Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
GHScorpiosRule

From Across The Pond: Royal Weddings and Scandals

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, doodlebug said:

And why would her previous marriage be an issue?  She had been divorced well before she ever met Harry, her first marriage was brief and there is no indication that there was any big scandal surrounding its end.  Meanwhile, Wallis Simpson had been married twice before marrying Edward in an era where divorce was very uncommon and where the heir to the British throne was expected to marry a virgin.  She also took up with Edward rather publicly before divorcing her second husband.  And, of course, he was King of England and there was expectation that he would have children which seemed unlikely to happen if he married a 41 year old back in that era.  And, of course, Wallis love for Hitler and the Nazis, which she didn't even try to conceal, hardly endeared her to her potential subjects either.

The problem wasn't just that Wallis Simpson was divorced. The King or Queen of England is also the head of the Church of England. At the time (I don't know if this has changed since then) the church did not allow divorced people to remarry in church if their ex-spouses were still alive, & both of Wallis Simpson's ex's were still alive, so Edward, as King, couldn't marry her.

  • Like 8
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Kate will be Princess of Wales, with William being Prince of Wales. There's no controversy there, there is no reason to not give the title to them. The only reason the current Princess of Wales doesn't use it is because of the history between her and the last Princess of Wales (and the public's reaction to that history). Kate is Diana's daughter-in-law and mother to her grandchildren, so the connection there is a good one - William's wife now having his beloved mother's title*.

*To go with that ring.

Edited by Luciano
  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Luciano said:

Kate will be Princess of Wales, with William being Prince of Wales. There's no controversy there, there is no reason to not give the title to them. The only reason the current Princess of Wales doesn't use it is because of the history between her and the last Princess of Wales (and the public's reaction to that history). Kate is Diana's daughter-in-law and mother to her grandchildren, so the connection there is a good one - William's wife now having his beloved mother's title*.

*To go with that ring.

I wasn’t saying that it would be controversial but that it’s a heavy burden to put on Kate. Many people already feel the need to constantly bring up Diana in relationship to the Cambridge’s and sharing a title will only increase the comparisons. I agree that it’s the most likely scenario but I wouldn’t blame her for not wanting to deal with the emotional weight that comes with being the Princess of Wales. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

O_o Whaaaaat?

Its the Daily Mail, what did you expect?

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

From ET Online: Royal Fans Applaud Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Official Royal Exit

In the linked article, in the second paragraph after the ad for the new air-fried Tyson Chicken product, it says Harry & Meghan will, once this agreement officially takes effect in the spring, be known as “Harry, Duke of Sussex“ & “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex“ (like, after their respective divorces, Diana was known as Diana, Princess of Wales, & Sarah is known as Sarah, Duchess of York). But that begs the question as to why isn’t he still styled(?) as “Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex”? I mean, he’s still a Prince by blood, right?

Edited by BW Manilowe · Reason: To change a period to a comma.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I guess, but at the end of the day, it's still a royal title, and they can't have it both ways? Maybe since he will no longer use the style His Royal Highness, he can't be a Prince either?

Guess he and Megan will just have to slum it out as a Duke and Duchess, though isn't Sussex still a royal Dukedom anyway?

This is all a bit confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

I guess, but at the end of the day, it's still a royal title, and they can't have it both ways? Maybe since he will no longer use the style His Royal Highness, he can't be a Prince either?

Guess he and Megan will just have to slum it out as a Duke and Duchess, though isn't Sussex still a royal Dukedom anyway?

This is all a bit confusing.

Harry is still a Prince and, if he chooses not to use that title, that is his prerogative.  Perhaps he agreed not to use it as part of the negotiations.  Maybe he wants to use a title that matches his wife's and Meghan, of course, is not a Princess.  Maybe he hates being a Prince and would rather the public forgot about it.  I presume it is also meant for them to use these titles as part of their public life in which they are apparently going to try to earn a living to help support themselves.  If the Queen doesn't want him to call himself a Prince when promoting his 'brand' for profit, I think he would certainly comply with her wishes.  Being Duke and Duchess will be profitable enough.

In general, the royals tend to use the titles they've been granted more than those they received at birth.  Charles is a Prince of the UK, but he uses Prince of Wales most often just as William uses Duke of Cambridge most often.  And both Andrew and Edward tend to style themselves as Duke of York and Earl of Wessex in their public dealings.

3 hours ago, slf said:

How Meghan's favourite avocado snack - beloved of all millennials - is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder

O_o Whaaaaat?

(I know everyone and their mother has probably seen this already, apologies, but I hadn't until about five minutes ago. Got lost in the daily barrage of truly psychotic takes.)

Yes, it was discussed a few pages ago along with a similar article praising Kate for eating avocadoes to help with morning sickness.  Double standard, much?

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Dani said:

I wasn’t saying that it would be controversial but that it’s a heavy burden to put on Kate. Many people already feel the need to constantly bring up Diana in relationship to the Cambridge’s and sharing a title will only increase the comparisons. I agree that it’s the most likely scenario but I wouldn’t blame her for not wanting to deal with the emotional weight that comes with being the Princess of Wales. 

