Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé

[PinkRibbons]

From what I gather, the US frowns strongly on dual citizenship but still lets it happen here and there. And all this discussion has been making me wonder if this marriage could conceivably get Prince Harry a Green Card?

(He would of course have to renounce all titles on the path to full citizenship.)

[dubbel zout]

Aren't there are residency requirements? I doubt Harry would be able to fulfill them.

[doodlebug]

17 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Aren't there are residency requirements? I doubt Harry would be able to fulfill them.

There is no chance Harry would even WANT a green card, let alone that he and Meghan would ever spend significant time in the US.  A green card is mostly useful when one wants to work in the US; Harry doesn’t need a job, he certainly isn’t looking for work in the UK, he won’t be job hunting in the US. 

I could see them perhaps buying a home near Meghan’s mother where they’d spend a few weeks a year, since it might be easier to have a stable home base for security and logistical reasons, but there is no way either Harry or Meghan spends any significant amount of time in the US, let alone ever work here other than as visiting royals.

Edited December 8, 2017 by doodlebug

[roamyn]

2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

The Swedish monarchy is much more relaxed than the British, and Christopher O'Neill doesn't participate in official court life. Meghan will. I can't see her keeping her U.S. citizenship forever. And as biakbiak mentioned, there are tax implications for her. The information she'd have to turn over to the IRS would include information about the finances of the BRF, and there's no way any of them want that. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I agree.  And the fact that he didn't want a title plays into him keeping dual citizenship.

I was just pointing out that it CAN be done with a member of the RF, albeit a fringe one in Chri's case.

There's NO WAY Harry will get a green card.  Can you imagine Grandma's reaction to that?  Even w/her favorite grandson?

[Fireball]

5 hours ago, roamyn said:

There's NO WAY Harry will get a green card.  Can you imagine Grandma's reaction to that?  Even w/her favorite grandson?

Is Harry the Queen's favorite? I always thought William was her favorite.

[doodlebug]

56 minutes ago, Fireball said:

Is Harry the Queen's favorite? I always thought William was her favorite.

I presume, like most Grandmas, the Queen doesn't admit to favorites.  However, she has spent a great deal of time with both grandsons, probably because they lost their mother so young and also because of William's role as heir.  Harry very strongly resembles young Prince Philip and many have said that the Queen is especially fond of him at least partly because of it.

[Athena]

It is all speculation, but I do think Harry and William are up there.

The Telegraph says Peter Philips is her favourite. She is fond of the Philips' as I remember reading Zara is one of her favourite grand daughters most likely because Zara and the Queen share a love of horses.

[dubbel zout]

William gets understandable attention from the queen because he's in line for the throne, but I wouldn't be surprised if she has an especial soft spot for Harry due to both Diana dying when he was so young and his general fun mischievousness. When I see them together it always looks like they're sharing a joke.

That said, I've read elsewhere that the Philips grandchildren are her favorites, as much as a grandmother has favorites.

[Fireball]

5 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

William gets understandable attention from the queen because he's in line for the throne, but I wouldn't be surprised if she has an especial soft spot for Harry due to both Diana dying when he was so young and his general fun mischievousness. When I see them together it always looks like they're sharing a joke.

That said, I've read elsewhere that the Philips grandchildren are her favorites, as much as a grandmother has favorites.

Fun mischievousness? I'm not sure I'd classify Harry's escapades as fun mischievousness, but that's me.  However, when you say "general fun mischievousness" maybe you're not referring to his parting, drinking, inappropriate outfits, sex videos, etc. etc. 

Oh believe me grandmothers certainly have favorites some are just better at hiding it. :) My grandmother made no effort to hide that my cousin was her favorite.  I have no idea who the Queen's favorite grandchild is, but between Harry and William I've always gotten the impression that she preferred William. 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Fireball

[PRgal]

5 hours ago, Fireball said:

Fun mischievousness? I'm not sure I'd classify Harry's escapades as fun mischievousness, but that's me.  I was never impressed with him and his parting, drinking, inappropriate outfits, sex videos, etc. etc. I do think he's finally grown up through.   

