Meghan and Harry: Royal Baby

[Palimpsest]

1 minute ago, nausicaa said:

As a total fuddy-duddy snob

I have never thought you were a fuddy-duddy or a snob.

Oh, you meant Charles!  With that I can agree.

[nausicaa]

3 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

I have never thought you were a fuddy-duddy or a snob.

Oh, you meant Charles!  With that I can agree.

? No, I meant myself. And Charles. It's why we'd get along. Just sitting in some leather wingbacks bitching about Le Corbusier and reading the Times.

BTW, has anyone seen the play (or film adaptation) Charles III? I don't normally like plays but thought it was really interesting and fun. And I know it's far-fetched for dramatic effect, but it did make me wonder just how smooth the transition from QEII to her son will be. 

[nokidsmom]

16 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I've heard it said by a lot of older people that it's a shame Anne wasn't born a man, or the rules of succession weren't different, because she would have been a great monarch and had a more natural leadership aptitude than the Chuckster.

I always thought that Anne would be a totally kick ass monarch.    Full disclosure, I actually like Charles because he focuses on important issues like the environment (and we could have a great conversation about gardening, lol) but he tips over into weirdness, which puts people off on the idea of him as monarch.  Anne is no nonsense, not necessarily likeable but she would cut through it and get the job done, whatever it is.

[just_ordinary]

5 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

'Tis rumored, and has been for years.  But, if true, they seem to have an arrangement that works well for them. 

As an expat, I think the monarchy is an institution and so long as the royals behave decently they will be tolerated by the British people.  The Queen is respected as a hard worker and for her longevity.  And she knows her place as a constitutional monarch.   She reigns as sovereign but she doesn't rule (make laws).  She knows to keep her mouth shut about policy, and that if she chose to exercise some of the Sovereign Powers still technically left to her (like veto a law) the monarchy would be toppled in a nanosecond.  Her role is basically that of a rubber stamp on laws, an entertainer of foreign dignitaries, and a person who hands out meaningless honors and decorations to deserving people who appreciate them.

Charles, take note.  And thanks for ceasing to write spider notes to the Prime Minister, if you have.  We don't care about your views on architecture, or that you are pissed because you can't foxhunt any more.  

I don't know how they get crowds of well-wishers at royal weddings.  I suspect at least two thirds are foreign tourists, and the rest are royal worshippers or people with nothing better to do.  

As you say, most people don't care much about the royals, especially the minor ones.  They are irrelevant.  It isn't uncommon to spot them (senior and junior) in the wild if you live anywhere near any of the royal residences in the countryside or walk around near KP.   If they aren't performing a royal duty, it is considered good manners to ignore them.  Only a guttersnipe would approach one let alone take a photo of a royal doing something mundane and sell it to a tabloid.  

I agree. My British in laws and our other British friends never talk about them. I actually think they don’t give them any thought. It might be partially due to the long reign of the Queen. She has just always been there. I actually think it’s a gift because if people don’t think too much about them they aren’t going to question them.

I will say though- if I were them and monarchy gets removed I would take every tiara, every castle, every picture /piece of art and every piece of land I own and shut everyone out. But I am an unforgiving bitch sometimes.

Edited May 19, 2019 by just_ordinary

[Palimpsest]

14 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I will say though- if I were them and monarchy gets removed I would take every tiara, every castle, every picture /piece of art and every piece of land I own and shut everyone out. But I am an unforgiving bitch sometimes.

Nah, the GBP would grab the spoils.  My mother sent me a copy of Sue Townsend's (RIP, Sue) The Queen and I  one Xmas because she knew I would enjoy it.  I think there is a play and film of the book too.

It is brilliant and devastating republicanist satire, and not totally unsympathetic to the royals.  It depicts the Queen and family living on a council estate.  The Queen and QueenMum cope quite well but the rest of the family found the transition harder.