Diana has now been gone for more than 20 years.  I think the public will be just fine with her daughter in law assuming the title when the time comes.  There would be far more controversy if she didn't.  The general consensus is that Diana would've loved Kate and would've adored her grandkids.  

Camilla doesn't use PoW because she had an affair with the husband of the previous Princess of Wales.  An affair that Diana publicly asserted was a big part of the failure of her marriage.  I think many would find it unseemly for Camilla to use the title under the circumstances.  The press and public would've been outraged.  As if was, there were plenty of people who were unhappy that Charles married the woman who was formerly his mistress.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry that the Duke of Duchess of Sussex will no longer be HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) but I imagine that this was something that he had to agree to (and likely HAD carefully considered what would happen) in order for them to be able to carve autonomy for themselves. However, I like that he has definitely been willing to put his money where his mouth is AND  greatly admire that he was willing to make sacrifices for the good of  his wife and child!

 

 As I said earlier between them opting to insisting their son being plain old 'Master Archie' instead of Prince Archie of Sussex or Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor AND the South African interview, there HAD been warning shots and I do believe that the Duke realized that it was a 'now or never' situation.  I also like the fact that the Duke and Duchess are doing their best to maintain their commitments to the good works they've been part of (and WANT to do them- as opposed to blowing this off for mai tais).

 I believe that as time passes, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be more and more admired re their priorities (and their attackers will be vilified by larger and larger segments of the British populace). 

All the above said, I'm sad that those who refused to be fair-minded to the point of refusing to even give the Duchess of Sussex any chances on her own merits compelled the Duke to make these moves. And, I most emphatically believe that these moves were entirely the Duke's call with the Duchess supporting him in whatever he has decided.

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair, they aren't giving up the style of HRH permanently, they're just not using it. Seems like they and the Queen are hedging their bets in case H&M come back to the royal fold one day.

From the article I posted above:

Quote

"Though Harry and Meghan still technically retain their HRH styles, they have agreed they will not use them. They have not been stripped of them, unlike Harry’s mother Diana, Princess of Wales following her divorce."

 

Edited by Hiyo
  • Like 5
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Kudos to Harry and Meghan for knowing their self worth.  Again, life is too short.  I wish them happiness as a family and the best of luck.  Go forth into the world and slay.  

Meanwhile Andrew went to Church today with The Queen.  So many loudly proclaimed all over social media and tabloid comment sections they wanted to their old white monarchy back.  Well - Whoomp! There it is!  

However, don't fret, those who can see.  The party is still on when the day of revelation arrives.  Wait for it.    

Until then . . .

Edited by MissAlmond
  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, MissAlmond said:

Meanwhile Andrew went to Church today with The Queen. 

But of course. Mummy must always protect her precious favorite. So he's an alleged rapist, eh. Stay classy royal family, stay classy.

Edited by truthaboutluv
  • Like 12
  • Laugh 5
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, truthaboutluv said:

ccocontin

But of course. Mummy must always protect her precious favorite. So he's an alleged rapist, eh. Stay classy royal family, stay classy.

Maybe Mummy is hoping for repentance and confession. Seems unlikely, but I'd rather that Andrew went to church with his mother than to the Bahamas with Epstein.  I don't really think he's capable of the reflective introspection to actually feel guilty for his crimes and ask for forgiveness, but I can see how his mother might be hoping for it.

Also, other than the public stroll on Christmas morning from which Andrew was deliberately excluded, these excursions to church are not  public royal appearances.  The church is on the estate at Windsor and the Queen has always gone weekly if she was in residence.  The photos are not posed, they are of them in the car on their way to or from the chapel.  Andrew, and/or Edward's wife, Sophie, have accompanied her almost every week for many years.  The woman is 93 and she's been through some changes recently.  Her husband is reportedly bedridden and hasn't been well enough to accompany her to church for quite a while. If she wants to continue this small private tradition  with her son, I think she is not hurting anyone.

Anne Landers once received a letter from someone who'd made a lot of mistakes in their life who wanted to return to church but was too embarrassed.  Anne said, 'Churches are not museums for saints, they are hospitals for sinners.'  I agree with that POV.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 21
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

In a couple decades when George is Prince of Wales and marries enough time will have passed to see another woman in that title

Why wouldn't Catherine be Princess of Wales once Charles becomes King and William is elevated to Prince of Wales?  I don't think the public needs to wait a couple of decades to accept anyone other than Diana as Princess of Wales, it's only Camilla that would cause a ruckus.  I also hope Camilla ends up as Queen Consort.

I think Diana was treated horribly by the royal machine but the canonization after her death is ridiculous.

The thing that struck me most about Harry and Meghan's initial statement was multiple references to "financial independence" when they are clearly going to continue to get money from Prince Charles!  Yes, they are dropping the 5% public money and each of them do have money of their own, but Prince Charles seems to be picking up the multi-million dollar tab for Frogmore Cottage and plans to continue to subsidize them.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Doodlebug - the Queen going to church is not a public/official royal happening.  It's been said that she has a deep faith and participating in a weekly church service is important to her.  She's also at an age when many of her friends are gone, her husband is in ill health, and she relies on family for companionship.  And perhaps she does think going to church will be of benefit to Andrew.  However, given what we know of his character, I'm sure this is all calculated by Andrew for his own benefit now and in the future.  In other words, making sure  he's still in Mummy's will, since he' must be worried about how Charles will treat him once Charles is on the throne.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Maybe he wants to use a title that matches his wife's and Meghan, of course, is not a Princess. 