Oh believe me grandmothers certainly have favorites some are just better at hiding it. :) My grandmother made no effort to hide that my cousin was her favorite.  I have no idea who the Queen's favorite grandchild is, but between Harry and William I've always gotten the impression that she preferred William. 

So true!  I don't think my paternal grandmother likes her Canadian grandkids too much - though she likes my cousins more.  And that's only because they're guys.  Her favourites are the four who grew up in Hong Kong.  At least that's how *I* feel. 

[Fireball]

33 minutes ago, PRgal said:

So true!  I don't think my paternal grandmother likes her Canadian grandkids too much - though she likes my cousins more.  And that's only because they're guys.  Her favourites are the four who grew up in Hong Kong.  At least that's how *I* feel. 

I'm sorry it really sucks when grandparents don't at least try and hide that so and so is their favorite. I knew from around age 6 that my older cousin was the world to my grandmother and the rest of us for some reason didn't pass muster. 

[millk]

On 08/12/2017 at 0:51 PM, Athena said:

It is all speculation, but I do think Harry and William are up there.

The Telegraph says Peter Philips is her favourite. She is fond of the Philips' as I remember reading Zara is one of her favourite grand daughters most likely because Zara and the Queen share a love of horses.

 

I suppose a debate over favourite is better than the breathless "article" about the Queen being excited to attend the wedding of her youngest grandson. I'm sure she'd be very excited (and surprised) to find herself at James's wedding. He'll be 10 next week.

[biakbiak]

Canned Pimms? Who knew!

[roamyn]

1 hour ago, millk said:

 

I suppose a debate over favourite is better than the breathless "article" about the Queen being excited to attend the wedding of her youngest grandson. I'm sure she'd be very excited (and surprised) to find herself at James's wedding. He'll be 10 next week.

There was in the past year pictures of QE2 w/her grt-grandchildren, yet Louise & James were also in the photos.  I thought that odd because 1) they're much older than the grt-grandchildren, and 2) they're her grandchildren - not grt-grandchildren.

[millk]

24 minutes ago, roamyn said:

There was in the past year pictures of QE2 w/her grt-grandchildren, yet Louise & James were also in the photos.  I thought that odd because 1) they're much older than the grt-grandchildren, and 2) they're her grandchildren - not grt-grandchildren.

I think I was an age thing. Louise and James are so much younger than the rest of the grandchildren and really can't be expected to be in the same league. I have a bet that all those children will be in the May wedding.

 There was a wonderful picture a few years ago of James happily holding Peters hand. Peter is the most handsome grandson IMO.

Edited December 9, 2017 by millk

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, millk said:

I suppose a debate over favourite is better than the breathless "article" about the Queen being excited to attend the wedding of her youngest grandson. I'm sure she'd be very excited (and surprised) to find herself at James's wedding. He'll be 10 next week.

LOL. I'm sure James would be surprised to find himself at his wedding too!

[Fireball]

23 hours ago, millk said:

I suppose a debate over favourite is better than the breathless "article" about the Queen being excited to attend the wedding of her youngest grandson. I'm sure she'd be very excited (and surprised) to find herself at James's wedding. He'll be 10 next week.

LOL I think the media tends to forget that the Queen has other grandkids besides William and Harry. 

[Fireball]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 11:07 AM, millk said:

I suppose a debate over favourite is better than the breathless "article" about the Queen being excited to attend the wedding of her youngest grandson. I'm sure she'd be very excited (and surprised) to find herself at James's wedding. He'll be 10 next week.

haha I think debates over favorites and breathless articles are both better than the articles that I keep running a crossed about how Meghan will be a better princess than Kate, why the Queen prefers Meghan to Kate, how Kate is losing her fashion icon status to Meghan, who wore it better Meghan or Kate, and why the British public prefer Meghan to Kate.  I didn't read any of the articles since I thought the titles sounded catty and boring, but they keep popping up on my internet homepage.

 

Since this is a gossip thread:  What did people think of Meghan's engagement dress?

When I saw the picture my first thought was "is she really wearing a see through dress?!?!?" then I was "oh it's probably lined. " then I saw the bottom of the dress and I was "feathers? really? weird" and then I was back to "is the dress really see through or is it lined?"

