History Talk: The British Monarchy

[Roseanna]

"It would be a scandal now if it was alleged that a journalist had secured an interview with an emotionally fragile woman":

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/09/problem-martin-bashir-diana-interview-earl-spencer

[Umbelina]

On 11/8/2020 at 5:44 AM, Roseanna said:

Ingrid Seward writes in Prince Philip reveled: 

 

Interesting.

I'm torn, on the one hand, it would have made no difference to the Crown if they had married, aside from a passing controversy about the Church, with Elizabeth as the head of that church.  So, on this hand, I think they should have allowed Margaret to marry him.  The public was overwhelmingly in support of that, as I recall?

Now, on this hand I can completely understand why the government and Elizabeth acted as they did.  Frankly, Elizabeth is astoundingly rich, and could have easily set Margaret up for a life of wealth and privilege with a teeny tiny miniscule dent in her fortune.    So, "wealth" was never REALLY an issue here.  Margaret could have probably still used various castles for vacations as well.  What Margaret would actually have to give up is her Royal title, and the deference shown to her, and probably would only have 5 or 6 servants instead of hundreds.  She had to choose, in reality, between being a royal or being with the man she said she loved.

If she really loved him?  It's hardly a choice.  

I do wonder if Margaret also had an inheritance from her father?  I would think so, but maybe, since she was set for life in luxury, it wasn't done?

ETA As far as her leaving the country?  I doubt that would be required, but even if it was?  She loved the islands, and the Queen could have given her an estate there and another in a European country.  If Elizabeth's guilt was anything close to what was shown on The Crown?  I find it odd that option wasn't explored.  Oh, and after all the divorces soon to be so popular with the Royals?  She could have restored the HRH after a decade or so too.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Umbelina

[Roseanna]

On 11/12/2020 at 12:38 AM, Umbelina said:

I'm torn, on the one hand, it would have made no difference to the Crown if they had married, aside from a passing controversy about the Church, with Elizabeth as the head of that church.  So, on this hand, I think they should have allowed Margaret to marry him.  The public was overwhelmingly in support of that, as I recall?

The opinion of the public, or rather the popular and leftist newspapers, had no saying in this matter, because the government was of the Conservative party. 

The crux of the matter was that as a constitutional monarch, Elizabeth could not act against the advice of the government. After Margaret was 25 years old, she did not need the consent of the Queen but the Parliament which meant, again, of the government. 

There was one way, though. Sarah Bradford writes in Elizabeth (1986) that the marquess of Salisbury had threatened to resign if the government allowed Margaret to Townsend. Bradford thinks that even if Salisbury was an important member of the government, his resignation would not have caused a constitutional crisis unlike in 1936, because Margaret's position was not the same as that of Edward VIII. 

We have seen lord Salisbury in the episode where Elizabeth for the first time acted independently and rebuked Churchill and Salisbury for concealing Churchill's serious illness from her. In that episode Elizabeth spoke something about duplicity of Cecils which is lord Salisbury's family name.       

Edited November 15, 2020 by Roseanna
correcting spelling

[Roseanna]

Once again about Edward VIII who "could not marry for love". Actually he could, but doing so he could not keep his throne. As a constitutional monarch he could not act against the advice of the government and the dominions.

The Anglican Church would not wed a divorced person, so marriage could only happen in the registry office. Such a marriage was legal, but the Coronation is by nature a religious service: the King is not only crowned but anointed by the Archbishop. He also vows to be "Defender of Faith" and he must be a member of the Anglican Church. 

Now about Wallis Simpson: she was not only once divorced but actually married when Edward courted her. In That Woman Anne Sebba doubted that Wallis was not at all love with him, but only wanted to get from him so much money and jewelry as possible and then return to her husband. She only filed for divorce when Mr Simpson found comfort with her best fried. If Edward had not been the King, he could have been sued for adultery in the divorce court. Luckily for them, Mr Simpson was so friendly that he accepted to become "the guilty party" by staying in the hotel with "an unknown women" as was testified by the hotel's staff. The divorce became legal after six months, in the spring 1937.

Plus, Wallis was 40 yeas old and had no children from her two marriages, so she was probably incapable to do the most important thing of the Queen Consort: a bear an heir. Nor had she shown interest in any other duties, or to help him to do his, on the contrary he had neglected them for her. 

