Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé

[Ambrosefolly]

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

MMV, but I see William as stringing Kate along until the point where he had to propose because he was ruining Kate's chances of having a life outside of him.  He wore Kate down to the point to definitely make sure she would never consider divorcing.  I get taking it slow in your 20s to make sure your partner is "the one" and William did not want to repeat the mistakes of his parents by marrying too soon, but he took forever.  William and Kate dated, broke up, and dated again for over 2 years before he proposed.  I know that during the time between breakup and proposal the family took Kate under their wing and gave her the lessons they neglected to give Diana.  Kate knew what was expected of her in her role as William's wife and future queen before walking down the aisle.  But, William's indecisiveness caused undue media scrutiny on Kate, and he knew it.   

 

Which is why I don't doubt Charles pushed William to either stop of move forward with Kate, so she could move on. I don't think people give Kate enough credit for how calculating she could be. I am not saying that she was a bad person, but she has a good amount of "girl game". I don't think Kate and William breaking up at 25 would have ruined her chances of a life, because Kate is still a beautiful woman who was 25 at the time, and she still had the options of working for her family business, training as a photographer or marrying a lower status but equally rich guy or a combo of all three. One thing that royal commentators noted that after William broke up with her, she didn't hide in some hole, only resurfacing looking depressed. She dressed hot, joined a rowing team and photographed kind of flirting with guys. She also kept her mouth shut discussing anything about their relationship or anything she knew about the royals. I heard in a video clip that after she was seen at the "Concert for Diana" when it was rumored she and William were back together, they went on vacation where they got informally engaged. While, she might have been surprised when he finally proposed in Africa, she must have know it was coming because William finished the last of his military training only a few months before. 

[Ohiopirate02]

15 minutes ago, Ambrosefolly said:

Which is why I don't doubt Charles pushed William to either stop of move forward with Kate, so she could move on. I don't think people give Kate enough credit for how calculating she could be. I am not saying that she was a bad person, but she has a good amount of "girl game". I don't think Kate and William breaking up at 25 would have ruined her chances of a life, because Kate is still a beautiful woman who was 25 at the time, and she still had the options of working for her family business, training as a photographer or marrying a lower status but equally rich guy or a combo of all three. One thing that royal commentators noted that after William broke up with her, she didn't hide in some hole, only resurfacing looking depressed. She dressed hot, joined a rowing team and photographed kind of flirting with guys. She also kept her mouth shut discussing anything about their relationship or anything she knew about the royals. I heard in a video clip that after she was seen at the "Concert for Diana" when it was rumored she and William were back together, they went on vacation where they got informally engaged. While, she might have been surprised when he finally proposed in Africa, she must have know it was coming because William finished the last of his military training only a few months before. 

I get breaking up at 25 because you started dating as teenagers at university.  Their split made sense, and Kate did handle that extremely well.  Then they got back together as adults, and presumably talked about their future as adults.  I think that Wills had a year tops to propose.  They could have had a long public engagement which would have taken some of the pressure off of Kate from the press.  Whatever understanding they privately had is their own business, but from an outsider perspective, it looked like he was still testing her.  

[Brn2bwild]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Yes, that, and so does Kate I believe.

That said, Kate had many things going for her that Diana did not.  For one thing, Wills was age appropriate for her.  For another, they lived together for quite a while, and worked out whatever kinks there were.  In addition, Kate was included in "the firms" outings and spent informal time with the Royals, and at various palaces before marriage, she knew the gig before putting on the ring.  However, the biggest advantage she had was her age, 29 years old.  She was mature enough to handle it, and on top of that, the family had learned from their mistakes with Diana.

ETA

😉  and I mean, William vs Charles?  That isn't even a contest!

To me, Kate is a latter-day Queen Mary.  Someone from a "lower" background (Mary was a princess, but a "Serene Highness") who was sensible and likely ambitious, who ended up being the family rock.  Always dignified, always supportive of the monarch and the institution.  It makes me wonder whether -- if this were still done in this day and age -- if William had died before they married, she would have dated/ultimately wed Harry the way Queen Mary wed Prince George after Eddy died.  I think these days, that would be viewed with disfavor, but interesting to think about.

ETA: I'm of the opinion that Kate and Meghan are both superior to the men they married, and that they have more in common than one would suppose.  Both of them seem grounded, mature, and focused.  While Meghan might have some of Diana's star power, she doesn't have her volatility (whereas Harry arguably does) and knows her own mind and her value independent of the Royal Family and her/her husband's royal status.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Brn2bwild

[Ambrosefolly]

58 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I get breaking up at 25 because you started dating as teenagers at university.  Their split made sense, and Kate did handle that extremely well.  Then they got back together as adults, and presumably talked about their future as adults.  I think that Wills had a year tops to propose.  They could have had a long public engagement which would have taken some of the pressure off of Kate from the press.  Whatever understanding they privately had is their own business, but from an outsider perspective, it looked like he was still testing her.  