I also thought that Meghan and Harry looked mismatched like they hadn't talked about what their were wearing. Meghan looked like she was ready for the red carpet and Harry looked like he was ready for an afternoon wedding or something. I think if Harry had worn a black suit it would have been better. 

[doodlebug]

2 hours ago, Fireball said:

haha I think debates over favorites and breathless articles are both better than the articles that I keep running a crossed about how Meghan will be a better princess than Kate, why the Queen prefers Meghan to Kate, how Kate is losing her fashion icon status to Meghan, who wore it better Meghan or Kate, and why the British public prefer Meghan to Kate.  I didn't read any of the articles since I thought the titles sounded catty and boring, but they keep popping up on my internet homepage.

 

Since this is a gossip thread:  What did people think of Meghan's engagement dress?

When I saw the picture my first thought was "is she really wearing a see through dress?!?!?" then I was "oh it's probably lined. " then I saw the bottom of the dress and I was "feathers? really? weird" and then I was back to "is the dress really see through or is it lined?"

I also thought that Meghan and Harry looked mismatched like they hadn't talked about what their were wearing. Meghan looked like she was ready for the red carpet and Harry looked like he was ready for an afternoon wedding or something. I think if Harry had worn a black suit it would have been better. 

I think Meghan chose the dress to set herself apart from Kate and avoid comparisons.  However, to me, she looked too formal, too 'Hollywood red carpet', especially with Harry in a business suit.  I'd have preferred to see her in a day dress, especially for the informal photos.  She and Harry did look mismatched, the color and style of his suit weren't compatible with her look.  His suit also looked to be somewhat poorly fitted, especially in the informal photos where he's sitting down, it looks uncomfortably tight.  I think Meghan's overall style is very different than Kate's and her position in the royal family will allow her a lot more leeway in styling, but I didn't really like the dress she chose although I am glad she lined it; the runway version with the see-through top would've been ridiculous in that setting.  Her hair and makeup were beautiful and I hope Kate takes some tips and modernizes her eyeliner like Meghan.

Finally, both Harry and Meghan looked radiantly happy in all the photos, which is really the most important thing anyway.

Edited January 1, 2018 by doodlebug

[hendersonrocks]

It’s a beautiful dress - I am just surprised they went with the optics of her wearing a hella expensive gown like that. And like doodlebug said, while Harry is in an everyday suit. A little bit of a misstep, but Princess Michael did them a solid by wearing her horrifically racist brooch to Christmas lunch and basically taking over the negative press coverage.

[CousinAmy]

Kate had many slip-ups and fashion faux pass along the way. Mostly now she's criticized for being too stodgy, but her look suits her position. it took her awhile to find her personal style, and I'm sure Meghan will be the same. She won't have to look quite so establishment, but she'll get there. 

[merylinkid]

Going back to the Anderson Cooper-Royalty connection.   There is a more convoluted but stronger connection.    Cornelius Vanderbilt (I) is Anderson Cooper's great-great grandfather.    Cornelius is also the great grandfather of Consuelo Vanderbilt who became the Duchess of Marlborough.   The Marlborough line has two subordinate branches -- the Earls of Spencer and the Churchills.    So Prince William and Prince Harry are some sort of cousins of Anderson Cooper through their mother Princess Diana.

[Scarlett45]

8 hours ago, hendersonrocks said:

It’s a beautiful dress - I am just surprised they went with the optics of her wearing a hella expensive gown like that. And like doodlebug said, while Harry is in an everyday suit. A little bit of a misstep, but Princess Michael did them a solid by wearing her horrifically racist brooch to Christmas lunch and basically taking over the negative press coverage.

Absolutely!

Im so excited for the wedding, it should be televised no?

But you’re looking at the person who was AT the Diamond Jubilee, standing on the bridge of the Thames River in the rain to watch the pageant....I live in Chicago IL?. 

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

Absolutely!

Im so excited for the wedding, it should be televised no?

But you’re looking at the person who was AT the Diamond Jubilee, standing on the bridge of the Thames River in the rain to watch the pageant....I live in Chicago IL?. 

My daughter and I live 40 miles apart, but we "watch" all the royal weddings together . . . via text messages while we stay up all night in Arizona.  Much coffee is consumed.