Technically her title is The Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex.   She is a Princess by marriage.    Just like our favorite racist, Princess Michael of Kent, nee Marie Christine von Reibnitz.     

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

9 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I really hate all of it surrounding the couple. How terrible Meghan's been treated. The endless attacks, hate, horrible press and racism. The anger at Harry deciding to quit. What? You mean if you treat his wife like crap for so long he might decide screw it, quit and move to away? What a shocker. The shock, the outrage, the blaming Meghan, and demanding they repay the tax payers for repairs to Frogmore and other crap. And yet where was the outrage over Prince Andrew? Having sex with underage girls? Underaged girls who were forced to have sex with him? Everyone is okay with Prince Pedophile roaming free, still free to put his hands on underage girls? Where's people demanding he pay the tax payers back for all the money he spent he spent on that? Everyone okay with their tax money going for that criminal activity? Where's the outrage at the royal family for protecting him? Family or not their protecting a pedophile. Oh no but Meghan is the problem. Sure she only has money of her own, a work ethic, and seems decent. 

Harry was supposed to divorce Meghan, kick her "black ass" back to Canada with their bi-racial child, the Queen was supposed to publicly humiliate her, strip Meghan of her title and leave Harry free to marry one of the commoners, a white lady, obvs.

Since "The Firm" isn't following this imaginary plan and "allowing" grown adults to make decisions for their family instead of freeing up Harry to marry "them".... well this is where we are now.

And don't worry about Prince Pedophile. We have to be outraged that Meghan is stealing Prince Harry to live a lap of luxury in Canada with her friends and closer to her family, stealing him away from the UK and his family. Never mind what Harry may or may not have wanted. He has no agency here. He's under the power of Meghan.

News flash: none of us (anyone outside their immediate family) have any knowledge about what was discussed. All the internet has are rumors, speculations and feelings. The obsession is unhealthy.

 

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Frost said:

Why wouldn't Catherine be Princess of Wales once Charles becomes King and William is elevated to Prince of Wales?  I don't think the public needs to wait a couple of decades to accept anyone other than Diana as Princess of Wales, it's only Camilla that would cause a ruckus.  I also hope Camilla ends up as Queen Consort.

I think Diana was treated horribly by the royal machine but the canonization after her death is ridiculous.

The thing that struck me most about Harry and Meghan's initial statement was multiple references to "financial independence" when they are clearly going to continue to get money from Prince Charles!  Yes, they are dropping the 5% public money and each of them do have money of their own, but Prince Charles seems to be picking up the multi-million dollar tab for Frogmore Cottage and plans to continue to subsidize them.

The title Prince of Wales is conferred on the heir (William) by the reigning monarch (Charles).  It is not something he immediately inherits after Elizabeth passes away.   Charles does not have to bestow the title on William.  I do think he will give him the title in a small private affair, but he is not required.   Charles is supposed to be about streamlining the royal family and cutting costs.  Having Elizabeth's funeral, Charles's coronation and William's investitire all at the same time will cost the taxpayers a lot of money.   It will be interesting to see what he decides to do when the time comes.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Having Elizabeth's funeral, Charles's coronation and William's investitire all at the same time will cost the taxpayers a lot of money. 

Man, I don't follow royal anything unless there's a wedding where I can gawk at the dresses, but I'd be hot pissed if I were on the hook for some billionaire's elevation to a throne simply because they won some DNA lottery and, lucky me, he might wave to me from his balcony. The whole enterprise is ludicrous.

If they want a party, let them pay for it themselves.

  • Like 9
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

Prince Andrew is total and absolute scum. There is no doubt. However I can't be outraged that the man went to church with his mother. This idea that someone can't go to church because they're too evil or they've done too much wrong is just bizarre. And I'm not even really a believer.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

Charles' coronation can be in another fiscal year.     The Queen became Queen on February 6, 1952.   Her coronation was held June 3, 1953.    It takes time to put on one of those things.   LOTS of pomp and circumstance.    More even than a royal wedding.   So Charles could theoretically, become King, preside over his mother's funeral, then next year have the coronation, then the next year have William invested as Prince of Wales.   Which would mean 2 years of lots of tourism for the UK if they did it that way.    Plus the memorabilia.   Heck if they did this right, they could show a profit.

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Charles' coronation can be in another fiscal year.     The Queen became Queen on February 6, 1952.   Her coronation was held June 3, 1953.    It takes time to put on one of those things.   LOTS of pomp and circumstance.    More even than a royal wedding.   So Charles could theoretically, become King, preside over his mother's funeral, then next year have the coronation, then the next year have William invested as Prince of Wales.   Which would mean 2 years of lots of tourism for the UK if they did it that way.    Plus the memorabilia.   Heck if they did this right, they could show a profit.

