Harry & Meghan 9: Pretending to Be Relevant

[tabitha2]

That’s a common thing. There are several young heirs and heiresses  in Europe right now and they all seem much more subdued and serious than their siblings. They learn Early what’s expected I gather.

[MomJeans]

We also tend to see the Cambridge kids at events where photographers are noticeably, and often loudly, trying to get good pictures of them.  George may just be more aware that people are staring at him, and while Charlotte is still more oblivious due to her younger age.  On the flip side, royal kids can't win.  If George had a made a face when he saw himself on the projector like Charlotte did, there would be plenty of critics saying he wasn't behaving appropriately.  There have been very nasty things said about Charlotte the past few years on royal watching sm, and I cannot understand how anyone can say such things about a child. 

I feel like it's impossible to label a small kid so young, and make predictions how they will be as a working royal in decades.  As cute as William's wild antics were as a young kid (Andrew's wedding), I assume he's a different person as an adult. We really have no clue what George is truly like, or what he will become. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by MomJeans

[zee_four]

4 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

That’s a common thing. There are several young heirs and heiresses  in Europe right now and they all seem much more subdued and serious than their siblings. They learn Early what’s expected I gather.

Even ones who didn't learn super early, look at the Queen and her sister Margaret. Birth order might have something to do with it. Mind you now my younger brother, the one closest to me in age, is by far the most serious. But as keiki I was far more serious, I was shy and very sensitive but very academic and tried so hard not to rock the boat. My brother was the funny goofball known from his earliest toddlerhood for his great escapes (over 2 acres of semi arid scrub into a neighbors dog door at 1 1/2-2, he was gone for hours the cops came and everything) and was so bad about running off and hiding in stores my mom made him wear jinglebells on his shoes and like around his neck of something. He was the kid even at age 7 or 8 my mom could not look away from, even.for.a.second. At the pool he was the one doing double backlogs off the concrete side not the diving board and with his amazing climbing and escape prowess was put in gymnastics. I was told I was too tall even at age 4 but he was good at it for a couple years. He quit for ice hockey which considering he is now 6' 4" and 220 lbs was probably a good call.

Now he's super serious career man and even in high school was very quiet, had a small group of close friends., only dated 3 girls ever since 13 all for years and years at a time. I'm the family black sheep but not when we were keiki.

But back to the topic I can see the responsibility being one of many factors but not the only one. Kind of like the chicken or the egg, it must be hard to pull apart which led to which.

[tabitha2]

I for one am interested if William can break the curse of hundreds of years British Royal fathers and sons being distant at best if not having toxic antipathy toward each other. 

[just_ordinary]

6 hours ago, viii said:

Ngl, I kind of wish she had been born first. George seems like a really solemn child and I hope his position doesn't negatively impact him. Charlotte seems a lot more social and natural at it and would have made an amazing heir. 

I don’t know. That’s exactly what they said about Elizabeth and Margaret and Wiliam and Harry. Just because you are publicly more open and at ease doesn’t mean you would cope better or do a better job. We also talk about children. A lot might change. Maybe there won’t be a monarchy after all when it’s his time. Maybe he steps back to pursue other things. Maybe Charlotte turns out to be a vain, silly and utterly unsuited person.
 

All I see are three children. Very different from one another. That are already victim to scrutiny about their character and suitability. Which is sad. 

[Pecansforeveryone]

Andrew, I presume, (I don't know for sure) was more outgoing and "social" than his siblings. We can thank our lucky stars he will never be king. I don't remotely think Charlotte is anything like Andrew. I am just baffled by how more social and outgoing translates to someone being a better ruler. 

[tabitha2]

Edward VIII was the dashing sociable at ease Prince and King everyone pinned their hopes on While his younger brother definitely was not any of that And look how that worked out.

Surface charm does not a leader make. 
 

Edited March 31, 2022 by tabitha2

[viii]

I don’t think being social means a better ruler but I do think there is something to be said for somebody who is more comfortable in the public eye than someone who is not. William struggled openly for years with his future role and the resentment of it. However fine he seems with it now, he still gives off awkward vibes that Harry does not. I think it’s good Harry isn’t directly next in line (although I’m sure he’d be whistling a different tune if he was actually going to be top dog). I just find it interesting how more natural and at ease Charlotte seems to find public events than George does. 

Let’s be honest - I’m not even sure if there will be a monarchy for George when he’s older. People love the monarchy because they love the queen. She’s all majority of people have ever known. However, Charles isn’t going to be beloved in the same way and as the world progresses, it will be interesting to see if the BRF can keep up. 

[rosamundi]

12 minutes ago, viii said:

Let’s be honest - I’m not even sure if there will be a monarchy for George when he’s older. People love the monarchy because they love the queen. She’s all majority of people have ever known. However, Charles isn’t going to be beloved in the same way and as the world progresses, it will be interesting to see if the BRF can keep up. 