On the top of all, Frances Donaldson writes in her biography Edward VIII that if a King wants to marry a divorced woman, the wisest course would be to keep her out of public as well as possible and collect around himself good advisors. Edward did just the opposite: he publicly cruised with her in the Mediterranean so that pictures about them were published all around the world (though not n Britain for a long time although the London society of course knew about their affair). He also isolated himself with her in his country home Fort Belvedere and refused to do nothing with his Private Secretary after he warned him, as was his duty, that the British press would no more keep silent and the government was discussion about the relationship.

               

 

 

[Brn2bwild]

Interestingly, had Edward VIII married Wallis, Elizabeth probably would have become the Queen anyway -- just at the age of 45 rather than 25 (with E VIII possibly outliving her father, depending upon whether Bertie smoked as much or underwent the same amount of stress as the Duke of York rather than George VI).

[dubbel zout]

Speaking of smoking, when Margaret was having her lung surgery, they were saying she smoked up to 60 cigarettes a day, which is three packs! Yikes. It's a miracle she lasted as long as did with that kind of habit. You'd think having a father who died from complications of lung cancer might think twice about smoking, but it can be a hard habit to kick. 

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Speaking of smoking, when Margaret was having her lung surgery, they were saying she smoked up to 60 cigarettes a day, which is three packs! Yikes. It's a miracle she lasted as long as did with that kind of habit. You'd think having a father who died from complications of lung cancer might think twice about smoking, but it can be a hard habit to kick. 

As a former smoker, I will say that Margaret was going through 60 cigarettes a day and not smoking the whole cigarette.   Its difficult to smoke that many a day.  Most likely she lit one, took a puff or two, then forgot.  Then she lights up another one 20 minutes later.  Her rooms would have multiple ashtrays strewn about for her convenience.   I would hate to be her maids.  They would have been the ones who had to put out the randomly burning cigarettes as they cleaned, and based on what I have read about Margaret, she would not take kindly to overflowing ashtrays. 

[Roseanna]

David Cannadine wrote in his collection of essays and reviews, History in Our Time, also about monarchs and monarchy: 

Quote

There are important arguments to be made about the relative merits of an hereditary or of an elected head of state: but not at the level of the human frailties of particular monarchs or presidents. No one seriously contends that the American presidency should be abolished because Bill Clinton - - is a self-confessed adulterer. So why should the abolition of the British monarchy be contemplated because the same is true of Prince Charles?

 Then he mused

Quote

how in practice would the House of Windsor be ended? One means would be parliamentary legislation abolishing the monarchy: this is not a realistic possibility. Another is that the crowds rise up, storm Buckingham Palace, and bear its occupants off to the guillotine: even in the unhappy and feverish week between Princess Diana’s death and her funeral, this was not remotely in prospect. Yet a third is that the royals throw in their collective hand, and that of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William decide they have had enough: this seems highly unlikely. The fourth opinion which, until recent events, did seem gaining ground, was holding the referendum when the present queen dies: but since everyone now wants Wills to succeed as posthumous vindication of his beautified mother, this, too, is now beyond the realm of practical or foreseeable politics.

 

[swanpride]

Quote

As a former smoker, I will say that Margaret was going through 60 cigarettes a day and not smoking the whole cigarette.   Its difficult to smoke that many a day.  Most likely she lit one, took a puff or two, then forgot.  Then she lights up another one 20 minutes later.  Her rooms would have multiple ashtrays strewn about for her convenience.   I would hate to be her maids.  They would have been the ones who had to put out the randomly burning cigarettes as they cleaned, and based on what I have read about Margaret, she would not take kindly to overflowing ashtrays. 

It's possible if you have little else to do. I know for a fact that two package is daily for someone with a job which hinders smoking non-stop, so it should be possible to do three packages if you don't have any restrictions.

[Roseanna]

Watching The Windsors: Inside the Royal dynasty. I have seen pictures about Edward III and Mrs Simpson but now saw films. When the declaration of Edward's ascent to the throne was read before the Buckingham Palace, he was standing watching it from the window with his mistress - and they smiled like they fully enjoyed life, although his father had just died and he had heavy duties before him.

Then the cruise in the Mediterrian they openly showed their relationship - and she was still married with another man. 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Roseanna
Adding a word

[Umbelina]

This is pretty fantastic, especially seeing the real events that have been portrayed on screen.