He definitely could.  Personally with all the brouhaha about the money Harry and Meghan have cost the taxpayers with their wedding, etc.,  I want to see Charles purposefully spend as little as possible to show support to his son.   He really can't cut corners with his coronation,  but he can with anything having to do with William.  The POW ceremony can be intimate with only a few photographs taken.  It is what the people apparently want.  Right??

In reality,  Charles will have all the ceremonies necessary for the change in regime.  He is is mother's son after all.  He also still has to deal with the thorny issue of Camilla especially if Andrew Parker-Bowles is still living.  Will she be crowned as queen or given another title?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, doodlebug said:
7 hours ago, Dani said:

I wasn’t saying that it would be controversial but that it’s a heavy burden to put on Kate. Many people already feel the need to constantly bring up Diana in relationship to the Cambridge’s and sharing a title will only increase the comparisons. I agree that it’s the most likely scenario but I wouldn’t blame her for not wanting to deal with the emotional weight that comes with being the Princess of Wales. 

Diana has now been gone for more than 20 years.  I think the public will be just fine with her daughter in law assuming the title when the time comes.  There would be far more controversy if she didn't.  The general consensus is that Diana would've loved Kate and would've adored her grandkids.  

I agree. I think Diana would have loved Kate. Also, Kate isn't directly replacing Diana the way Camilla was. Kate is the next in line to use the title through marriage to Diana's son. It would be way worse for her not to take the title. Then it would be all "Kate secretly hates her dead mother in law!" "Diana's dying wish was not to have a girl she never met and had no clue would marry her son hold the title PofW"! When Kate becomes PofW I think it will be more healing than harmful. 

It was right for Camilla not to use it and it is right for Kate to use it. It will likely be a heavy burden and might bring up feelings for William, but I almost think those feelings will be more healing. I think his mother's legacy (minus the terrible ending) as Princess of Wales can be carried on by his wife Kate, who I feel shares Diana's best qualities, and that is a good thing. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

He definitely could.  Personally with all the brouhaha about the money Harry and Meghan have cost the taxpayers with their wedding, etc.,  I want to see Charles purposefully spend as little as possible to show support to his son.   

The brouhaha over the cost of the wedding was ridiculous. From what I understand, the wedding cost millions but the revenue brought to England from tourist etc. who visited during, before and after the event was billions. So though tax payers paid, citizens got a very good ROI due to them and the event. Lots of businesses etc. made quite a bit of money due to the wedding etc.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Diana has now been gone for more than 20 years.  I think the public will be just fine with her daughter in law assuming the title when the time comes.  There would be far more controversy if she didn't.  The general consensus is that Diana would've loved Kate and would've adored her grandkids.  

Camilla doesn't use PoW because she had an affair with the husband of the previous Princess of Wales.  An affair that Diana publicly asserted was a big part of the failure of her marriage.  I think many would find it unseemly for Camilla to use the title under the circumstances.  The press and public would've been outraged.  As if was, there were plenty of people who were unhappy that Charles married the woman who was formerly his mistress.

As I said I don’t think it will be controversial for Kate to be The Princess of Wales. My point is that Kate might not be completely thrilled with taking on the title when Diana’s memory already looms so large over her with the public and the press. The press love to invoke Diana’s name whenever possible and that will just increase once Kate is The Princess of Wales.

Plus there will be some people who don’t want anyone to have that title ever again and will use it as an opportunity to demean Kate for being a commoner. Right now Kate is being pitted against Meghan so she is getting a ton of positive press but that tide will shift again. Queen Camilla vs the new Princess of Wales headlines are inevitable. 

9 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

Man, I don't follow royal anything unless there's a wedding where I can gawk at the dresses, but I'd be hot pissed if I were on the hook for some billionaire's elevation to a throne simply because they won some DNA lottery and, lucky me, he might wave to me from his balcony. The whole enterprise is ludicrous.

If they want a party, let them pay for it themselves.

The dilemma is that large and elaborate ceremonies are bad optics but they also bring in a ridiculous amount of money. Taxpayers look at it and just see the expense and feel justifiably outraged but the ceremonies more than pay for themselves. For example it has been reported that Harry and Meghan’s wedding cost £32 million while it generated an estimated £1 billion for the British economy. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 7
  • Useful 1
  • Surprise 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Dani said:

The dilemma is that large and elaborate ceremonies are bad optics but they also bring in a ridiculous amount of money. Taxpayers look at it and just see the expense and feel justifiably outraged but the ceremonies more than pay for themselves. For example it has been reported that Harry and Meghan’s wedding cost £32 million while in generated an estimated £1 billion for the British economy. 

It is easy to point and say OMG they cost us sooo much how dare they! But I would say about 20% (being generous) of that wedding was about what Meghan and Harry wanted and 80% was about bringing the public the lavish spectacle they expect.

It is yet another case of damned if they do damned if they don't. If they had had a modest wedding it would be "he's ashamed of marrying her" or "they are hiding something" or "they belong to the public they owe us the big show!".

Why anyone would want to be a royal is beyond me. It seems like way more trouble than it's worth. Money can only buy you so much when it constantly comes with so many strings attached. 

