Harry & Meghan 12: Prodigal Prince, Immature, Paranoid, Whiner, or Fully Justified?

[Coconut Flan]

Continued from here:

As promised this title focuses on Harry and his issues.  

May the tiaras continue.

[Mama Mia]

I was just moseying through the family tree and line of succession of the British Royal Family from the Tudors on down —- it’s really, really shocking that their system has consistently doted so exclusively on the eldest son of the reigning monarch - so much training and focus and the other children treated as being spares. It seems it’s just as likely that it’s a second, or third, son, or someone else not even likely to gain the crown at birth at all who becomes King or Queen. Henry Vlll - second son, Elizabeth l - 3rd in line, Victoria - a whole bunch of uncles had to die to get to her. And of course Elizabeth ll had to have an uncle just quit the job to be in the line-up. Plus a bunch of the ones in-between. You’d THINK they’d realize that they should set up a system that gives 2nd, 3rd, 4th born children more preparation, it’s a family system that can’t possibly lead to healthy dynamics.  Probably especially in the case of having just two sons, and no other children. How could there not be resentments? Even if you only know what you’ve lived, it’s got to be rough. Look at the funeral where the 5 oldest great-grandchildren attended. George and Charlotte did beautifully, but so did the other 3 little cousins. All more towards the back. Not following the coffin, because they count- but not as much. So, so strange. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Mama Mia

[tabitha2]

I Hope Camilla Or Kate  give  Louise Wessex her turn like her cousins had to choose a Tiara when/if she marries. 
 

Also they could make a huge amount of money if they opened the personal jewel collection to tourists or put them on exhibit. The majority of  the jewelry has mostly been hidden away and literally collecting  dust for decades if not centuries so What good is hiding it?  Let the Royal ladies have a chance to choose and show the rest. 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

It's so interesting to hear all the tiara opinions. I have thought whichever Andrew daughter wore the emerald one looked totally overwhelmed by it. It seemed like too much and took away from her face.

Conversely, I felt like the emerald one would have been very nice on Meghan because Meghans whole outfit was more plain so a bit of pizzazz and color would have been nice.

It's a shame all these jewels are seldom seen and only get worn by a very few people. Funny old world.

 

Meghan did seem to talk the talk. Im pretty disappointed in her. At first I thought they really did leave to live a private life they thought would be better and I have total respect for that. You tried it. You hated it. It's not a life sentence. Harry often spoke about not wanting to be royal.

But then go away and live a quiet life. 

 

[DalmatianCat]

Someone with more tiara knowledge inform me…

Kate wore a wedding tiara from the royal vault because she was marrying the future monarch. 
Are there any rules that would have prohibited Meghan from wearing the Spencer tiara? Since the Spencer side of the family has a lower rank would it have been beneath Harry’s bride? Are only the children of the Earl of Spencer allowed to use it? Harry seems to like to lean into the Diana connection, so I’m curious if he (and Meghan) considered it all. Overall I though the one she did wear was lovely and suited her and her dress perfectly. I think the Spencer tiara would have overwhelmed her, but I’m curious if it was even an allowable option.

“Tiara-gate” having to do with not having the tiara available for hair tests due to miscommunication lines up with a lot of other rumors and stories surrounding the wedding (flower girl tights!). It seems like a lot of the little details were chaotic because the whole courtship and engagement happened relatively quickly. I’m guessing there was already some quiet behind the scenes plans going into William’s wedding before he and Kate ever got engaged considering how long they dated. Harry and Meghan really didn’t have that same amount of time.

Edited September 27, 2022 by DalmatianCat
Typo

[tabitha2]

Nope. It’s the Spencer family Tiara and the Earl can lend it to whom he wishes. There are Royal brides who have worn brand new Tiaras or just flowers so I can’t imagine and heirloom from the Aristocracy would raise an eyebrow. 
 

On that note There  is also another Spencer Family Tiara Diana never wore and it’s extremely ornate and much more flashy. It’s fit for a Aristocratic grand dame and I don’t think Meghan or any young woman could ever have pulled  it off if they tried. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by tabitha2

[viii]

@Mama Mia if you really consider their whole family dynamic within the firm, it’s amazing that any of them like each other. Their entire existence is built to challenge and compete with each other, rather than support. They’ve thankfully improved on this over the years but Andrew and Harry clearly indicate there are still struggles. 