[Fireball]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 10:19 AM, doodlebug said:

I think Meghan chose the dress to set herself apart from Kate and avoid comparisons.  However, to me, she looked too formal, too 'Hollywood red carpet', especially with Harry in a business suit.  I'd have preferred to see her in a day dress, especially for the informal photos.  She and Harry did look mismatched, the color and style of his suit weren't compatible with her look.  His suit also looked to be somewhat poorly fitted, especially in the informal photos where he's sitting down, it looks uncomfortably tight.  I think Meghan's overall style is very different than Kate's and her position in the royal family will allow her a lot more leeway in styling, but I didn't really like the dress she chose although I am glad she lined it; the runway version with the see-through top would've been ridiculous in that setting.  Her hair and makeup were beautiful and I hope Kate takes some tips and modernizes her eyeliner like Meghan.

Finally, both Harry and Meghan looked radiantly happy in all the photos, which is really the most important thing anyway.

Oh I agree, I just thought they looked mismatched which seemed weird considering how big a deal the engagement photos are.  

What don't you like about Kate's eyeliner? 

Edited January 7, 2018 by Fireball

[doodlebug]

30 minutes ago, Fireball said:

Oh I agree, I just thought they looked mismatched which seemed weird considering how big a deal the engagement photos are.  

What don't you like about Kate's eyeliner? 

Too thick, dark making her beautiful eyes look smaller than they are.  I wish she'd use a lighter touch.

[7-Zark-7]

Kate could use a stylist, preferably one that eliminates Catherine Walker from her closet. There must be a way to dress like a future Queen without being so dull.  And yes, the dark eyeliner under the rim is antiquated.

[Fireball]

So I must be missing something, but a lot of the pictures I see of Meghan also have her wearing dark eyeliner... 

[Razzberry]

I've been following with fascination the Wallis Meghan engagement.   Apparently it's not about punking grandma,  so Harry must really be in love - whatever that is - and may not have thought this through. 

His comment about Meghan not having a real family was a little rude.   Her family seems like a mixed bag, but saying her half-brother was a "distant"  relative who she didn't even know was a stretch.   We may not like all family members - we may wish they didn't exist - but fortunately for us, they do.

[hendersonrocks]

Quote

I've been following with fascination the Wallis Meghan engagement.   Apparently it's not about punking grandma,  so Harry must really be in love - whatever that is - and may not have thought this through. 

That seems like a pretty harsh characterization. One of these people was a Nazi sympathizer and well-documented horrible person, the other is a successful woman of color who has only used her public platform for good.

[7-Zark-7]

On 2/22/2018 at 3:10 AM, Razzberry said:

Her family seems like a mixed bag, but saying her half-brother was a "distant"  relative who she didn't even know was a stretch.

I don't recall Prince Harry or Meghan saying that she didn't know her half siblings, but they are distant. They were both teenagers and living in a different household when Meghan was born. This is not a set up for a close sibling connection. Also, it's hard to see why Meghan's father's side of her family are claiming surprise at Harry's statement about Meghan not having a big family experience considering their family doesn't even talk to each other. Seriously, Meghan no longer talks to her siblings, her half sister doesn't talk to her own mother, at least one her daughters, or her full brother, who in turn is estranged from his father, and pulled a gun on his girlfriend. Does anyone really buy they had big warm family Christmases?

Edited March 12, 2018 by 7-Zark-7

[Razzberry]

I don't know what their holidays were like growing up.  I got the impression the feuding was a relatively recent development.  Given the large number of divorced parents and step-to-half siblings, it sounds like a fairly typical blended family.

 

On 3/5/2018 at 3:49 PM, hendersonrocks said:

That seems like a pretty harsh characterization. One of these people was a Nazi sympathizer and well-documented horrible person, the other is a successful woman of color who has only used her public platform for good.

To be clear, I wasn't personally judging anyone.  Tongue-in-cheek doesn't always work for me.

[Fireball]

Soooo the baby announcement so close to Princess Eugenie's wedding; does anyone think it was timed to bring the spotlight back on Harry & Meghan? I don't know, but I think they probably just wanted to announce before the tour. But with the family drama between Charles and Andrew it does make one wonder.

