Harry & Meghan 13: Doing the Dance of Deniability

[tabitha2]

Correction: when the Royal work was fun and cool and attention getting he was all for it. So was she.  When is was boring or unglamorous or without press which is the majority of the time or they were going to be sent to places they did not choose to go  they balked 

Visiting a  British care home or rural farm doesn’t have same photog appeal  as visiting Africa   

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, viii said:

Yeah, I don’t think anyone is disappointed. Harry clearly doesn’t enjoy work as a royal so sounds like him not returning is the best option for everyone involved. The media can still talk about him whether he’s working or not so I doubt they care either. 

True, but the media will have much less to report about. 

If Meghan was visiting a Yorkshire school, there'd be tons of things to criticize: her dress ,her manner, the avocado she had for lunch, the way she smiled, etc.

Meghan spending the day in her garden in Montecito, or recording her podcast. . . . nothing to report. No one even knows 

[prayawaythefundie]

6 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I'd thought he could not marry Camilla or any other divorced woman, due to the fact that as King he'd be head of Church of England. Then something changed and he could.

I was around in the 80s,  and I remember there was a lot of talk about how important it was for him to marry a virgin. So there wouldn't be any boyfriends coming out of the woodwork to make trouble.

Though that never made any sense to me. If anything, it was important for Charles to be a virgin so there wouldn't be the chance of any illegitimate children coming up and claiming ties to the royal family. While it wouldn't have mattered if Diana had had a child before marriage since that child would not be royal.

He could have given everything up for her, I suppose, but he didn't love her enough for that.

I’m not a certified expert TM but can maybe clear up some facts:

- When Charles first had the chance to marry Camilla, she wasn‘t married or divorced. But she was what they used to call „experienced“.

- They are not married in the church of England but have a civil marriage. I once read it‘s not (only) about them being divorced but (also) about them being adulterers.

- Illegimate offspring historically is not a problem for the male because you always know them to be illegitimate. A woman could theoretically already be pregnant by someone else and not tell. If that child (boy) would then be born into a royal family, he could falsly be accepted to be an heir. Plus, as long as it‘s the biological child of the birth royal, the blood line won‘t be broken. (Yes, the concept and the language are sickening.) This is also the reason why a (married in) queen‘s infidelity was considered high treason while a king’s infidelity was considered to be a given.

We talked about this more generally at university: Anthropologists consider the biologically caused asymmetry of knowing a child is yours (motherhod is always clear to see, fatherhood isn‘t) to be the root of all constructs and customs to control female sexuality, including virginity. Basically, men are afraid like shit to have to support a child that isn‘t theirs biologically. I loved that class. Always so enlightening. 😄

Edited January 4, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[noseybutt]

This is a family that expertly treats each other horribly. I can’t imagine publicly discussing—much less dissing—close family members to the press.

But, IDK, given the range of bad behavior and bad traditions repeated by this institution which is really just the people within the family…I’m not too worked upped over Harry moaning to Oprah or anyone else for that matter.

Let him moan. He’s not exactly hurting the masses. More like he’s playing tit for tat in a game that can’t end well.

it’s a live by the sword, die by the sword kind of scenario. 

Also, my laughter at @prayawaythefundie’s post is about the comment RE the enlightening class. The description of ridiculousness around maternity and paternity seems spot on. Maybe the endless PDA and “greatest love story ever” schtick between H&M  is a modern version of the same insecurities?

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

- Illegimate offspring historically is not a problem for the male because you always know them to be illegitimate. A woman could theoretically already be pregnant by someone else and not tell. If that child (boy) would then be born into a royal family, he could falsly be accepted to be an heir. Plus, as long as it‘s the biological child of the birth royal, the blood line won‘t be broken. (Yes, the concept and the language are sickening.) This is also the reason why a (married in) queen‘s infidelity was considered high treason while a king’s infidelity was considered to be a given.

 

Thank you for the explanation. Very interesting! 

Why not just give the prospective bridge a pregnancy test? It could be done the night before the wedding, if necessary. Then Charles wouldn't have had to limit his search to virgins.

It's interesting that this concern about blood line hasn't continued to the present day. Kate Middleton was far more experienced than Diana (which is fine) but no one seemed at all concerned about her purity status or possible pregnancy. While I believe she mostly dated William, there were times when they broke up. It also interested me that no one cared that they lived together. The whole virgin requirement ended with Diana in the 80s.

[KnittingOwl]

5 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Anthropologists consider the biologically caused asymmetry of knowing a child is yours (motherhod is always clear to see, fatherhood isn‘t) to be the root of all constructs and customs to control female sexuality, including virginity. Basically, men are afraid like shit to have to support a child that isn‘t theirs biologically. I loved that class. Always so enlightening. 😄

There’s discussion about it being an evolutionary advantage for babies to look like their fathers. It makes it more likely for the father to accept the baby and protect it. Thus, baby is more likely to survive and have their own offspring (pass on genetic material). Or, as my older daughter’s pediatrician jokingly said when she was a few weeks old, “that’s so daddy doesn’t eat you.” He was great. 