I think the press knew that when Kate showed up at Peter and Autumn's wedding without William (making her his surrogate at his cousin's wedding), they would sooner or later they were getting married. It is one thing for a celebrity to have a long engagement, other for royals, especially someone that is in direct line of succession to the throne. For one thing, Kate would be entitled to round the clock very expensive security as the official fiancée.  To have that for 6 months is doable, another for 2+ years and considering that Diana shed her official protection once she official divorced, it probably not fun to have that in your life for years on end. Another is she pretty much went to work as a royal after the announcement. Even when she was having  princess lessons during the last two years, it seems that she was still working for her family's company.

Quote

To me, Kate is a latter-day Queen Mary.  Someone from a "lower" background (Mary was a princess, but a "Serene Highness") who was sensible and likely ambitious, who ended up being the family rock.  Always dignified, always supportive of the monarch and the institution.  It makes me wonder whether -- if this were still done in this day and age -- if William had died before they married, she would have dated/ultimately wed Harry the way Queen Mary wed Prince George after Eddy died.  I think these days, that would be viewed with disfavor, but interesting to think about.

While I think Kate is a great mixture of posh and common, being the daughter of self made millionaires, I doubt very much they would force either of them to do that, or that Kate would have let them. Kate is a commoner, not someone that grew up near the Firm like Mary or even Diana.  Queen Victoria didn't want to get rid of Mary because she was princess-enough to marry into the family. It was 100% an arranged marriage and Mary was the King's 2nd cousin, but not descended from Victoria. William found Kate on his own. They might have taken a stronger interest in Chelsy Davy if William died before he married Kate. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Ambrosefolly

[Jeeves]

2 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Idk if the rumors are true but one thing Kate has (which Meghan and Diana did not) was a very close relationship with her own family and her own set of friends. Kate often goes back to spend time with Carole or Pippa. No William. 

I think if you look to the BRF to be warm, nurturing relatives then you're going to be bitterly disappointed. You really do need your own support system and that support system should come from outside the BRF. 

From what I've read about Diana, I think that ^^ bolded statement was one of her many problems after she married into the BRF. Apparently Diana was always looking for a warm family to belong to, and of course it's the ultimate irony that the LAST place to expect that kind of warmth and nurturing would be the Windsors. 

[BitterApple]

10 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

Apparently Diana was always looking for a warm family to belong to, and of course it's the ultimate irony that the LAST place to expect that kind of warmth and nurturing would be the Windsors. 

That's why I laughed my ass off when people trashed Meghan as an evil Jezebel for moving to California and taking away the Queen's access to Archie. Liz didn't even give a shit about her own kids, do people seriously believe she's hosting playdates and baking cookies for the grands? Aside from putting on a united front during public appearances, I don't think the family has much to do with one another. 

[Growsonwalls]

2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I think that's one of the things Kate negotiated—that her family would not be ignored or forgotten once she married William. There were some ruffled feathers that the Middletons were on the boat that sailed down the Thames during the queen's Jubilee celebrations. But that was Kate making sure her family was involved in something that was a big part of her life. Carole Middleton did/does a fair amount of babysitting the grandchildren. Of course the Middletons and the Spencers were/are at different points in their lives when the marriages happened, so it's not an entirely fair comparison. But I think Kate saw the importance of having her family around her and acted accordingly.

In the "old" days if someone married into the BRF they were expected to "forget" about their own family forever ... publicly. This didn;t always happen -- Philip lived with his mother in Buckingham Palace. And no one is barring you from calling or visiting your family. But Kate really made sure that the BRF knew that her family was going to be equal to the BRF. AFAIK Kate spends every summer with them on the Caribbean. Sometimes William is there, sometimes not.

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

They could have had a long public engagement which would have taken some of the pressure off of Kate from the press. 

Nothing will take the pressure off Kate from the press, unfortunately. It's a permanent part of her life.

57 minutes ago, Ambrosefolly said:

They might have taken a stronger interest in Chelsy Davy if William died before he married Kate. 

Chelsy Davy had no interest in being a royal. That's why she and Harry didn't work out.

[Ambrosefolly]

Just now, dubbel zout said:

Nothing will take the pressure off Kate from the press, unfortunately. It's a permanent part of her life.

Chelsy Davy had no interest in being a royal. That's why she and Harry didn't work out.

I didn't really take notice of Kate Middleton until they did the photo call, and I read the People Magazines with Princess Diana. The press might not have let up, but before she got married, she seemed to have more autonomy, and she wasn't expected attended official royal functions. Chelsy Davy and Harry were still dating when Kate and William got married and it seemed that she was a bit regretful when Harry and Meghan exchanged vows, so who knows. Some people were trying to push Harry with Kate's sister Pippa, but I heard that Pippa and Chelsy are friends, so she wouldn't start dating her ex, even if he is a prince. Considering how close Harry and William used to be and how Harry treated Kate like a big sister, it would probably be super weird for both of them. 

Quote

That's why I laughed my ass off when people trashed Meghan as an evil Jezebel for moving to California and taking away the Queen's access to Archie. Liz didn't even give a shit about her own kids, do people seriously believe she's hosting playdates and baking cookies for the grands? Aside from putting on a united front during public appearances, I don't think the family has much to do with one another. 

