Meghan and Harry 7: Recollections May Vary

[Coconut Flan]

40 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Harry could be calling people and asking them to be Lili’s godparents, and just assuming that they can go back to Windsor in a month or two and do the same thing, without Megxit making any difference.

That sounds like the Harry we're seeing these days.  Bless the poor boy.  I'm not sure he has any common sense.  

[Spock]

Harry is writing a memoir. 

 

https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-writing-memoir/

[WiseGirl]

37 minutes ago, Spock said:

Harry is writing a memoir. 

https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-writing-memoir/

Oh goodie */sarcasm

Not only that but per the article (okay the headline) it is an "'Accurate and Wholly Truthful' Memoir and "I'm writing this not as the prince I was born but as the man I have become," he said in a statement."

I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for this.  Why call it "Accurate and Wholly Truthful? Is this to offest those that will say..."no, that's not how it was". To quote the title of this thread, recollections will vary. Wonder who the ghostwriter will be.

[EmCatlyn]

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I disagree. Camilla being divorced is not a problem at all (at least for the majority of the u80). It is indeed the Diana story that’s still hanging over them. The hysteria around those three people was insane. I don’t think I have ever seen something like that again, where all age groups went ballistic. Camilla was the other woman. And she won. And Diana died. Some people cannot let go. And some people just love to bring it up to keep gossiping about them. The other woman cannot officially use the Princess of Wales title, wear the Lover’s knot tiara or be called Queen. Tabloids would love it, years of headlines to stir shit. 
As almost all of the Queens children and her sister divorced, and as divorce is not the big taboo even in higher classes or society in general anymore, that’s really not the tripping stone here. I know some like to make it out to be important, but it has the same quality as the some fashion choice “breaking protocol”, H&M are “conducting high treason”, religion and line of succession comments. They are an entertaining read but if you look into it, it’s a bunch of nonsense.

I do think Charles cares about her titles, but I doubt Camilla does.

It’s a curse and blessing they are so old now. People had time to adapt, they proved themselves and their commitment, let the Diana hysteria die down. I think most people would shrug their shoulders if they put a crown on Queen Camilla's head. Not overly happy but also not really like upset enough. It will be a slaughter house online and in the tabloids though. But being so old, they won’t ever get more sympathy as they do now. Tabloid and public love the shiny young ones. So she can only be the humble hard working country woman never the dazzling charmer.

I do think W&H care still on some level. But as grown ups you realise that reality is different and you deal with it. I think they can like her and support her, but also feel the grieve and rather not see her and Charles at other times. I think especially, weddings, births, christenings and anniversaries have the opportunity to always be bittersweet. From experience, those things can be immensely triggering. It will always sting. But then, so can be talks about how great the relationship someone has with their parents be. And you cannot expect people to be on their tippy toes all the time, or strangers to put up trigger warnings before everything just because they might affect someone somehow. 

I think you are right that the public response against Camilla being queen because of Diana would be considerable.  However, the real “legal” issue is that if she became queen she would be the first divorced woman to sit as queen consort ever. The CoE would not marry them because the divorce was caused by adultery, and there is still a feeling that it’s not ok.  Making her “Princess Consort” would avoid problems both with the conservatives about marriage/divorce and with the Diana groupies.

As for Will and Harry, I don’t know if they would be strongly opposed, but Charles doesn’t need to get their permission. Will will probably be outwardly supportive regardless of how he feels.  Harry?  I bet the royals are just as uncertain about what Harry will do next as we are.
 

[Coconut Flan]

Quote

"I'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to share what I've learned over the course of my life so far and excited for people to read a firsthand account of my life that's accurate and wholly truthful."

What he's learned?  I doubt there is even one thing relevant to my life that I don't already know.

As far as accurate and wholly truthful: 

[Xanariel]

Not gonna lie, the sheer drama of a memoir is going to be so entertaining. At this stage, I feel like we'll be hearing in tragic detail how 5-year-old William never let Harry have a go with the TV, even though Diana said it was his turn. It's worth keeping the monarchy for moments like this alone. Guessing the Queen probably won't be at the christening now. 

I'll be looking forward to see if Harry includes choice moments like the time he and his friends shot endangered birds and got let off by the police, the Nazi costume, the bloodied pony, the racial slurs where he never apologised to the soldiers involved, the temper tantrum about a tiara, the MBS jewels...

