffySnowball]

11 hours ago, Glasgowghirl said:

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.

While I agree with most of your points @Glasgowghirl, I don’t quite agree with the notion that “both of them cheated” and the implication that comes with it: that they’re both to blame equally for their marriage breaking down. Fact is, Charles chose to marry a very naive and inexperienced woman more than a decade younger than him and essentially cheated on her from the beginning. He had no intention of staying monogamous yet didn’t hesitate to drag her into a life dominated by public pressure and media frenzy, completely disregarding her feelings. To my knowledge, it’s a fact he didn’t even attend Harry’s birth and clearly voiced his disappointment in having a second son, leaving Diana heartbroken (and rightly so, what a dick move!)

Would she have cheated on him, had he not betrayed her for years? We obviously can’t know for sure but there’s a high possibility she wouldn’t have. Yet he humiliated her and after some years, she tried to find love and intimacy elsewhere. Yes, she could have filed for divorce but I believe in her position, that would have been immensely difficult - and maybe she still hoped for reconciliation. I can empathize with that.

And just for the record, the fact she’s Lady Di doesn’t influence my opinion about the situation. If something similar (but without the public aspect of course) happened to a friend or acquaintance of mine, I wouldn’t judge the betrayed party for eventually dating others as well. 

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by FluffySnowball

[HerNameIsBuffy]

6 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

1991:  Diana touches a person with AIDS without wearing gloves.   “HIV does not make people dangerous to know. You can shake their hands and give them a hug. Heaven knows they need it.”

When I think of her this is what comes to mind immediately.

When I think of Charles the tampon comment comes to mind.  

[Dandruff]

I suspect part of the reason that Diana's death keeps resurfacing as it does is that it was so early and unnatural.  There was no time to prepare and (IMO) it really couldn't be called accidental, either.  The press wouldn't leave her alone, to the point of death, and now beyond.  I believe there's a lack of a sense of closure.

[Melbelle]

Meghan and Kate's "working" wardrobe, as well as Will and Harry's, is paid out of the Duchy of Cornwall.  The Duchy of Cornwall is held by the oldest son of the sovereign, so currently it is held by Prince Charles.  The Duchy is basically a large amount of land holdings that include farms and agriculture land, as well as historical buildings, and some buildings with tenants that pay rent and such.  It produces about $28 million in revenue each year.  Because this is part of the Crown it is not subject to taxes, however Prince Charles has voluntarily paid taxes on it for awhile now.  The taxes are not subject to audit and are basically paid in a good faith type of measure.  

I think where the British citizens get frustrated is they pay for much of the monarchy expenses, specifically related to security, while the Royal Family has a tremendous amount of income from their personal holdings like the Duchy of Cornwall.  (As well as the Duchy of Lancaster, which is held by the Queen.)  For some citizens I think the amount of money spent on clothing looks extravagant and they feel that is money that could offset taxpayer expenses, especially during the uncertain economic times.  

I follow a few royal blogs and forums and what I see people upset about is, not only did Meghan spend a disproportionate amount of money on clothing (compared to other royals, British and otherwise), but a lot of the items she purchased won't hold up to re-wears going forward.  People seem upset about the items being too trendy, not by British or Commonwealth designers, and apparently she's worn quite a few items that are so similar to one another there doesn't seem to be a reason for her to have purchased both (or more).  

[hoipolloi]

Not familiar with the actual BRF finances, but will say that Meghan's initial layout of working clothes seems pricey. Perhaps, like Kate, she'll become more adept at rewearing or adapting previously worn clothes.

Don't know if either one, though, will ever meet the standards set by that champion of recycled clothes, Princess Anne, but I give Kate credit for trying.

On 5/15/2019 at 2:29 PM, Palimpsest said:

1991:  Diana touches a person with AIDS without wearing gloves.   “HIV does not make people dangerous to know. You can shake their hands and give them a hug. Heaven knows they need it.”