It is probably out of print now but Wikipedia has a synopsis.  Enjoy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_and_I_(novel)

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

@Palimpsest, I see that the author wrote a sequel to that book, published in 2006.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Camilla

[Hisey]

On 5/18/2019 at 11:20 AM, VelociRapture said:

I give Diana more leeway than the others strictly because she was so very young and I do think she was taken advantage of to an extent, but I do think she likely bears some responsibility for how things eventually ended too.

Of course she does! Her defenders repeatedly call her a "teenager," but the truth is, she barely was one. She was 19 when they dated and she married Charles at 20.

Let's not infantalize her. She was an adult woman when she married him and capable of making her own choices. I have a daughter this age and trust me, she makes her own decisions. 

[just_ordinary]

4 hours ago, Hisey said:

Of course she does! Her defenders repeatedly call her a "teenager," but the truth is, she barely was one. She was 19 when they dated and she married Charles at 20.

Let's not infantalize her. She was an adult woman when she married him and capable of making her own choices. I have a daughter this age and trust me, she makes her own decisions. 

I think it depends on the society the poster come from. In my country a 20 year old is definitely no teenager but that extends to 18+19 year old. Even 16-17 is more often referred to as young adult but while they are allowed a lot they aren’t considered full adults yet hence they cannot marry or sign a mortgage for example. 

And while I also think treating people over 18 as teenagers is infantilising I can accept that other people have a different background and will judge this differently. But I will always disagree.  I obviously think it’s wrong to take advantage of mentally unstable people. But I am not sure if that was Charles intention.

[Hisey]

14 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

And while I also think treating people over 18 as teenagers is infantilising I can accept that other people have a different background and will judge this differently. But I will always disagree.  I obviously think it’s wrong to take advantage of mentally unstable people. But I am not sure if that was Charles intention.

I agree with all of this. I know that some people will treat people 18 or 19 as "teenagers." I try to treat my daughter and her friends as young adults, but there is a part of me that is still protective of them. Maybe that will be true even when they're 30, since they are of a different generation.

In addition, I believe there is research to show that brains aren't fully developed at that age. So even though our society treats the 18-21 crowd as adults, it's clear that they are still developing and growing. 

I don't think Charles intended to take advantage of a mentally unstable person. He could marry ( or sleep with ) many of the most desirable young women in Britain. He'd have nothing to gain by taking advantage of a mentally unstable young woman. It's not like Diana was the only aristocratic woman who would've accepted his marriage proposal. Even if you assume he was a selfish, unkind person, he wouldn't do this simply out of self-interest. And the British monarchy wouldn't be interested in pushing such a marriage, since it could mean damage to their image.

[VVV]

I was born less than two weeks before Diana was, with the same maiden name, so I paid attention to the major events of her life. It was like watching some bizarre alter ego in a funhouse mirror, though I never had her beauty, or her style, and I certainly did not have her dysfunctional family of origin or her miserable childhood.

The summer of her marriage to Charles, I was participating in a summer music festival for college students. In retrospect I didn't realize how very young I was, but even then I understood that I was in no way ready to get married. 

[Palimpsest]

13 hours ago, VVV said:

The summer of her marriage to Charles, I was participating in a summer music festival for college students. In retrospect I didn't realize how very young I was, but even then I understood that I was in no way ready to get married. 

And certainly not ready to get married to a public figure 12 years older than you, with a well deserved reputation as a peevish, pretentious pompous, princely prat.

19 hours ago, Hisey said:

It's not like Diana was the only aristocratic woman who would've accepted his marriage proposal.

Or not.  People forget.  Many aristocratic young women gave Charles a test drive in the 1970s.  Some of them were far more suitable than Diana for the position.   He even proposed to a couple who turned him down flat. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10436036/Prince-Charles-and-his-relationships.html

It is unclear whether all these women decided that Charles was a complete dud or if it was the royal fishbowl that put them off.  But the idea that he was completely faithful to Camilla before meeting Diana is complete nonsense.  He was a desperate dating machine in search of a wife in reality. 