Edited July 19, 2021 by Xanariel

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

There’s a thread discussing it. (Not sure how the quote box got reformatted.) The fact that it appeared in the Times right after the Wessexes mentioned that Edward expects to get the title in an interview makes me think that it’s true. It’s consistent with Charles’ long-standing goal of reducing the number of family members who are considered royal.

We heard essentially nothing about Archie’s christening, but it seems to have been a private event at Windsor. It’s possible that it was a really happy moment for them. Harry could be calling people and asking them to be Lili’s godparents, and just assuming that they can go back to Windsor in a month or two and do the same thing, without Megxit making any difference.

I didn’t know it came out in the Times.  I have done a little further research and it appears (Per Vanity Fair July 12, 2021 ) that the Prince of Wales’s office is denying the rumors.  Apparently a couple of Charles’s friends were behind the Times report, but they may be mistaken of they may have spoken to set the question before the public to see what the response was.  Either way,  I think not giving Edward the title would be a stupid move for Charles.  

As far as I know, giving Edward the title would have no effect on the number of people considered “royal” since Edward already is.  If the title doesn’t pass on to Edward’s son (and I believe they can set it up so it doesn’t), then after Edward’s death it would go back to the crown.  It seems odd that Charles would go against what seems to be his parents’ wishes. But who knows? ??‍♀️

(I will look up the other thread on this and stop drifting away from Harry.)

As for the christening, I think it is possible that Harry and  Meghan plan to be back in England for the delayed ceremony honoring Diana and they may want to  christen Lili privately in the Windsor chapel (as they did with Archie) while they are there. However, this is probably not so the Queen would be present. 

Like you, I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry is planning all this without consulting his family and will merely tell the Queen one day, “By the way, Gran,  we thought we’d get the kid christened while we are in England, on September X. Could someone dig out and iron the Royal Christening gown, tell the Archbishop to get ready, and make sure there are fresh candles and flowers in the chapel? “   (That should be interesting if he does. ???)

[viii]

Harry and I have very different views about privacy but I am HERE for this memoir. At this point, I’m just embracing the chaos. 

[nausicaa]

So now Harry is writing a tell all for Random House for $20 million?

Glad to see that deep desire for privacy is finally being realized. 

[tabitha2]

A C list starlet with delusions of Grandeur and failed entitled prince who is just delusional with a desperate need to keep up with ultra rich  philanthropist/Hollywood set for validation have to sell themselves to the highest bidder. 

[just_ordinary]

18 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

There’s a thread discussing it. (Not sure how the quote box got reformatted.) The fact that it appeared in the Times right after the Wessexes mentioned that Edward expects to get the title in an interview makes me think that it’s true. It’s consistent with Charles’ long-standing goal of reducing the number of family members who are considered royal.

We heard essentially nothing about Archie’s christening, but it seems to have been a private event at Windsor. It’s possible that it was a really happy moment for them. Harry could be calling people and asking them to be Lili’s godparents, and just assuming that they can go back to Windsor in a month or two and do the same thing, without Megxit making any difference.

But we did hear about the christening. A lot.
(1) Carolyn Durand spoke to Elle magazine (around June 13th) and mentioned that Archie would be christened in July, before the Queen leaves for Balmoral. Funny enough this suggestion made everyone take her attendance for granted. And then she was a no show, unable to attend due to “long standing” commitments in Sandringham. 
(2) The Times reported around June 16th that the day was set (6th of July). 
(3) There was an official statement by BP on the 3rd of July, 3 days prior confirming the date and that they wanted a private ceremony.

There has been lots of guessing about the date on the blogs and comment sections before. And it’s not as if he can just invite people and show up in Windsor. St. George’s Chapel is on her personal grounds as Windsor Castle is the principal residence of Queen Elizabeth II. It’s open to the public when you are on a guided tour. 
The mentioning of Windsor is funny, as Eugenie had to postpone the christening of August in Windsor due to Covid. 

It’s interesting that there seems to be no big consistency. Some get christened in the Capel Royal at St. James’s Palace (George, Beatrice, Louis), some at St. Mary Magdalene Church in Sandringham (Charlotte, Eugenie, ), in Buckingham Palace (Wiliam, Peter) or Windsor Castle (Zara, Harry, Louise, James). Zara’s children were christened in Gloucestershire. 

15 hours ago, Spock said:

Harry is writing a memoir. 

 

https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-writing-memoir/

It’s pure gold isn’t it. It will never end. So many hours of endless entertainment already and no end in sight. All I wonder now if when we finally see him on reality tv. Promi Rehab? Survivor something? Biggest Looser?

