Harry and Meghan 15

[TN-peach]

I personally can't believe that they choose to use the Prince and Princess titles for their children.  Other than Charles, Andrew is the only one to have his children to use the titles.  Anne and Edward declined the titles of Prince and Princess for their children.  For a couple that said titles aren't important to them, there actions definitely speak louder than words.

[rosamundi]

19 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Just out of curiosity , is $18 for a salad supposed to be expensive or cheap? Because that’s about the average cost of a big lunch /entree type salad where I am ( also California ) , at an average sit-down restaurant. 

It's about £15. If I paid that for a main course salad in central London, sitting down in a restaurant, I'd think it was pretty reasonable. This is from a restaurant which is round the corner from the Daily Mail's offices:

The Daily Fail never pass up an opportunity to make the most ridiculous criticisms of Meghan, but "she paid fifteen quid for a salad!" is a bit of a stretch, even for them.

[SoSoNosy]

I just did a fast run through the menus that would give me prices, and $18 is fairly reasonable for a "specialty salad", some are more (depending on what protein you might want to add), some a little less maybe.  Of course, this is in the Southern US, where COA isn't terribly high.

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, TN-peach said:

I personally can't believe that they choose to use the Prince and Princess titles for their children.  Other than Charles, Andrew is the only one to have his children to use the titles.  Anne and Edward declined the titles of Prince and Princess for their children.  For a couple that said titles aren't important to them, there actions definitely speak louder than words.

Yes, ti is impossible to understand.

First they wouldn't sit and tolerate abuse.

Now, they refuse to throw away the one thing they got from the institution--titles, which can be marketed for the cash the family will  need to pay for lifetime security. Which they need because. . . Titles.

Besides, these particular titles belong to their kids. I don't throw away things belonging to my kids, even if I don't like the source.

[klein_roeschen]

9 hours ago, TN-peach said:

I personally can't believe that they choose to use the Prince and Princess titles for their children.  Other than Charles, Andrew is the only one to have his children to use the titles.  Anne and Edward declined the titles of Prince and Princess for their children.  For a couple that said titles aren't important to them, there actions definitely speak louder than words.

It's a little bit different. Per the Latters Patent, the children of the sons of the ruling monarch get the Prince/ Princess title automatically. Anne as a woman married out of the family and her children maybe titles come after what their father is titled. Edward children are technically p/p, but he and Sophie choose not to use these titles. The same with Andrew and his daughters. And now that the grandpa of Archie and Lillibet is king, they get the title p/p because grandchildren in the male line of the ruling monarch. But Harry kicked up a fuss before his grandmother died to get these titles granded on his children during her lifetime. She did that with the younger kids of William and Kate, because only George got the title automatically because of line of succession. But they don't care about titles and such, whatever sure Jan.

And now reading that up after typing it, the whole title business is silly. All these rules about who gets what tilte when or when eligible for. Such a bloated bullshit.

[Ozlsn]

On 3/10/2023 at 5:54 AM, noseybutt said:

Some thread titles are missed. The last one was *chef’s kiss.*

Every time I read "Reverse Harry" my brain filled in the "(not a sex move)" part of the tweet and I giggled. So sad it's moved on!

3 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

And now reading that up after typing it, the whole title business is silly. All these rules about who gets what tilte when or when eligible for. Such a bloated bullshit.

Interesting in a historical context but seriously outdated now. Unfortunately I think @just_ordinaryis right and day to day politics will always be more "important" than actually looking at the monarchy and what if any role it should continue to play in the modern UK.  Unless of course things get substantially worse, in which case it could rise up the agenda rapidly.

[samurai_sarah]

10 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

Anne as a woman married out of the family and her children maybe titles come after what their father is titled.

The way I recall it is that the Queen offered courtesy titles to Anne's children, but Anne declined, so her children could live more normal lives. Her daughter features a bit in the tabloids, what with her being an Olympic equestrian and her husband being a former England rugby player. The latter also participated in a reality tv show, so he gets coverage for that.