At least they’ve made some progress… 500 years ago, Harry wouldn’t have stomped off to California due to sibling rivalry. He would have lopped his brother’s head off and gotten on with it. 

[tabitha2]

More likely Harry would have had is own head chopped off or been gotten rid of by poison. 

[viii]

That’s likely as well! Probably by George lol. 

[tabitha2]

I love all History, esp. Royal history of all kind. The sane and right idea is what the Joseon Dynasty of Korea practiced: Only the Heir from the Queen could stay in the palace. All of the other sons from Concubines were married and packed off young to their own homes. Stopped the ruinous sibling infighting and the Women plotting and murdering for their sons advancement. 
 

[treehugger]

Thanks to all of you, I have spent my evening browsing tiaras on 1stdibs and have now picked out at least three that I believe are essential pieces of jewelry to add to my collection.  My husband has alternated between mild amusement and genuine concern for his life savings.  I am currently trying to convince him that something that costs a little more than our house is totally an acceptable alternative investment but I don't thing he's being swayed by my persuasive arguments.  

[Coconut Flan]

Another perspective:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-go-nuclear-whos-blame-royal-expert-explains

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, DalmatianCat said:

Someone with more tiara knowledge inform me…

Kate wore a wedding tiara from the royal vault because she was marrying the future monarch. 
Are there any rules that would have prohibited Meghan from wearing the Spencer tiara? Since the Spencer side of the family has a lower rank would it have been beneath Harry’s bride? Are only the children of the Earl of Spencer allowed to use it? Harry seems to like to lean into the Diana connection, so I’m curious if he (and Meghan) considered it all. Overall I though the one she did wear was lovely and suited her and her dress perfectly. I think the Spencer tiara would have overwhelmed her, but I’m curious if it was even an allowable option.

“Tiara-gate” having to do with not having the tiara available for hair tests due to miscommunication lines up with a lot of other rumors and stories surrounding the wedding (flower girl tights!). It seems like a lot of the little details were chaotic because the whole courtship and engagement happened relatively quickly. I’m guessing there was already some quiet behind the scenes plans going into William’s wedding before he and Kate ever got engaged considering how long they dated. Harry and Meghan really didn’t have that same amount of time.

The Spencer tiara has only been worn by Spencer brides, not by those marrying in—the only exception being the current Earl’s first wife. Other brides marrying into the family have worn family tiaras of their own or have chosen something other than a tiara. Theoretically, Charlotte or Lili could wear it but it’s unlikely as Charlotte will have many choices and Lili is likely to marry in the U.S.  

[Ozlsn]

1 hour ago, viii said:

At least they’ve made some progress… 500 years ago, Harry wouldn’t have stomped off to California due to sibling rivalry. He would have lopped his brother’s head off and gotten on with it. 

One of my absolute favourite tweets after QE2's death but before the funeral referenced Anne taking a troop of horse and challenging Charles for the crown (I... would have paid money to watch that). Historically speaking primogeniture is more stable than the most competent/ruthless being elevated, especially where there were numerous potential challengers - but in a modern world where the heir can reasonably be expected to survive to reproductive age and die after producing the next heir or two it sucks for the rest of the siblings. Harry heading off to California though is perfectly in keeping with second sons heading off to the "colonies" though, at least in later centuries. 

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

I was just moseying through the family tree and line of succession of the British Royal Family from the Tudors on down —- it’s really, really shocking that their system has consistently doted so exclusively on the eldest son of the reigning monarch - so much training and focus and the other children treated as being spares. It seems it’s just as likely that it’s a second, or third, son, or someone else not even likely to gain the crown at birth at all who becomes King or Queen. Henry Vlll - second son, Elizabeth l - 3rd in line, Victoria - a whole bunch of uncles had to die to get to her. And of course Elizabeth ll had to have an uncle just quit the job to be in the line-up. Plus a bunch of the ones in-between. You’d THINK they’d realize that they should set up a system that gives 2nd, 3rd, 4th born children more preparation, it’s a family system that can’t possibly lead to healthy dynamics.  Probably especially in the case of having just two sons, and no other children. How could there not be resentments? Even if you only know what you’ve lived, it’s got to be rough. Look at the funeral where the 5 oldest great-grandchildren attended. George and Charlotte did beautifully, but so did the other 3 little cousins. All more towards the back. Not following the coffin, because they count- but not as much. So, so strange. 