14 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I think you are right that the public response against Camilla being queen because of Diana would be considerable.  However, the real “legal” issue is that if she became queen she would be the first divorced woman to sit as queen consort ever. The CoE would not marry them because the divorce was caused by adultery, and there is still a feeling that it’s not ok.  Making her “Princess Consort” would avoid problems both with the conservatives about marriage/divorce and with the Diana groupies.

As for Will and Harry, I don’t know if they would be strongly opposed, but Charles doesn’t need to get their permission. Will will probably be outwardly supportive regardless of how he feels.  Harry?  I bet the royals are just as uncertain about what Harry will do next as we are.
 

There is no actual prohibition on a divorced person to become King or Queen. I mean, what about Charles? And she will be Queen, no matter if the title will be used or not. And I guess they will be very careful not to use it (as they do now with the Princess of Wales). Not using it, will only be to appease the ones who have a problem though. Same with Queen consort. There is actually no difference between Queen and Queen consort. We only use it to distinguish between a Queen in her own right and one by marriage. I think they will not go the lengths and take the title actually away from her. Philip just had to be NOT king as a king always outranks a queen. Same for Albert. I don’t think they will do this for a female spouse though.

[Ozlsn]

37 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

There is no actual prohibition on a divorced person to become King or Queen.

King no. But the rules have always been different for men. 

[WiseGirl]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

Survivor something? Biggest Looser?

That would be epic, lol. Hoping whoever reads the book reports here. I don't want to support them financially. It all does reek of selling oneself out.  However being a prince is really rhe only interesting thing about him and I never would have heard of her if she didn't marry him. So I guess this is the only way to make money? Another way to make his relationship with his family of birth more difficult? I still don't see anything from them that justifies their big deals they have made.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

3 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

But we did hear about the christening. A lot.
(1) Carolyn Durand spoke to Elle magazine (around June 13th) and mentioned that Archie would be christened in July, before the Queen leaves for Balmoral. Funny enough this suggestion made everyone take her attendance for granted. And then she was a no show, unable to attend due to “long standing” commitments in Sandringham. 
(2) The Times reported around June 16th that the day was set (6th of July). 
(3) There was an official statement by BP on the 3rd of July, 3 days prior confirming the date and that they wanted a private ceremony.

In my opinion, knowing the date and that the Queen didn’t attend isn’t a lot of information. My guess is that it was at the church on the Windsor estate where Beatrice was married. They likely plan to have Lili’s christening there while they’re in Britain in September for the formal opening of the Diana statue. It’s going to be very interesting to see the reactions to the planned memoir. 

[tabitha2]

The only family that matters  is now Meghan and the children they produced and He makes clear his birth family he ran away from and denigrates only matters when they need to use them and their titles for personal gain. 
 

Charles and The Queen are indulgent as grannies and dads do be but William is probably not gonna be accommodating  with bro wanting to flit back and forth and make airy demands and who would be?  
 

You gotta know Harrys entitled dumb ass assumes  he and his will have a spot with the family when Charles is Coronated, When William has his POW ceremony and Any other historical events.
 

I hope he has a comfy spot on his couch and reality hits him hard at those moments . 

 

[viii]

Yeah, knowing the date and the palace confirming it isn’t a lot of information. We don’t even know the godparents. I’d say it was kept pretty private. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Updates from today’s media coverage of the book (because that’s totally why my employer pays for the databases):

* Harry’s been working on the book for almost a year, and it will be published late next year 

* the ghostwriter is JR Moehringer

* as usual, Harry blindsided his family with the announcement 

* the reaction from one of Charles’ aides was “oh gosh”

In other news, Meghan’s new animated series for Netflix was being discussed before Megxit (though it seems like that was only the concept, not talking to Netflix); Harry has subscribed to a luxury travel service called The Private Suite; they’re socializing with the tech world instead of the showbiz world; and Lili’s place in the royal succession hasn’t been added to the royal website yet because she hasn’t been baptized, and in theory she could be Catholic.

[meep]

The Diana statue confuses me. What does her brother think of this? Hasn't he spent years trying to get people not to hero worship his sister? Hasn't William and Harry been asking the same thing? But then they are both excited to unveil this statue....

[Spock]

Don't know if it's been brought up. I know it's been a while since th Oprah interview but I've been thinking that Harry and Megan are saying all this about the BRR is because they know no one in the family will break ranks and give their own tell all interview. They can say whatever they want, and at most a press release will come out declining to confirm or deny stuff or an inside source will say something to a magazine that won't be confirmed or denied from the palace.

