Harry and Meghan 15

[Loveday]

19 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

I find statements like this confusing since the pageantry around the coronation is designed for peak drama.

Positive drama. The pageantry, pomp, and glory are all positive drama. Harry's presence will cause the press to dwell on the negative drama surrounding him and Meghan. Which of course Harry will feed on and encourage, as that seems to be what he and Meghan do best these days.

I'm sure it's far too much to hope that Harry's presence will be noted in the same way as Beatrice and Eugenie's, Lady Sarah Chatto, any of the European royals who will be attending, or the Earl of This or the Duke of Thing, and then just sort of ignored in the excitement of the coronation proceedings. No, I feel fairly sure he'll be featured and commented upon constantly from start to finish, at least by all the major networks covering the event. 

[viii]

8 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

As for creating drama, which the press loves & needs, Harry is doing that himself again with his latest allegations in court. For someone claiming to hate the media, he‘s handing them quite a bit of fodder. 

Much like a lot of us, Harry is his own worst enemy. 

[noseybutt]

But see…No. Much of the post colonial world does not see the “pageantry, pomp, and glory” as positive. At all. It’s more like…Oh, so you guys are back to living those mythological good old days and if we could have our plundered jewels back, that’d be a start.

But if your are talking interpersonal drama, Andrew will be there.

And someone will get tired or cranky because this is like a wedding on steroids.

[viii]

41 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

But see…No. Much of the post colonial world does not see the “pageantry, pomp, and glory” as positive. At all. It’s more like…Oh, so you guys are back to living those mythological good old days and if we could have our plundered jewels back, that’d be a start.

This is a really good point. I am excited for the coronation because I have never been negatively impacted by the British monarchy. However, I know that's not the case for everybody. I know a lot of people that didn't care Elizabeth died, while I felt actually quite upset about it. She marked the headship of a very damaging institution that continues that damage to this day. I don't think it's wrong to point out that the British monarchy doesn't benefit everybody in a positive light and there's going to be plenty of people that don't support Charles because of it. 

[Loveday]

54 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

But see…No. Much of the post colonial world does not see the “pageantry, pomp, and glory” as positive. At all. It’s more like…Oh, so you guys are back to living those mythological good old days and if we could have our plundered jewels back, that’d be a start.

But if your are talking interpersonal drama, Andrew will be there.

And someone will get tired or cranky because this is like a wedding on steroids.

Of course not. But I'm talking about the difference between the press reporting on the ceremony itself and reporting on Prince Harry sitting there without his wife and kids and no one talking to him because of all the shit he's been spewing about his family the past couple of years.  You may not call the ceremony and the reporting thereof positive, but the Prince Harry stuff will likely be quite negative. 

Regardless of anything, positive or negative, I'll be watching every minute, because it's been 70 years and I wasn't around the last time. From a purely historical perspective--and I love British history, its many flaws and all-- and from a snark perspective as well, I will enjoy the hell out of the day. Others, I understand completely, will not, and for perfectly valid reasons of their own. 

 

[noseybutt]

15 minutes ago, Loveday said:

Of course not. But I'm talking about the difference between the press reporting on the ceremony itself and reporting on Prince Harry sitting there without his wife and kids and no one talking to him because of all the shit he's been spewing about his family the past couple of years.  You may not call the ceremony and the reporting thereof positive, but the Prince Harry stuff will likely be quite negative. 

Regardless of anything, positive or negative, I'll be watching every minute, because it's been 70 years and I wasn't around the last time. From a purely historical perspective--and I love British history, its many flaws and all-- and from a snark perspective as well, I will enjoy the hell out of the day. Others, I understand completely, will not, and for perfectly valid reasons of their own. 

 

I actually don’t have a problem with people watching. Especially within the UK, the monarchy does have a different meaning than elsewhere. 

And elsewhere, it’s a mixed bag.

(Yes, I get that there is diversity within the UK too but there’s also enough public support for the BRF that nothing is changing anytime soon.)

I usually don’t end up watching because I have the attention span of a flee. It had nothing to do with politics.

Having said all that…I also don’t get the strong opinions people have about the cast of characters including Harry. Yes, it’s a dysfunctional family. That’s been going on for years. He strikes me as mid when it comes to his drama. As in, he has far worse family members but he’s also not very nice. At the level of systemic power, he’s almost a nobody. 
 