Victoria, actually, was very much an heir,* not a spare, but I know what you mean.  It is really not just about education though, since a number of spares (beginning with Henry VIII if you wish) have done much better than the heir would have.

The argument for not preparing the spare to be king is that younger brother might get it in his head to usurp the throne.  Same thing with cousins.  However, the opposite argument (the reason monarchs needed a spare or two) was that sons might die or a king be childless.

The very idea of “spares” is problematic because it means that there are always people who are close to the crown but know that they are secondary by a mere accident of birth.  It’s pretty ironic that neither George VI nor Elizabeth II wanted to be king/queen but did it out of duty.  In contrast, Edward (Duke of Windsor) who was raised to be and wanted to be king, almost brought down the monarchy because he wanted the power, not the obligations.

Elizabeth was not expected to be queen when she was born, but she was 3rd in line to the throne until her grandfather died then second for about a year and finally heir apparent when her uncle abdicated and her father became king.  So she had a good sense of what the duties were and felt her responsibility keenly from an early age.  If Margaret had been a son or if there had been another male sibling, Elizabeth would have been the spare, but she never was.

I guess the problem is that even royalty can’t have custom made babies of the right sex and personality for each task.  If Harry had had his Aunt Anne’s or even Uncle Edward’s personality, he would have made a better spare, the “wingman” Princes Diana wanted for William. 😉

——-
*Victoria was not the child of a king, but her parents married because an heir was needed and all the other brothers had not been able to produce one.  There had been an heir, George IV’s daughter Charlotte, but she died in childbirth after some medical men starved and bled the poor girl to death with their newfangled ideas. (Men taking over the delivery of babies was not a good thing for most women back then.)

[Jackie3]

4 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Also they could make a huge amount of money if they opened the personal jewel collection to tourists or put them on exhibit. The majority of  the jewelry has mostly been hidden away and literally collecting  dust for decades if not centuries so What good is hiding it?  Let the Royal ladies have a chance to choose and show the rest. 

This is why they don't do that. There are hungry children in Britain. The resentment would be enormous. They need to hide their wealth away. You should watch this documentary about this little guy and his life (very different from Prince Louis!)

 

.   

 

Here's another idea. I suspect Kate has enough jewelry. How about selling some of the Queen's stash and feeding that little boy and others like him?

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

37 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

So she had a good sense of what the duties were and felt her responsibility keenly from an early age.

By "duties", do you mean sitting on a throne? Posing for portraits? Riding in luxury on the Royal Train? Managing her 40 homes or being a landlord for her vast London holdings?

By "responsibilty", do you mean cheating the public out of inheritance tax money? Because Charles certainly took to that job quickly. He isn't paying a cent for his inheritance, though the British public will be taxed heavily on their inheritances.

5 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

I Hope Camilla Or Kate  give  Louise Wessex her turn like her cousins had to choose a Tiara when/if she marries. 

If she wants a turn. Maybe she thinks the whole tiara thing is tacky and a bit tasteless.

I hope they sell the tiaras and use the money to do some good.

3 hours ago, viii said:

They’ve thankfully improved on this over the years but Andrew and Harry clearly indicate there are still struggles. 

At least they’ve made some progress… 500 years ago, Harry wouldn’t have stomped off to California due to sibling rivalry. He would have lopped his brother’s head off and gotten on with it. 

"Stomped off"? I think you mean "made a painful decision to protect his wife and children."

Also, it's pretty odd to compare Harry to pedophile Andrew. unless you think leaving a family is as bad as raping a girl.

Harry actually looks like the most "royal" of the bunch. The rest look like little toy soldiers! The Palace made a terrible decision, refusing to protect Meghan from the press. They've lost their most charismatic couple. The bald, buck-tooth brother doesn't have half his charm.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Jackie3

[noseybutt]

4 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Nope. It’s the Spencer family Tiara and the Earl can lend it to whom he wishes. There are Royal brides who have worn brand new Tiaras or just flowers so I can’t imagine and heirloom from the Aristocracy would raise an eyebrow. 
 

On that note There  is also another Spencer Family Tiara Diana never wore and it’s extremely ornate and much more flashy. It’s fit for a Aristocratic grand dame and I don’t think Meghan or any young woman could ever have pulled  it off if they tried. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am trying to imagine a head shape or hair style that would work with that tiara and I’m coming up blank. It’s terrifying.