I give a pass in light of COVID, but Prince Philip is almost 100 and Queen Elizabeth is 95, and despite how long lived the Queen Mother was, there isn't much time left. She might not be baking cookies, but I have a hard time believing the photos of her hanging out with her grandchildren at Balmoral are completely for show.  Considering that Princess Beatrice decided to move up and par down her wedding so they could be present for the ceremony, there must be some affection. 

[Roseanna]

56 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

 Liz didn't even give a shit about her own kids

I have read that the Queen had a good relationship with Anne's children who were her oldest grandchildren. And William went to eat lunch with her once a week when he was in Eton.  

[Umbelina]

13 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I have read that the Queen had a good relationship with Anne's children who were her oldest grandchildren. And William went to eat lunch with her once a week when he was in Eton.  

She seems to get along with Andrews' daughters as well.  I think William and Harry were fond of her as children as well.

Grandchildren are so much easier, you can always send them home to parents if they present problems, and also, you have none of the guilt of raising them and having them each turn out to be a disaster.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

That's why I laughed my ass off when people trashed Meghan as an evil Jezebel for moving to California and taking away the Queen's access to Archie. Liz didn't even give a shit about her own kids, do people seriously believe she's hosting playdates and baking cookies for the grands? Aside from putting on a united front during public appearances, I don't think the family has much to do with one another. 

According to Marie Claire magazine, many members of the Royal Family are saddened to have lost contact with Archie.  Charles used to pop in frequently when Harry, Meghan, and Archie lived at Frogmore Cottage.

[Growsonwalls]

As one of the few people who slogged through Finding Freedom, it seems as if one area where Charles definitely is an improvement over Philip is that he was an active, hands-on grandfather.

I also wonder what would have happened had there not been the pandemic. Maybe Meghan and Harry would have been able to fly back and forth between LA and London. I don't think either party expected the break to be as dramatic and final as it ended up being with the pandemic shutting off transatlantic travel.

[swanpride]

Well, I think if they really wanted to, something could be arranged. I think the point here is more that it would really look bad if the royals wouldn't follow at least somewhat the same rules set for the country...even though they managed to get infected, too.

[Jeeves]

3 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

I give a pass in light of COVID, but Prince Philip is almost 100 and Queen Elizabeth is 95, and despite how long lived the Queen Mother was, there isn't much time left. She might not be baking cookies, but I have a hard time believing the photos of her hanging out with her grandchildren at Balmoral are completely for show.  Considering that Princess Beatrice decided to move up and par down her wedding so they could be present for the ceremony, there must be some affection. 

 

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I have read that the Queen had a good relationship with Anne's children who were her oldest grandchildren. And William went to eat lunch with her once a week when he was in Eton.  

 

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

She seems to get along with Andrews' daughters as well.  I think William and Harry were fond of her as children as well.

Grandchildren are so much easier, you can always send them home to parents if they present problems, and also, you have none of the guilt of raising them and having them each turn out to be a disaster.

As @Ambrosefolly noted, HM and Prince Philip are now pretty old and probably don't have the time or energy to spare, that they had a decade or more ago. But I've always thought they had good relationships with all of their grandchildren and spent time with them, especially but not only at holidays and during August at Balmoral. I know that HM was horrendously tone-deaf to public opinion when Diana died. But I always thought it was ironic that she was actually placing family (keeping Harry and Wills at Balmoral away from the media circus in London) before duty for once in her life. Even if she did it all wrong (sigh), and barely pulled the chestnuts out of the fire with that TV speech at the Palace. 

[Ohiopirate02]

2 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

 

 

As @Ambrosefolly noted, HM and Prince Philip are now pretty old and probably don't have the time or energy to spare, that they had a decade or more ago. But I've always thought they had good relationships with all of their grandchildren and spent time with them, especially but not only at holidays and during August at Balmoral. I know that HM was horrendously tone-deaf to public opinion when Diana died. But I always thought it was ironic that she was actually placing family (keeping Harry and Wills at Balmoral away from the media circus in London) before duty for once in her life. Even if she did it all wrong (sigh), and barely pulled the chestnuts out of the fire with that TV speech at the Palace. 

There are legitimate criticisms of Elizabeth,  but I never saw her public silence in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death as one of them.  She was doing her duty as a grandmother in that moment.   Charles was busy going to Paris to bring her body home.  William and Harry needed their family.  

[Atlanta]

First, let me say that I was originally excited to see an American marry in to the BRF. I had high hopes for her. My problem with Meghan is that she dumps people when they are no longer useful to her. She dumped her dad even though he was the main parent through her formative years, paid for her tuition at Northwestern, private high school, etc. But when he doesn't fit the part, bye. She dumped Jessica Mulroney as her BFF. I can understanding inviting people you've worked with or acquaintances to your wedding, but she invited people she barely knew or didn't know like the Clooneys. Rumor is she invited other high profile celebs but they passed since they were puzzled as to why they were being invited. Other than her Suits co-stars, where were other people she knew? Childhood friends? Sorority sisters? During the pregnancy, the constant belly cradling was a bit much. I've had a child and you do touch your belly, but it. was. all. the. time. How she behaved at Wimbledon didn't help and the same with her insane Stans. Like I said, I was initially excited, but the crazy amount she spent on clothes, jewelry, etc. Meh. She came across as a gold digger and opportunist. Sad that it seems that Archie will have no relationship with his cousins.

