Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
GHScorpiosRule

From Across The Pond: Royal Weddings and Scandals

Recommended Posts


34 minutes ago, PennyPlain said:

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.

Harry is over 25. All he had to do to marry anyone he wanted was give the Queen a 1 year notice. Then he could have walked away. He chose not to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Minor nit pick. HRH "The" Prince/ss is granted when the parent is sovereign. For instance Anne was known as HRH Princess Anne until she was 2. When Elizabeth became queen, that's when Anne became HRH The Princess Anne. 

Yes, the "The" makes a difference. 

Nit picking over. Carry on folks. I have no horse in this race. 

  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

18 minutes ago, Dani said:

 

Too bad this snippet (from the speech above) won't mean shit to the people who are hellbent on blaming Meghan. The ongoing obsession and continued abuse should do nothing but re enforce and validate Harry (and their) in their choice.

 

image.png.d6d64f51fd3aaf3d7d547f814fa0b218.png

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, bobalina said:

Harry is over 25. All he had to do to marry anyone he wanted was give the Queen a 1 year notice. Then he could have walked away. He chose not to.

The issue under discussion as far as I thought is not what choices were made - the issue is the public/tabloid reaction to those choices.  

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

Query:   Where is the public outcry for Eugenie and Beatrice to repay the Crown for their grace and favor apartment they shared in Windsor Great Park?   Pretty sure they were living there rent free since neither one can hold a job.   

In other Royal news:   Their Serene Highnesses of Monaco went to the circus:   https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/prince-albert-circus-princess-charlene-twins-new-york/aef216cf-f389-491a-8e13-7e5d896c327b   Trying to find a site that was not pure clickbait was tough.   Didn't succeed, but hopefully this one is not too bad.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Query:   Where is the public outcry for Eugenie and Beatrice to repay the Crown for their grace and favor apartment they shared in Windsor Great Park?   Pretty sure they were living there rent free since neither one can hold a job.   

The double standard of the financial outrage is ridiculous but Beatrice and Eugenie do have jobs. It is been reported that Andrew paid their rent. Most of the royals either pay rent as part of a very long term lease or the Queen pays their rent. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 2
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

18 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Query:   Where is the public outcry for Eugenie and Beatrice to repay the Crown for their grace and favor apartment they shared in Windsor Great Park?   Pretty sure they were living there rent free since neither one can hold a job.   

The house in Windsor Great Park (Royal Lodge) is Andrew's on a 75 year lease.  The apartment that Beatrice and Eugenie used to share was in St James's Palace.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Steph J said:

The house in Windsor Great Park (Royal Lodge) is Andrew's on a 75 year lease.  The apartment that Beatrice and Eugenie used to share was in St James's Palace.

 

40 minutes ago, Dani said:

The double standard of the financial outrage is ridiculous but Beatrice and Eugenie do have jobs. It is been reported that Andrew paid their rent. Most of the royals either pay rent as part of a very long term lease or the Queen pays their rent. 

Oops, got the location wrong.    I see those girls can be financially dependent on daddy and its okay.   But Prince Charles continuing to pay for Harry and Meghan is terrible.    Also what jobs do B & E have?    They've had several for a few months at a time.   Nothing long term.   

 

At least Princess Margaret's son, now the Earl of Snowdon  started a furniture business that actually did quite well.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Also what jobs do B & E have?    They've had several for a few months at a time.   Nothing long term.   

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/money/a23723800/princess-beatrice-princess-eugenie-jobs/

I don't know how accurate this article actually is but one thing I have to give props to both girls over is that they went to university and finished their degrees and they have worked in their chosen fields.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

This article (from USA Today), about the speech Harry gave at a meeting involving his Sentebale charity, says that Harry will remain a Prince & sixth in line to the throne (well, sixth in line as long as Catherine & William hold true to their apparent intention of having no more children [Catherine said something about that at an event fairly recently, I’m pretty sure] & nobody ahead of Harry in the line of succession dies anytime soon—the former happening would move his position down farther; the latter happening would move his position back up the line).