 

 

 

[Loveday]

17 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

...Having said all that…I also don’t get the strong opinions people have about the cast of characters including Harry. Yes, it’s a dysfunctional family. That’s been going on for years. He strikes me as mid when it comes to his drama. As in, he has far worse family members but he’s also not very nice. At the level of systemic power, he’s almost a nobody. 

 

I don't get it, either, to be honest. At least, about Harry (I get how people absolutely LOVED the queen and certain other members of the BRF over the years). Mainly, I don't get the intense love some people seem to have for him, to the point of defending him against any and everything and in such minute detail (and of course I will not name names here!🥴) Personally, I don't care one way or the other about him, or about Meghan, although I agree that they don't seem to be, as you said, very nice. I do like some of the other members of the family, as much as one can like someone one doesn't actually know!

Edited April 27, 2023 by Loveday

[rosamundi]

20 hours ago, nokidsmom said:

I recently read on another site that it's possible that for Harry, given his position, this was not so much an invitation, but a "summons" by his sovereign, which I thought was an interesting take.  If true, then Charles is not just inviting Harry as his son but summoning him as his King, which he is.  

That seems unlikely. What does this site envisage happening if Harry said "you know what? Nah," and stayed in Montecito? Charles doesn't have the power to order him to be extradited from the States or to prevent him from leaving the UK if he were over for a visit. If he did try to force Harry to attend it would cause all sorts of the wrong sort of drama.

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, Loveday said:

I don't get it, either, to be honest. At least, about Harry (I get how people absolutely LOVED the queen and certain other members of the BRF over the years).

I don't get why people loved the Queen, for that matter. She inherited her wealth and her position. She stopped her sister and her son from marrying the people they loved. She didn't do much to help people. During her reign, the government subjected citizens of Kenya and Nigeria in brutal ways. In a way, she was a symbol of white supremacy. During her reign, there were racist policies in the palace that prohibited the advancement of POC. So I don't seeing any reason for LOVING her. I think there are other women of her generation worthy of more respect and admiration.

[Ozlsn]

11 hours ago, noseybutt said:

I usually don’t end up watching because I have the attention span of a flee. It had nothing to do with politics.

I usually don't because it's the middle of the night and seriously? If I'm getting up to watch something at stupid o'clock it's probably either a spacecraft launch (or attempt, thanks Elon) or Eurovision. Even then I'll probably just wait for the delayed telecast. It's not like the footage won't get repeated a billion times judging by QE2's funeral, Jubilee and the multiple family weddings.

12 hours ago, Loveday said:

Regardless of anything, positive or negative, I'll be watching every minute, because it's been 70 years and I wasn't around the last time. From a purely historical perspective--and I love British history, its many flaws and all-- and from a snark perspective as well, I will enjoy the hell out of the day. Others, I understand completely, will not, and for perfectly valid reasons of their own. 

Agree, I mostly see it as an interesting historical moment, but not one that really affects me or this country.  Although the Governor-General is apparently invited, and his wife is notorious for singing at inappropriate times... so maybe I will watch in the hope of an appallingly embarrassing impromptu concert.

[just_ordinary]

I mean the coronation is a bit like a medieval fair. Don’t think anyone has ever protested against those kinds of re-enactment because of their very real historical problematic moments.

I don’t think anyone, not even the BRF, believes they are anointed by God’s grace. Nor does the oath or kneeling of a liege has any real meaning anymore. The coronation is more for historical continuity (which is important for a monarchy) than a real transfer of power and loyalty. And if the UK is fantastic at one thing, it’s to bring the past to the present in the most beautiful way.

[MamaJunebug]

23 hours ago, Loveday said:

or the Earl of This or the Duke of Thing,

I’m hoping that my “Duke Of Earl” earworm goes away sooner than later after 6 May …  

[viii]

8 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I don’t think anyone, not even the BRF, believes they are anointed by God’s grace. 

I disagree. I'm not sure about the new generation, but I definitely think that Elizabeth believed 100% that she was queen by God's divine grace and it was God's chosen path for her family. 

[louisa05]

19 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I don't get why people loved the Queen, for that matter. She inherited her wealth and her position. She stopped her sister and her son from marrying the people they loved. She didn't do much to help people. During her reign, the government subjected citizens of Kenya and Nigeria in brutal ways. In a way, she was a symbol of white supremacy. During her reign, there were racist policies in the palace that prohibited the advancement of POC. So I don't seeing any reason for LOVING her. I think there are other women of her generation worthy of more respect and admiration.

