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

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

5 hours ago, viii said:

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. 

I think E and B's tiara looks like fencing.

Sparkly fencing....

Or like that pointy logs they put around frontier forts

Edited September 27, 2022 by WatchingTheTireFireBurn
Autocorrect fights me

[Baxter]

I can't say the Queen and Beatrice's tiara would be my first choice. But I think the sentiment behind Beatrice wearing it was lovely. She kind of got a raw deal with her wedding so it seemed like an extra hug from Grannie along with the dress (which was also not to my taste).

[viii]

Yes, Beatrice's wedding attire was definitely more sentimental than fashionable, but I think that suits her. 

[tabitha2]

From all I ever have heard Beatrice is a lovely woman with a huge sentimental streak. Whatever else Andrew and Sarah have done they raised those girls well.

[adidas]

Harry and Meghan have been moved down the page on the Royal website, and Prince Michael (plus his racist wife) have been removed completely. It looks likely that the rumours of King Charles’ ‘slimmed down’ monarchy could have some truth to them.

https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/prince-harry-meghan-markle-demoted-from-royal-family-website-under-reign-of-king-charles/afdad7a5-3009-4a3b-93e9-986c08884cba

[SoSoNosy]

That article said there were questions on when and how Harry found out about the death of his grandmother.  I hadn't read that anywhere else, although I did read that he wasn't invited to travel with William, Andrew, Edward and Sophie.

 

[viii]

He was probably in a separate location as them and didn’t want to hold up the plane. I don’t find it surprising at all he travelled separately. 

[Mama Mia]

4 hours ago, adidas said:

Harry and Meghan have been moved down the page on the Royal website, and Prince Michael (plus his racist wife) have been removed completely. It looks likely that the rumours of King Charles’ ‘slimmed down’ monarchy could have some truth to them.

https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/prince-harry-meghan-markle-demoted-from-royal-family-website-under-reign-of-king-charles/afdad7a5-3009-4a3b-93e9-986c08884cba

What’s funny about his “slimmed down monarchy” is that it seems he wants to give the impression it’s more modern because it will save public money — but it’s really primarily just his money that’s being saved.   It doesn’t seem very smart on his part to not have let Beatrice and Eugenie be working royals, or to not have negotiated a part time gig for Harry and Meghan.  He carries a lot of personal baggage, and it leaves less room for any real or perceived missteps by him, or William or Kate, or their kids as they grow.  If you have a bunch of pretty, youngish, working royals, and their cute kids — they can try to shift focus to that when other things are ugly. And all it means is slightly less cash for the King to roll around in. 

[just_ordinary]

1 hour ago, Mama Mia said:

What’s funny about his “slimmed down monarchy” is that it seems he wants to give the impression it’s more modern because it will save public money — but it’s really primarily just his money that’s being saved.   It doesn’t seem very smart on his part to not have let Beatrice and Eugenie be working royals, or to not have negotiated a part time gig for Harry and Meghan.  He carries a lot of personal baggage, and it leaves less room for any real or perceived missteps by him, or William or Kate, or their kids as they grow.  If you have a bunch of pretty, youngish, working royals, and their cute kids — they can try to shift focus to that when other things are ugly. And all it means is slightly less cash for the King to roll around in. 

A slimmed down monarchy does not just mean less working royals - which equals less engagements. It will also mean a shift in HOW their work is done. Even if they would hold onto a big portfolio of working royals this is in the cards. No other royal family has even similar working numbers for the individuals. Only the in comparison work shy W&K match with them. But they do more other work than just showing up somewhere- or at least they manage to look as if they do. So more not public stuff like chairing a round table and similar. The others also do have the advantage that they look more professional in their endeavours (better tertiary education, almost all current or recently first in lines to the throne are at least bilingual if not able to hold a simple conversation in three languages, studied in a different country for some time, studied different things. I mean of course they are all figure heads but it helps the optics if they look competent around a cause.). The BRF will carve out a new balance. W&K are already working on it. Less engagements for individual things but figure heading bigger projects that involve several parties. Unlucky for them, those endeavours are not executed good atm (Heads Together, Early Years, Earthshot). Also: Many royal households keep up with their job with just 4 adult working royals. So I don’t see a problem.