When you marry into the BRF (or any royal family), you are marrying into something bigger than yourself. Being royal isn't the same as being a celebrity. It's a life of being an ambassador and philanthropist. My husband who doesn't follow the royals said that she seemed to want to be a Kardashian.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Atlanta

[ruby24]

25 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

When you marry into the BRF (or any royal family), you are marrying into something bigger than yourself. Being royal isn't the same as being a celebrity. It's a life of being an ambassador and philanthropist. My husband who doesn't follow the royals said that she seemed to want to be a Kardashian.

I'd bet anything this is basically how she saw it. Speaking as an American, we don't see the royal family as serious figures over here. It all seems like a show, people playing a part that's not "real" anymore. Kinda fun for the ceremony and living in a palace and those crazy weddings and stuff, but when you start getting into how the monarchy is something "bigger than you" most Americans eyes will glaze over at that.

Given that she and Harry hadn't even been together that long before getting married (and pretty much only in a long distance relationship), I'd bet she was never really convinced of the absolute, somber "importance" of the monarchy or what she was getting herself into by marrying a prince. And I bet finding out after the wedding was pretty quickly a sour experience for her in regretting it for the most part. Maybe not him, because she seems to really love him, but I bet she still never came to buy into any of the royal stuff and preferred to come home- I bet she was thrilled that he was willing to give it all up for her.

[Brn2bwild]

16 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I'd bet anything this is basically how she saw it. Speaking as an American, we don't see the royal family as serious figures over here. It all seems like a show, people playing a part that's not "real" anymore. Kinda fun for the ceremony and living in a palace and those crazy weddings and stuff, but when you start getting into how the monarchy is something "bigger than you" most Americans eyes will glaze over at that.

Given that she and Harry hadn't even been together that long before getting married (and pretty much only in a long distance relationship), I'd bet she was never really convinced of the absolute, somber "importance" of the monarchy or what she was getting herself into by marrying a prince. And I bet finding out after the wedding was pretty quickly a sour experience for her in regretting it for the most part. Maybe not him, because she seems to really love him, but I bet she still never came to buy into any of the royal stuff and preferred to come home- I bet she was thrilled that he was willing to give it all up for her.

My impression was that he was willing to give it all up, period.  What was ultimately in that system for him?  Meghan probably reminded him that he had value as a person independent of his place in the Royal Family, and when he negotiated his exit, he took that approach.

51 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

First, let me say that I was originally excited to see an American marry in to the BRF. I had high hopes for her. My problem with Meghan is that she dumps people when they are no longer useful to her. She dumped her dad even though he was the main parent through her formative years, paid for her tuition at Northwestern, private high school, etc. But when he doesn't fit the part, bye.

He also started trashing her in the press, along with her crazy half-sister who, apparently in real life, barely knew Meghan.  It seems like Meghan wanted her dad at the wedding, but he acted like an idiot with the tabloid press and refused to respond to Meghan's calls/texts. 

As for Jessica Mulroney, she made some racist comments that received a lot of condemnation.  Who knows whether Meghan has cut her off for good, but would you publicly embrace someone in that situation?

[Atlanta]

She has a long history of ghosting. I think she expected the family to adapt to her vs. her adapting to them. As far as her being clueless, she was a huge Diana fan. Most Americans, at least the ones around her age, are aware of the Wales drama, etc. There's a picture of her as a teen in front of BP. She even copied a lot of Diana's style before the engagement. Beating a horse here. 

[Growsonwalls]

I don't get why cradling a belly is a bad thing. Most pregnant women I know cradle their bellies and talk to their babies. 

I don't have a horse in this race, as I mostly follow royals for their fashions and of course watch this show. But the amount of pearl-clutching over her cradling a belly was shocking. Another thing that people had a meltdown over that seemed so trivial was not standing outside of Lindo wing with the baby. I never got that either. That wasn't a thing till Diana came out with William and Harry. The Queen had her babies at home.

[swanpride]

Wasn't there also drama because Meghan wanted to decide who would be present at birth? I mean, how shocking a women who actually doesn't want people she feels uncomfortable with around while going through a really, really painful ordeal.

The thing is, nothing Meghan ever did or wanted was in any way unreasonable. But the tabloids made a huge fuss around all of it. They bullied her, plain and simple, and then they were shocked when she didn't break down but decided to remove herself as much as possible from the situation. Bravo, I say. Never liked her more than when they showed those who thought that they owned her now the middle finger.

[Umbelina]

So, in some interview, maybe the podcast, the showrunner said he forms the episodes around the PM's, and it's worked for him and to display The Crown in reaction to what they bring.