I do think if Harry & Meghan did announce that they were expecting at Princess Eugenie's wedding that was really rude of them. Eugenie had to move her wedding date to accommodate Harry and Meghan, so I think the least they could do would be not announce "we're pregnant" on her and Jack's wedding day. 

I also think Meghan could have worn a dress/coat that didn't scream I'm pregnant. I really don't see why the bottom part of her coat couldn't have been buttoned up. Meghan's not showing that much that the coat needed to be left unbuttoned and if it really did need to be left unbuttoned to accommodate the pregnancy Harry or Meghan could easily have afforded to buy a coat that would accommodate the pregnancy and be able to be buttoned up.   

However, saying all that even if Meghan had worn a coat that was buttoned up, I'm sure the media still would have been all about Meghan & Harry since they are a popular royal couple. 

[ombelico]

I think one would have to be really cynical to read something nefarious into the timing of the baby announcement, beyond just a coincidence. Meghan's in her late 30's, and Harry has been very clear that he has wanted kids for a long time. They obviously started trying to get pregnant as soon as they were married, and it worked within a couple of months. Then it just so happened that by the time Eugenie's wedding rolled around, Meghan was starting to show (which is not hard on someone with her super-slim body type). Yes, Meghan's coat at the wedding wasn't the most flattering, but it was a dark color and clearly intended to blend in the background and not draw attention away from the bride. Moreover, there are accounts that Eugenie and Jack were among the very small group of family members (i.e., The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, and Prince Charles) who were told of the pregnancy before the wedding. They weren't trying to spring a surprise on Eugenie on her wedding day.

Then, since H&M were leaving immediately for their tour, they had to make the public announcement since she wouldn't be able to cover up with coats and such in the warmer weather in Australia. They probably also wanted to pre-empt any questions of "Where's Meghan?" when she inevitably needed to decline certain engagements because she needed more rest, was trying to avoid Zika, and so on.

The announcement of Meghan's pregnancy doesn't detract at all from the joy of Eugenie's wedding. Celebrations of happiness are not a zero-sum game.

[Fireball]

1 hour ago, ombelico said:

I think one would have to be really cynical to read something nefarious into the timing of the baby announcement, beyond just a coincidence. Meghan's in her late 30's, and Harry has been very clear that he has wanted kids for a long time. 

 I think Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew may have read something into the timing of the announcement. Sarah tweeted photos from the wedding right after Meghan and Harry publicly announced their news via Kensington Palace Monday morning, and Andrew was re-tweeting Sarah's post welcoming Jack to the family.  As I said I think the timing had to do with the tour.  But reading the conspiracy theories are entertaining. 

1 hour ago, ombelico said:

The announcement of Meghan's pregnancy doesn't detract at all from the joy of Eugenie's wedding. Celebrations of happiness are not a zero-sum game.

I never said that is did. But I stand by if Harry and Meghan did make an announcement at the wedding that would be really rude of them. I also think Meghan could have picked a different outfit that didn't scream I'm pregnant. She had to know that the cameras would be on her and trying to figure out if she was pregnant. I've seen photos of Meghan from the tour in outfits that don't make her look as pregnant as that coat did. 

[doodlebug]

50 minutes ago, Fireball said:

 I think Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew may have read something into the timing of the announcement. Sarah tweeted photos from the wedding right after Meghan and Harry publicly announced their news via Kensington Palace Monday morning, and Andrew was re-tweeting Sarah's post welcoming Jack to the family.  As I said I think the timing had to do with the tour.  But reading the conspiracy theories are entertaining. 

I never said that is did. But I stand by if Harry and Meghan did make an announcement at the wedding that would be really rude of them. I also think Meghan could have picked a different outfit that didn't scream I'm pregnant. She had to know that the cameras would be on her and trying to figure out if she was pregnant. I've seen photos of Meghan from the tour in outfits that don't make her look as pregnant as that coat did. 