  • Like 23

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BlackberryJam said:

However I can't be outraged that the man went to church with his mother. This idea that someone can't go to church because they're too evil or they've done too much wrong is just bizarre. And I'm not even really a believer.

Because to quote a favorite of many royal fans, it's "about optics". Never made one public gesture to address the seemingly unending tabloid abuse of the first person of color who is a senior royal, including, as another poster noted, not even when her most recent great grandchild was compared to a monkey. But by all means, show up to a house of worship with a son accused of actual violent crimes. Like I said, stay classy. 

50 minutes ago, Enero said:

The brouhaha over the cost of the wedding was ridiculous. From what I understand, the wedding cost millions but the revenue brought to England from tourist etc. who visited during, before and after the event was billions. So though tax payers paid, citizens got a very good ROI due to them and the event. Lots of businesses etc. made quite a bit of money due to the wedding etc.

And if folks want to open up that pandora box, then we can always discuss the millions spent on Eugenie's wedding that brought in no interest. The one that was about to get all kinds of backlash, until Harry and Meghan announced her pregnancy a few days after the wedding. The announcement some claimed took away from Eugenie's moment.

Trust, they didn't want that moment. Because the press was starting to go in about the empty streets in Windsor, the many empty hotels and the general zero fucks the public gave about a wedding that millions was blown on.

41 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

It is yet another case of damned if they do damned if they don't. If they had had a modest wedding it would be "he's ashamed of marrying her" or "they are hiding something" or "they belong to the public they owe us the big show!".

Kind of like the faux outrage the press tried to drum up over their daring to not shove Meghan out on some hospital steps a mere hours after pushing a human out of her. Because apparently "they owed the public/taxpayers" that. 

Edited by truthaboutluv
  • Like 9
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I also hope Camilla ends up as Queen Consort.

Better than Royal Thot, I suppose.

Quote

Technically her title is The Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex

I thought it was either Her Royal Highness Princess Harry of Sussex or Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex?

Quote

This idea that someone can't go to church because they're too evil or they've done too much wrong is just bizarre

I wonder if the holy water starts boiling when he walks past it?

Quote

Plus there will be some people who don’t want anyone to have that title ever again and will use it as an opportunity to demean Kate for being a commoner. Right now Kate is being pitted against Meghan so she is getting a ton of positive press but that tide will shift again.

The British press can be very shitty indeed. Remember when they were celebrating how progressive the royal family was with Harry marrying a bi-racial foreign women? And how it was a sign of post-racial Britain? Yeah, that didn't last long.

Edited by Hiyo
  • Like 5
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think the reason the press was so outraged about not having the chance to photograph the baby right after birth is because they wanted a close up of his face, to see which side of the family he favored.    In my view it was absolutely racism. 

  • Like 16
  • Sad 8

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think the reason the press was so outraged about not having the chance to photograph the baby right after birth is because they wanted a close up of his face, to see which side of the family he favored.    In my view it was absolutely racism. 

Actually, racists though they may be, I’m pretty sure in that case it was just about money. The way Harry and Meghan presented Archie meant none of the tabloids made money off his image. Because they all got the same officially released images, which were also copyrighted.

Edited by truthaboutluv
  • Like 6
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

On a slightly different note: while the Duchess of Cornwall is ALSO technically Princess of Wales, it's not a guarantor for becoming Queen Consort since only 4 of the previous nine POW's have done so- four of the others were widowed before their husband's crowned parent  had died and, Diana was divorced then died before Her Majesty. 

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

Meanwhile Andrew went to Church today with The Queen.  

Very odd decision,  imo. 

Right after declaring Harry and Meghan were no longer able to represent the Crown, the Queen turns up in her first photographed outing with her disgusting pig of a son since November, a man who would likely be facing charges if not for the very HRH Harry and Meghan are no longer allowed to use. The hypocrisy is staggering. And the calculated nature of it is also unsettling. One thing privately attending the church on the grounds of Sandringham, but to bring that piece of human garbage* to a village church, where  photographers will be at the ready, is beyond bad judgement, imo. Today was the day for Charles to be by her side, not a corrupt decadent man whose bestie was a sex trafficker. 

This is not a situation lacking bright lines, and the failure of the royal family (and handlers) to honour those lines is bizarre.

*The only decent thing Andrew ever did (unknowingly) is help reveal the pedophilic nature of his dear friend at Lakefield, Father Keith Gleed. "HRH" Andrew did it completely by accident - he was actually conferring an honour on the infamous raper of students in the form of a baptismal font in the school chapel,  and Gleed's outraged victims finally started coming forward - but at least he was an inadvertent catalyst in uncovering a fellow monster. Canada thanks you,  "HRH" (His Raping Highness, is how I style his title, these days.)

(eta to clarify what was meant re: November.)

Edited by film noire
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Luciano said:

Kate will be Princess of Wales, with William being Prince of Wales. There's no controversy there, there is no reason to not give the title to them. The only reason the current Princess of Wales doesn't use it is because of the history between her and the last Princess of Wales (and the public's reaction to that history). Kate is Diana's daughter-in-law and mother to her grandchildren, so the connection there is a good one - William's wife now having his beloved mother's title*.

*To go with that ring.