[Roseanna]

I can't help but wonder some things about Diana's Panomara interview:

Diana had told her side of story in Morton's book, Charles had answered in kind with the help of Dimbleby but without getting much symathy, they were separated, so why Diana was still so angry towards Charles?

Why was revenge on him so important to her that she didn't care how she harmed their children, both now when all the world spoke about their parents' marriage and affairs, and in the future William's chances to become king?

Was she so stupid that she didn't undestand that by attacking not only against Charles as her husband but questeoning also his abilities as the future king, she attacked against the monarchy and thus against the Queen who then answered, not only by forcing them finally to divorce, but by robbing HRH from her and thus exluding her from the royal family.     

[VCRTracking]

On 11/26/2017 at 9:31 PM, pivot said:

I think it is more likely we'll see Diana get drug through the mud. This show seems to be focused on making Queen Elizabeth a Mary Sue and they aren't going to let Diana look good in comparison against the Queen.

I remember this post from around earlier seasons because I responded saying Elizabeth was a POV character not a Mary Sue. I also think as much liberties as Morgan takes with real life you'd have to skew events a lot not to make Diana sympathetic! At least in the 80s. I mean Netflix just uploaded a video of "Diana's Sweetest Moments"

 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by VCRTracking

[Roseanna]

I have just read a book about womens' everyday life from 50ies to 70ies and learned that well-known women who first appeared in public during pregnancy, were Elizabeth II, Grace of Monaco and Audrey Hepburn.   

[Umbelina]

I wonder if The Crown will handle the Diana Bashir tapes next season, in light of the current lawsuits/inquiries?  In other words, will he mention that she was perhaps forced into that, in light of an ongoing investigation?

Her brother briefly mentions them here, along with other royal history talk.

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Umbelina

[Roseanna]

In the serie about the Crown Princess Märta of Norway in WW2, there are also a few scenes in Buckingham Palace: when Crown Prince Olav asks his cousin George VI what happens if Germany drops parachutes. George answers that he presses the button - but when he tries the alarm system, the result fails to impress Olav.

 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9348700/?ref_=ttexrv_exrv_tt

Edited January 12, 2021 by Roseanna
add "Crown"

[Roseanna]

I have now watched Atlantic Crossing and really liked it (expect politics: president Roosevelt hardly made important foreign policy decisions like lend-lease because of Crown Princess of Norway Märtha urged him to do so, she was rather one of those women with whose company he could relax). 

The reason why I write about the series in this forum is that although it was most suitable that a Princess of Sweden married the Crown Prince Olav of Norway, it seems to be a love match as well. 

Secondly, the atmosphere in the Norwegian royal family seems to be different from that of the British. There was much hugging and kissing. It seems to be truthful on the basis a documentary about the return of the Royal family after the war when the Crown Prince who had been in Britain with his father King Haakon met his wife and his children who had been in the US.

Generally, Scandinavian royals have for decades been "folksy".

[Umbelina]

Could the British Monarchy “Go Over a Cliff” After the Queen Dies? In his new book, The Last Queen, journalist Clive Irving explains how the queen became the face of the U.K., and why her descendants might have to work harder to keep the Windsors in their position.

(Very interesting about the Queen's reign in this article, and then he talks about the future, and the current royals)

 

For you, that’s one of the major differences between her and Charles.

I think we know far more than we would ever really want to know about Charles, right? I think there’s a really real risk that if Charles does succeed her that the monarchy will go over a cliff very fast. This question of the survival of the monarchy hasn’t really arisen since the time of [Edward VIII’s] abdication, but it will come up as a real smack in the face. She’s enjoyed such a command of the role that the whole idea of abolition or republicanism has been beyond reality.

Charles has a serious problem. One problem is that he doesn’t look like an invigorating generational shift, does he? That’s what would be needed, something that reinvigorates and sends a sense that they’ve understood the modern world. In some ways, Charles looks older than the queen. He’s a man more suited to the 18th century than the 21st, and I’m not being facetious about that. That’s his deliberate and chosen style, like a younger brother of the queen rather than a son.