Margaret was given the option of giving up her position and marrying Peter Townsend. She decided that being a princess mattered more to her. If you've ever read about her life, that would not be surprising. The matter literally was handled by Parliament and the Church not the Queen alone. 

Charles was never stopped from marrying Camilla by his parents. He dated her for a bit. Then he was deployed in the navy for a long haul. He never contacted her at all the entire time. So when he came home, she was engaged to Andrew Parker Bowles. By all accounts, he was not ready to marry yet at the time (this is believable as this all happened in 1972-73 and he did not marry until 1981).  She was. She also was not interested in all that would have come with marrying him. 

I will never stop being fascinated at how so much mythology exists around the modern British royals and people refuse to believe the truth. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by louisa05

[Jackie3]

Elizabeth could not physically stop her sister from marrying, it is true. But she took away everything she could to prevent it. Basically, she did everything in her power. True, Margaret could have chosen to give up everything to marry him. That's not easy to do, but she could have. But it's also true that her sister--her own sister!--made it very hard for her to marry the person she loved.

You are right about Charles, though. With that said, Elizabeth was a neglectful mother and I doubt Charles would have felt comfortable coming to her and saying, "I'm in love with a married woman. Can you help me?"

However, I still don't understand the blind adoration for Elizabeth. She didn't earn what she had. It all fell into her lap. She did a decent job as queen.  . . but I can't admire her work ethic. There were plenty of women in her generation who worked harder--cooking, cleaning, wrangling children, working dead-end jobs. Elizabeth didn't even open her own doors. Plus, a lot of her hard work simply meant protecting the monarchy, like the tours of Australia for example.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Jackie3

[Loveday]

46 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Margaret was given the option of giving up her position and marrying Peter Townsend. She decided that being a princess mattered more to her. If you've ever read about her life, that would not be surprising. The matter literally was handled by Parliament and the Church not the Queen alone. 

Charles was never stopped from marrying Camilla by his parents. He dated her for a bit. Then he was deployed in the navy for a long haul. He never contacted her at all the entire time. So when he came home, she was engaged to Andrew Parker Bowles. By all accounts, he was not ready to marry yet at the time (this is believable as this all happened in 1972-73 and he did not marry until 1981).  She was. She also was not interested in all that would have come with marrying him. 

I will never stop being fascinated at how so much mythology exists around the modern British royals and people refuse to believe the truth. 

Now, now, don't muddy up the myths with the plain truth. 🥴

[klein_roeschen]

52 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Margaret was given the option of giving up her position and marrying Peter Townsend. She decided that being a princess mattered more to her. If you've ever read about her life, that would not be surprising. The matter literally was handled by Parliament and the Church not the Queen alone. 

Charles was never stopped from marrying Camilla by his parents. He dated her for a bit. Then he was deployed in the navy for a long haul. He never contacted her at all the entire time. So when he came home, she was engaged to Andrew Parker Bowles. By all accounts, he was not ready to marry yet at the time (this is believable as this all happened in 1972-73 and he did not marry until 1981).  She was. She also was not interested in all that would have come with marrying him. 

I will never stop being fascinated at how so much mythology exists around the modern British royals and people refuse to believe the truth. 

These kind of stories are far more romantic than the reality. Having an affair with a divorced man, possibly even when he was still married was a big scandal in the conservative 1950's and would have shaken many families. And the story of Charles and Camilla sounds way nicer with leaving out that Charles literally ghosted Camilla. The same with Charles and Diana. Many people have forgotten that she wasn't a mere kindergarten teacher marrying the Prince of Wales, but a aristocratic kindergarten teacher from a very wealthy and influential family.

Edited April 28, 2023 by klein_roeschen

[Jackie3]

On 4/27/2023 at 7:12 AM, Loveday said:

Positive drama. The pageantry, pomp, and glory are all positive drama. Harry's presence will cause the press to dwell on the negative drama surrounding him and Meghan. Which of course Harry will feed on and encourage, as that seems to be what he and Meghan do best these days.

