Meghan and Harry 3: Working Towards Financial Independence

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

21 hours ago, SweetJuly said:

Yes, I judge William and Kate for it too. It is weird and unnecessary to leave your 6/7-month-old to go on vacation to another country for a week, especially if you have a live-in nanny who can come with you and give you a respite from childcare whenever you want.

It's especially strange to do this twice in a period of 2 months.

And yes, the recommendations are that primary caregivers should not leave a child under 1 (or even older) over night/for several days in a row unless there is absolutely no way around it. It causes significant stress for such a young child and is likely to harm the development of attachment security if it occurs frequently.

To be clear, this doesn't mean that it's the mother or both parents who have to be with the baby over night. It can absolutely be just one parent or the father or someone else if the baby happens to have a non-parental primary caregiver such as a grandparent or sibling (see Duggars).

 

I'm no child care expert but these recommendations seem very culturally specific. There are cultures in which raising kids is much more communal so the idea of primary caregiver is probably not relevant. It's not hard to imagine Archie is attached to both his parents and a nanny, for example.

[tabitha2]

I do agree. Nannies are just part of the fabric of their lives and most of them are beloved almost family and even brought back for the next generation. Does not mean the parents mean less or the Kids mean less to the parents. 

[formergothardite]

On 3/1/2020 at 5:01 PM, tabitha2 said:

The feeling that Archie will grow up mostly away his cousins as well as the other extended Windsor family children and not have chance to experience the unique Royal traditions, warm memories and just the feeling of being in a loud close knit often times Eccentric family is kinda sad to me. You Meghan’s family ain’t about that.  

Maybe Harry's family isn't really like that either. Harry was more than willing to dump the royal life so maybe we should trust someone who was raised in in and realized that it might not be all that and a barrel of monkeys. Maybe, just maybe Harry doesn't want the royal life for his child because he realizes it really isn't a healthy lifestyle. 

Plus it is hardly like little Archie is Laura Ingalls getting ready to climb aboard a wagon and go out into the great unknown where she will never see bratty cousin Charlie again. He is moving to Canada. Last I checked they have technology there and Archie can be like lots of other children(including my own) where they use modern means to bond with relatives who live far away. The cousin my oldest daughter is closest to isn't  one who lives near, it is the one who lives in another state and she only physically sees once a year at most. But because we aren't living in the ancient world of even the 1980's she can chat with her cousin every single day and even play games. 

 

 

[omilona]

On March 3, 2020 at 12:11 PM, AridityOfHeaven said:

To me, leaving Archie in Canada smacks of punishment and power moves and really nothing else. I think Meghan will not hesitate to use Archie to manipulate and frankly, shame on Harry for doing his family that way. The BRF probably just needs to accept that Archie is basically lost to them, and will be even more so when Harry and Meghan inevitably divorce.

Here's the thing: SInce the time of George I, the settled law in the UK is that the Sovereign i.e. QEII has legal custody of all minor aged members of the BRF. https://vocal.media/theSwamp/queen-elizabeth-has-legal-custody-of-archie-harrison-mountbatten-windsor. Given the astonishing lack of research these two did as in  'What do you mean I cant use the word royal', I doubt either one of them knows that they are poking a bear not bring the child back for a second time.

Edited March 5, 2020 by omilona

[HerNameIsBuffy]

3 minutes ago, omilona said:

Here's the thing: SInce the time of George I, the settled law in the UK is that the Sovereign i.e. QEII has legal custody of all minor aged members of the BRF. https://vocal.media/theSwamp/queen-elizabeth-has-legal-custody-of-archie-harrison-mountbatten-windsor. Given the astonishing lack of research these two did as in  'What do you mean I cant use the word royal', I doubt either one of them knows that they are poking a bear not bring the child back for a second time.

I assume the queen is much to smart to attempt to strong arming them over some archaic custody law.

If she did she would rightfully be deemed a fucking monster.

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Maybe Harry's family isn't really like that either. Harry was more than willing to dump the royal life so maybe we should trust someone who was raised in in and realized that it might not be all that and a barrel of monkeys. Maybe, just maybe Harry doesn't want the royal life for his child because he realizes it really isn't a healthy lifestyle. 

Are you implying that someone raised in a family might know better about what the dynamics are like, and be in a better position to determine what's right for his child than strangers who know about them through the media?

What kind of crazy talk is this?  /s

[formergothardite]

20 minutes ago, omilona said:

, I doubt either one of them knows that they are poking a bear not bring the child back for a second time.

Or maybe they realize she isn't some sort of a psychopath so her cruelly taking their child isn't a worry?  Rules like that show how fucked up the whole royal system is. 

ETA: And if there is an actual risk of her taking their child, don't you agree this is a sign that they did the right thing in leaving the royal institution and taking their child out of it?

Edited March 5, 2020 by formergothardite

[just_ordinary]

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Or maybe they realize she isn't some sort of a psychopath so her cruelly taking their child isn't a worry?  Rules like that show how fucked up the whole royal system is. 