For decades, the British public criticised that they pay for several hangers on. The York’s are no different than the Gloucesters or Kents. Either you are fine with paying them for the rest of their lives or not. And I think the people have long decided they don’t want that. And I highly doubt B and E are actually considering a full time royal job. They have jobs they like, do a few royal things and live an utterly privileged life outside the spotlight most of the time. Their children are not scrutinised by the media and strangers. No one demands pictures of them, people don’t discuss which school they should go to and so forth.

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

What’s funny about his “slimmed down monarchy” is that it seems he wants to give the impression it’s more modern because it will save public money — but it’s really primarily just his money that’s being saved.   It doesn’t seem very smart on his part to not have let Beatrice and Eugenie be working royals, or to not have negotiated a part time gig for Harry and Meghan.  He carries a lot of personal baggage, and it leaves less room for any real or perceived missteps by him, or William or Kate, or their kids as they grow.  If you have a bunch of pretty, youngish, working royals, and their cute kids — they can try to shift focus to that when other things are ugly. And all it means is slightly less cash for the King to roll around in. 

I have assumed that Beatrice and Eugenie have no wish to be working royals at the moment.  I think that because of their father, it may be better if they lead a more private life for a while.

Harry and Meghan only want to be part-time royals if they can pick and choose what they do and be allowed to make their own money and build up their own brand at the same time.  This was why Queen E nixed their idea.  I imagine Charles too sees the peril of having a working member of the RF also make money from the private sector using royal status.

The cost of full-time royals includes their security, which the taxpayer, not Charles pays for.

[WiseGirl]

Didn't Beatrice and Eugenia marry wealthy men who work all over the place?  They wouldn't have to do the RF show if they didn' thave to.. Look at Zara and Peter , perfectly fine to not be working RF. Why saddle Bea and Eugenia with it (who I believe is in Portugal now because of her husband's job)? Does Beatrice even live in England? The cousins will support William because they seem close but to have to take on public gigs when you haven't had to for most your life? I'd nope that really quickly.

Edited September 28, 2022 by WiseGirl
Spelling is hard

[viii]

Slimmed down monarchies are happening all over. Charles is not the first to do it. Sweden stripped the second and third borns children of their titles and Denmark has just done the same today. 

[tabitha2]

That’s a very sweet deal. All these Surplus Royals will have their place in the line and all the privileges of inherited wealth but no real responsibilities and the Right to vote, privacy, religion, Etc 

[BookwormExtraordinaire]

I think it's only a matter of time before one of the constitutional monarchies of Europe decides that having a royal family in the 21:st century is not only more trouble than it is worth but also a really strange thing to have in a democracy. Once that happens I'm certain that most others will follow and once they're gone people will wonder why it didn't happen sooner.

I'm Swedish and I don't mind our royal family in the sense that I think that they usually do a decent job in representing the country. Victoria seems like a sensible person and I'm sure she'll do an admirable job once she becomes queen, but it's more a matter of principle to me, why should that job exist in the first place?  There is no getting around the fact that it is strange for a country priding itself on equality that there is a child growing up here who is essentially being groomed to one day take on a mostly ceremonial role just because she happens to be the eldest child of the future monarch. 

[tabitha2]

@BookwormExtraordinaire All Victoria has to do is bring that precious precocious Little girl of hers along and people melt. Estelle is a star no pun intended…Adorable children doing adorable things are a monarchies Trump card. 

[BookwormExtraordinaire]

14 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

@BookwormExtraordinaire All Victoria has to do is bring that precious precocious Little girl of hers along and people melt. Estelle is a star no pun intended…Adorable children doing adorable things are a monarchies Trump card. 

True, they really lucked out with Estelle who seems remarkably well-suited to being a 21st century princess. She's still a kid, though, and just because she fits into the mould now it is far from certain that she will as a teenager or an adult. However, maybe she and her mother will delay the inevitable for another generation.