I read an article a few years ago now, about how The Queen is everyone's grandma, a nice old lady in a variety of posh hats and sparkly jewellery, but the change to Charles as King will, because of the absurdity of the male Royals' traditional formal dress, really bring home how daft and anachronistic the whole thing is. Of course I can't find it now.

[viii]

You’re not wrong. Lizzie gives us sweet grandma glamour with her robes, tiaras and corgis. Charles is simply going to remind us that he’s king because his bloodline is supposedly better than ours and I just don’t think people are going to be as tolerant for him, William and George. 

[Four is Enough]

@viii if Charles' reign is short, not that I'm wishing but let's be honest. He's already in his 70s, and I don't think he'll live to his 90s, although he is Mr. Organic Food, etc.. anyway:

 

If Charles' reign is short, I think William will have a real shot at moving things to be more modern for the monarchy. Yes, he is approaching 40, but I see him as far more approachable  and progressive than Charles. I expect less pageantry. Maybe the good stuff like Trooping the Color, but less emphasis on weddings. Heck, maybe they'll even redecorate Buckingham Palace!

[tabitha2]

BP is falling  to pieces for want of repairs  it’s more a museum and offices than a home and nobodies favorite place at all. I guarantee Charles will be moving shop to Clarence House if he can. 
 

I believe enough People want “down  to earth”  King William IV and his beautiful wife and adorable children to be the face of the future monarchy, to bring the long gone glamour and relative youth and fun  back and attract even more tourists so they will  put up with Charles III for 10 or 15 years. Or they just give a damn either way:)

[viii]

37 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

@viii if Charles' reign is short, not that I'm wishing but let's be honest. He's already in his 70s, and I don't think he'll live to his 90s, although he is Mr. Organic Food, etc.. anyway:

If Charles' reign is short, I think William will have a real shot at moving things to be more modern for the monarchy. Yes, he is approaching 40, but I see him as far more approachable  and progressive than Charles. I expect less pageantry. Maybe the good stuff like Trooping the Color, but less emphasis on weddings. Heck, maybe they'll even redecorate Buckingham Palace!

I don't think Charles will have a long reign either, likely 10 years or so. I do think William is more beloved than Charles, simply because he is Diana's son. If he becomes King sooner rather than later, I think the monarchy will continue. I mean, the monarchy has gone through many changes over the thousand years or so it's been in existence. As archaic and unnecessary as it is, it would be a little bit sad (imo) to also see it dissolved. 

21 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

BP is falling  to pieces for want of repairs  it’s more a museum and offices than a home and nobodies favorite place at all. I guarantee Charles will be moving shop to Clarence House if he can. 

Buckingham Palace is currently undergoing extensive renovations but I thought Charles had released a statement not that long ago that he intends to live at BP once he's monarch because that's where the monarch always lives. Maybe that was just tabloid gossip I read but I swear I saw that. 

[Loveday]

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

I believe enough People want “down  to earth”  King William IV and his beautiful wife and adorable children to be the face of the future monarchy, to bring the long gone glamour and relative youth and fun  back and attract even more tourists so they will  put up with Charles III for 10 or 15 years. Or they just give a damn either way:)

He will be King William V. King William IV was monarch just before Queen Victoria.

[DalmatianCat]

5 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

@viii if Charles' reign is short, not that I'm wishing but let's be honest. He's already in his 70s, and I don't think he'll live to his 90s, although he is Mr. Organic Food, etc.. anyway:

 

If Charles' reign is short, I think William will have a real shot at moving things to be more modern for the monarchy. Yes, he is approaching 40, but I see him as far more approachable  and progressive than Charles. I expect less pageantry. Maybe the good stuff like Trooping the Color, but less emphasis on weddings. Heck, maybe they'll even redecorate Buckingham Palace!

Charles is at an age where he could possibly pass before his mother. I don’t see it mentioned often—and with his parents’ longevity it seems unlikely—but he is at an age where if either he or his mother were to pass in their sleep it wouldn’t/shouldn’t be a surprise.

[anjulibai]

Charles is in good health. He was recently photographed dancing with Irish step dancers. Granted, not a terribly exhausting dance, but I know many 70 year olds that wouldn't be able to do it. I don't see him slowing down much any time soon, let alone dying. 

[viii]

Old people are tricky though. My grandparents have plenty of friends that went to Bingo Friday night and died Saturday morning, type of thing. You just never know. He will likely be king with a year or two, and certainly within five years. He's already 73 years old, five years would put him at 78 and I don't think saying a 10 year reign is cutting him short. He's not guaranteed to have his parent's longevity with health. 

[nokidsmom]

On 3/29/2022 at 6:37 PM, tabitha2 said:

If he was smart He would have issued a statement months ago stating his deep regrets he would not be able attend at this time but his thought are with his family and looked forward to being able to travel back in future and then left it at that. 