Edited by BW Manilowe · Reason: To fix punctuation and add a comment.
  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, BW Manilowe said:

This article (from USA Today), about the speech Harry gave at a meeting involving his Sentebale charity, says that Harry will remain a Prince & sixth in line to the throne (well, sixth in line as long as Catherine & William hold true to their apparent intention of having no more children [Catherine said something about that at an event fairly recently, I’m pretty sure] & nobody ahead of Harry in the line of succession dies anytime soon—the former happening would move his position down farther; the latter happening would move his position back up the line).

That’s not surprising. Even those who do not have titles like Zara, Peter and Archie are still in the line of succession. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

Is Harry repaying? Or is Charles making the payment in Harry’s name?

Who cares? Harry can repay and Charles can make him whole. Why does anyone think they get to tell Charles what he can spend his money on?

Look, you want to keep royalty in your system? Well then it’s gonna suck for you that you have no say in money granted to monarchy to use at their discretion v. tax dollars allocated to monarchy. 

Pick a lane. 

  • Like 18
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

9 minutes ago, pennben said:

Who cares? Harry can repay and Charles can make him whole. Why does anyone think they get to tell Charles what he can spend his money on?

Look, you want to keep royalty in your system? Well then it’s gonna suck for you that you have no say in money granted to monarchy to use at their discretion v. tax dollars allocated to monarchy. 

Pick a lane. 

Right? It's always amusing to me when the ones hating the most always use that as their ace in the hole, "my taxpayer dollars, taxpayers, etc". And yet when people say, "okay, then why aren't you supporting a movement to have the monarchy eradicated entirely? I mean we're in the 21st century for crying out loud. Why should such an antiquated system rooted in colonialism and class disparity exist?"

They'll be the first to then start spitting about "oh tourist dollars, the Royals bring in revenue and interest", etc. So which is it? In other words, taxpayer dollars only matter when it's a tool to attack a particular royal they hate. That's why I at least have more respect for the republicans who just hate the institution entirely and feel indifference for all of them. Because at least that's consistent. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

Right? I’m assuming the Frogmore repayment is just going back to Queens budget from whence it came. Moral victory, I guess??

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, pennben said:

Right? I’m assuming the Frogmore repayment is just going back to Queens budget from whence it came. Moral victory, I guess??

It all goes back to the racism - gotta get that welfare queen to pay the gubbermint back for her housing. 

Never mind Meghan's successful career and substantial income pre-marriage.

  • Like 8
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post

My problem is that Harry put out a website declaring his financial independence and is apparently not going to be financially independent at all. I didn't know who Meghan was before; nothing about her impresses me; I pity her for how she's been treated by the press.

Harry, on the other hand, is behaving like an entitled brat and I kind of want to smack him down, hard.

Edit: Also, to be disgusted by Harry's entitled behavior, do I have to list every royal who disgusts me with their entitled behavior? If I add Bea and Eug to the mix, do I also have to add Louis of Luxembourg? Is my disgust of Harry only valid if I list every other royal who disgusts me?

Edited by BlackberryJam
  • Like 7
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Happy that Harry made that speech, hopefully now people can stop saying that the family was unaware and that Meghan was driving that decision.

Not that I know anything about anything but if I were to take a guess I would say that things probably really started changing for Harry when he became a father.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

Reminder: Everyone is entitled to their opinions on this thread. No one is required to bring receipts for any of them. 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

I thought from the minute that they announced it that the half in/half out thing would never work/was impractical, so I'm not surprised that didn't last past the meeting with the queen. I did think the queen's statement was warm--by royal standards--in affirming that they weren't being kicked out of the family. I have no doubt that Harry's immediate family wish him and Meghan well and can understand why they want out, even if they weren't big fans of how things were rolled out.   

6 hours ago, doodlebug said:

I think that Meghan's comment in the South Africa interview that she knew their royal lives wouldn't be easy but she thought it would be fair indicates that both she and Harry had every intention of living as working royals prior to their marriage. 

Agreed! I suspect Meghan always knew there was going to be some resistance/suspicion because she was not British and was not aristocratic, but that she thought if she paid her dues in doing a good job as a working royal, that she would eventually earn respect. Then once she got into it, she realized that she was never going to be accepted, no matter what she did, and that she would be subjected to some really horrifyingly blatant racism on top of it. And she'd have to always make nice with some of her worst tormentors. 

