Harry and Meghan 15

[viii]

https://people.com/royals/prince-george-princess-charlotte-prince-louis-join-coronation-carriage-ride-report/

They're going to participate in the processional. I imagine their parents will be in the carriage with them so antics should be kept to a minimum sadly.

I might be alone in this but it would be nice if H&M with their kids rode in a carriage behind the Wales. Gives them a chance to show off their kids without expecting too much from a 4 year old and 1 year old. 

[Loveday]

9 minutes ago, viii said:

https://people.com/royals/prince-george-princess-charlotte-prince-louis-join-coronation-carriage-ride-report/

They're going to participate in the processional. I imagine their parents will be in the carriage with them so antics should be kept to a minimum sadly.

I might be alone in this but it would be nice if H&M with their kids rode in a carriage behind the Wales. Gives them a chance to show off their kids without expecting too much from a 4 year old and 1 year old. 

I do find the phrase 'on public display' to be a bit off-putting. Typical media verbiage, though.

[viii]

It’s a bit accurate, though. The Wales family is very strategic about when they bring their children out for “public display”. There’s so much consideration when it comes to the Wales kids and I 100% feel like they are sometimes used as PR tools. 

[Coconut Flan]

Has the royal family ever had a one year old do even the carriage ride?  The balcony appearance is the only place I can remember the very little children appearing.  That's brief and the nanny is likely in the room behind them if things go terribly south.  

ETA:  I see the article says only senior working royals will be in the carriages so the age of the children won't matter at all if that's true.  

Edited March 18, 2023 by Coconut Flan

[Loveday]

9 minutes ago, viii said:

It’s a bit accurate, though. The Wales family is very strategic about when they bring their children out for “public display”. There’s so much consideration when it comes to the Wales kids and I 100% feel like they are sometimes used as PR tools. 

Oh, for sure. But the BRF has always 'used' its children that way, to a degree. Queen Victoria did, with early photographs and paintings, and royal children in earlier centuries were used even more blatantly in one way or another, in a dynastic way as much as in a PR way. I think a key part of the Wales strategy is to limit those 'displays,' keep them to the bare minimum necessary. Allow the public to catch a glimpse now and then as they grow (they are the direct heirs to the throne, after all, it's expected whether it's really right or not, and of course it's not) but keep them out of the papers and online sources as much as possible otherwise. The media tend to use the same few photos over and over again, from the same few events, when they write about them, so it gives the impression they're out in the public all the time, but they really aren't. It's all done very methodically and predictably at this point: 'birthday photo, Christmas card, walk to church Christmas morning, along with the odd sighting at a concert or Jubilee event.'  Well orchestrated, definitely, but not overdone, in my opinion. And while they're still in school I don't see that changing much, if at all, for the next ten to fifteen years.

[Gobsmacked]

On 3/14/2023 at 8:16 PM, 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. 

George and Charlotte will both attend. Louis is too young. 

[SoSoNosy]

They have already said that all three Wales children will ride in a carriage, so doesn't that mean they will be attending?

 

[just_ordinary]

Participating in the carriage ride is not the same as attending the coronation though. I doubt we will see Louis in Westminster. 

[VGL]

Charles was only present at his Mother's coronation for a few minutes to see her crowned.  He didn't attend the entire 3 hour ceremony.   I could see Louis attending in a similar manner.   He could be brought in towards the end of the ceremony and walk out with his parents and siblings and get into the carriage with them.

 

Louis's "role" in the coronation will most likely be to sit in the carriage and wave.  Charlotte's will likely be similar.  George might have a larger role, possibly carrying Will's coronet.

[Jackie3]

6 hours ago, VGL said:

Louis's "role" in the coronation will most likely be to sit in the carriage and wave.  Charlotte's will likely be similar.  George might have a larger role, possibly carrying Will's coronet.

I wonder if the coronet will be modified to reflect that Wills is a Gemini (it currently has diamonds arranged in Charles' sign, Scorpio). Who knew the royals cared about zodiac signs?

And according to Wikipedia, the "monde" in the center is a gold plated ping pong ball!

[SoSoNosy]

13 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Participating in the carriage ride is not the same as attending the coronation though. I doubt we will see Louis in Westminster. 

I hope not.  He's adorable, but just too young to sit still for that long.

[TN-peach]

I still love the interaction between Charles and Louis at the Jubilee.  Louis looked excited to sit on his grandfather's lap and Charles looked very comfortable with Louis on his lap.  They clearly have a good relationship. Hopefully, the family can explain to Louis how important this is to his grandfather and this is how you need to behave for the couple of hours of the ceremony. 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, TN-peach said:

I still love the interaction between Charles and Louis at the Jubilee.  Louis looked excited to sit on his grandfather's lap and Charles looked very comfortable with Louis on his lap.  They clearly have a good relationship. Hopefully, the family can explain to Louis how important this is to his grandfather and this is how you need to behave for the couple of hours of the ceremony. 