I agree with this.   Like so many other things, he would have been better off if he kept his grievances, issues, disputes, etc. with his family all private.  If he was legit worried about security, that issue/discussion should have also been kept private.   If they couldn't accommodate him the way he wanted and he didn't want to attend just find a nice, diplomatic way to say he wasn't attending without a good dose of "woe is me" thrown in. 

While I personally feel he should have attended, given all the (unnecessary IMHO) public fuss he raised it was probably for the best he didn't go.   He's put himself in a tough spot, damned if he goes and damned if he doesn't.   If he attended, it could be seen as a distraction from the event.  If he didn't, he's furthering the family rift.   No way to really win here and he put himself in that position because he couldn't get off the grievance train just for once..

[Seahorse Wrangler]

8 hours ago, Loveday said:

He will be King William V. King William IV was monarch just before Queen Victoria.

If he even chooses that as his regnal name. He could choose any number of names to be known as if he chooses.

[viii]

It’s unlikely Charles or William would choose a different name. It’s possible but Charles especially has been known as Charles for 73 years. It would be a huge adjustment. I just don’t see either of them doing it. 

[prayawaythefundie]

We might be underestimating Charles though. Not only is he the longest-prepared heir in history, I think it was his idea to reduce the number of working royals (before that started happening on its own) and he has looked into the possibilty of opening more royal estates to the public. Both would reduce cost and could therefor increase approval.

[viii]

Oh I think Charles will be a great king, or as great as one can be in 2022 with limited power. However, he’s not well loved by the public like the queen or even William is. You might call him the most well prepared heir but that also means he has too much history with the public and given some of his errors with Diana and Camilla, it’s that kind of stuff that stays with him. I’m sure when the time comes he’ll be adequate enough I guess. I don’t see him being too drastic with his reign, he’s not going to want to cause any unnecessary waves. 

[Melbelle]

The dislike of Charles is fascinating to me.  He's called a lot of attention to sustainability and environmental causes for many, many years.  Long before it became as trendy as it is now.  Although, he's been accused of having too large a carbon footprint (personally, I agree that he does), he has also worked to make his properties more environmentally efficient and sustainable and encouraged others in the UK and around the world to do the same.  These are such popular topics today, something that so many people are interested in and want people in powerful positions to do more about.  He's stated he wants to "slim down" the monarchy and he's already put this into action.  Establishing more than a decade ago that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie would not be working Royals and removing their formal protection (except at official events). Something that saves the UK taxpayer and keeps the monarchy more affordable.

Yet, what seems to be the big issue with him is the fact that he's made poor decisions regarding his first marriage.  Something that, yet again, seems in opposition of the way that society feels overall.  Lots of people have first marriages that don't work out, lots of people get into their first marriage for all the wrong reasons, lots of people have infidelity in their marriages, and these things are all very common amongst people in powerful positions, politicians, executives, celebrities, and athletes.  Yes, his first marriage carried more weight than the majority of marriages because it lead to the next generation of heirs for the British Monarchy.  However, his separation occurred in 1992 and their divorced finalized in 1996.  He's been remarried since 2005 to a woman, who by all accounts, is the actual love of his life.  For so many others, this would be viewed as a positive.  Things didn't work out the first time, but he redirected and ended up apparently very happy.  Obviously, the tragedy of Diana's death adds to the drama of the story, but nevertheless, it's interesting how so many people hold onto his poor first marriage so strongly.

Although it's certainly a more layered and nuanced topic than we can write here, it's interesting to me that he's really in line with what is important to many people these days, calling attention to sustainability and environmental causes.  Yet, the thing people seem to dislike him for, is something that most people in Western society have decided we shouldn't really care about...what people do within their private relationships.  Not to mention, what he did "wrong" occurred around 30 years ago.  

(Now if people dislike him because he seems entitled and pompous, just generally don't like the concept of a monarchy, or are bothered by the 'pay for play' scandals, that I can get, but I feel like people never stick with those topics and always move back to Diana. Perhaps, these are more in the news in the UK though?  Is this just the American perspective?)

[Loveday]

14 hours ago, Seahorse Wrangler said:

If he even chooses that as his regnal name. He could choose any number of names to be known as if he chooses.

Very true. But none of his other three names have been used by a reigning King--Arthur, Philip, or Louis, unless you count that semi-mythical king in the sixth century--and by the time he becomes king he will have been known as William for so long that it would be pretty difficult to make the switch! (I just realised he'll be 40 this year and my mind is reeling at the swift passage of time! 😮 )

[anjulibai]

The majority of British Kings and Queens just use their first baptismal name. Edward VIII may have been called David in the family, but that was his last baptismal name - officially, he'd always been Prince Edward. Victoria, Edward VII and George VI were the only ones that used something besides their first baptismal names, and I think they specific reasons for it. I can't think of a good reason that Charles or William would want or need to pick a different regnal name.