I doubt Sarah or Prince Andrew read anything into the announcement.  They're not dumb, they understand biology.  Obviously, Harry and Meghan were going to want to get pregnant sooner than later.  It turns out Eugenie's wedding was just before the trip to Australia.  What could they have done differently?  Had they announced the pregnancy publicly prior to the wedding, that would've surely taken far more focus off of the Yorks than waiting until afterwards.  Also, we've been told that the immediate royal family did indeed know that Meghan was pregnant, it was simply that the wedding was the first time they'd been together with her and Harry since finding out. As for Meghan's outfit, it hardly screamed 'I'm pregnant' and, if you've seen the photos taken on their tour just days later, it's pretty obvious they'd done a fair job since the heir is pretty apparent these days.

[Arynm]

I figured that Megan and Harry had told a select few about the pregnancy before and the first time they had seen some of the family would have been at the wedding. So to some, it would have looked like an announcement was made at the wedding when in actuality it wasn't. I hope that was clear. I think Eugenie is very clear on where she stands on protocol so I don't thinks she would be upset at all. I think I read an interview where she said as much. Being a Princess is tough work y'all!

[andromeda331]

I hadn't realized they told people already before the wedding. When I first heard I was surprised that they chose then to tell everyone they were expecting. Then I realized it was probably the last time they'd all be together for awhile they all have busy schedules and Harry and Meghan were about to leave on a long trip. It makes sense they'd chose then.  

[PeterPirate]

Interesting and amusing video that raises doubts about the legitimacy of the House of Windsor.  It also tracks down a person from the Plantagenet line who *should* be the real King of England. 

Britain's Real Monarch

Fwiw, the person they found lives in Australia, is a former Peer, and voted for the Republicans.  Reminds me of Lord Altrincham.  

Edited November 5, 2018 by PeterPirate

[toolazy]

On 11/2/2018 at 3:35 PM, andromeda331 said:

I hadn't realized they told people already before the wedding. When I first heard I was surprised that they chose then to tell everyone they were expecting. Then I realized it was probably the last time they'd all be together for awhile they all have busy schedules and Harry and Meghan were about to leave on a long trip. It makes sense they'd chose then.  

Never mind.  Dead horses and such.

Edited November 6, 2018 by toolazy

[MCMLXXVII]

I found this entertaining documentary on Prime. I wonder how much of Margaret’s ‘70s adventures will be in The Crown?

The Princess and The Gangster

[Umbelina]

This thread seems to be the most appropriate place to ask/discuss a question I have.  There are many tabloid and legitimate news sources that have discussed this over the years, polls that have been taken, etc.

The show is about to embark on the story of Charles, Camilla, and Diana, so maybe that's why this issue is in my mind now.  Also, other media about the Queen and monarchy in general have brought it to my mind, for example, in The Queen, PM Blair talking several times about QEII "never putting a foot wrong" and her life long works for the UK and Commonwealth.  Christopher Hitchens articles about the absurdity of monarchy in Vanity Fair, oh heck, so many things.

I never really cared, and am probably one of those Americans who thinks it all "quaint" and slightly strange that people still curtsy, even stranger all the wealth/property/jewels/deference, and I've learned even more in various threads here.  So here is my question.

Do you think the monarchy will continue after Elizabeth II dies?  

I don't think it will.  I'm far from an expert, but I just don't think it will.  I don't think people will accept Charles as leader of the Church, let alone as King.  I think they may have, but Camilla as Queen?  I just can't see it happening, and I can't see Charles abdicating in favor of William either, which is another thing the tabloids and legitimate press have mentioned, suggested, and done polls about.

My feeling is that QEII, by her devotion and dignity, has held the monarchy together, and earned her title as Queen.  She is justifiably loved, and was crowned in a very different time.  

Do I think Charles is any worse than other Kings or Queens?  Probably not, but they didn't have their private peccadilloes spread over the tabloids, and of course, in the more distant past, had a lot more actual power than the current monarchy.

I think Elizabeth II will be the last ruling monarch.  If I'm right?  How will that happen, and what will happen then?  The property, the palaces, the jewels, all of it?  What would be the rest of the fallout? 

[MadyGirl1987]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

This thread seems to be the most appropriate place to ask/discuss a question I have.  There are many tabloid and legitimate news sources that have discussed this over the years, polls that have been taken, etc.