5 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

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.

Heh Agreed. I think them being raised in what is essentially a fishbowl of a lot of privilege but also a lot of restrictions has left most of them with very little common sense or street smarts. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

I think the “financial independence” misunderstanding is simply a classic example of people using a term with a specific meaning within their peer group, and not realizing that a larger audience will interpret that term differently. To the royals, being financially independent means not using taxpayer funds, while still being free to accept family money. To a larger audience, it means not relying on any funds other than what you have personally earned. 
 

That said, I think Charles has a moral obligation to continue his private financial support of Harry, at least for a while, given that Harry was raised to regard performing royal duties as his job, and in an environment where getting a normal paying job in which one might attain the more generic type of financial independence, is actively discouraged if not outright forbidden. 
 

There’s also the issue that Charles is at least indirectly responsible for much of the grief and trauma that both William and Harry experienced in their life. Had Charles not caved to pressure from within and around the royal family to back away from his original relationship with Camilla; had Charles not instead pursued a relationship with Diana in which, according to her, he deceived her into believing he actually loved her; had Charles not continued his extramarital relationship with Camilla, which contributed to the Charles/Diana divorce, then Diana would probably not have died the way she did. No, Diana was not a saint and she made her full share of mistakes, but Charles used her as a tool so he could have an “acceptable” marriage.  So if Charles gives part of his personal wealth to support William and Harry, that’s partly a way for him to repay them for the loss they suffered, and also for raising them in an environment where their every act is subject to media scrutiny. 
 

And what kind of toxic family environment is it in which a grown-ass person has to get permission from a parent or grandparent to marry someone? In which one’s grandmother appears fully supportive of a pedophile uncle but remains silent as tabloids publish racist comments about a grandson’s spouse? IMO, Harry and Meghan are doing the right thing by walking away, and I sincerely hope that the next generation of royals decides it’s time to end the insanity of trying to accomplish good and boost the economy while their personal lives are fodder for the tabloids and the pathetic groupies who think they’re entitled to know every personal detail about each member of the royal family. 

  • Like 22
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Zella said:

Agreed! I suspect Meghan always knew there was going to be some resistance/suspicion because she was not British and was not aristocratic, but that she thought if she paid her dues in doing a good job as a working royal, that she would eventually earn respect. Then once she got into it, she realized that she was never going to be accepted, no matter what she did, and that she would be subjected to some really horrifyingly blatant racism on top of it. And she'd have to always make nice with some of her worst tormentors. 

I think the part that I bolded is really the whole reason for all of this. If they could have just gotten rid of the royal rota, I don't think any of this would be happening.

  • Like 24

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, GaT said:

I think the part that I bolded is really the whole reason for all of this. If they could have just gotten rid of the royal rota, I don't think any of this would be happening.

I think you're right--also, I think if there had been more vocal pushback in general from the palace over the worst of it. I know people on this thread have already mentioned it, but when the queen's great-grandchild is mockingly compared to a primate and nothing is said? That's . . . unfathomable to me. I realize they may have been approaching it from the perspective of it was better not to dignify with comment, but that was just so incredibly cruel and offensive, it cried out for comment. 

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, BookWoman56 said:

Had Charles not caved to pressure from within and around the royal family to back away from his original relationship with Camilla; 

I realize that Charles' camp has worked hard to re-write history over the last couple of decades to make his relationship with Camilla more sympathetic and more easy for people to "accept" by casting them as star-crossed lovers unfairly separated by the whims of other people, but Charles didn't have to back away from Camilla because her goal at that time was to "land" Andrew Parker Bowles.  Camilla and Andrew, who was apparently a hot ticket in the 60s/70s (I don't see it, but I read an article once that described young APB as having "movie star good looks" and being the object of desire of every woman in that particular social circle), had an off again/on again relationship.  During one of their periodic break ups, Camilla and Charles had a relationship.  Charles never proposed to her, he never asked permission to marry her.  When he went away on an assignment with the navy, Camilla married Andrew.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Steph J said:

I realize that Charles' camp has worked hard to re-write history over the last couple of decades to make his relationship with Camilla more sympathetic and more easy for people to "accept" by casting them as star-crossed lovers unfairly separated by the whims of other people, but Charles didn't have to back away from Camilla because her goal at that time was to "land" Andrew Parker Bowles.  Camilla and Andrew, who was apparently a hot ticket in the 60s/70s (I don't see it, but I read an article once that described young APB as having "movie star good looks" and being the object of desire of every woman in that particular social circle), had an off again/on again relationship.  During one of their periodic break ups, Camilla and Charles had a relationship.  Charles never proposed to her, he never asked permission to marry her.  When he went away on an assignment with the navy, Camilla married Andrew.