 

3 hours ago, Frost said:

Why wouldn't Catherine be Princess of Wales once Charles becomes King and William is elevated to Prince of Wales?  I don't think the public needs to wait a couple of decades to accept anyone other than Diana as Princess of Wales, it's only Camilla that would cause a ruckus.  I also hope Camilla ends up as Queen Consort.

I think Diana was treated horribly by the royal machine but the canonization after her death is ridiculous.

The thing that struck me most about Harry and Meghan's initial statement was multiple references to "financial independence" when they are clearly going to continue to get money from Prince Charles!  Yes, they are dropping the 5% public money and each of them do have money of their own, but Prince Charles seems to be picking up the multi-million dollar tab for Frogmore Cottage and plans to continue to subsidize them.

Oops, I forgot that Kate would be the next one. Sorry. Yes, she'd end up Princess of Wales when Charles becomes King.  I do think Camilla will be Queen Consort. I never believed the firm or Charles when it was claimed she wouldn't be when they got married. I think they were both banking on by the time he became King most people either wouldn't care or stopped caring. Which he's was right. They've been married now what almost fifteen years now? The Queen could still live another seven or nine years like her mother. That's a long time. No one is going to care by that part. Most people don't care now. 

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Charles' coronation can be in another fiscal year.     The Queen became Queen on February 6, 1952.   Her coronation was held June 3, 1953.    It takes time to put on one of those things.   LOTS of pomp and circumstance.    More even than a royal wedding.   So Charles could theoretically, become King, preside over his mother's funeral, then next year have the coronation, then the next year have William invested as Prince of Wales.   Which would mean 2 years of lots of tourism for the UK if they did it that way.    Plus the memorabilia.   Heck if they did this right, they could show a profit.

I've wondered if he might wait a little bit before giving William the title due to how long he's had and to give people time to adjust. Although probably not. Traditionally they just made it automatically. When Queen Victoria died in January 1901 Edward VII waited until November to give his son the title because he thought it would be too confusing at first for everyone since he had been Prince of Wales for so long, George went by Duke of Cornwall during that time. Although the delay ended up causing confusion too which was why when it was George's turn to be King he immediately gave the title to his son.

10 minutes ago, film noire said:

Very odd decision,  imo. 

Right after declaring Harry and Meghan no longer able to represent the Crown, the Queen turns up in her first photographed outing since November with her disgusting pig of a son, a man who would likely be facing charges if not for the very HRH Harry and Meghan are no longer allowed to use. The hypocrisy is staggering. And the calculated nature of it is also unsettling. One thing privately attending the church on the grounds of Sandringham, but to bring that piece of human garbage* to a village church, where  photographes will be at the ready, is beyond bad judgement, imo. Today was the day for Charles to be by her side, not a corrupt decadent man whose bestie was a sex trafficker. 

This is not a situation lacking bright lines, and the failure of the royal family (and handlers) to honour those lines is bizarre.

*The only decent thing Andrew ever did (unknowingly) is help reveal the pedophilic nature of his dear old friend at Lakefield school, Father Keith Gleed. "HRH" Andrew did it completely by accident - he was actually conferring an honour on the infamous raper of students in the form of a baptismal font in the shool chapel,  and Gleed's outraged victims finally started coming forward - but at least he was an inadvertent catalyst in uncovering a fellow monster. Canada thanks you,  "HRH" (His Rapist Highness, is how I style his title, these days.)

 

That's great. Let's hope Andrew keeps inspiring victims to come forward. His and those of his pals. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, truthaboutluv said:

Because to quote a favorite of many royal fans, it's "about optics". Never made one public gesture to address the seemingly unending tabloid abuse of the first person of color who is a senior royal, including, as another poster noted, not even when her most recent great grandchild was compared to a monkey. But by all means, show up to a house of worship with a son accused of actual violent crimes. Like I said, stay classy. 

On another site I visit the issue came up, of how supportive the Queen was or wasn't to Meghan. One poster argued that the Queen had been very publicly supportive of Meghan: she'd been invited on one-on-one engagements with the Queen far sooner than Catherine had at the same stage, a big show of just how much she considered Meghan a part of the Royal Family now. And the counterargument was essentially, that's nice, but maybe a public statement from the Queen blasting the press might have been more useful and a bigger show of support to Meghan? How much a statement from Buckingham vs. Kensington Palace would have changed the reporting, I don't know, but it's not surprising that the Queen/her advisors were operating under the usual ways (stiff upper lip, keep calm and carry on, everyone in the family has their turn at bad press), while the Sussexes and their fans were expecting them to address the issues head on and to be more proactive in offering a defense of Meghan. 

The church visit today isn't a "public event" any more than the photos of the Queen riding/driving around in the past week were, but that's not the perception people will have or what the reporting will be, especially from US sources. The courtiers should be asking themselves if the Queen should be seen with Andrew ever again, even in a "private" capacity. Charles would probably love to have Andrew locked away in the tower for all time; it will be interesting to see what happens to him after Mama is gone.