He’s also run [the Duchy of Cornwall], a separate branch of the Firm, for such a long time, that it’s revealed to us the ways in which he likes to operate, which presumably would be the way he would continue to operate if he were on the throne. He’s talked about the method he’s preferred to use his influence, which he calls his “convening power.” He pulls in groups of advisers he targets for his issues and invariably they’re sycophants. He doesn’t like to be challenged, and he thinks like an autocrat. And he’s shown himself to be a hypocrite. He was an early campaigner for recognizing the importance of climate change and that’s very good—he even lectured [Donald] Trump on the subject, which was pretty brave to do. But at the same time, he flies around on executive jets, uncaring about the enormous carbon footprint of that. If he had been using commercial flights for the same trips, he would have saved about 95% of the emissions. He’s born with such a sense of entitlement that it’s never occurred to him that maybe you can’t continue to do that.

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Charles has a serious problem. One problem is that he doesn’t look like an invigorating generational shift, does he? That’s what would be needed, something that reinvigorates and sends a sense that they’ve understood the modern world. In some ways, Charles looks older than the queen. He’s a man more suited to the 18th century than the 21st, and I’m not being facetious about that. That’s his deliberate and chosen style, like a younger brother of the queen rather than a son.

 

I think a lot of people unconsciously (including me) felt like they'd just skip over Charles straight to William because...well...Charles.

[Crs97]

UO here, but I like Charles more than the queen or William.  I do not find it hypocritical to care about the environment, but need to fly separately for security reasons.  Anyone who thinks William would somehow be a better or more outgoing king has clearly not been paying attention.

[sistermagpie]

26 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

UO here, but I like Charles more than the queen or William.  I do not find it hypocritical to care about the environment, but need to fly separately for security reasons.  Anyone who thinks William would somehow be a better or more outgoing king has clearly not been paying attention.

I thought the point he was making wasn't that he would be more outgoing but that he clearly looks like a generational change.

I agree about private jets, though. Not even for security reasons, but just because focusing on what an individual does personally in terms of whether they fly too much or whatever is just a distraction from the changes that need to be made on the international/government/corporate etc. level.

[Growsonwalls]

William strikes me as low-key racist towards Meghan and just as old-fashioned about monarchy roles as the Queen or Charles.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Growsonwalls

[MadyGirl1987]

33 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

William strikes me as low-key racist towards Meghan and just as old-fashioned about monarchy roles as the Queen or Charles.

Apart from rumors and tabloid gossip-mongering, how has William ever been racist to Meghan? The only credible thing I’ve ever heard of is William saying something to effect of “slow down” with her, and even that seems to be more a a big brother asking Harry to take his time, not rush into things and be sure she’s who you want. I mean, that’s the path he himself took with Kate.

[Growsonwalls]

4 minutes ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

Apart from rumors and tabloid gossip-mongering, how has William ever been racist to Meghan? The only credible thing I’ve ever heard of is William saying something to effect of “slow down” with her, and even that seems to be more a a big brother asking Harry to take his time, not rush into things and be sure she’s who you want. I mean, that’s the path he himself took with Kate.

According to Finding Freedom he called Meghan "this girl" which IMO is very micoaggressive/racist at the worst and snobbish at its best. Meghan's not a "girl." 

ETA: there has to be a reason Harry would totally cut off William. The only thing I can think of that would lead to such a drastic response is if William was racist towards Meghan or Archie.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Growsonwalls

[MadyGirl1987]

41 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

According to Finding Freedom he called Meghan "this girl" which IMO is very micoaggressive/racist. 
 

ETA: there has to be a reason Harry would totally cut off William. The only thing I can think of that would lead to such a drastic response is if William was racist towards Meghan or Archie.

That does, at the very least sound dismissive of her, but I would be wary of taking a book like Finding Freedom at face value.  I work at a library and tell all books like it claiming to give the “real story” are a dime a dozen and often of dubious quality and authenticity. People are quick and all to happy to cash in.

And has he totally cut off William? I mean, people move and lead separate lives from their siblings. They can still love and care for each other even if Harry stepped down from  being a senior royal. We haven’t seen them visiting, true, but I’d put that more down to Covid then anything else... 

Edited January 23, 2021 by MadyGirl1987

[Growsonwalls]

1 hour ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

That does, at the very least sound dismissive of her, but I would be wary of taking a book like Finding Freedom at face value.  I work at a library and tell all books like it claiming to give the “real story” are a dime a dozen and often of dubious quality and authenticity. People are quick and all to happy to cash in.

And has he totally cut off William? I mean, people move and lead separate lives from their siblings. They can still love and care for each other even if Harry stepped down from  being a senior royal. We haven’t seen them visiting, true, but I’d put that more down to Covid then anything else... 