IIRC, this was (and is) considered on a par with the legendary King's Touch, which goes back to Edward the Confessor around AD 1000. The Royal or King's Touch was said to cure people of scrofula, among other ills. 

[viii]

Archie's birth certificate was released to the public, and it's confirmed that he was born at Portland Hospital, rather than a home birth. 

Meghan's occupation was also listed as 'Princess of the United Kingdom', as I think that was Kate's occupation as well. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by viii

[anjulibai]

On 5/15/2019 at 9:42 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

When I think of her this is what comes to mind immediately.

When I think of Charles the tampon comment comes to mind.  

You know, I think that's unfortunate, because Charles really has put some work in to a lot of different causes. There were a lot of things he was championing way before they became mainstream issues, like environmentalism and interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims.

His personality, I think, is part of the problem, because he doesn't come off as charismatic as Diana ever did. If he's not particularly charismatic, then his interests are going to come off as far less interesting than his relationship problems, and thus not get covered by the media as much. 

On 5/16/2019 at 12:31 PM, Melbelle said:

apparently she's worn quite a few items that are so similar to one another there doesn't seem to be a reason for her to have purchased both (or more).  

That last one Kate is way more guilty of than I've seen of Meghan. Woman has, like, 10 different dark blue bespoke coat dresses, that all look to be almost the exact same design. 

I think both Kate and Meghan need to take a page from Anne's playbook. That woman is wearing the same clothes she's had for decades. 

[tabitha2]

Diana wasn’t actually that smart or educated but knew how to work( read: Manipulate) the press, get them almost totally on her side and she courted them when it suited her. Unfortunately she used that skill of hers against her in laws. Awkward old fashioned slightly eccentric Charles’s philanthropy and works are and always have been mostly off camera but have been more widespread and long lasting than Diana’s. 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, tabitha2 said:

Awkward old fashioned slightly eccentric Charles’s philanthropy and works

Is that what it's called when you marry someone while in love with someone else?  So a 19 year old in over her head never even had a chance at a real marriage?

Don't get me wrong, I don't love Diana - I think the entire concept of a Monarchy is asinine in this day and age and it offends me on a visceral level that some people are elevated and entitled to tax dollars based on nothing but an accident of birth.

They are just people.  I find some of this stuff funny (because it's not my tax dollars) and mostly I don't care and am only in this thread due to Meghan and Harry being everywhere and so I checked in.  And it's a cute baby.  

But I do remember when that stuff came out and he struck me as a gross stupid old man who should have known better than to talk like that over the phone.  I'm sure he's a complex and multifaceted person, as most of us are, and has done good in the world but that doesn't negate that the only reason he's anyone is his birthright.

And if she turned her "manipulation" as you call it against her inlaws good for her - they sure as shit didn't care about her agency or happiness when they chose her.

 

[tabitha2]

Actually the Queen and Phillip tried to assist her, make her more at ease in the best ways they knew and Margaret, Andrew and other family members were very sympathetic but Diana had emotional and possibly mental issues that might have been exasperated by being the Royal bubble but certainly not caused by her marriage. The Windsor’s were not prepared or equipped to deal with her issues. She needed real therapy.  

As I understand Charles was attracted to her, liked her well enough and believed he would learn to love her, attempted to share his various interests with her but she really could not care less about traditional royal past times, customs or thinking. She did not hide it either. The actual cheating did not start till the marriage was completely dead and even then  His parents tried to council them both together and separately. 

 

I won’t claim Charles was blameless... he was pampered and self involved and probably Expected her to not Question because he was older, better educated and a Royal by birth and certainly had running off at the mouth plenty of times  But the tabloid myth that he was cheating cad who never cared a wit for an innocent sweet naive who loved him needs to go away . 

 

And they did not “choose” her. Charles did. Phillip told his son either shit or get off the pot... either marry her or let her go because her reputation would suffer.  So he gave in to pressure.  His mistake. 

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diana-marriage-letters-philip-prince-13214439

 

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by tabitha2

[HerNameIsBuffy]

30 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

His parents tried to council them both together and separately. 