[KnittingOwl]

Camilla really does have the best hair for pulling off the very large ornate tiaras. They look incredible on her and would look silly on a lot of other people. I particularly like her in the Greville tiara or the Delhi Durbar. Those just don’t work with the sleek styles that Catherine and Meghan wear. 

[tabitha2]

Most of these big gun Tiaras were made for elaborate Victorian or Edwardian  updos and added hair if necessary but Royal ladies with long hair can usually pull if with the right styling. 

[just_ordinary]

12 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

I Hope Camilla Or Kate  give  Louise Wessex her turn like her cousins had to choose a Tiara when/if she marries. 
 

Also they could make a huge amount of money if they opened the personal jewel collection to tourists or put them on exhibit. The majority of  the jewelry has mostly been hidden away and literally collecting  dust for decades if not centuries so What good is hiding it?  Let the Royal ladies have a chance to choose and show the rest. 

QEII might have left her one from her private collection? On the other hand I highly doubt she will ever have other occasions to wear one than her wedding, coronations and if she were to attend a tiara event on behalf of the family. On second thought I doubt QEII left every of her four granddaughters one, so forget my first thought. She might have put something in writing that she wishes Louise to have the option though. I am sure neither Charles nor Wiliam and their spouses would have a problem with it. If everything goes wrong she could still wear her mother’s tiara. It belongs to Sophie so there is always this option. I was surprised non of the girls used her mother’s tiara. But both choose stunning tiara and the Greville was a nice surprise.

 

[viii]

Yes, I doubt any of the tiaras or big jewels were left to anyone but Charles. You don’t want them to ease their way out of the Crown. 

[Four is Enough]

13 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

It's so interesting to hear all the tiara opinions. I have thought whichever Andrew daughter wore the emerald one looked totally overwhelmed by it. It seemed like too much and took away from her face.

Conversely, I felt like the emerald one would have been very nice on Meghan because Meghans whole outfit was more plain so a bit of pizzazz and color would have been nice.

Interestingly enough, I completely disagree. Eugenie, being a stockier girl, wore the Greville Kokoshnick beautifully. Both girls had good coloring for it, but I think with Meghan being more petite, it would have overwhelmed her. Megan's tiara, the "button" something? was of interest and beautiful by way of the shape and the design of it. But we all have our own opinions.

13 hours ago, DalmatianCat said:

Kate wore a wedding tiara from the royal vault because she was marrying the future monarch. 
Are there any rules that would have prohibited Meghan from wearing the Spencer tiara?

None, but while I admire the Spencer tiara greatly, I don't think I'd wear it because of the ill-luck associated with wearing it, marrying a Prince, then getting divorced and dying young. JMHO..

 

I'm pretty sure ALL the tiaras are from the royal vault. The reigning monarch owns most of that stuff..

I don't think the Lotus tiara, which I absolutely LOVE, would have gone well with Kate's dress. Not sure why, but I think the modern lines of the dress didn't go with the Lotus. I also love the Rose, but that is such an Art Deco design that it would be difficult to pair with something nowadays, unless it was for a costume ball or something.

The Turquoise and diamond tiara is, IMO, for an older woman. (Like me) I think Camilla would rock it.

My absolute favorite is the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland. I wonder if Camilla will touch it. I believe it would look best on Kate.

Don't love the Lover's Knot, but it requires a sleek bun type hairdo and looks best that way, unless it is very carefully styled with short hair, as Diana wore it.

Next fave is the pointy one that HMTQ, Anne, and Beatrice wore on their wedding days. And Beatrice's wedding dress? The Norman Hartnell that Elizabeth wore? (not to get married in) I LOVE it.

After that the Lotus .

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[viii]

I really dislike the tiara that Elizabeth and Beatrice both married in. I think it's so hideous. 

The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland is by far the best tiara (imo) and I really hope we see Kate in it. 

[louisa05]

8 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

Interestingly enough, I completely disagree. Eugenie, being a stockier girl, wore the Greville Kokoshnick beautifully. Both girls had good coloring for it, but I think with Meghan being more petite, it would have overwhelmed her. Megan's tiara, the "button" something? was of interest and beautiful by way of the shape and the design of it. But we all have our own opinions.

None, but while I admire the Spencer tiara greatly, I don't think I'd wear it because of the ill-luck associated with wearing it, marrying a Prince, then getting divorced and dying young. JMHO.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Diana is far from the only bride to have worn it. Her sisters all wore it and some nieces have worn it more recently.