Finding Freedom was done with Meghan's cooperation. I doubt she'd put anything in there that wasn't true.

[Roseanna]

18 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Finding Freedom was done with Meghan's cooperation. I doubt she'd put anything in there that wasn't true.

Meghan wasn't even present. Only Harry and William were. They probably had different interpretation about William's words.

Harry heard William say "that girl" and probably interpreted: Wills doesn't like Meghan, my big brother tries to boss me, why can't he support me like I did when he dated Kate.

Instead, William may think: I only said "take your time", that's sensible thing to do, I know it from my experience and that of our parents, both must be quite sure, not only about their feelings but about what to expect.

If Philip had said to Charles "take your time with that girl" when his son dated Diana, he would be praised for an excellent advice.

[Growsonwalls]

19 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Meghan wasn't even present. Only Harry and William were. They probably had different interpretation about William's words.

Harry heard William say "that girl" and probably interpreted: Wills doesn't like Meghan, my big brother tries to boss me, why can't he support me like I did when he dated Kate.

Instead, William may think: I only said "take your time", that's sensible thing to do, I know it from my experience and that of our parents, both must be quite sure, not only about their feelings but about what to expect.

If Philip had said to Charles "take your time with that girl" when his son dated Diana, he would be praised for an excellent advice.

I feel like "that girl" has condescending connotations. Meghan being a POC I can sense a racist undertone to William's advice. If Harry dated a white, aristocratic girl would he say the same thing? Anyway there has to be a reason Harry cut William off completely. And anything where one sibling makes such a drastic action I feel like William must have had some low-key racist attitudes towards Meghan. 

[merylinkid]

"that girl" = someone you barely know and have not even introduced to the family so that we know her name.   

You can make anything racist.   Meghan was subjected to very real racism.   this was not one of the times.

[Roseanna]

20 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

If Harry dated a white, aristocratic girl would he say the same thing?

Yes, because it William had good reasons to know why royal marriages succeed or not: 1) their parents had married without knowing each other 2) William and Kate had lived together for years 3) other happy royal marriages (f.ex. Victoria and Daniel of Sweden) had done like William and Kate.

[AZChristian]

11 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Yes, because it William had good reasons to know why royal marriages succeed or not: 1) their parents had married without knowing each other 2) William and Kate had lived together for years 3) other happy royal marriages (f.ex. Victoria and Daniel of Sweden) had done like William and Kate.

I also wonder whether William have said something like, "You need to slow down before you get engaged to this girl or any girl."

Since no one was there except William and Harry, NO ONE BUT THEM has any way of knowing for sure what was said and whether a comment may have been edited before being shared.  Everyone tends to "repeat" things in a way that supports their own position.

[Ohiopirate02]

I have also heard that one of the reasons for the William-Harry feud has to do with William cheating on Kate.  Apparently, while Kate was pregnant with Louis, William found comfort in the arms of his friend's wife.  Harry knew about the affair and was furious because 1.) how could William do that to Kate while she was pregnant and miserable 2.) the whole Charles/Diana/Camilla thing in the 90s 3.) How dare William give Harry advice about Meghan and taking it slow when William is unfaithful.  

The rumors about William cheating have not been debunked, they just disappeared.  

[Roseanna]

On 1/24/2021 at 7:42 PM, Growsonwalls said:

Anyway there has to be a reason Harry cut William off completely.

Has he done that? How can we know how they behave in private?

Anyway, a listener can't know what the speaker "meant" as a messages is always interpreted. And people like Harry who has strong feelings and a hot temperament tends to act before thinking.

Instead, William who is evidently ruled by reason was hard to understand that hid kid brother has become a adult and has different values. Not of speak that one shouldn't give advice without being asked.   

[Growsonwalls]

3 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Has he done that? How can we know how they behave in private?

Anyway, a listener can't know what the speaker "meant" as a messages is always interpreted. And people like Harry who has strong feelings and a hot temperament tends to act before thinking.

Instead, William who is evidently ruled by reason was hard to understand that hid kid brother has become a adult and has different values. Not of speak that one shouldn't give advice without being asked.   

According to the book Finding Freedom and this new book the rift is complete and total.

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/royal-reveals-origins-rift-prince-harry-prince-william-73687755

As I said, that kind of drastic "you are cut off forever" rift doesn't happen over something little. 