I’m not claiming that Camilla would have married Charles at that time, had he proposed, but I’ve read several accounts that state that Lord Mountbatten, among others, strongly urged Charles not to let his relationship with Camilla become serious because she had something of a “wild” reputation, “wild” undoubtedly being code for sexually active. So when Charles went away on his navy assignment, he didn’t keep in touch and Camilla resumed her relationship with APB, and married him. To me it’s less about whether Charles married Camilla or someone else, and more about his unwillingness to stand up to his family and tell them he would pursue whomever he damn well pleased. Instead he seems to have just selected someone that the family would find suitable. I’d have more respect for Charles if he had told Diana, “Look, I am in love with someone I can’t marry/who doesn’t love me back, but because of who I am, I am expected to marry someone and produce an heir or two. So, given that, I don’t love you but am willing to provide you a life of luxury and a friendly, respectful marriage.” Then Diana could have made an informed choice. 
 

Now, whether Camilla simply got bored with APB or she had feelings all along for Charles, who knows? But she and Charles did have a relationship while married to other people, and Diana claimed that affair was one of the precipitating factors in her divorce. I don’t see Charles and Camilla as young lovers cruelly separated by the royal family but more as a potential couple who went their separate ways but then reconnected later and realized they truly were compatible. They simply trampled over other people’s feelings to be together, and an unintended consequence of their actions was Diana ending up in the situation in which she died. But my larger point is just that it’s incredibly fucked up to have the royal family, or any family, feel that they have a say-so in whom an adult family member dates or marries. 

  • Like 10
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

17 minutes ago, BookWoman56 said:

. I’d have more respect for Charles if he had told Diana, “Look, I am in love with someone I can’t marry/who doesn’t love me back, but because of who I am, I am expected to marry someone and produce an heir or two. So, given that, I don’t love you but am willing to provide you a life of luxury and a friendly, respectful marriage.” Then Diana could have made an informed choice. 

Yes, but Charles was too immature to do that. And Diana wouldn't have looked like a terrible match on paper. She was pretty (soon to be beautiful), compliant (or seemed so), had a rough idea of what was expected of her (I don't believe either of them were prepared for how the tabloids would cover her). Pre engagement Diana was mousy AF. I can see him thinking she'd pop out some kids, find a nice gardening charity to support and let him have his mistress. Nobody would have imagined that Diana would be as vulnerable and emotionally unstable as she turned out to be.

 

I was in the doctors waiting room this morning and I was looking at the magazines. Australian tabloids aren't quite as nasty as the UK ones or as WTFish as some of the US ones but I picked up one for the first time in years. There was this convoluted story about Charles  inadvertently getting involved in a painting forgery scandal which has cost the palace 126 million dollars. This story was insanely boring (lift your game, Aussie tabloids!) but the denouncement came with Charles giving everyone a dressing down at Buckingham Palace- and then Meghan refused to come to the meeting and somehow this snub cost the family another 5 million dollars. A "highly placed source" revealed that Meghan may even have known the forger from her pre Harry travels. A stupid story and nowhere near as toxic as the foul monkey comparison ones but that shit would just grind you down. Just a never ending stream of "everything that happens will be blamed on you". Run, Mountbatten-Windsors! Run like the wind!

  • Like 7
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think this may be a good time to recall that the union between the former Prince Harry of Wales and Ms. Meghan Markle before they became the Duke and Duchess of Sussex  HAS achieved some positive things:

1. Her Majesty approved the marriage of her grandson with someone who had been divorced which is a BIG deal considering that she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and until 2002, in that faith, marrying someone who had been divorced whose former spouse was living was out of the question. 