So, it looks like we will have John Major next.  What should we expect?  Will they allude to his affair and hypocrisy, other other things?  Of course after that is Tony Blair, but even non political Americans have an idea about him.

Guesses?

[Brn2bwild]

20 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

So, in some interview, maybe the podcast, the showrunner said he forms the episodes around the PM's, and it's worked for him and to display The Crown in reaction to what they bring.

So, it looks like we will have John Major next.  What should we expect?  Will they allude to his affair and hypocrisy, other other things?  Of course after that is Tony Blair, but even non political Americans have an idea about him.

Guesses?

Do you (or anyone) know if he played a role during the "Annus Horribilis"?  I suspect that will be an episode title next season, along with maybe "The Troubles."

[Roseanna]

On 11/18/2020 at 12:18 PM, Brn2bwild said:

Both of them seem grounded, mature, and focused.  

Mature? 

I think it's impossible know what kind of person Kate is, because she is a perfect royal who never let herself show anything outside her role.

As for Meghan, I liked her for long time, but a few things changed my opinion. In her interview during the African journey, after getting to know people who had experienced real hardships she spoke about herself - I just can't stand public self-pity. And egoism of same kind has continued during the covid crisis. 

About Panorama interview:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54991018

On 11/18/2020 at 10:33 AM, Umbelina said:

She would have been pelted with tomatoes had she taken Diana's title.

Diana did not "own" the title. When she married Charles, she became the HRH Princess of Wales, and when she divorced, she became Diana, Princess of Wales. 

When William becomes the Prince of Wales, Catherine will be the Princess of Wales. The title is not automatic, the sovereign gives it. Instead, William will inherit the title (and possessions) of the duke of Cornwall when his father comes the King.     

16 hours ago, swanpride said:

Wasn't there also drama because Meghan wanted to decide who would be present at birth? I mean, how shocking a women who actually doesn't want people she feels uncomfortable with around while going through a really, really painful ordeal.

She wanted to give birth "in secret", first at home and then in the "unknown" hospital. 

Thus she broke the tradition created by Diana to pose with her baby in her arms (actually William was first in Charles' arms) for photographers in the front of the hospital. Kate and William followed the example. 

Elizabeth had given birth in the privacy of Buckingham Palace and there was just the announcement and afterwards official photos about Christening. But formerly (also when the duchess of York gave birth to her daughters the Minister of Inferior had to be present (luckily not in the same room as in the case of Marie Antoinette) in order to prove that the baby wasn't a changeling. For it was because of that kind of rumor that the house of Stuart lost the crown and, after William and Mary and Queen Anne had no living children, the ancestor of the present royal house inherited it. 

Meghan and Harry presented their baby a few days afterwards, but then they  arranged a "secret" christening with "secret" godparents.

Even the children of Princess Madeleine of Sweden (who otherwise lives a private life abroad) were christened in Sweden and shown in the TV. 

16 hours ago, swanpride said:

The thing is, nothing Meghan ever did or wanted was in any way unreasonable. 

How about using private jets when warning of climate change? 

[Ohiopirate02]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

About Panorama interview:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54991018

There was discussion about this over on the other royals thread on here.  While Bashir was sneaky in getting the interview, Diana was always going to talk to the press.  She knew what she was doing when she sat down with Bashir and would have done it with another journalist.  She wanted to be on camera telling the world certain facts like there being 3 in her marriage.  

[meatball77]

I figured that Harry saw the writing on the wall for their future.  He wasn't going to continue to be a working royal indefinitely (the public was not happy with Andrew being a working royal even before the new scandals came out) and I think the Press's treatment of Megan was the final straw.  Harry blames the press for the death of his mother and to see them treating his wife so terribly (and being expected to still work with them) and having a child I think he decided that he wasn't willing to wait for his grandmother to die before he moved on with his life. 

[Growsonwalls]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Elizabeth had given birth in the privacy of Buckingham Palace and there was just the announcement and afterwards official photos about Christening. But formerly (also when the duchess of York gave birth to her daughters the Minister of Inferior had to be present (luckily not in the same room as in the case of Marie Antoinette) in order to prove that the baby wasn't a changeling. For it was because of that kind of rumor that the house of Stuart lost the crown and, after William and Mary and Queen Anne had no living children, the ancestor of the present royal house inherited it. 

Meghan and Harry presented their baby a few days afterwards, but then they  arranged a "secret" christening with "secret" godparents.

I can't think of a good reason why a baby has to be paraded around on tv hours after he's born to satisfy some sick fascination that he's not a "changeling." I don't get that. At all.

[Ohiopirate02]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Elizabeth had given birth in the privacy of Buckingham Palace and there was just the announcement and afterwards official photos about Christening. But formerly (also when the duchess of York gave birth to her daughters the Minister of Inferior had to be present (luckily not in the same room as in the case of Marie Antoinette) in order to prove that the baby wasn't a changeling. For it was because of that kind of rumor that the house of Stuart lost the crown and, after William and Mary and Queen Anne had no living children, the ancestor of the present royal house inherited it. 