Rebecca English of the Daily Fail wrote a piece on how Harry has changed since she's known him and since he met Meghan. It gives an insight into how the royal rota types think and the sort of interaction they were accustomed to having with senior royals. I get the sense that some of them genuinely thought they were friends with the royals, even as they worked for papers that published awful stories about the Windsors through the years. As such, IMO, they didn't understand what was so different with Harry's latest girlfriend (now wife) or why it changed, just that it did when Meghan came along, therefore she "took" their Harry away from them. 

An interesting nugget the article drops is that (apparently) Harry regularly read supermarket tabloid coverage about himself and later, online articles and comments sections. If that is true, yikes, that cannot do anything good for his mental health. This does not excuse the awfulness of the media or internet trolls, but Harry, don't torture yourself that way!

Here's a link to the article:

 

Edited by Dejana
  • Like 6
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Hiyo said:

Better than Royal Thot, I suppose.

I thought it was either Her Royal Highness Princess Harry of Sussex or Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex?

I wonder if the holy water starts boiling when he walks past it?

The British press can be very shitty indeed. Remember when they were celebrating how progressive the royal family was with Harry marrying a bi-racial foreign women? And how it was a sign of post-racial Britain? Yeah, that didn't last long.

Regarding the bolded: Harry’s given name is actually Henry, but he’s been called by the nickname Harry ever since he was born. So yes, Meghan’s title is actually (HRH) the Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex (& Catherine’s is actually HRH the Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge), or something like that. She’s not Princess Meghan (nor is William’s wife Princess Catherine) because she received the title through marriage; not by birth.

Edited by BW Manilowe · Reason: To remove an extraneous “the”.
  • Like 3
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

He must literally be insane, does he ever listen to the words that come out of his mouth? I bet he got paid for this.

Meghan Markle's Estranged Dad Thomas Markle Weighs in on Royal Exit With So Much Shade

Quote

"It's kind of embarrassing to me," Thomas also says in the documentary. "When they got married, they took on an obligation and the obligation is to be part of the royals and to represent the royals and it would be foolish for them not to. This is like one of the greatest, long-living institutions ever. They are destroying it. They are cheapening it. They're making it shabby. They are turning it into a Walmart with a crown of it now. It is something that is ridiculous. They shouldn't be doing this."

 

  • Surprise 5
  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post

Both Harry and Meghan should have anticipated the shitstorm that could/would occur because Meghan was: 1) biracial 2) divorced 3) American and 4) and actress.  Add to that the fact that Meghan knew she had a fucked up family.  The plans they are making now should have been discussed with the Queen and in place even before they married.  They could have had their own wedding wherever they wanted and lived anywhere they wanted.  There was no need for a grand Royal wedding and all the fanfare afterwards, at taxpayers expense, knowing full well that they really wanted to live their lives mostly apart from the Royal family.    

Now bring it on! 😃

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, film noire said:

Very odd decision,  imo. 
Right after declaring Harry and Meghan were no longer able to represent the Crown, the Queen turns up in her first photographed outing since November 

 

Actually, the Queen has had multiple outings that were photographed since November including many formal appearances as Queen where photos are part of the appearance.

 

33 minutes ago, GaT said:

 

She was photographed at Christmas at church in what is a regular royal photo op.  We've seen a bunch of pics of her taken informally including ones of her going to church with Andrew over the past couple months.  

I don't know how the Queen can avoid being photographed, even on the grounds at Windsor, photographers using telephoto lenses get plenty of pictures of her out and about.  And I think that it is impossible for Andrew never to be seen with his mother again in these informal settings.  To expect the Queen to forego church services or not go to the same service as her son because somebody might snap a photo is a bit much, IMO.

34 minutes ago, GaT said:

He must literally be insane, does he ever listen to the words that come out of his mouth? I bet he got paid for this.

Meghan Markle's Estranged Dad Thomas Markle Weighs in on Royal Exit With So Much Shade

 

So, it is Meghan and Harry who are cheapening the family, destroying it, making it shabby?  I think that maybe he's had a small stroke causing him to lose touch with reality.

2 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

Actually, racists though they may be, I’m pretty sure in that case it was just about money. The way Harry and Meghan presented Archie meant none of the tabloids made money off his image. Because they all got the same officially released images, which were also copyrighted.

Absolutely.  While I do not doubt that some of the more vile tabloids were going to try to get a shot of the baby's face in order to speculate as to which parent he resembled most, ie how black was he?; doing the public photos on the steps of the hospital was important especially to the free lance photogs who would sell them to the highest bidder.  They camped out for days jockeying for position before other royal births; so anxious were they to get that first photo to sell.

Considering they were the same people who snapped photos of his mother as she lay dying in a tunnel in Paris rather than helping her; I'd say Harry had every right to try to prevent them from profiting from his son's birth.  Thank God the public outcry was so great after Diana's death that none of the tabloids dared print those pictures.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, GaT said:

He must literally be insane, does he ever listen to the words that come out of his mouth? I bet he got paid for this.

