Harry & Meghan 9: Pretending to Be Relevant

[Jackie3]

17 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

You need to listen to your own words and let it go dear

 

Its called duty. She made an oath to God and the country she would serve.  That may mean shit to you though. 

Actually, duty to others means more to me.

The way she treated her governess (casting her out, paying her next to nothing, not attending her funeral, ostracizing her) speaks volumes about her character.

An "oath to God" seems like a convenient excuse to remain in power

[tabitha2]

I never said she was perfect or a saint. You seem oddly obsessed with this governess anyway and There were far more important people in her life and far more pressing issues to consider than a long gone governess who already had been granted a place to live by the Royals. 
 

Fact is she was point blank told don’t do this and if you do We will consider it a betrayal if you do . She chose to ignore that warning to make money for a no good husband. She was not going to be turned out or starved if she did not publish those memoirs and She had to knew they did not and still don’t play with those who talk about private family goings on. If you are loyal discrete they will keep you and treasure you no matter if it’s staff or friends but betray the trust and you are dead to them. 
 

Also.Like the rest of her family She could have really hated Wallis Simpson and blamed her for what occurred that indirectly led to her fathers to early death but what do we see?  Her gently helping and guiding a frail old women at Her husbands funeral. She also persuaded the QM who to make amends. 
 

 

[Jackie3]

Quote

What became The Little Princesses seems originally to have been the Queen Mother’s idea. The then Queen Elizabeth thought it would benefit post-war relations if pieces about her eldest daughter appeared in the American press. A palace courtier was chosen to write articles and the now-retired Crawfie, who knew Princess Elizabeth better than anyone, was ordered to tell him all she knew. He, not she, would have the byline and be paid by the magazine, the Ladies’ Home Journal. But Crawfie’s husband, George Buthlay, felt his wife should write her own account and sent her to Queen Elizabeth to ask permission. It was flatly refused and Crawfie prepared to shelve the project. But Buthlay had other ideas – for Crawfie to write a memoir.

Wow, so they wanted Crawfie to share anecdotes about the princesses, without any compensation, to promote the Royal brand.  I can't say I blame Crawfie. She had almost no money to retire on, after 17 years of service with the Royals. The Yorks paid her an unliveable wage, although they were fabulously wealthy. So they got what they got. Pay your servants a fair wage, and maybe they won't be tempted to write memoirs.

Quote

Though different versions of the story have been put forward, the definitive account seems to be this: together with the Ladies’ Home Journal’s unscrupulous editors, Buthlay told his wife that Her Majesty would see the manuscript – that nothing would be published without royal approval. All lies; the book came out regardless, initially as magazine articles. The Royal Family was furious, considering it an act of treachery, and poor Crawfie was cast into the outer darkness.

She fled to Aberdeen and bought a house right on the route that the Royal Family took annually to Balmoral. But her hope that they might one day stop and forgive her proved unfounded. She became depressed and lonely – it had been too late, on retirement, to have children of her own. Crawford left a poignant note on attempting to take her own life: ‘I can’t bear those I love to pass me by on the road.’

That the Windsors maintained their animus until Crawfie’s death in 1988 seems extraordinary, especially as breaches of royal privacy, many self-inflicted, have been numerous since. But at the funeral of the woman who had served them so devotedly, not a single royal flower was sent.

https://www.tatler.com/article/marion-crawfie-crawford-queen-governess-memoir-scandal

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

A mother and Queen Consort wanted to control the narrative about her daughters childhood -and family life and was completely her right. 
I think The QM was being very fair to Margaret Crawford and  got smacked in the face by it. 

 

 

Wiki says( with the usual grain of salt but it rings true as anything from a British gossip magazine):

In April 1949, having heard of the offer, Queen Elizabeth wrote to Crawford, saying: "I do feel, most definitely, that you should not write and sign articles about the children, as people in positions of confidence with us must be utterly oyster. If you, the moment you finished teaching Margaret, started writing about her and Lilibet, well, we should never feel confidence in anyone again." However, the Queen did give a carefully qualified approval for her to anonymously provide some assistance, writing: "Mr [Dermot] Morrah (the man chosen to write the articles), who I saw the other day, seemed to think that you could help him with his articles and get paid from America. This would be quite all right as long as your name did not come into it. Nevertheless, I do feel most strongly that you must resist the allure of American money and persistent editors and say No No No to offers of dollars for articles about something as private and as precious as our family."[5]

 

And then after the unauthorized and contentious Memoirs Crawford went on to keep selling her stories and writings to American publications when she knew how much this upset the Windsors. Then she got sad and a little unhinged when the family ostracized her. I really can’t feel sorry her because even if she wasn’t rolling dough it sounds to me like greed and attention seeking took over. 
 