ETA: And if there is an actual risk of her taking their child, don't you agree this is a sign that they did the right thing in leaving the royal institution and taking their child out of it?

The legal custody stems from a time when it was vital to make sure heirs would still be raised to become King/Queen and not disappear into another royal family or be withheld or whatever. That was a time when royals married royals and people were more likely to die (especially mother’s and babies/children). Today it would only be relevant to make sure George and his siblings would not be raised as ordinary people by the Middletons and had no contact with the BRF in the unlikely event Wiliam and Kate would die, or if a pretty ugly divorce would bring a similar situation.
I don’t think the Queen would ever act upon it (maybe if the child was in actual danger- like disappearing in a cult?). It’s pretty ridiculous to bring this old fact up. Everyone in their right mind would realise that this will not happen and I am pretty sure every parent would have a good chance to change that if they would go to court. It’s just a tradition that is long  obsolete.

Apart from the bad PR there is really no need. She has 2 successors of age (1 ready for decades now). Wiliam had three children. That’s 5 people. The second Charlotte was born Harry’s importance in terms of succession was gone. 
 

The BRF has only in the last 5 years started to present themselves as a warm and loving family. Charles relationship to his parents is known to be very traditional- more distant. His own relationship to his boys was troubled- and I am not sure how good it became over time. William found a different family model with the Middletons and the Cambridge’s seem to try to form a more warm and close family unit together with a transformed take on their royal jobs (less engagements, more time with the children). More hands on parents than the generations before.
The BRF doesn’t seem to spend to much time together. If you just look at the numbers of engagements some do. This is not a family where Grandad can just come over to babysit. The last crowned Kings and Queen installed a mentality to subordinate the family under the duty of the Crown. It was necessary to create acceptance and survive into the modern world. My guess is, Charles will streamline the monarchy to make sure it will be accepted financially in the future and Wiliam and Kate will built a warm and fuzzy picture, very similar to the Swedish royal family (I would love to get yearly video documentaries with the Cambridge’s. The Swedes really hit the right tone between letting people in and selling the monarchy).

[viii]

Meghan has looked absolutely stunning for this final tour. 

The video between Harry, Meghan, William and Kate at the Commonwealth Service seems quite awkward. William appears to have said hello to them, but Kate looks like she's deliberately ignoring them. Awwwkward. 

[louisa05]

The whole Queen has custody of children thing has made it around the internet to the point of people accepting it without question.  Question stuff, https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-does-not-have-legal-custody-over-great-grandchildren/amp/

[SoSoNosy]

That was a very awkward scene indeed, today.  I read where the brothers didn't part in a good place, Kate must have heard something that totally turned her off.  Meghan struck me as being very aware of all the cameras.

[hoipolloi]

11 hours ago, viii said:

The video between Harry, Meghan, William and Kate at the Commonwealth Service seems quite awkward. William appears to have said hello to them, but Kate looks like she's deliberately ignoring them. Awwwkward. 

Kate looks like a younger & thinner Queen Mary -- she has the same stern, disapproving face. 

[just_ordinary]

If only Meghan wore better fitting clothes. The dresses were spectacular and I think she deliberately upped her game (as would I in her position). I am also a fan of form fitting clothes but the blue Victoria Beckham and the green Emilia Wickstead are too tight in many places. Now, most women have the problem that clothes fit good in some places and not in others. But she has the resources to do so.

Her make up was great. I really liked that she showed some colour. 
Hairstyle were pretty underwhelming- I don’t think sleek hair or middle parting are flattering for her facial structures- but then I love messy buns, curls and up-dos.

She definitely showed everyone what they will loose in terms of glamour. The green looked especially dramatic- I adored it, but maybe not for this occasion? Obviously completely appropriate but the rest was more subdued. She definitely disappeared with a bang.

[tabitha2]

Catherine is plenty glamorous when it’s called for as well appropriate and/or  elegant the rest of the time. 

Edited March 10, 2020 by tabitha2

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

If only Meghan wore better fitting clothes. The dresses were spectacular and I think she deliberately upped her game (as would I in her position). I am also a fan of form fitting clothes but the blue Victoria Beckham and the green Emilia Wickstead are too tight in many places. Now, most women have the problem that clothes fit good in some places and not in others. But she has the resources to do so.

Her make up was great. I really liked that she showed some colour. 
Hairstyle were pretty underwhelming- I don’t think sleek hair or middle parting are flattering for her facial structures- but then I love messy buns, curls and up-dos.

She definitely showed everyone what they will loose in terms of glamour. The green looked especially dramatic- I adored it, but maybe not for this occasion? Obviously completely appropriate but the rest was more subdued. She definitely disappeared with a bang.

The green was way too much for that event.  It’s not something you bring glamour, too. The focus is not even on the royal family. Every other royal woman there repeated something previously worn that was conservative as well.  
And enough with the capes. 
 