A little boy sat on his grandfather's lap for a few minutes. That's a whole lot you are reading into it. It's like a story you are making up. Could be true, could not be true.

When a child is overstimulated or overtired, it won't matter what he was told a few days earlier about "grandpa and his big day." In other words, I doubt they can count on a pre-game briefing. They'd be better off just limited Louis appearance to 30 minutes or so. The carriage ride will probably be plenty.

The RF needs Louis and his siblings to draw crowds and attract attention. Not many people will turn in to see any of the uninteresting old royals. So they need him to be funny, but they DON"T want him to have a tantrum or acting up. It's a fine line.

I can understand Louis acting like a child at the Jubilee--wiggling, pointing, moving around. But the way he acted towards his mother? Where'd he learn that? Somewhere he learned it was OK to be disrespectful to Kate.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

I would have the little ones attend so they won‘t feel left out but make sure that seating arrangements and nannies on standby would allow for a quick and discreet disappearance to a room with food & toys.

[viii]

They're left out of a lot of things and I personally don't see this being any different. After the Jubilee, I'd be very surprised if Louis attended more than the carriage ride. 

[prayawaythefundie]

Question: Archie and Lilibet received the titles p/p the minute the Queen died because they were then the grandchildren of the monarch in the male line. Will they lose those titles again when Charles dies and William becomes king (would be weird IMO) or are they p/p for life (makes more sense to me)?

[rosamundi]

27 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Question: Archie and Lilibet received the titles p/p the minute the Queen died because they were then the grandchildren of the monarch in the male line. Will they lose those titles again when Charles dies and William becomes king (would be weird IMO) or are they p/p for life (makes more sense to me)?

Unless King Charles, or later King William, issued new Letters Patent to remove the title, it's theirs for life.

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Question: Archie and Lilibet received the titles p/p the minute the Queen died because they were then the grandchildren of the monarch in the male line. Will they lose those titles again when Charles dies and William becomes king (would be weird IMO) or are they p/p for life (makes more sense to me)?

Have you ever heard of any royals losing their titles, barring misconduct or abdication? 

Why does this only come up with the biracial grandchildren?

No, those titles are theirs for life. 

I don't get the intense focus on the titles. Yes, it's nice they have them. But I'd rather the kids have good health, loving parents, a stable, stress-free home. I hope nothing takes THAT away from them.

The titles are nice, it's something they inherited, and it's compensation for the hassle of being a "royal" and dealing with the paparazzi all your life. But no one will be calling them Prince or Princess in California, so they don't really matter that much. Yet so much talk about whether these children (but not the Wales children) will get to keep them.

Sycophant Angela Levin said that Lillibet's classmates may be jealous of her being a "real" princess, so perhaps she shouldn't have her title for that reason.  She didn't show the same concern for Charlotte, oddly enough. Of course, it's not about race, though.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Jackie3

[CaseyGrace]

On 3/20/2023 at 5:49 PM, Jackie3 said:

Have you ever heard of any royals losing their titles, barring misconduct or abdication? 

Why does this only come up with the biracial grandchildren?

No, those titles are theirs for life. 

I don't get the intense focus on the titles. Yes, it's nice they have them. But I'd rather the kids have good health, loving parents, a stable, stress-free home. I hope nothing takes THAT away from them.

The titles are nice, it's something they inherited, and it's compensation for the hassle of being a "royal" and dealing with the paparazzi all your life. But no one will be calling them Prince or Princess in California, so they don't really matter that much. Yet so much talk about whether these children (but not the Wales children) will get to keep them.

Sycophant Angela Levin said that Lillibet's classmates may be jealous of her being a "real" princess, so perhaps she shouldn't have her title for that reason.  She didn't show the same concern for Charlotte, oddly enough. Of course, it's not about race, though.

To be fair, I think o.p is asking this because once william becomes king, they will no longer be grandchildren of the monarch, the same concern i think has been voiced concerning beatrice and eugenie now the elizabeth II has passed. 

i cant imagine harry and meghan will be invited or want to come after the very pointed accusations he made about camilla. specifically accusing her of feeding negative stories about him and his brother to the press. shes queen now and it would look weird if someone who openly talked smack about the queen was just chilling at the coronation. idk though. 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, CaseyGrace said:

i cant imagine harry and meghan will be invited or want to come after the very pointed accusations he made about camilla. specifically accusing her of feeding negative stories about him and his brother to the press. shes queen now and it would look weird if someone who openly talked smack about the queen was just chilling at the coronation. idk though. 

They were invited. They haven't decided if they are going. 

Lots of people feel the RF feeds stories to the press. Plenty of evidence to support that--Camilla's friendly with many of the tabloid writers, like Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan. She just enteretained them at a party recently. Perhps you just don't like the idea of challenging a "queen"? Doesn't really matter if it's true or not, you just shouldn't challenging Camilla? 