Now… she had a grace and favor home granted to her. No rent for life. She was given expensive gifts of antiques by the family. She obviously was not starving or wearing rags begging for alms around the country side. ASo lay off that narrative because it’s overly dramatic and false. 

 

 

 

 

 

[hoipolloi]

QEII, Margaret & their parents were fucking awful to Marion Crawford. Vile, really. Crawford's loser husband, Buthlay, obviously didn't help matters. Marion Crawford deserved much better from all of them.

The Tatler article's account of The Little Princesses saga comports with what I've read in at least a several BRF biographies of the Queen Mother, the current Queen, and her father, George VI. More than one biographer has noted that the Queen Mother could be a royal bitch on wheels, her sweetness-and-light public persona and WW II heroism notwithstanding.

 

 

[tabitha2]

Why? In the end she listed to her husband and made the choice to write then keep on writing when she knew they were upset and betrayed. It stands to reason If QM was such a raging Bitch Crawford would have known from her years of service and knew what she was asking for.  

[Jackie3]

14 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Now… she had a grace and favor home granted to her. No rent for life.

She lived there for 2 years, then was booted out. It's a home with ceilings so low that some people have to bend over to walk around. It's 1300 square feet.  Not much of a prize for 17 years service.

[tabitha2]

Oh come off it . Nottingham Cottage is a cozy little house good enough for many Royals and Nobles  including the Sussex’s over the years and Crawford her self described as "a dream of seasoned red brick...with roses round the door” 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Oh come off it . Nottingham Cottage is a cozy little house good enough for many Royals and Nobles  including the Sussex’s over the years and Crawford her self described as "a dream of seasoned red brick...with roses round the door” 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, she was a very positive person. Her book was very positive and loving. 

She lived in this "cozy" cottage for only two years, so it was hardly a lifetime gift.

Saddest of all, she was paid so little that she needed money badly after she left the royals. I wonder how a Duke and Duchess, with millions of pounds, can pay someone poverty wages? Especially someone they see every day, trust with their children, and claim to care for?

[tabitha2]

It would have been a lifetime gift in normal Circumstances if she had not made the choices she did. 
 

So she suffering from hunger, cold, health problems from dire poverty? was she wearing rags?  What did they pay her? Do tell!  I mean You seem to know everything about this person you obviously think was so perfect and blameless! 

 

Whatever she intended it’s not positive and loving to tell the world about peoples private life’s, family life and bad habits, quirks, Etc  and profit off  your ties to when they obviously are not comfortable with you doing it. 
 

 

 

[EmCatlyn]

On 6/12/2022 at 1:53 PM, Jackie3 said:

Actually, duty to others means more to me.

The way she treated her governess (casting her out, paying her next to nothing, not attending her funeral, ostracizing her) speaks volumes about her character.

An "oath to God" seems like a convenient excuse to remain in power

I have never liked how Elizabeth and the RF treated “Crawfie,” when the former governess wrote a perfectly innocuous book, but Elizabeth was relatively young and she was told by the Queen Mother that the book was a betrayal.  I suspect that Elizabeth had a big concern about trust and betrayal based on the family’s experience with her uncle.  It doesn’t make it okay, but it gives a context.

In general the royals don’t pay well, but it appears that loyal servants are treated well and rewarded for their loyalty.  Identifying “Crawfie” as disloyal and cutting contact with her was over-reaction and cruel.  Yet in all fairness, Miss Crawford had been told not to write the book.

That being said, most of us make mistakes, are occasionally unfair and hurt people.  Elizabeth is by no means perfect as a private person (who is?) but on the whole she has been a good monarch.

Edited June 13, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Clarify, pronoun references

[EmCatlyn]

Returning to Harry and Meghan (this is not the Elizabeth thread),  I noticed that Cosmopolitan, which tends to be very “pro-Sussex” reports that

Quote

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry flew all the way to England for the Queen's Jubilee, but apparently their time with Her Majesty was closely controlled by royal staff. The Sun reports that the Sussexes' visit with the Queen was kept "formal" by palace aides, and they were only able to spend 15 minutes with her.

“It was a quick in and out job," a source told The Sun. "It was all quite formal.”