Counseling from your in-laws regarding your husband not being able to "learn to love" you while he was hung up on someone else your whole marriage isn't what I would consider helpful.

to say her marriage had nothing to do with her emotional or mental difficulties flies in the face of everything we know about human nature and how people work.

34 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

As I understand Charles was attracted to her, liked her well enough and believed he would learn to love her, attempted to share his various interests with her but she really could not care less about traditional royal past times, customs or thinking. She did not hide it either.

So his idea of trying to learn to love her was to share his interests and get her on board with royal things. 

And she dared to not be interested in some things and didn't hide her feelings.

As was said many pages ago, since when on FJ is the general feeling that women are supposed to share their husbands interests despite lack of love on his part, and hide her feelings if she doesn't?

Is it just me or is this just a total homage to the patriarchy?

[tabitha2]

Actually the Queen and Phillip tried to get them BOTH to work on the marriage for the boys sake if nothing else. It was partially successful As they both agree to try and got along better for a time. I actually do think in laws who make an concerted effort are a good and healthy thing. So sue me. 

You must have not read where I said yes, her problems were exasperated by her marriage and Royal life. But both her unhappy childhood combined the history mental/Emotional instability in the Spencer family were probably the root causes. With her at the time untreated issues even the most ideal marriage and home life would have been difficult.

Yes, making an effort to involve her in his interests and hobbies was probably his way of growing closer to her and It’s not a radical or terrible  idea. They could have potentially found a cause they both wanted to tackle but she had no interest in nature and at the beginning of the marriage she liked... clothes? I really don’t know actually. Her activism came later. 

And there  is a big difference between not having the same interests VS being shown on camera looking bored and miserable at public or family events. Her job was to look if not thrilled at least pleasant or even neutral. 

 

[Palimpsest]

2 hours ago, anjulibai said:

I think both Kate and Meghan need to take a page from Anne's playbook. That woman is wearing the same clothes she's had for decades. 

You have to love Anne.  She is such a hard and dedicated worker for the royals, although she had a difficult start in the job.  She was a gold winning Olympic athlete in her own right, and she couldn't give a damn about being a clothes horse.  

For Anne:  Duty = very good.  Horses = very good.  Family = very important. 

Being a stylish clothes horse = Forget it!

Right now Anne is probably doing this:

"Archie's christening coming up.  One must find a clothe.  One must trot over to ones's clothing repository and find a suitable clothe because people expect it.  One would much rather be riding a horse, playing with grandchildren, or working with Save the Children."

::Enters an enormous vault-like closet.  Looks both confused and dismayed::

"So many choices.  So glad one has invested in classic clothes that don't date, and so glad one has kept one's figure.  This is all very boring but one must make a decision.  One need to air something out and get rid of the mothball  smell."

::Picks something at random off the rack.:

"One bought this in 1982.  Looked OK then.  Or at least one didn't get bad press for it.  Pretty sure people didn't mock it too much in 1993 or 2001 either.  It must be back in fashion by now.  It will do."

::Canters off to hang outfit in the stable yard to air it out gets back to work.:: 

After Archie's christening the press, leg-humpers and royal watchers point out that she looked like a crumpled duvet cover and has repeated the outfit 10+ times.

Anne: "One doesn't give a mare's fart about the polloi's opinions!  One was covered decently and frugally.  Bite me!"

Me:  Go Anne!

 

[tabitha2]

Ha! As her father succinctly put it: Unless it eats carrots and farts Anne is not interested in it. 

[anjulibai]

I think Charles expected his marriage to go the way a lot of aristocratic and upper class marriages had gone for quite a long time - find someone you find pleasant enough, of the right background, and hope to develop love as time goes on. And, if no love develops, each may have affairs, so long as no scandals occur. 

I'm not saying that's the right way to go about it, but it's not a horrible way either. 

The problem was that that's not what Diana wanted or expected, and neither party communicated this to the other.

It's a tragedy all the way around, but I can't say it's a tragedy with a great villain at it's heart. There was no villain.