[prayawaythefundie]

9 minutes ago, KnittingOwl said:

There’s discussion about it being an evolutionary advantage for babies to look like their fathers. It makes it more likely for the father to accept the baby and protect it. Thus, baby is more likely to survive and have their own offspring (pass on genetic material). Or, as my older daughter’s pediatrician jokingly said when she was a few weeks old, “that’s so daddy doesn’t eat you.” He was great. 

Yup, they also told us that, statistically, the mother‘s family is mentioning baby looking like daddy significantly more often across all cultures and with that also makes it more likely for the dad to accept the baby and for the baby to survive.
Since the baby does always share DNA with mom’s side of the family (again there usually is no doubt about motherhood), they increase their own indirect reproductive fitness by this. I love human evolutionary biology so much, my pupils sometimes roll their eyes about it. 😅

Edited January 4, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[prayawaythefundie]

7 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Thank you for the explanation. Very interesting! 

Why not just give the prospective bridge a pregnancy test? It could be done the night before the wedding, if necessary. Then Charles wouldn't have had to limit his search to virgins.

It's interesting that this concern about blood line hasn't continued to the present day. Kate Middleton was far more experienced than Diana (which is fine) but no one seemed at all concerned about her purity status or possible pregnancy. While I believe she mostly dated William, there were times when they broke up. It also interested me that no one cared that they lived together. The whole virgin requirement ended with Diana in the 80s.

Yeah, that‘s why I said „historically“…

Even in Diana‘s days it was more of a relic than a „need“ to make sure the heir would be legitimate.

Nowadays you could also just have a DNA test for dad and baby when in doubt. Don‘t think there would be any need to with the Wales children though. George looks very Spencer and Charlotte is the spitting image of William. Louis looks Middleton the most of the three but still resembles William.

Edited January 4, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[Four is Enough]

On 1/3/2023 at 9:37 AM, viii said:

You’re a fool if you don’t think William was partying and doing drugs right beside him. It is well known that William’s partying behaviour was always cleaned up the palace, because he is the heir. There is a looooooong history and it’s easy to see why Harry is bitter. 

Harry shouldn't be bitter. Every family has a favored child, and William is it, for crying out loud.  Harry should have realized that a long time ago, if he wanted to have any mental health whatsoever.  Acting out (see Nazi uniform, above) was solely to get attention then. He's still acting out as a petulant child would, solely to get attention. If it weren't for attention, he'd stop changing the narrative.

[tabitha2]

I feel Diana’s favorite child was Harry and she  cosseted and spoiled him trying to make up for the fact William was the Windsor special prerogative as all Direct heirs are. However She never tried or wanted to or never got the chance take your pick to make him realize he would never be equal to his brother in the Royal pecking order and set his expectations to realistic and here we are. 

[Alisamer]

17 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I'd thought he could not marry Camilla or any other divorced woman, due to the fact that as King he'd be head of Church of England. Then something changed and he could.

I was around in the 80s,  and I remember there was a lot of talk about how important it was for him to marry a virgin. So there wouldn't be any boyfriends coming out of the woodwork to make trouble.

Though that never made any sense to me. If anything, it was important for Charles to be a virgin so there wouldn't be the chance of any illegitimate children coming up and claiming ties to the royal family. While it wouldn't have mattered if Diana had had a child before marriage since that child would not be royal.

He could have given everything up for her, I suppose, but he didn't love her enough for that.

I suspect that has a LOT to do with Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson. That shook up Elizabeth's life like nothing else could and I'm sure he knew the very thought of something similar happening with Charles would have made the Queen apoplectic. Less a concern now, but in the early 80s it still would have been on the minds of the senior royals. Without that history it's possible he could have waited and married Camilla perhaps, the rules on divorce could have been modified earlier maybe (ignoring the fact that they would just have been minor royals as Elizabeth wouldn't have inherited necessarily if that hadn't happened). But as it was even in the 80s the name Wallis Simpson was likely to come up whenever he and Camilla were mentioned in the same sentence. 

[noseybutt]

37 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

I feel Diana’s favorite child was Harry and she  cosseted and spoiled him trying to make up for the fact William was the Windsor special prerogative as all Direct heirs are. However She never tried or wanted to or never got the chance take your pick to make him realize he would never be equal to his brother in the Royal pecking order and set his expectations to realistic and here we are. 

So we are to blame a loving mother and not a messed up system? Okey dokey.

[AmazonGrace]

I am not sure that Harry is any worse off than any of the rest of us who also will never be the king.

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, Four is Enough said:

Harry shouldn't be bitter. Every family has a favored child, and William is it, for crying out loud.  Harry should have realized that a long time ago, if he wanted to have any mental health whatsoever.  Acting out (see Nazi uniform, above) was solely to get attention then. He's still acting out as a petulant child would, solely to get attention. If it weren't for attention, he'd stop changing the narrative.

I get a front row seat to all kinds of family dysfunction because of my job and no, that is not a universal experience. Children often perceive it that way but parental emotions and attachments are rarely that clear cut. They often prefer or feel closer to a given child at a given moment, but then circumstances change. And on it goes.

[viii]

1 hour ago, Four is Enough said:

Harry shouldn't be bitter. Every family has a favored child, and William is it, for crying out loud.  