Meghan and Harry did get a chance to introduce their daughter Lilibet to her great-grandmother, but they were told cameras couldn't be present—which means they didn't get any photos of the special moment.  

It is interesting that “palace aides” are blamed. It couldn’t be that Elizabeth herself gave instructions to keep the meeting brief, either because of her health or because she wasn’t about to relax and say anything that could be quoted on Oprah. 😉

And there is that little dig about “they didn’t get any photos of the special moment.”  Maybe a photo or two would have been allowed, if the Palace could have been sure that it would be a private photo.

[viii]

I’d be pissed. It’s probably the only time that their daughter will meet her and they refuse pictures? Even if the Sussexes did release the photo - who cares. The queens image is used for a multitude of reasons and not all of them are good. 

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s failure to land a photo op with Queen Elizabeth II and other senior royals with baby Lilibet at last week’s Platinum Jubilee is a bitter disappointment for Netflix executives, according to self-proclaimed royal expert Angela Levin. ….

“I heard Netflix wanted these pictures of them with the royals,” Levin said of the alleged photo bombing of a different sort. “Because they would have sold it. It would be very valuable, very valuable to them.”

 

NY Post

There are other reports that the Sussexes were invited to the Jubilee on the condition that they would not “market” their visit.  I was surprised, actually, that they didn’t do something where Harry and Meghan comment on their visit, their impressions of the Jubilee, etc.  Maybe it is yet to come.

I do think it is a shame that no picture was taken of Elizabeth with Archie and Lilibet — for the children’s sake.  The picture could have been taken by someone at the Palace and kept private, but the kids could see it if they ever visited.  

[Jackie3]

7 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I do think it is a shame that no picture was taken of Elizabeth with Archie and Lilibet — for the children’s sake.  The picture could have been taken by someone at the Palace and kept private, but the kids could see it if they ever visited.  

I don't think the Palace is thinking of the kids, here.

What a sad way to live, when PR is more important than taking a picture with your one-year old great-granddaughter. In a healthy family dynamic, great-grandma would have treasured that photo and told everyone about the beauty and brilliance of the little girl.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

That’s their parents job and The child’s parents created this situation. In a healthy family dynamic Lili would have been growing up surrounded by aunts uncles and cousins in Britain like a Queens great granddaughter should be and she would be seen with all the others in the photos with great granny they publish on occasion.  
 

Sorry but the parents have proven they can’t be trusted and Archie and Lil have to deal with now.

Edited June 14, 2022 by tabitha2

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

That’s their parents job and The child’s parents created this situation. In a healthy family dynamic Lili would have been growing up surrounded by aunts uncles and cousins in Britain like a Queens great granddaughter should be and she would be seen with all the others in the photos with great granny they publish on occasion.  

I'm not sure if it's healthy to be surrounded by press wherever you go.  To stand on a balcony and wave at crowds. To have big cameras always focused on you, all the time, wherever you go, saying things like, "Charlotte, look over here!" To have the eyes of the world analyzing your looks when you are an awkward adolescent.

I remember when Charlotte was two, and her mother released a photo that some felt was unattractive (I thought it was adorable). There were tons of comments on the internet, saying she was an ugly toddler. That's  healthy? When she reads that online in a few years, will that be healthy for her?

I feel sorry for Charlotte and her brothers whenever they go out. They look so intimidated by the cameras. That's a lot, for a little kid! No one can say it's healthy to grow up that way. 

Lilibet has a much better chance at a normal life away from all that. She'll still be known, of course, but it will be nothing like a childhood in Britain.

The Queen could have allowed pictures, but chose not to. That was her choice. It infantilizes and disempowers her, to say it's someone else's fault. She made her choice, and it was a choice based on controlling her PR. It was not a choice based in love.

Quote

like a Queens great granddaughter should be

You are talking about implicit societal rules. It's often good when these are broken!

A lot of the anger against M&H is because they broke the rules. But a lot of good can come from breaking the rules. I'm old enough to remember when Charles and Diana married, and there was a lot of talk about their supposed "fairy tale marriage." They were supposed to stay together forever, but they were miserable. The implicit rule against divorce kept them together far too long. They were both a lot happier after they divorced.

Similarly, Charles was "not supposed to" cheat on his wife, emotionally or physically.   Lots of rules were being broken long before Meghan!