[Roseanna]

12 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

As I said, that kind of drastic "you are cut off forever" rift doesn't happen over something little. 

Actually it can. It depends on people.

Some react swiftly and have no other way to behave than totally cut off relationships. Other people can keep, and eventually  heal, relationships despite severe matters, not words but deeds.

[PeterPirate]

Well, if the brothers are communicating with each other, BP is keeping the lid on that information.  

I mean, can you imagine the royal court deciding to keep it under wraps?  "Let's not let the public know the Heir Apparent is talking to Prince Harry and That Girl."

[AZChristian]

7 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Well, if the brothers are communicating with each other, BP is keeping the lid on that information.  

I mean, can you imagine the royal court deciding to keep it under wraps?  "Let's not let the public know the Heir Apparent is talking to Prince Harry and That Girl."

Marlo Thomas was "That Girl."  Meghan is "This Girl."  LOL.

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Well, if the brothers are communicating with each other, BP is keeping the lid on that information.  

I mean, can you imagine the royal court deciding to keep it under wraps?  "Let's not let the public know the Heir Apparent is talking to Prince Harry and That Girl."

Well, since William and Katherine do not reside in Buckingham Palace, I'm sure the courtiers there have no idea if they speak to Harry and Meghan.  The Cambridges have their own staff at Kensington Palace to handle disseminating information or withholding as they see fit.  Then Charles and Camilla are at Clarence House with their staff.  

[Growsonwalls]

The Tatler article about Kate makes it seem like Kate and Meghan don't talk either. I really get the feeling the brothers will never speak again. Maybe they'll occasionally be together for public events (like Charles' coronation) but I don't ever see them being cordial again. Family estrangements during adulthood tend to be permanent. 

[Ohiopirate02]

12 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

The Tatler article about Kate makes it seem like Kate and Meghan don't talk either. I really get the feeling the brothers will never speak again. Maybe they'll occasionally be together for public events (like Charles' coronation) but I don't ever see them being cordial again. Family estrangements during adulthood tend to be permanent. 

I remember when that article first ran, and KP put out a statement that neither Kate nor her staff had anything to do with it when it was not received well.  I do believe that Kate had her staff talk to the reporter hoping for a puff piece, but it did not go that way.  The line about Harry and Meghan throwing the Cambridge kids under the bus was a low blow and tone deaf.  

[Growsonwalls]

2 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I remember when that article first ran, and KP put out a statement that neither Kate nor her staff had anything to do with it when it was not received well.  I do believe that Kate had her staff talk to the reporter hoping for a puff piece, but it did not go that way.  The line about Harry and Meghan throwing the Cambridge kids under the bus was a low blow and tone deaf.  

The article was done with the cooperation of Kensington Palace. I feel like Kate thought it would have been a flattering article and instead it made her and her family look really bitchy. I also had to laugh at the idea that W&K couldn't spend more time with the kids because of Megxit. British royalty don't raise their kids -- their nannies do. If we've learned ANYTHING about The Crown it's that.

[Ohiopirate02]

9 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

The article was done with the cooperation of Kensington Palace. I feel like Kate thought it would have been a flattering article and instead it made her and her family look really bitchy. I also had to laugh at the idea that W&K couldn't spend more time with the kids because of Megxit. British royalty don't raise their kids -- their nannies do. If we've learned ANYTHING about The Crown it's that.

Nah, Kate and William do parent their kids while also using nannies.  That article hinted at something else I have heard about the two families.  Supposedly there was an agreement reached where William and Kate would ease off their official duties while raising their kids and Harry would step up.  I guess this was supposed to last until Louis reached a certain age (and if you believe the tabloids Kate wanted a fourth child to extend this).  Harry and then Meghan would do all of the "grueling" engagements regardless of them having children.  Because William and Kate and their kids are naturally more important.  William and Kate were furious about Harry and Meghan leaving because they would now have to work which this article lays out.  If all of this is true (and part of me does think it is), I don't blame Harry and Meghan for noping out.  

[Growsonwalls]

5 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Nah, Kate and William do parent their kids while also using nannies.  That article hinted at something else I have heard about the two families.  Supposedly there was an agreement reached where William and Kate would ease off their official duties while raising their kids and Harry would step up.  I guess this was supposed to last until Louis reached a certain age (and if you believe the tabloids Kate wanted a fourth child to extend this).  Harry and then Meghan would do all of the "grueling" engagements regardless of them having children.  Because William and Kate and their kids are naturally more important.  William and Kate were furious about Harry and Meghan leaving because they would now have to work which this article lays out.  If all of this is true (and part of me does think it is), I don't blame Harry and Meghan for noping out.  