Anne's son, on the other hand gets little to no coverage at all.

[just_ordinary]

@samurai_sarah I recall that she offered an earldom to Mark Philips so the children were eligible for a title but the offer was declined. If there was another offer of curtsy titles - I don’t know. The whole story not quite clear, or rather I haven searched extensively and the snippets I found seem a bit unreliable.

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

@samurai_sarah I recall that she offered an earldom to Mark Philips so the children were eligible for a title but the offer was declined. If there was another offer of curtsy titles - I don’t know. The whole story not quite clear, or rather I haven searched extensively and the snippets I found seem a bit unreliable.

I'd decline too, unless money, land or security came with the titles.

Otherwise, why would you want them? So other people will be impressed when you are called "Earl"?  

 

Does anyone want to guess whether Harry/Meghan/the kids will go to the coronation?

I'm saying they won't, though of course I could be wrong.

The haters will hate them no matter what they do, so why not spend the time in sunny Montecito? 

Can you imagine the slurs and laughter about where they sit, what they wear, what they get to do or don't do? Why would anyone put themselves through that?

I'm also puzzled about the rumors that the kids "aren't invited" because of their age. That's a bit of a puzzle, since Louis is probably going and Archie is exactly one year younger. Is it thought that 4 year olds can't sit through a coronation, but 5 year olds can? That's a bit of a stretch, especially given Louis' track record for sitting still (he was adorable, but he was NOT sitting still).

My theory is that the optics would be far too sympathic for Harry if he came with his children. It's hard to hate on a man holding his toddler daughter on his lap. It's hard to hate on a woman holding an overtired little boy in her arms. The Palace wants H&M to continue to be the bad guys. It's harder to keep that narrative going if they present as a family of four with two little kids.

I suppose the palace also might be worried that Archie is a quiet little boy who can sit perfectly well for the coronation. That would make the Cambridges look bad.

Imagine Louis--who's familiar with royal displays--climbing all over the back of his seat or shushing his mom.  While Archie -- totally new to palace rituals-- is staring fascinated at everything. Archie will come across as the "better behaved" child, which not what the palace wants at all. Especially as Louis' mom is an "expert" on the early years.

[viii]

I think Harry and Meghan will go. I think they'll bring their children but they won't attend the actual coronation. 

Nor do I think Louis will. I think George will be the only one to attend, maaaaybe Charlotte. 

[Loveday]

8 minutes ago, viii said:

I think Harry and Meghan will go. I think they'll bring their children but they won't attend the actual coronation. 

Nor do I think Louis will. I think George will be the only one to attend, maaaaybe Charlotte. 

I would be surprised to see Louis there, but also very surprised if Charlotte isn't there. Prince Charles attended his mother's coronation, which lasted much longer than this one is planned to be, and by all accounts he did very well. He was only four. Charlotte will have just turned eight at the time of Charles's coronation, and as we've seen from previous big occasions, she behaves beautifully at these things. I can't imagine her not attending. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, from my own long-ago experience as an eight year old, she's probably quite excited about it! 😃

[tabitha2]

This all part of Charlottes Royal education. Like before She will be there  behaving impeccably in an adorable dress for us to squee over  

[prayawaythefundie]

Those troll phantasies about Archie behaving like little Lord Fauntleroy! Brilliant! 
 

Bringing Archie and Lilibet to the coronation would fit the narrative of giving them a normal life and guarding their privacy about as much as having them appear on Netflix. Oops.

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[viii]

33 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

This all part of Charlottes Royal education. Like before She will be there  behaving impeccably in an adorable dress for us to squee over  

Charlotte doesn't really need a royal education, unless they want to run into similar problems they have in the past with spares, ie Andrew, ie Harry. I'm hoping with Charlotte and Louis they make some very different decisions and make it very clear to them what kind of futures they have. 