Edited June 14, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

With parents like W&K look like they are Charlotte and the rest will be taught to consider what really matters… Doing their duty and serving their country in whatever way the monarch and government need , to use the press and let the press use them in mutually beneficial relationship and that A Royal of any intelligence and wisdom ignores what trash tabloids have to say and trolls have to say. 

The Royal children will have a “normal” Royal life for a modern Royal child. That is their normal and all they will know. 

Now. Living between two worlds with two parents who clearly have various issues they either don’t acknowledge or  refuse to work on, with parents who are always scrambling to make the latest deal, Get more PR, with a broken antagonistic maternal family seemingly with only one grandma with any couth And then still ending up seeing themselves and their parents trashed in the rags.. Who do you think so many of the children of These Hollywood circles get into trouble and bad business?

 

The Queen and the court is clearly on to the Sussex tricks. Using both her and their daughter to Keep that sweet sweet Net Flix money  under the guise of just wanting a photo with dear old granny should not be awarded not only Because it’s just horribly manipulative but they probably would then try this tactic when ever they need the publicity and big money from now on. 

She loves the little girl no doubt but there has to be a line drawn on being used like this. 

[MomJeans]

I don't blame the Queen from saying she didn't want a private photographer documenting her meeting with the kids.  H&M have chosen to internationally broadcast their criticisms of her son, grandson, and their wives, with major media projects in the works, including a reality television show.  Harry chose to publicly cast purposefully vague and incendiary dispersions about the Queen's inner circle after their last meeting. 

Had H&M made other choices in their lives and visited with the kids at least once before the jubilee weekend, it's very possible we would have seen a professional photo of the Queen with all of the great-grandchildren released this past week. 

It's not just Meghan who gets to set boundaries with her family.  Harry's family can set their own boundaries with Harry's family. Remember when Thomas Markle said he wanted to meet with Meghan and Harry, and wanted it photographed?  I strongly felt Meghan and Harry should not feel pressured to capitulate to that demand either.

(I would also guess that the Queen was exhausted.  I hate being photographed when I feel like crap.  I still recall my sister wanting to take all these pictures of me with her kids when I was vomiting my guts up during chemo one day, and how betrayed I felt.  It wasn't a memory or image I wanted preserved, even just for family.)

[viii]

1 hour ago, MomJeans said:

It's not just Meghan who gets to set boundaries with her family.  Harry's family can set their own boundaries with Harry's family. Remember when Thomas Markle said he wanted to meet with Meghan and Harry, and wanted it photographed?  I strongly felt Meghan and Harry should not feel pressured to capitulate to that demand either.

This is actually a really good point I didn’t think about. Everyone has a right to their own boundaries. 

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I don't think the Palace is thinking of the kids, here.

What a sad way to live, when PR is more important than taking a picture with your one-year old great-granddaughter. In a healthy family dynamic, great-grandma would have treasured that photo and told everyone about the beauty and brilliance of the little girl.

Great-grandma is not only a great-grandma but the head of an institution she feels she must protect.  Part of protecting the institution is not allowing photographs that will hurt the institution.  Unfortunately, Harry and Meghan cannot be trusted to protect the institution.

We don’t know if pictures weren’t allowed because of fears they would be used to bolster the Sussexes’ marketing of their royal connections or because Elizabeth was in “comfy clothes” and didn’t want to be photographed that way. It might have been a bit of both.

While I agree that this is a sad situation, it is a situation for which the Sussexes are largely responsible.  The things they did and said around the Oprah interview made them untrustworthy.  

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, MomJeans said:

I don't blame the Queen from saying she didn't want a private photographer documenting her meeting with the kids.  H&M have chosen to internationally broadcast their criticisms of her son, grandson, and their wives, with major media projects in the works, including a reality television show.  Harry chose to publicly cast purposefully vague and incendiary dispersions about the Queen's inner circle after their last meeting. 

Had H&M made other choices in their lives and visited with the kids at least once before the jubilee weekend, it's very possible we would have seen a professional photo of the Queen with all of the great-grandchildren released this past week. 

It's not just Meghan who gets to set boundaries with her family.  Harry's family can set their own boundaries with Harry's family. Remember when Thomas Markle said he wanted to meet with Meghan and Harry, and wanted it photographed?  I strongly felt Meghan and Harry should not feel pressured to capitulate to that demand either.

(I would also guess that the Queen was exhausted.  I hate being photographed when I feel like crap.  I still recall my sister wanting to take all these pictures of me with her kids when I was vomiting my guts up during chemo one day, and how betrayed I felt.  It wasn't a memory or image I wanted preserved, even just for family.)