The show is about to embark on the story of Charles, Camilla, and Diana, so maybe that's why this issue is in my mind now.  Also, other media about the Queen and monarchy in general have brought it to my mind, for example, in The Queen, PM Blair talking several times about QEII "never putting a foot wrong" and her life long works for the UK and Commonwealth.  Christopher Hitchens articles about the absurdity of monarchy in Vanity Fair, oh heck, so many things.

I never really cared, and am probably one of those Americans who thinks it all "quaint" and slightly strange that people still curtsy, even stranger all the wealth/property/jewels/deference, and I've learned even more in various threads here.  So here is my question.

Do you think the monarchy will continue after Elizabeth II dies?  

I don't think it will.  I'm far from an expert, but I just don't think it will.  I don't think people will accept Charles as leader of the Church, let alone as King.  I think they may have, but Camilla as Queen?  I just can't see it happening, and I can't see Charles abdicating in favor of William either, which is another thing the tabloids and legitimate press have mentioned, suggested, and done polls about.

My feeling is that QEII, by her devotion and dignity, has held the monarchy together, and earned her title as Queen.  She is justifiably loved, and was crowned in a very different time.  

Do I think Charles is any worse than other Kings or Queens?  Probably not, but they didn't have their private peccadilloes spread over the tabloids, and of course, in the more distant past, had a lot more actual power than the current monarchy.

I think Elizabeth II will be the last ruling monarch.  If I'm right?  How will that happen, and what will happen then?  The property, the palaces, the jewels, all of it?  What would be the rest of the fallout? 

I think the monarchy will survive. Continuing will be an adjustment, for sure, but I think with changes the monarchy will survive. Hearing about Charles' plans to shrink down the number of "working royals" for example, reflects to me he understands the family must change with the times. I would also argue the British monarchy has undergone bigger challenges in the not too distant past. The Hanoverian dynasty was seen as decadent and embarrassing by the time Victoria came to the throne. She was dragged for retreating from public life after Albert's death. Edward VII was involved in scandals, even named in a divorce suit. The whole abdication thing. The social changes in the last half of the 1900s. 

In regards to Charles' scandals, I think enough distance has passed that people see Charles as more then his scandals. I see him being mentioned more for his charities then any of that. It also doesn't hurt that he probably won't be king for an extended period, due to his age, and he has an heir(William) people are fond of. Even if they hate Charles, people are not going to take the monarchy from Princess Diana's son and grandchildren.

All that being said, I have no idea what would happen to properties if the monarchy was ever abolished. The assets would probably be assumed by the government, what isn't owned by the Windsor family that is. Buckingham Palace and other sites would probably be made into protected historical sites.

[dubbel zout]

25 minutes ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

In regards to Charles' scandals, I think enough distance has passed that people see Charles as more then his scandals.

Same. There will always be people who hate Camilla, but she's done a great job of keeping her head down and doing her work. The way they eased her into things was extremely savvy. And not for nothing, she's one of the royal press corps' favorite members of the BRF. 

I think the monarchy will continue. Charles desperately wants to rule, even if his reign will likely be on the short side. And I doubt William, even if he doesn't really want the job, wants things to end on his watch.

[Umbelina]

The mustaches may try to talk Charles out of making Camilla Queen as well.

I don't agree that it will survive though.  It's, IMO of course, survived this long for one reason, Elizabeth II.  Even die hard anti monarchists have a bit of trouble with the idea of dethroning her.

Charles?  Camilla?  They will never have the respect or love the Elizabeth II has, and the cries for an end to the monarchy, IMO again, will grow much louder after her death.

[Arynm]

I think that they will lose most of the Commonwealth, but for England, the Monarchy will go on. I know Australia has voiced that they will leave once the Queen is gone, and I think more will follow. There are Monarchies in Spain, Sweden, Monaco, Norway and the Netherlands with others that I can't remember and they are all thriving. I think England's Monarchy will carry on. They know that Charles will have a short reign and everyone loves William and Kate.

[PeterPirate]

I do wonder what the royal couple was thinking when they named their firstborn after the only English monarch to have his head cut off by his own parliament.  There is a saying that history does not repeat itself, but it does tend to rhyme.   

On the flip side, the first English king named William fared much better.  Those wayward territories would do well to stay in line.  