[tabitha2]

Ok but they do actually need a certain amount senior royals working full time to make a monarchy  Even if it’s just the monarch, their spouse and the offspring     
 

It does not have to be every cousin and great child on the balcony and payroll but it can’t be just the King, Queen  and Prince George either handling everything all time 

[noseybutt]

43 minutes ago, viii said:

Charlotte doesn't really need a royal education, unless they want to run into similar problems they have in the past with spares, ie Andrew, ie Harry. I'm hoping with Charlotte and Louis they make some very different decisions and make it very clear to them what kind of futures they have. 

These Royals don't strike me as particularly self-aware and insightful and willing to change much.

But it's also cruel to say to an 8 year old: Your old brother is front and center because this is his future but you need to stay home in order to "learn your place."

 

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

This all part of Charlottes Royal education. Like before She will be there  behaving impeccably in an adorable dress for us to squee over  

What is a Royal Education? From what I can tell, here's what she does:

1. Wears an adorable dress, chosen by mom.

2. Stands silently by mom or dad

3. Says hello when prompted.

4. Shakes hands when prompted.

5. Watch whatever royal proceeding is going on.

You don't need a Royal Education for that. I know many 7 year olds who can do these things. You could bring in a 7-year old from the US, give them the above instructions, and they'd probably do fine. It doesn't take 18 years to learn these skills.

I am sure she will be there. She's an important part of the plan to make the RF relevant. When the family is on the balcony, they are not looking at Camilla's wrinkly old face or Edward's shiny medals. They are looking at the children. They'd draw far fewer crowds if there were no children on the balcony.

 

 

3 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Those troll phantasies about Archie behaving like little Lord Fauntleroy! Brilliant! 

Have you read Little Lord Fauntleroy? Your analogy doesn't apply. Fauntleroy wasn't royal. He wasn't required to sit still for long royal events.. He was older than the two little boys in question.

Read the book (it's a good one)!

In any event, there are active boys and quiet ones. I have no problem with either kind. I DO have a problem with inviting the white one to your coronation and excluding the mixed race one.  

 

4 hours ago, Loveday said:

I can't imagine her not attending. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, from my own long-ago experience as an eight year old, she's probably quite excited about it! 😃

I'm sure she will attend too. The RF needs her. She goes to plenty of royal events, but I'm sure she's still excited if the grownups around her are excited.

[tabitha2]

She will be Princess Royal time in time but more importantly if something were to happen to her brother before he has an heir or he just never has a child she will be Queen. This is her reality and she is being brought up like that. 

[viii]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

It does not have to be every cousin and great child on the balcony and payroll but it can’t be just the King, Queen  and Prince George either handling everything all time 

I disagree. I think there's nothing wrong with slimming the working royals down to the current monarch and the next in line. Clearly they struggle too much with the "in-between" and it's better for everybody involved to eliminate it altogether. 

[tabitha2]

They still have to be and people want them to patrons of various causes, charities, organizations Etc and They still have to attend various events overseas. They still have to travel about the country on occasion. A well over middle aged W&K and George who might well have his own small children and spouse to want to spend time with won’t be able to do to everything  everywhere all at once.  Charlotte at the very least will be needed till G’s kids are of age. 
 

Also Too few working adult working Royals is going to make people really reconsider why  they want a monarchy in the first place if the Royals can’t put out what the public expect of them and keep up respectable “work” loads   

[viii]

There are plenty of organizations that have royal patrons who aren't actual working royals. The Queen's cousins, Eugenie and Beatrice.... etc. You can still have a royal patron without them being a working royal.

Perhaps Charlotte and Louis will be working royals when they're older, but I hope not. They just can't seem to strike the right balance when it comes to dealing with their spares. 

For all we know, by the time George has children, there won't even be a monarchy. 

[Jackie3]

"Do you think the White grandchildren should be given the royal titles prince and princess?"