And do we have to pretend Kate can’t bring any glamour? Really? It doesn’t insult Meghan to acknowledge that she does when the occasion calls for it.  Daytime events at church, however, do not. 

[viii]

@just_ordinary didn't mention Kate or glamour at all, so I'm not sure why @tabitha2 is bringing her up to compare the two women. I thought we were past that. You can acknowledge Meghan without it being a reflection of Kate, and vice-versa. 

She definitely upped her game this tour, and while I do think her outfit for the service was far too bold for a day time event, I don't blame her for going out with a bang. Peace out, BRF. 

It'll be interesting to see what they do for the rest of the year in terms of engagements and whatnot. 

[tabitha2]

Because I can. Saying they would lose something in terms of glamour implies Meghan is somehow more stylish Or fashionable than Kate or Sophie Wessex or any other current Royal lady. She is not. FWIW Princess Mary of Denmark and esp Queen Letizia of Spain are by far the best Royal dressers anyway  IMO 

Edited March 10, 2020 by tabitha2

[viii]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. It's gross to compare women. 

[tabitha2]

Not comparing the women themselves. Comparing their fashion and style.  I think Kate  dresses better generally and the Windsor’s Have plenty of glam in the ladies even without Meghan. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

Because I can. Saying they would lose something in terms of glamour implies Meghan is somehow more stylish Or fashionable than Kate or Sophie Wessex or any other current Royal lady. She is not. FWIW Princess Mary of Denmark and esp Queen Letizia of Spain are by far the best Royal dressers anyway  IMO 

Saying something would be lost in no way implies one being more stylish than the next.  It means that if you have two stylish women and take one away...half of that "stylishness" is lost.

And really, if that's what people are up in arms about there are lots of beautiful women who are capable of wearing fashionable clothing.

[Beermeet]

7 hours ago, louisa05 said:

The green was way too much for that event.  It’s not something you bring glamour, too. The focus is not even on the royal family. Every other royal woman there repeated something previously worn that was conservative as well.  
And enough with the capes. 
 

And do we have to pretend Kate can’t bring any glamour? Really? It doesn’t insult Meghan to acknowledge that she does when the occasion calls for it.  Daytime events at church, however, do not. 

Exactly.  It's not so much comparing women as noticing who understands their roll.  This is a military event and there are rules of dress as to not stand out. Megan wearing red ( despite how nice she looked) is not ok. Grinning non stop is ridiculous when at such an event.  This isn't about Megan no matter how much she seems to feel so.  The Royal family is not after the glam life. They are to support and blend.  Kate and the other royal women understand this.  This isn't the Oscars.  Also, Megan's dresses were ill fitting.  The green one, you can see her corset!  It's too big and too small and too much.  Nighttime make up in day church.  Sorry, she definitely could've done better in the goodbye dept.  Read the room! 

Harry in pictures and video looks totally stressed out and pissed off.  It's hard to miss.  He did not seem as happy as his wife.  Weird stuff is going on. 

What is their plan exactly?  To mooch off some oligarchs house and sell socks, pens and hopefully find a charity to mooch from?  They are all over the place.  Military, AIDS and women have plenty of great charities in place. They could support them.  Making their own?   They just want to be rich, look good, not be a working Royal, get the titles, perks of it and sprinkle charity in there ( with zero plan). C'mon. Shady.  Idk what's going on but this visit is a mess imo.  

Not to be unfair, Harry is an ass.  He's ditching his family, his country and the military he was once a part of.  He never was a marine, that was a Royal appointment he disrespected.  And, his wife wore red.  Good day, sir! 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Beermeet

[viii]

44 minutes ago, Beermeet said:

He's ditching his family, his country

aaaaaand your post lost all credibility. Sad! 

[Beermeet]

Was it ever credible to begin with? ?   We're just chatting, not solving the Royal family problems.  Grab a cuppa and take load off. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

11 minutes ago, viii said:

aaaaaand your post lost all credibility. Sad! 

Nah, viii...this is Free Jinger.  We're all about adult children having to follow the rules of their families of origin blindly, wearing only what their parents deem appropriate, living their lives in service of their FOO, putting their own plans on hold indefinitely to avoid upsetting the folks, living off their families income, and accepting harsh criticism as their rightful due if they dare to want something besides the prescribed roles their had family chosen for them.

Oh wait...is that not what we usually stand for?  Huh.

(Ftr I don't care what H and M do or how they dress, and I think the entire idea of a monarchy is ridiculous...I just find the hypocrisy in this thread alternately annoying and wildly funny.)

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by HerNameIsBuffy

[formergothardite]

If the drama is that Meghan wore the wrong color and smiled too much then maybe the concept of a royal family is pretty worthless to begin with. 

Edited March 10, 2020 by formergothardite

[treehugger]

Well, after reading this thread I completely understand why H&M decided to escape to the Great White North.  God, women can be cruel to each other!
If Harry looked stressed, he probably was.  To be thrust into all the drama after a month or so of relative peace and quiet must have been emotionally exhausting.