I don't think that's the case -- maybe Kate wanted a lighter workload, but William has actually had a heavier workload than Harry for years. And William was always willing to do more of the run of the mill engagements. 

But after I read the Tatler article I thought, "Wow, KP staff must hate Kate if this is the 'flattering' article they agreed to."

[Ohiopirate02]

11 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

 

But after I read the Tatler article I thought, "Wow, KP staff must hate Kate if this is the 'flattering' article they agreed to."

I honestly think that KP lives in such a bubble that they thought this article was going to humanize Kate as a working mum trying to juggle her three kids and her royal duties during a pandemic.  The article takes great pains to show that Kate is not an aristocrat or royal right before smacking that down.  I actually find it a great piece of journalism.  I can see the author taking the time to get the sources to trust her in order to get the quotes used here.  All of the unnamed friends and sources let some things slip that I know KP would not want.  It takes time and dedication for a journalist to get that info.  The finished product was not what KP envisioned when they agreed, but that is on them.

[Growsonwalls]

2 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I honestly think that KP lives in such a bubble that they thought this article was going to humanize Kate as a working mum trying to juggle her three kids and her royal duties during a pandemic.  The article takes great pains to show that Kate is not an aristocrat or royal right before smacking that down.  I actually find it a great piece of journalism.  I can see the author taking the time to get the sources to trust her in order to get the quotes used here.  All of the unnamed friends and sources let some things slip that I know KP would not want.  It takes time and dedication for a journalist to get that info.  The finished product was not what KP envisioned when they agreed, but that is on them.

The original article had a lot of gossip about Carole Middleton that was eventually removed. I wish I had saved a copy of the original article.

I had to laugh that Kate and Meghan fell out at the wedding over ... tights or Charlotte? WTF? If this story is true than Kate is the biggest prisspot ever.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Growsonwalls

[PeterPirate]

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Marlo Thomas was "That Girl."  Meghan is "This Girl."  LOL.

Sorry.  They look so much I alike I often confusticate them.

 

[Crs97]

I just keep envisioning that Harry got off the phone with William or one of his aides, sighed as he told Meghan he had to do some chore, and Meghan asked, “Why?”  That one word question that Harry had never dared ask before started the whole ball rolling to their freedom.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Crs97 said:

I just keep envisioning that Harry got off the phone with William or one of his aides, sighed as he told Meghan he had to do some chore, and Meghan asked, “Why?”  That one word question that Harry had never dared ask before started the whole ball rolling to their freedom.

Can't help but hear this and think, "Because I've been a very rich person my whole life for the sole reason of  who my parents are."

[Growsonwalls]

I think Harry and Meghan have done an amazing job branding their own love story. 

[MadyGirl1987]

On 1/27/2021 at 5:44 PM, sistermagpie said:

Can't help but hear this and think, "Because I've been a very rich person my whole life for the sole reason of  who my parents are."

I agree. Nothing comes without cost, and it’s Harry’s cost, and Meghan’s by the fact she married him, that he can’t be 100% the person he wishes he could be or just do whatever he wants to do. They have enormous wealth and privilege, the attention of the world they can use to bring attention to causes they feel passionate about. They will never have to worry about paying the rent, saving for college for Archie or what they will do for retirement.

Now that’s not to say their lives aren’t without trouble and that they have to just take whatever is thrown at them, especially the racist stuff. I just wished they would realize how it seems when they are very public in talking about how hard they find their super-privileged lives. Talking about stepping back to “make their own way” while relying on the connections they got from their positions, privilege and wealth. Especially during a pandemic. It just bugs me for the same reason seeing celebrities doing messages about how “we’re all in this together” from their expensive, luxury homes. We’re not. The fact is some people have it way worse and are more effected by current events then you. I don’t care if you’re rich or privileged, but acknowledge it, try to do some good with it and, for God’s sake, read the room!

I know it seems like I’m piling on Harry and Meghan, but I actually don’t mind them leaving and finding their way. Harry never did seem entirely comfortable with royal life. I just wish they knew how they came across sometimes.