[tabitha2]

Camilla was not an option at the time and they had not been in any kind of relationship for awhile so the idea he would have to be “faithful” to her is silly.  I personally think Charles was to much of an eccentric with his then but not now environmental interests and notions plus his pampered royal old fashioned air and the idea of living in the royal family was just too much for any suitable young ladies. 

 

He came close with Lady Amanda Mountbatten but She was only 17 and there was to much family drama with both her father and his objecting. 

 

 

[nokidsmom]

32 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

It is unclear whether all these women decided that Charles was a complete dud or if it was the royal fishbowl that put them off.  But the idea that he was completely faithful to Camilla before meeting Diana is complete nonsense.  He was a desperate dating machine in search of a wife in reality. 

I remember (and yes I know I am dating myself) thinking what was the deal that someone who was considered one of the world's most eligible bachelors at the time when girlfriend after girlfriend was not working out when he was clearly looking for a wife.   Because every girl he dated was in the press as possibly "the one" in the years running up to his engagement to Diana.

When I heard he was engaged to someone 12 years younger than him, who had limited education and life experience compared to him (and other women he dated) I was surprised.  And rather skeptical though no one wanted to hear someone question the whole "fairy tale" that was spun around the engagement and wedding.

I also don't think he had any idea of Diana's issues when he married her.  He didn't know her that well but I think he also had no idea of living with someone like that would entail.  One is supposed to suck it up for duty.  He might be pompous and all that, but during his ill-advised 1994 interview when he said he didn't go into the marriage with a cynical attitude, I felt he was genuine and really wanted things to work. 

 

 

 

 

[tabitha2]

He said he thought he could learn to really love her. It’s not exactly an untrue or wild idea in royal circles either. Many a royal arranged  marriage became a life long love match after all. When that does not happen like in this case it’s either a prison for both parties  or hopefully the couple just become platonic roommates or friends while they find love elsewhere . 

[Palimpsest]

7 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

One is supposed to suck it up for duty. 

"Whatever 'in love' means."

I believe that he was fond of her and tried to protect her at the beginning.  I believe that he did break off the affair with Camilla, and genuinely tried to make the marriage work initially,  I also think that he was fond of her after the divorce.  He just expected her to put up and shut up about his affair, like a good little aristocrat should.  But she didn't.

And I'm dating myself too, but he really was extremely unlikable in the 1970s.  

 

[Palimpsest]

42 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

He came close with Lady Amanda Mountbatten but She was only 17 and there was to much family drama with both her father and his objecting. 

I think you mean Amanda Knatchbull.  He sniffed around her in 1974, but popped the question to her in 1980.  This was just before he proposed to Diana.  She was 23ish by then.

Lady Jane Wellesley was the prime contender in the mid 1970s, but she didn't want to be Queen.

[Hisey]

3 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Or not.  People forget.  Many aristocratic young women gave Charles a test drive in the 1970s.  Some of them were far more suitable than Diana for the position.   He even proposed to a couple who turned him down flat. 

 

I think it's pretty safe to say that Charles could have found another woman to marry (who was acceptable to the monarchy.) I doubt Diana was the only one.

I was a young adult back then. Charles was not the handsomest dude and yet I remember he was frequently photographed with beautiful, aristocratic women. I'm sure that many of these women only dated him for his title, and in the hope of becoming his bride. But that's the thing--there were many women who desperately wanted to be called "princess." Even if they didn't' care about the title, there was his vast wealth and luxurious lifestyle was also a draw. Not all the aristocrats are wealthy. Many would have like Charles' millions.

It happens today, too. Hell, if I recall correctly, Kate chose her college because that's where William was going. Or perhaps her mother did. And she did her best to get his attention while she was there. I don't really follow them, so I could be wrong, but that's what I remember. She seems like a nice enough sort, and even she wanted to be part of the royal family. 