I'm sure it's far too much to hope that Harry's presence will be noted in the same way as Beatrice and Eugenie's, Lady Sarah Chatto, any of the European royals who will be attending, or the Earl of This or the Duke of Thing, and then just sort of ignored in the excitement of the coronation proceedings. No, I feel fairly sure he'll be featured and commented upon constantly from start to finish, at least by all the major networks covering the event. 

Nobody is forcing the press to comment on Harry negatively. In fact, no one is forcing them to cover Harry at all. That's their choice.

I can't imagine how Harry is going to "feed on and encourage" this. He is going in and out in the shortest possible time. That's not the actions of someone who wants media attention.

[anjulibai]

Charles also had other affair partners in the early 80's. Camilla was just the main one. 

[nokidsmom]

On 4/27/2023 at 12:34 AM, prayawaythefundie said:

I don‘t know. That seems like a very royalist interpretation, attributing more power to Charles than he actually has, probably to make Harry look weak.

On 4/27/2023 at 2:12 PM, rosamundi said:

That seems unlikely. What does this site envisage happening if Harry said "you know what? Nah," and stayed in Montecito? Charles doesn't have the power to order him to be extradited from the States or to prevent him from leaving the UK if he were over for a visit. If he did try to force Harry to attend it would cause all sorts of the wrong sort of drama.

Well, it was quite a different take on it (along with some grains of salt) as if we were going back to the times of Henry VIII when it didn't take much to be accused of treason* and get one's head lopped off.  Even if Charles had any sort of power here, Harry has flouted so much at this point, I can't see it making much difference for him.  But it was an interesting, if probably royalist, take on things.   

I hardly see extradition being involved but the same source mentioned loss of title as being a consequence of not attending.  Once again grains of salt but interesting take.  

* as compared to modern times.  Harry would probably find himself sitting in the Tower if his antics happened several centuries ago.  He should be thankful for being in the 21st century.

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by nokidsmom

[Jackie3]

51 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

* as compared to modern times.  Harry would probably find himself sitting in the Tower if his antics happened several centuries ago.  He should be thankful for being in the 21st century.

 

Charles should be thankful too. Harry is far more charismatic than Charles and he has a military background besides. A few hundred years ago, he might won over the military and  staged a coup, leaving  his dad locked up in the Tower as punishment for all the leaks to the press.

[Mama Mia]

9 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

These kind of stories are far more romantic than the reality. Having an affair with a divorced man, possibly even when he was still married was a big scandal in the conservative 1950's and would have shaken many families. And the story of Charles and Camilla sounds way nicer with leaving out that Charles literally ghosted Camilla. The same with Charles and Diana. Many people have forgotten that she wasn't a mere kindergarten teacher marrying the Prince of Wales, but a aristocratic kindergarten teacher from a very wealthy and influential family.

It still boils down to Margaret’s sister had the power to tell her who she could or could not marry if she wanted to retain any of her status and titles. That’s weird. Diana may have been a rich and aristocratic teenager, But she was still a teenager. Charles may have ghosted Camilla, but I have zero doubt his family would have not approved of his marriage to a non-virgin, in the early ‘70s when they trotted out their certified pure virgin bride for him a decade later. Fergie was controversial for marrying Andrew because she’d had relationships - well into the 80’s and he was the spare. These people are weird AF.  And I truly don’t get how they can play power moves over who does or does not have titles or carriage rides when their entire value rests on who they were born to. Seems like they want a have it both ways situation. All about the genetic line — but only if you’re compliant. 

[Manda]

I ran into this today as it popped up when I opened youtube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTj6HT6xB_s

I have to send it to my mother.  Mom can go on for hours about all the Meghan fashion faux pas and mistakes.  The only one in this youtube that I don't remember her mentioning is the see through in Australia or New Zealand.  Both my mother and grandmother looked over all my formal outfits for these kinds of flaws and saved me from many disastrous or expensive mistakes.  Meghan really, really needed and probably does still need that stylist that she hated the whole concept of having one.  

[viii]

6 hours ago, nokidsmom said:

I hardly see extradition being involved but the same source mentioned loss of title as being a consequence of not attending.  Once again grains of salt but interesting take.  

Charles doesn’t have the power to strip Harry of his title, Parliament does. 

[Jackie3]

8 hours ago, Manda said:

Mom can go on for hours about all the Meghan fashion faux pas and mistakes. 

Meghan was just picked up by the most powerful agent in LA. So Hollywood thinks she's doing all right.