[noseybutt]

11 minutes ago, BookwormExtraordinaire said:

True, they really lucked out with Estelle who seems remarkably well-suited to being a 21st century princess. She's still a kid, though, and just because she fits into the mould now it is far from certain that she will as a teenager or an adult. However, maybe she and her mother will delay the inevitable for another generation.

It’s similar to child actors. Some having staying power though adolescence and into adulthood. Others, not so much.

I wonder if some of the fascination with royal children is because families are smaller and people are becoming grandparents later in life (if at all).

[tabitha2]

Europe is going to have a lot of beautiful young reigning Queens  in about 20 years.. that Appeal of youth glamour and beauty Has always  and will always sell 

[hoipolloi]

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Europe is going to have a lot of beautiful young reigning Queens  in about 20 years.

Will they be actually reigning? Thatʻs the question. 

[EmCatlyn]

8 hours ago, BookwormExtraordinaire said:

I think it's only a matter of time before one of the constitutional monarchies of Europe decides that having a royal family in the 21:st century is not only more trouble than it is worth but also a really strange thing to have in a democracy. Once that happens I'm certain that most others will follow and once they're gone people will wonder why it didn't happen sooner.

I'm Swedish and I don't mind our royal family in the sense that I think that they usually do a decent job in representing the country. Victoria seems like a sensible person and I'm sure she'll do an admirable job once she becomes queen, but it's more a matter of principle to me, why should that job exist in the first place?  There is no getting around the fact that it is strange for a country priding itself on equality that there is a child growing up here who is essentially being groomed to one day take on a mostly ceremonial role just because she happens to be the eldest child of the future monarch. 

Given that sometimes democracies elect really embarrassing leaders, and given that some democracies have periods during which they change governments faster than some people get new shoes, I think there is something to be said for some sort of “symbolic leader” that stays above politics and can represent the country consistently and with dignity.😉

On the other hand, a hereditary position is definitely undemocratic. Maybe the King or Queen  or National Ceremonial Premier of whatever we call it, could be chosen from among highly qualified diplomats in some way.

I read a novel once where the Queen is the winner of a footrace.  😉

 

[just_ordinary]

5 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Europe is going to have a lot of beautiful young reigning Queens  in about 20 years.. that Appeal of youth glamour and beauty Has always  and will always sell 

Or at least Crown Princesses. We probably will see beautiful weddings and cute babies first. This might carry monarchies for another century. And who knows what the future brings. Maybe even new ones might be established or old ones brought back.

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Given that sometimes democracies elect really embarrassing leaders, and given that some democracies have periods during which they change governments faster than some people get new shoes, I think there is something to be said for some sort of “symbolic leader” that stays above politics and can represent the country consistently and with dignity.😉

On the other hand, a hereditary position is definitely undemocratic. Maybe the King or Queen  or National Ceremonial Premier of whatever we call it, could be chosen from among highly qualified diplomats in some way.

I read a novel once where the Queen is the winner of a footrace.  😉

 

Agreed. Monarchies fill the head of state ceremonial functions, too. Prime Ministers (or their spouses) don't have to plan and host state dinners, officially greet foreign heads of state, engage in the soft diplomacy of visits and appearances for things like holidays and memorials (like Memorial Day in the U.S. or Remembrance Day in the UK). Government leaders govern and someone else does all that extra stuff. It's not the worst idea. Especially, as you pointed out, because not every elected leader is suited to carrying out all of those functions. 

[SoSoNosy]

When do they all have to start the dropping in on each other, leaving cards, having tea, offering slightly scandalously what they might have been doing at that surprise ending!  I have seen a couple of slightly risqué ones.

 

[EmCatlyn]

I forget where I got this, and I hope it doesn’t offend, but it does make clear how the royals are not like us.

[noseybutt]

15 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I forget where I got this, and I hope it doesn’t offend, but it does make clear how the royals are not like us.

Now you’ve got me imagining Charles hanging out…

Make. It. Stop.