So I really think Charles could have found someone besides Diana. It only takes one. But I suspect there were many who had the right pedigree and would have agreed. The fact that one or two said no doesn't mean there weren't a million who would've happily said yes.

[tabitha2]

Wasn’t Andrew considered the handsome fun cool brother? I read more than than one source that stated Diana was initially interested in him and that they would have been the better match as well.

[VVV]

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Wasn’t Andrew considered the handsome fun cool brother? I read more than than one source that stated Diana was initially interested in him and that they would have been the better match as well.

He certainly would have been a far more appropriate age; he was born in 1960 and Diana in 1961.

[Hisey]

2 hours ago, VVV said:

He certainly would have been a far more appropriate age; he was born in 1960 and Diana in 1961.

Yes, it's hard to believe now, but Andrew was considered the cool and handsome brother. He really got around.

I can remember the whole huge fuss around the wedding. It was one of those overwhelming events that everyone talks about.

However, as a young adult, two things struck me. First, I was a bit skeeved out by all the fuss about her virginity. I can remember asking my mother why it was so important that Diana be a virgin. My mother said that it would be embarrassing for the royal family if a "past boyfriend" came forward in the future. I accepted this at the time, but now I wonder. What was the past boyfriend going to say that was so terrible? Were the royals  concerned about pregnancy/paternity issues, and if so, couldn't this be settled with a simple pregnancy test before the wedding? It was patriarchy, pure and simple. It was pretty much assumed that Charles wasn't a virgin. No one talked about that at all.

Secondly, I could not believe the way everyone promoted their nuptials as a fairy-tale wedding. The media went on and on about Diana becoming a princess and how it was a "storybook wedding." As time went on, and Diana had Wills and Harry, the media continued to portray her as a happy young mother. Every magazine claimed she was a "hands on" mom. I can remember a sappy story in a women's magazine about Diana bringing baby Harry home and young Wills acting all shy and jealous, peeping in around a door to see his new little brother. Pure fantasy (I tend to doubt the writer was present when the baby was introduced to William).

There was this whole fantasy created by the media in those early years. You'd never guess the story would end with such sadness, infidelity, separation, divorce and death.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Hisey

[acheronbeach]

On 5/18/2019 at 8:34 AM, louisa05 said:

The criticism Meghan has had about clothing is probably justified on many counts. Rarely using British designers would have been easy to fix months ago. Not using one for her wedding gown was just bizarre and surely someone mentioned it before she made her choice. 

It's not so bizarre when you realize Givenchy was looking for an advertising partner for its couture line - it had newly relaunched just around the time of the wedding. 

[viii]

18 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

I believe that he was fond of her and tried to protect her at the beginning.  I believe that he did break off the affair with Camilla, and genuinely tried to make the marriage work initially,  I also think that he was fond of her after the divorce.  He just expected her to put up and shut up about his affair, like a good little aristocrat should.  But she didn't.

I also think he didn't realize how popular she would become, and when she was liked more than he was (the public and the circles they ran) that would have been very frustrating for him. 

[Hisey]

3 hours ago, viii said:

I also think he didn't realize how popular she would become, and when she was liked more than he was (the public and the circles they ran) that would have been very frustrating for him. 

He has never seemed like a man that wanted or needed a lot of public attention or popularity.

[tabitha2]

No. He probably would be happiest  pruning and chatting with flowers on some remote Scottish estate and investing quietly or promoting in his youth and environmental pet projects. 

[acheronbeach]

5 hours ago, Hisey said:

He has never seemed like a man that wanted or needed a lot of public attention or popularity.

Not traditional attention-whoring, but Charles seems very interested in other people acknowledging and supporting his ideas and projects - something difficult to do when the media attention was always superficially drawn to Diana's beauty.  Moreover, he's a bit of an idiot with an outsized view of his own intellect - just read the black spider letters, where he gives cringeworthy advice to various senior politicians.