 

The house of Stuart lost the crown of the UK after the death of Queen Anne because the English did not want a Catholic king. They passed  1701 Act of Settlement that barred any Roman Catholic from inheriting the throne.  I know there were rumors that James II's son James was not actually his son but an imposter without any evidence.  

[BitterApple]

I don't know if any of you have seen this Vanity Fair article, but it provides a great amount of detail into what a horrid, spoiled little shit Prince Andrew has been since childhood:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/prince-andrew-the-crown-true-life#intcid=_vanity-fair-amp-bottom-recirc_2d6ba1d7-3976-4157-bf22-d7c3a8af4e3f_text2vec1

 

[swanpride]

Quote

How about using private jets when warning of climate change?

How do you intend to provide adequate security on a regular plane? Not that I ever got the obsession with telling people who actually want to do something about climate change to insane standards as if it would in any way ruin their point just because they use a plastic cup or whatever.

[DkNNy79]

40 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I can't think of a good reason why a baby has to be paraded around on tv hours after he's born to satisfy some sick fascination that he's not a "changeling." I don't get that. At all.

Exactly.

There are valid criticisms, but yeah Meghan cutting out her toxic family is IMO not one of them.  If I were in her shoes I would've cut them out as well.  They were shown not to be trust worthy and selling stories to the press about her.

[Umbelina]

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Diana did not "own" the title. When she married Charles, she became the HRH Princess of Wales, and when she divorced, she became Diana, Princess of Wales. 

When William becomes the Prince of Wales, Catherine will be the Princess of Wales. The title is not automatic, the sovereign gives it. Instead, William will inherit the title (and possessions) of the duke of Cornwall when his father comes the King.     

Yes, we all know that.  However, a cheated on (by Charles and Camilla) beloved and now DEAD princess had just held the title.  The idea of Camilla, who stole her weak husband, also using that title would have caused outrage.

Camilla is cunning and selfish, she knew that, and wisely choose to not use it.

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

She wanted to give birth "in secret", first at home and then in the "unknown" hospital. 

Thus she broke the tradition created by Diana to pose with her baby in her arms (actually William was first in Charles' arms) for photographers in the front of the hospital. Kate and William followed the example. 

Elizabeth had given birth in the privacy of Buckingham Palace and there was just the announcement and afterwards official photos about Christening. But formerly (also when the duchess of York gave birth to her daughters the Minister of Inferior had to be present (luckily not in the same room as in the case of Marie Antoinette) in order to prove that the baby wasn't a changeling. For it was because of that kind of rumor that the house of Stuart lost the crown and, after William and Mary and Queen Anne had no living children, the ancestor of the present royal house inherited it. 

Meghan and Harry presented their baby a few days afterwards, but then they  arranged a "secret" christening with "secret" godparents.

Even the children of Princess Madeleine of Sweden (who otherwise lives a private life abroad) were christened in Sweden and shown in the TV. 

Honestly, that baby has nothing to do with wearing the crown and never will.  I applaud them for keeping their privacy at such and important, personal, meaningful moment.  These archaic traditions are insane and intrusive.  I don't understand why any monarchies exist in the modern world.  

6 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

There was discussion about this over on the other royals thread on here.  While Bashir was sneaky in getting the interview, Diana was always going to talk to the press.  She knew what she was doing when she sat down with Bashir and would have done it with another journalist.  She wanted to be on camera telling the world certain facts like there being 3 in her marriage.  

If there was blackmail, and false blackmail at that, I don't care that Diana's family wants that exposed. 

That said, I do think Diana was sick of all the lies and slander, and did want to tell her story.

Again, both may be true.

5 hours ago, meatball77 said:

I figured that Harry saw the writing on the wall for their future.  He wasn't going to continue to be a working royal indefinitely (the public was not happy with Andrew being a working royal even before the new scandals came out) and I think the Press's treatment of Megan was the final straw.  Harry blames the press for the death of his mother and to see them treating his wife so terribly (and being expected to still work with them) and having a child I think he decided that he wasn't willing to wait for his grandmother to die before he moved on with his life. 

It was the press, and the way his own family was treating his wife, and I am seriously proud of him for leaving.  

Which family member wore that blackamoor brooch to the wedding or engagement party?  

4 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I don't know if any of you have seen this Vanity Fair article, but it provides a great amount of detail into what a horrid, spoiled little shit Prince Andrew has been since childhood:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/prince-andrew-the-crown-true-life#intcid=_vanity-fair-amp-bottom-recirc_2d6ba1d7-3976-4157-bf22-d7c3a8af4e3f_text2vec1

 

Thanks, will read later!  The show, this season, is showing that they are all little shits, but Andrew certainly takes the cake on awfulness.

3 hours ago, DkNNy79 said:

Exactly.

There are valid criticisms, but yeah Meghan cutting out her toxic family is IMO not one of them.  If I were in her shoes I would've cut them out as well.  They were shown not to be trust worthy and selling stories to the press about her.