Meghan Markle's Estranged Dad Thomas Markle Weighs in on Royal Exit With So Much Shade

 

Oh, Thomas. You're just a riot, aren't ya? Sure, this is embarassing. Not, you know, everything you've spewed since they got engaged. Come, pull the other one. 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I've wondered if he might wait a little bit before giving William the title due to how long he's had and to give people time to adjust. Although probably not. Traditionally they just made it automatically. When Queen Victoria died in January 1901 Edward VII waited until November to give his son the title because he thought it would be too confusing at first for everyone since he had been Prince of Wales for so long, George went by Duke of Cornwall during that time. Although the delay ended up causing confusion too which was why when it was George's turn to be King he immediately gave the title to his son.

Delaying in giving him the title will stir up drama that Charles either does not have faith in William or his threatened by his son’s popularity. The smart decision would be to make him Prince of Wales immediately and wait on the investiture or to have a low key ceremony. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Dani said:

Delaying in giving him the title will stir up drama that Charles either does not have faith in William or his threatened by his son’s popularity. 

Or it's Meghan's fault /s

  • Like 4
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post

I am so happy Meghan and Harry decided to step down and take care of their little family away from the spotlight. I am sure the media circus will increase for a while but hopefully that won’t last long. 

 

From what I am understand, It seems Harry and Meghan are still Keeping their titles including Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They just won’t use the HRH part of it which always struck me more like a life style thing and since they won’t be living that life style then it doesn’t matter really. Prince Harry had to give up his military decorative titles which must have made him sad but he still has his Invictus charity to help them. Also, Prince Harry is still a Prince and he is still the 6th in line. So, if Charles becomes King, Archie automatically gets a title unless Harry and Meghan say, “no” to that again. 

I saw that they paid the money used to renovate Frogmore which they shouldn’t have really but I think they did it more like an FU to those whining about tax payer money. So, they can get that money now if they can. So, stupid. However, they said Meghan and Harry will still use Frogmore cottage whenever they’re in the U.K. They will just pay rent and pay for any upkeep it might need which they shouldn’t really need to do. If they’re renting then it is the property owners that should pay for the upkeeps but I guess this is another thing they want to do so people won’t bitch about tax money again.  

I also saw that they want Meghan and Harry to be on big family events outside of the private ones like the Trooping Of The Colour. They also want Harry to be part of this UK-African Investment Summit the Palace is hosting on Monday. They probably want him there to say, look we didn’t kick out the girl with the African DNA. Her husband is here. So, we are all totes fine. Lol 

 

All in all, I am glad Harry and Meghan won’t be the escape goat for that family’s messiness. Let that country deal with the fact they treated Meghan worse than an alleged pedophile Prince who they are still paying for because she happened to be biracial. 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

Both Harry and Meghan should have anticipated the shitstorm that could/would occur because Meghan was: 1) biracial 2) divorced 3) American and 4) and actress.  Add to that the fact that Meghan knew she had a fucked up family.  The plans they are making now should have been discussed with the Queen and in place even before they married.  They could have had their own wedding wherever they wanted and lived anywhere they wanted.  There was no need for a grand Royal wedding and all the fanfare afterwards, at taxpayers expense, knowing full well that they really wanted to live their lives mostly apart from the Royal family.

Even if it's true that they had never had any intention of living their lives within the inner circle of the Royal family (and that's total speculation) had they actually done what you suggest and had a quiet little wedding somewhere without any of the fanfare of a royal wedding the reaction to that would have been epic.  "Oh he's ashamed of her" "The Queen said he couldn't marry a (gasp) black woman so they're running off " "She's stealing our Prince and taking him away from us, the bitch".  Totally a case of can't win.

  • Like 22
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Actually, the Queen has had multiple outings that were photographed since November 

...her first photographed appearance with Andrew since November, not in general.

Quote

 To expect the Queen to forego church services or not go to the same service as her son because somebody might snap a photo is a bit much, IMO.

I don't think anybody is arguing the Queen should never attend church privately on the off chance an unauthorized photo of her and Andrew might be taken. The issue is the Queen attending this church (a village church, not the church on the Sandringham estate, arguably a more private affair) and in this way (dozens of photographers gathered, ready to record her arrival with Andrew)  and after this declaration (HRH titles no longer fit to be used by Harry, when Harry's uncle, an alleged rapist and bestie of a dead sex trafficker,  is still styled as such) and on this day (24 hours after the deal was announced). 

The image of Andrew with Elizabeth - as if nothing had damaged his reputation - as she shook hands before entering church was disturbing, imo.  She is the head of state of my country and I found it inappropriate. Charles was the right choice for this moment, not Andrew.   YMMV & all that good stuff ; )

 

Edited by film noire
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

In thinking about how the entire BRF has handled things, from the Andrew interview to Harry and Meghan stepping back, makes me absolutely certain that there is not one of them that I would hire for a position that requires troubleshooting. They have all shown a remarkable inability to anticipate problems and address them when the come up. I think an average 7th grader has more general awareness.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder what rent is set for Frogmore Cottage?  

I think it's stupid that H&M pay for the updates to the place, since as I understand, it was scheduled to be done even if they didn't move there. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Calvada said:

I think it's stupid that H&M pay for the updates to the place, since as I understand, it was scheduled to be done even if they didn't move there. 

My understanding is that they are paying for the updates specific to them, the general maintenance kind of repairs and updates are separate,  I agree with you though that they shouldn't have to do it.  Optics though I guess.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size