 

[just_ordinary]

I don’t think H ever said Camilla fed negative stories to the press. Rather that it was necessary to build up her public role because she was met with so much hate, vilification and contempt for decades. She might have build a network of reporters to write fluffy pieces about her, but that is different than giving them actively shit on someone else. To make her relationship work it was absolutely necessary to create a positive spin on her. Therefore H’s wrongdoings weren’t covered up. He brought himself into the line of fire and they let him burn to deflect. I will say, that neither he or W got really bad press though. Nothing compared to the criticism W&K got from 2012-2015/16 (and it was BAD, as they basically were deemed utterly unfit for the job, destroying the family and the monarchy, all while H was the good one, better option to be king mind you) and then H&M. 
H problem is that for the institution there was always someone more important. Be it a monarch/future King or future Queen. It’s not nice but it’s absolutely rational. And on top of it, HMTQ seems to have intervened for her, unimportant, son (PA) but not for him. Because to the institution, H and A are both inconsequential. That’s why I never got why he is driving his great relationship with her so hard. I would argue, if anyone let him out to dry in the last ten years it was her. She called the shots who got extra PR polish aside from being heir and spouse to the throne. And she seemingly didn’t think him worth it.

[Jackie3]

On 3/24/2023 at 8:08 AM, just_ordinary said:

H problem is that for the institution there was always someone more important. Be it a monarch/future King or future Queen. It’s not nice but it’s absolutely rational.

H would never want to be king. The fact that Wills is "more important" is probably a relief. Have you seen any signs that H wants the pomp and circumstance, and all the rules, with come with being king?

OTOH, most kids don't like it when one kid is favored over another. To the extent that happened, that was just poor parenting on Charles's part.

Harry would have stayed if the press had left his wife and kids alone. They would not.

I'd leave too, if someone called my son a chimp! Only a true racist could say they should just ignore that.

Who knows what Archie would have suffered if that family had stayed in Britain. It's funny, though, that simply NOT wanting to be a royal creates such incandescent rage in Britain. Funny how there's a need to twist it around, "He would have stayed if he was a more important royal." If the press continued to abuse his biracial wife, being the heir wouldn't fixed it.  Leaving would be the only way to fix it.

Finally, even if he left because he was unhappy with his "spare status"--so what? Wouldn't leaving be the smart thing to do, in that case?

It's weird that. making a healthy choice ("I'm unhappy here so I'll go there) would cause so much anger. What's interesting is the need to pathologize him, simply for making a healthy choice and speaking about it. 

 

The racist journalists are coming for 3-year old Archie.

Robert Jobson, the king's biographer, is joking about holding the little boy "over the balcony." And the three other journalists are laughing hysterically as he holds his hands up to demonstrate.

Nothing like that has ever been said about other royal children, who are treated respectfully, even adoringly.

I can certainly see why Harry and Meghan felt they had to go! Their little boy is being targeted even before he has arrived inthe UK. It's dangerous business, to be a biracial royal, even when you are a toddler.

As a mother, I find this sickening. Joking about a small innocent child crosses a new line.

 

 

 

 

Then there was this from the Telegraph when Lilli was born.  Notice the way she calls the baby "it."

Nothing like this was written about the Wales kids. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with race.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

The Palace is silent about Robert Jobson's comment about hanging 3-year old Archie over the balcony. Jobson has close ties with the palace, of course.

 

 

He must feel pretty supported by the Palace to make such a joke. The other man laughing at the toddler is Arthur Edwards of The Sun He's close friends with Camilla. Here they are dancing together.

How ugly that a bunch of Palace insiders are sitting around laughing about harming a little boy. What would Archie feel if he knew about it? It's a good thing he is safe in the US. These people don't seem to realize he is an innocent, trusting child.

 

[TN-peach]

Harry is back in town for Court

 

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-arrives-at-high-court-for-phone-tapping-and-privacy-case-12843423

 

It annoys me that he can come back to the UK for court but not to see his dying grandparents.

[viii]

1 hour ago, TN-peach said:

It annoys me that he can come back to the UK for court but not to see his dying grandparents.

I'm on the fence about it. Queen Elizabeth went pretty quickly, so I think he gets a pass for that one. He came as soon as he could for her, but none of the grandchildren and half her children didn't make it. 

As for Prince Philip... grief and loss is hard and everyone has a different journey. Some people want to remember their loved one how they were before and don't want to see them in the hospital. Is it selfish? Perhaps, but it's also not our place to judge. When my aunt was dying, her daughter didn't go to the hospital because she didn't want that to be the last memory of her mom. Would I have made a different decision? Absolutely, but that's me and my cousin is herself and that's what she chose. 

At the end of the day, Harry is the one who has to live with his decisions, and if he's at peace with what he's decided, then that's on him and not us.