Exactly.  I feel nothing but sympathy for Meghan with her awful family there.  How humiliating to see it played out in newspapers around the world.  Anyone who has had a "mean drunk" or money grubbing family member knows the pain just in private settings, imagine it played across the world?  Ugh.

That said, I don't know her at all, never even watched her show.  I only know her from her relationship with Harry.  If Harry loves her, and feels the need to protect her?  That's good enough for me.

[Growsonwalls]

One thing Meghan did that I think wasn't smart (and was mentioned in the otherwise very sympathetic Finding Freedom) was that she fired her staff including a nanny very abruptly. That's typical in the entertainment industry, where stars go through personal assistants like napkins. Assigned royal staff (and the nannies that serve for the royal/aristocratic class) all have reporters on speed dial. She fired a nanny in the middle of the night after a day on the job. These royal staff usually are not fired that abruptly -- they're often given time and "part ways" or are shunted off to some other estate. 

But again, one of the issues with Meghan was her lack of a support system in the UK. Kate has a nanny but Carole Middleton often takes care of the kids. 

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

I can't think of a good reason why a baby has to be paraded around on tv hours after he's born to satisfy some sick fascination that he's not a "changeling." I don't get that. At all.

Well, blame on Diana - she invented it. I would be sorry more about the mother who must have a hairdresser and make-artist hours after her ordeal. 

4 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

 The idea of Camilla, who stole her weak husband, 

Only in the ancient times marriage meant ownership. Love can't be "stolen", it's given freely.  

[Pallas]

 

On 11/17/2020 at 8:40 PM, ruby24 said:

Has Charles ever insisted to his sons that he did love their mother at any point? 

In his 1994 authorized biography by Jonathan Dimbleby, written with his full cooperation, Charles states that he never loved Diana. 

[Ellaria]

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Thus she broke the tradition created by Diana to pose with her baby in her arms (actually William was first in Charles' arms) for photographers in the front of the hospital. Kate and William followed the example...

Meghan and Harry presented their baby a few days afterwards, but then they  arranged a "secret" christening with "secret" godparents.

Honestly, isn't the insistence on these archaic - and, in some cases, silly - traditions part of the problem with the modern day monarchy? What is a "secret" christening and "secret" godparents? I'm sure Harry and Meghan, the godparents and the other individuals that they wanted to be present at the christening knew where and when it was. That is all that should matter.

7 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Honestly, that baby has nothing to do with wearing the crown and never will.  I applaud them for keeping their privacy at such and important, personal, meaningful moment.  These archaic traditions are insane and intrusive.  I don't understand why any monarchies exist in the modern world... 

...That said, I don't know her at all, never even watched her show.  I only know her from her relationship with Harry.  If Harry loves her, and feels the need to protect her?  That's good enough for me.

 Agree! One can criticize how H&M may have handled their break from the monarchy (and the family "business") and what their expectations are going forward. However, I cannot criticize his desire to step away from it in an effort to protect her. 

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, swanpride said:

How do you intend to provide adequate security on a regular plane? 

William and Kate managed it - but only in the empty first class.

[ruby24]

10 minutes ago, Pallas said:

 

In his 1994 authorized biography by Jonathan Dimbleby, written with his full cooperation, Charles states that he never loved Diana. 

Yikes. 

[Roseanna]

 

1 minute ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Honestly, isn't the insistence on these archaic - and, in some cases, silly - traditions part of the problem with the modern day monarchy? What is a "secret" christening and "secret" godparents? I'm sure Harry and Meghan, the godparents and the other individuals that they wanted to be present at the christening knew where and when it was. That is all that should matter.

Besides that Harry and his son are in line to the throne, at the time Harry and Meghan were senior working royals and they lived on the tax-payers money. It's not too much to give the people a couple pictures. They made a gross mistake. 

 

[Growsonwalls]

1 minute ago, Roseanna said:

 

Besides that Harry and his son are in line to the throne, at the time Harry and Meghan were senior working royals and they lived on the tax-payers money. It's not too much to give the people a couple pictures. They made a gross mistake. 

 

Huh? I'm sorry but a baby doesn't "belong" to the public. Archie is not a doll. As parents they have a right to control how much publicity a days-old infant gets.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[Ellaria]

5 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

 

Besides that Harry and his son are in line to the throne, at the time Harry and Meghan were senior working royals and they lived on the tax-payers money. It's not too much to give the people a couple pictures. They made a gross mistake. 

 

I'm pretty sure that they gave them photos, perhaps just not when and how it was demanded of them. I'm not sure who thinks it was a "gross mistake" but I certainly do not.

[Roseanna]

1 minute ago, Growsonwalls said:

Huh? I'm sorry but a baby doesn't "belong" to the public. Archie is not a doll. As parents they have a right to control how much publicity a days-old infant gets.

Official photographs are the best way to control publicity. Denying them is the surest way to raise suspicions that something is wrong.  

That said, it's good to live in a small republic where both President's and Prime Minister's little children have complete privacy.   