[Minivanessa]

I think the monarchy will survive. There's a six part documentary on Netflix right now, The Royal House of Windsor (not to be confused with a drama The Windsors). It traces the history of the dynasty, and one of its notable characteristics is that they understand that they must change to meet the times, or not survive.

During WWI, King George V understood the sometimes rabid anti-German sentiment in Great Britain, and changed the name of his family from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to WIndsor. He also decreed that his slew of German relatives in Britain who still held Germanic royal titles had to relinquish them. The most famous fallout from this was the "royal" Battenberg family, kin to the King, who had to Anglicize their name to Mountbatten and surrender their royal titles. Lord Louis Mountbatten was in his teens at the time and deeply felt the loss. He was no longer "Prince Louis," and his father had to resign as head of the Admiralty. It's widely believed that Louis lived the rest of his life in pursuit of royal status.

King George V and his queen also departed from precedent by getting out of their carriages and cars, and mingling with the people. Not what we'd consider in any kind of informal way but it was noticed and appreciated. He Instituted awards to honor "regular people" for their contributions to the war effort and then to the nation in general. Those were all major changes, and they were made in a fairly short period of time.

The changes after that were IMO not as dramatic, and came bit by bit.

I think if anything, Elizabeth II almost let the monarchy founder with her very conservative, almost passive, stewardship. Certainly she was never involved personally in any scandal or whiff of bad behavior. But as the 1960's and 1970's rolled along she just kept doing things the way everybody had adored back in 1952.  She kept doing things the way the old mustaches liked, and also one of her bywords, was "we mustn't upset Mummy." The Queen Mother was born in 1900, but still commanded astoundingly strong deference from her daughter the Queen on matters across the board. 

Then, at some point in I think the 1970's or maybe the 1960's, the Queen announced an official tour to foreign parts - and nobody came! Meaning, the press didn't send anyone to cover it. That was HUGE. The Windsors were old news, back pages. Nobody cared.

IIRC by the time of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 1977, there was real anxiety in the Palace that it would be a bust, that nobody would much turn out. Fortunately it wasn't a fizzle; it ought to have been a wake up call. Prince Philip had always been a modernizer, and IIRC he began to be listened to more in the 60's and 70's. 

Where the Queen's clean ethical and personal reputation has been invaluable to keeping the monarchy going, has been as a counterweight to the many many disappointing antics of her various children and their various spouses, especially in the late 80's and 90's. 

Her longevity has probably also saved the monarchy. Had she died 20 years ago, Charles would have had a very shaky start in terms of public approval. (The irony of the monarchy is that it's not a popularity contest like political offices are, but at the same time it can't last long without public support.) These days the heat of the Charles/Diana divorce battle has long cooled, their sons are enjoying great approval and respect by the people, and while I think people still think Charles is kind of a doofus, he's no longer any kind of public enemy. Likewise, as noted above, Camilla has worked her way into approval and acceptance that I think nobody would have predicted 20 years ago.

I agree, though, about Charles' name. Really? What were his parents thinking? 

EDITED to add: I didn't address the "Diana effect" on the monarchy but I think it was huge. My post was already long enough!

Edited November 11, 2019 by Jeeves
clarity, it's a goal

[merylinkid]

Charles II restored the Monarchy after Cromwell.   The Restoration period was known for its excesses of the King, but also his "go along to get along" attitude with Parliament.   He wasn't going to lose his head.   So naming the present Prince of Wales Charles is just fine.  

Now using Richard for a first name would be a bad idea.   

The Monarchy will survive.   So will the Commonwealth because it is also a trade bloc.   Commonwealth countries get favorable trade deals.   It's more a practical reason to stay than sentiment, but whatever works.

[Minivanessa]

39 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Charles II restored the Monarchy after Cromwell.   The Restoration period was known for its excesses of the King, but also his "go along to get along" attitude with Parliament.   He wasn't going to lose his head.   So naming the present Prince of Wales Charles is just fine.  

Now using Richard for a first name would be a bad idea.   

Good points. I think that Charles II, despite keeping his head (literally) and restoring the monarchy, didn't restore luster to his name due to his personal excesses, so the name for a monarch just doesn't resonate well for me. 

And oh yes indeed, Richard would have been a real nonstarter as a name! 🤣