Excellent points.  It is important that we consider the Queen’s feelings, not just the question of whether H and M would have used the picture for their own publicity.

Whatever else is true, the Queen had a lot going on that weekend and she hasn’t been well for the past half-year.  She may be forgiven for not feeling “up to” a photo shoot.   And it was her choice to make.  You are right that this is no different from Harry and Meghan refusing to take pictures with Thomas Markle. (At least the Queen saw them.)

If Harry and Meghan wished, they could have stayed in England another week or so and (among other things) taken time to visit Elizabeth with less stress.  Instead they swooped in, got photos of themselves at a couple of events, had their private meeting with the queen, had a birthday party for Lili and swooped out.   That was their choice.

[Jackie3]

On 6/12/2022 at 8:05 PM, tabitha2 said:

Why? In the end she listed to her husband and made the choice to write then keep on writing when she knew they were upset and betrayed. It stands to reason If QM was such a raging Bitch Crawford would have known from her years of service and knew what she was asking for.  

It amazes me that the BRF would pay their servants so little, and then expect them not to sell the highly marketable information they possess. It's so tone deaf. These people are diapering their babies and cleaning their toilets, and getting paid very little to do so.  These servants, like everyone else, want security, a comfortable retirement, to help their own children. They have very valuable information that they can sell ("The Duke spent several hours in the bathroom reading the news").

Why wouldn't they sell it? It only makes sense. They've seen their "betters" living a fantastically luxurious life, while they live in tiny rooms in a distant part of the Palace. Why wouldn't they feel resentment and envy? Or the desire to have a taste of that good life? Or the desire for a few luxuries.

Crawfie, in particular, had delayed her own marriage for 16 years.  Finally, after Elizabeth was engaged, she was able to marry, but the Queen insisted she stay on to finish raising Margaret. At that point, Crawfie was 38. She stayed on for two more years, with her husband in Scotland or a hotel in England (the gifted house needed a lot of work). Can you imagine the resentment she and her husband must have felt? Why be loyal to someone who didn't care about your needs?

Mostly, though, I wonder about the cheapness. Why would some of the richest people in England pay their servants low wages? Especially when these servants held such valuable information, inforamtion with a ready market. For selfish reasons alone, they should make sure their servants were VERY comfortable indeed. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Jackie3

[louisa05]

24 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

It amazes me that the BRF would pay their servants so little, and then expect them not to sell the highly marketable information they possess. It's so tone deaf. These people are diapering their babies and cleaning their toilets, and getting paid very little to do so.  These servants, like everyone else, want security, a comfortable retirement, to help their own children. They have very valuable information that they can sell ("The Duke spent several hours in the bathroom reading the news").

Why wouldn't they sell it? It only makes sense. They've seen their "betters" living a fantastically luxurious life, while they live in tiny rooms in a distant part of the Palace. Why wouldn't they feel resentment and envy? Or the desire to have a taste of that good life? Or the desire for a few luxuries.

Crawfie, in particular, had delayed her own marriage for 16 years.  Finally, after Elizabeth was engaged, she was able to marry, but the Queen insisted she stay on to finish raising Margaret. At that point, Crawfie was 38. She stayed on for two more years, with her husband in Scotland or a hotel in England (the gifted house needed a lot of work). Can you imagine the resentment she and her husband must have felt? Why be loyal to someone who didn't care about your needs?

Mostly, though, I wonder about the cheapness. Why would some of the richest people in England pay their servants low wages? Especially when these servants held such valuable information, inforamtion with a ready market. For selfish reasons alone, they should make sure their servants were VERY comfortable indeed. 

Was she cuffed to a railing in the nursery? Somehow I don't think so. If she didn't like the job, she could have left. She was not a slave. 

Why are you obsessed with this woman??? 

[tabitha2]

According to what I understand It’s not about the pay which they admit is not great but the fact that having worked for a Royal looks great on a resume and also, once again, long time trusted servants who keep their mouth shut are taken care of. 
 

For A family that was so brutally unfair and kept her in dire poverty according to you MC sure was devoted. Sounds to me like she was happy enough despite oh the horror! lack of curtains!  in her cozy rent free furnished cottage and she stupidly gave in to her husbands greed and persuasion. 
 

 

Also. Crawford could have left and married anytime as this was the 1940’s not the 1340’s QM was not going to throw in her the dungeons  

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by tabitha2