That's a poll you never see.

 

 

13 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

She will be Princess Royal time in time but more importantly if something were to happen to her brother before he has an heir or he just never has a child she will be Queen. This is her reality and she is being brought up like that. 

I thought she was having a "normal childhood."

Do you mean that  sitting at royal events is a "Royal Education"? Because I just see her standing there, not doing anything special. Looking rather apprehensive, usually. What is educational about that?  I mean, couldn't anyone do what she is doing?

The poor kid. I hope she never becomes Queen. What a lonely life it would be. It's said, that QE spent most of her time alone. I feel badly enough for George (who never looks happy at these official functions). 

Luckily, if she did become Queen, she'd be a middle-aged woman or an old woman when it happened. William could live another 50 years.

If she succeeded her childless brother, she might be in her 80's when she became Queen.

It's likely to be a different world in 70-odd years, I doubt any of her current "education" will be relevant in the year 2100. 

 

[CaseyGrace]

On 3/9/2023 at 5:11 PM, Jackie3 said:

I agree! The titles are pretty useless! They are especially meaningless in the US

However, these titles were their birthright and I hate to see anyone denied their birthright, useless or nnot. Particularly biracial little children who are inadvertently part of a very racist institution.

 

didn't you just jump down someones throat for claiming that their titles were meaningless in America in the last thread?

[just_ordinary]

They absolutely don’t need as many working royals. Spain has three at the moment. Not sure though if Queen Sofia even is recognised as full time working royal since the abdication.

Many organisations will have to live without a royal patron in the future. 
Charlotte and Louis might be working royals- their children most definitely won’t be. Their role will probably be scaled back a lot if they actually do choose to work for the firm.

A smaller set of working royals will obviously change how many engagements and patronages they can cover. There is no point in using the current work set up as a model for the future.

I don’t see a problem with Charlotte attending the coronation. Nor Louis, Archie or Lili- but with them it’s a question if they are able to go through it with impeccable behaviour. It’s not just a cute family occasion but a state act of some sort. It’s fine to have an age cut off and that for Louis it’s still undecided. 
 

I am pretty annoyed by the useless Princess Royal title. It’s only use would be to elevate her to the Yorks and Lili. Which she is already. And by the time it becomes available I don’t think it’s necessary. I have no problems with handing out royal dukedoms upon marriage but without being inheritable(!). Give her one of those. My personal wish would be Charlotte as Duke of Windsor. 

I don’t see York or Edinburg being available for Louis but maybe they can revive another one.

I sure hope they change the P/P rules. So the children to the monarch and first in line get it, but not grandchildren.

Edited March 15, 2023 by just_ordinary

[Jackie3]

10 hours ago, CaseyGrace said:

didn't you just jump down someones throat for claiming that their titles were meaningless in America in the last thread?

?? I don''t recall that. Link? I have always felt the titles were meaningless. Maybe you misunderstood?

They are meaningless in a social sense (a "prince" is no better than you or I). OTOH, because they mean so much to many people, they can easily be monetized. Look at what Harry and Meghan did! 

Lilli and Archie may possibly need lifetime security (people are already starting to hate on them), and the titles can be monetized in many different ways.

On top of that the titles don't even belong to Meghan and Harry. They belong to Archie and Lilli. So it's not theirs to give away.

 

15 hours ago, viii said:

Charlotte doesn't really need a royal education, unless they want to run into similar problems they have in the past with spares, ie Andrew, ie Harry. I'm hoping with Charlotte and Louis they make some very different decisions and make it very clear to them what kind of futures they have. 

You mean Harry had a royal education? What did it consist of? I thought he just went to school and on vacation like his brother.

You are concerned that if Charlotte is trained like Harry, and then she marries a POC, she'll be likely to resent tabloid abuse? 

Harry left the UK because people were abusing his wife and son. He's said that many times. How you are "trained" doesn't affect that.