Charles, William, kate...they have to keep mum and carry on. They can't sit down with Oprah and has out family stuff. Any interviews they do never go into depth. Never reveals too much. It's not their way and Harry and Megan know this and can use it to spin their narrative knowing it won't be officially refuted. 

Just my two cents 

[EmCatlyn]

5 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

There is no actual prohibition on a divorced person to become King or Queen. I mean, what about Charles? And she will be Queen, no matter if the title will be used or not. And I guess they will be very careful not to use it (as they do now with the Princess of Wales). Not using it, will only be to appease the ones who have a problem though. Same with Queen consort. There is actually no difference between Queen and Queen consort. We only use it to distinguish between a Queen in her own right and one by marriage. I think they will not go the lengths and take the title actually away from her. Philip just had to be NOT king as a king always outranks a queen. Same for Albert. I don’t think they will do this for a female spouse though.

Actually, the situation is different for Charles and Camilla when it comes to their being divorced and remarried.

1. Charles inherits the throne.  The title is his by birthright. 
2. Charles does not have a living first spouse.  Camilla does.  
3. As others have pointed out, Camilla is female, and the rules are always stricter for the woman.  

(Nowadays the queen is expected to be a “good example.” In the past, the queen consort was held to higher standards of chastity than the King to the point that adultery by a queen was treason and could be punished by death. —think of Anne Boleyn and Kathryn Howard, for example.)

I agree that the issue today has a lot to do with the public’s perception of Camilla as an interloper, the “other woman” that wrecked Diana’s marriage, etc.  It does also have a little to do with the Church of England’s leadership to crown a divorced woman.  As nominal head of the CoE, Charles can insist on her being crowned, but if the Archbishop of Canterbury or other leaders object—and they could— it would cause problems, especially given the public perception.  So I think that instead of needing “permission” from his sons, Charles would need to engage the cooperation of the A of Canterbury.

To be sure, crowned or not, she will be queen consort by right of her marriage to the king. (And, as you say, there is no such thing as king consort because king is the higher rank.)   What we are discussing is what she could be called and what title(s) Camilla would be known by when Charles ascends the throne.  If they stick with not calling her queen, she could continue to be known by one of Charles’s other titles.  (She would not be Duchess of Cornwall but Duchess of Lancaster, maybe.) 

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

That would be epic, lol. Hoping whoever reads the book reports here. I don't want to support them financially. It all does reek of selling oneself out.  However being a prince is really rhe only interesting thing about him and I never would have heard of her if she didn't marry him. So I guess this is the only way to make money? Another way to make his relationship with his family of birth more difficult? I still don't see anything from them that justifies their big deals they have made.

I read that the proceeds of the book will go to charity. NY Times, 7/19/21.

Of course, by building up the brand, they will profit in the long run.  In the short run, however, it seems to be more about Harry establishing his new identity.  

(Honestly, he reminds me of those young people who, after they go away to college, discover everything their parents did was wrong, become “new people” and can’t shut up about their enlightenment.  They usually outgrow it by the time they finish college at 21 or 22.  Harry is a little late for this.)

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Lili’s place in the royal succession hasn’t been added to the royal website yet because she hasn’t been baptized, and in theory she could be Catholic.

I was wondering what the official reason for the delay would be.  

I guess this would be a good reason to baptize Lili as soon as possible, so that if Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry and Archie all die in a cataclysm, she can be queen after Elizabeth.  ????

[WiseGirl]

1 hour ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

* as usual, Harry blindsided his family with the announcement 

People magazine has an article saying...Harry "told" the family but was it like when they "told" the family their daughter's name.

https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-spoke-privately-with-royal-family-about-memoir/

Again, I suspect recollections will vary and to me this seems like an awful lot of burning bridges. Does he even want a relationship with his father and brother?

[QuiverFullofBooks]

38 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Charles does not have a living first spouse.  Camilla does.  

I expect they would remarry in the church if they’re both still alive when Andrew Parker-Bowles dies.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, meep said:

The Diana statue confuses me. What does her brother think of this? Hasn't he spent years trying to get people not to hero worship his sister? Hasn't William and Harry been asking the same thing? But then they are both excited to unveil this statue....

I think the statue is in an area of the Kensington Palace gardens that isn’t generally open to the public.  It is not so much about hero worship as recognition.  I think they don’t want her idealized, but they also don’t want her forgotten.