[Umbelina]

5 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I don't know if any of you have seen this Vanity Fair article, but it provides a great amount of detail into what a horrid, spoiled little shit Prince Andrew has been since childhood:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/prince-andrew-the-crown-true-life#intcid=_vanity-fair-amp-bottom-recirc_2d6ba1d7-3976-4157-bf22-d7c3a8af4e3f_text2vec1

 

Holy shit!  Andrew is a horrible person, even if we leave out Epstein (which I certainly will not.)

Good God.

31 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

One thing Meghan did that I think wasn't smart (and was mentioned in the otherwise very sympathetic Finding Freedom) was that she fired her staff including a nanny very abruptly. That's typical in the entertainment industry, where stars go through personal assistants like napkins. Assigned royal staff (and the nannies that serve for the royal/aristocratic class) all have reporters on speed dial. She fired a nanny in the middle of the night after a day on the job. These royal staff usually are not fired that abruptly -- they're often given time and "part ways" or are shunted off to some other estate. 

But again, one of the issues with Meghan was her lack of a support system in the UK. Kate has a nanny but Carole Middleton often takes care of the kids. 

I can think of reasons to fire a nanny in the middle of the night, but since we don't know her reason, there is not much of a reason to doubt that she should have.

Considering this baby is the first mixed race member of the royal family, one of the thoughts I have is decidedly unpleasant.  However, a mother has every right to set rules for nannies, and if she broke them, in a possibly drastic way, enough to be sent out in the middle of the night?  I don't see why people automatically jump to "See!  Mehgan is crazy, or unsuited to the family, or 'doesn't understand our ways.'"

[Roseanna]

4 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

However, a mother has every right to set rules for nannies, and if she broke them, in a possibly drastic way, enough to be sent out in the middle of the night?  I don't see why people automatically jump to "See!  Mehgan is crazy, or unsuited to the family, or 'doesn't understand our ways.'"

There was surely enough rooms for a nanny to sleep the night? And if one is a person whose every step is followed, it's stupid not to handle situations like this in the way that they stay private.  

[Umbelina]

1 minute ago, Roseanna said:

There was surely enough rooms for a nanny to sleep the night? And if one is a person whose every step is followed, it's stupid not to handle situations like this in the way that they stay private.  

You have no idea what that nanny did or said.  None.

She could have hurt the baby, she could have used racist terms, she may have been stealing, she may have been taking photos to sell.  None of us knows what she was doing, so none of us can say "What Mehgan did was wrong."

[Ohiopirate02]

18 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Official photographs are the best way to control publicity. Denying them is the surest way to raise suspicions that something is wrong.  

That said, it's good to live in a small republic where both President's and Prime Minister's little children have complete privacy.   

Harry and Meghan were deliberate in what pictures of Archie were released as a newborn because they knew how certain parts of the media would react.  I dont blame them for only releasing a few black and white pictures of him.  They were trying to protect their infant.  Once they realized Archie is the spitting image of Harry, they have released more.

[Ellaria]

5 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I don't know if any of you have seen this Vanity Fair article, but it provides a great amount of detail into what a horrid, spoiled little shit Prince Andrew has been since childhood:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/prince-andrew-the-crown-true-life#intcid=_vanity-fair-amp-bottom-recirc_2d6ba1d7-3976-4157-bf22-d7c3a8af4e3f_text2vec1

44 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Holy shit!  Andrew is a horrible person, even if we leave out Epstein (which I certainly will not.)

Good God.

If even half of the stuff is true...what an awful, entitled little shit. Kicking dogs, swiping horses?

 

[Trillian]

48 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Huh? I'm sorry but a baby doesn't "belong" to the public. Archie is not a doll. As parents they have a right to control how much publicity a days-old infant gets.

I don’t disagree, but this is not a normal family dynamic. The Sovereign apparently has legal custody over his/her children and grandchildren.  Archie is a free agent for now, so to speak, because he’s a great grandchild.  According to British law, though, unless he’s knocked down the line of succession by more kids or (eventually) grandchildren of William’s, he needs the Sovereign’s permission to marry. 
 

The British public pays a lot of money to keep this family in the style to which they are accustomed (yes, apparently it is less than £1 person, not counting extra costs like security for special events, but it’s collectively a lot). In exchange, they are expected to comport themselves with dignity, open hospitals and the like, show their newborn parasites - I mean children - to the public who pays their room and board.  It’s a bit of a fun exercise to read the British press (and comments, of course!) over Megxit. So many of the comments were about “you want to go?  Go, then, but pay us back the money we spent on you”.  Even here in Canada, when H & M  were pretending that living here was their goal rather than Hollywood. Some people thought it was charming, but there was a concomitant public outcry of “we’re not paying for their security.  You want to be private citizens?  Then support yourself”. 

[Growsonwalls]

This is kind of an awful thought but I was under the suspicion that they didn't show Archie at first because they were unsure how "black" he'd look. I feel like they started releasing pictures once he had the Spencer red hair and was very clearly Harry's son. 

But as I said, I find the whole Lindo wing "tradition" grisly. It's nuts that Kate had to stand outside in stiletto heels and a full set of makeup with her blowout hair hours after giving birth.