Even if that is true… THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT OKAY.

Good god. 

[prayawaythefundie]

I don‘t think Diana played favourites with the boys but she did probably feel she had to look after Harry a bit more. Didn‘t she even once say something to that effect? But that is so not the cause for Harry‘s trouble.

[noseybutt]

19 minutes ago, viii said:

Even if that is true… THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT OKAY.

Good god. 

This is a truly bizarre corner of FJ.  If you were to substitute "church" for "institution" or "monarchy," the response would be oh so different.

Mother put the needs of the church over her children. Or, so much worse, she put the needs of her children over the church.

The press persecutes all women marrying into the church, so the new wife needs to suck it up and get on with it. Blessed are the persecuted.

Once you leave a church, you should get on with your life and not talk about it publicly. Because your family members are still in the church and it might hurt the church's reputation.

The church paid a former employee to go away but the former employee is not quite sticking to the "rules." 

 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

I am not sure that Harry is any worse off than any of the rest of us who also will never be the king.

He’s a lot netter off than most of us, financially. 
 

He’s a lot better off than the Cambridges, because his day is his own. 
 

He doesn’t show any sign of wanting to be followed by the Daily Mail each day. Or getting any other media attention, except on his own terms. Which is what everyone wants, really.
 

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Even in Diana‘s days it was more of a relic than a „need“ to make sure the heir would be legitimate.

 

It was all over the papers at the time. Even Diana's uncle vouched for her purity, saying:

Quote

“Purity seems to be at a premium when it comes to discussing a possible bride for Prince Charles at the moment . . . Diana, I can assure you, has never had a lover.

I have to wonder how many days in the previous year Uncle Fermoy had even spoken to Diana. How could he possibly know such a thing?

Edited January 4, 2023 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, prayawaythefundie said:

I don‘t think Diana played favourites with the boys but she did probably feel she had to look after Harry a bit more. Didn‘t she even once say something to that effect? But that is so not the cause for Harry‘s trouble.

None of us can know. I do remember that video of Diana greeting the boys after a trip away. She rushed right for William and hugged him for quite a bit, then turned to Harry. So who knows? That was a moment in their lives.

[AmazonGrace]

59 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

He’s a lot netter off than most of us, financially. 
 

He’s a lot better off than the Cambridges, because his day is his own. 
 

He doesn’t show any sign of wanting to be followed by the Daily Mail each day. Or getting any other media attention, except on his own terms. Which is what everyone wants, really.
 

If he doesn't want media attention he's going about it very oddly.

[Jackie3]

5 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

If he doesn't want media attention he's going about it very oddly.

He wants it on his terms. Don't we all?

In other words, for whatever reason, he doesn't want his wife bullied in the media. 

He does want to tell the story of what he experienced, and he's doing so, despite the fact that many wish he'd continue to protect the royals with silence.

Good for him! If someone had called my child a chimp, I'd be out of there, too.

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, noseybutt said:

I get a front row seat to all kinds of family dysfunction because of my job and no, that is not a universal experience. Children often perceive it that way but parental emotions and attachments are rarely that clear cut. They often prefer or feel closer to a given child at a given moment, but then circumstances change. And on it goes.

I don't think Harry is worrying about who his dead mother loved better back in 1991. 

I think he'd just like his mother to be alive.

I also think he is absolutely delighted to be the spare and not the heir. I suspect he'd abdicate if he had to be the heir.

[prayawaythefundie]

3 hours ago, noseybutt said:

Once you leave a church, you should get on with your life and not talk about it publicly. Because your family members are still in the church and it might hurt the church's reputation.

Not sure it has been argued that H&M have an obligation to protect the institution‘s reputation. For me, it‘s more like

a) they are repeating themselves, yet can‘t even stick to their own story and

b) they can‘t be surprised about the damage it does to their family relationships with the way they go about it and

c) it doesn‘t match their claim of just wanting privacy.

2 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

It was all over the papers at the time. Even Diana's uncle vouched for her purity, saying:

I have to wonder how many days in the previous year Uncle Fermoy had even spoken to Diana. How could he possibly know such a thing?

Whether he knew it for a fact or not, it‘s disgusting to be advertising his niece like that either way. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

6 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Not sure it has been argued that H&M have an obligation to protect the institution‘s reputation. For me, it‘s more like

a) they are repeating themselves, yet can‘t even stick to their own story and

b) they can‘t be surprised about the damage it does to their family relationships with the way they go about it and

c) it doesn‘t match their claim of just wanting privacy.

1. The media repeats itself with it's bullying of Meghan. Far more often, actually.

2.Even if they are repeating themselves, so what? Don't listen.

3. Speaking up isn't what damages family relationships. Abusive behavior does.

4. Now I could be wrong about this. . . but I believe they wanted to live life as private citizens. Plenty of private citizens appear on TV and write books. Did they actually say, I want privacy? IF so, please post the link.

5. In any event, people are allowed to change their mind. Perhaps they got their freedom from the abusive British media, and then felt the need to tell the story of what happened. Sharing that story is healthy (well, it's not healthy for the Palace, but so what?)