2. They got married in St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle. More than any other of their residences, this is the place the Windsors consider their actual home which means that they had the wedding in their home church!

3. The Prince of Wales and Ms. Doria Ragland signed the Registry as the Legal Witnesses- which meant a U.S. American woman (and, it must be said, woman of color)  had JUST as much legal power to sanction her child's marriage as the Prince of Wales did his. Yes, ironic that for all the fuss and feathers of the ceremony, the actual marriage happened with the bridal couple and their respective parents signing the Registry. 

4. The Sussexes have done a great many hands-on charitable good works in the UK and abroad and have made an effort to continue to do this regardless of splitting their time  other places and not using the HRH (and for that matter despite needless hostility of others). 

5. A child with African heritage has been born into and (this is key)  fully recognized by the Royal Family. 

6.They made a stance re how their son will be raised by keeping him in Canada. 

 No matter what happens progress has been achieved by the Sussexes re their union and even if others are discouraged from following in the same paths, no one can deny that the Sussexes PAVED said paths. While much progress  is still needed, one should celebrate that some progress has been achieved. 

 

Oh, I liked the speech the Duke gave a great deal and it seemed to confirm a great deal of what I believe has been the most likely scenarios re how he reached these decisions. 

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

And Diana wouldn't have looked like a terrible match on paper.

And she was the daughter of an earl, as well. Yeah, being the daughter of an earl isn't the same as having the title of a princess, but hey, she was still Lady Diana before the marriage.

Quote

 No matter what happens progress has been achieved by the Sussexes re their union and even if others are discouraged from following in the same paths, no one can deny that the Sussexes PAVED said paths

Too early to tell whether or not this will lead to any positive changes with regards to race and class relations in the UK. I mean, I hope it does, but among the upper or ruling class in the UK, things are very, very slow to change.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Zella said:

but when the queen's great-grandchild is mockingly compared to a primate and nothing is said?

Nothing was said publicly.   Doesn't mean things weren't said privately.   It has been made clear the family loves and supports Meghan.    But they probably thought, why bother, reasonable people will see something like that as outrageous.   Unreasonable people will just say that Meghan ":bullied the poor aging Queen into a statement of support she didn't want to make because she really hates Meghan, that's why she hasn'r said anytyhing."   A no win situation.

Everything the family did was parsed to a fare thee well by Meghan supporters and haters alike.    Did she do a joint engagement with Meghan sooner than Kate?    Whyyyyyyyyyyy???????   Other than schedules happened to align.     Meghan and Harry's pictures weren't seen on the table any more, oh they must be on the outs.    Seriously folks.   No one wonder they wanted out of the insanity.    

I think the part-time thing would have worked.   After all, the Wessexes, the Kents and the Gloucesters are part-time Royals.   Why can't the Sussexes be?    As noted above, if the Royal Rota went away, and certain tabs were flat out banned from Royal Events, it might have worked.   But if they would still have been required to speak to the tabs while doing their sometimes events, then nope, nope, nope.   Which you would think that would be easy enough to change.   Some mustache must have decided that "freedom of the press" was more important than the Sussexes mental health and quite frankly SAFETY.   

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Nothing was said publicly.   Doesn't mean things weren't said privately.   It has been made clear the family loves and supports Meghan.    But they probably thought, why bother, reasonable people will see something like that as outrageous.   Unreasonable people will just say that Meghan ":bullied the poor aging Queen into a statement of support she didn't want to make because she really hates Meghan, that's why she hasn'r said anytyhing."   A no win situation.

Everything the family did was parsed to a fare thee well by Meghan supporters and haters alike.    Did she do a joint engagement with Meghan sooner than Kate?    Whyyyyyyyyyyy???????   Other than schedules happened to align.     Meghan and Harry's pictures weren't seen on the table any more, oh they must be on the outs.    Seriously folks.   No one wonder they wanted out of the insanity.    

I think the part-time thing would have worked.   After all, the Wessexes, the Kents and the Gloucesters are part-time Royals.   Why can't the Sussexes be?    As noted above, if the Royal Rota went away, and certain tabs were flat out banned from Royal Events, it might have worked.   But if they would still have been required to speak to the tabs while doing their sometimes events, then nope, nope, nope.   Which you would think that would be easy enough to change.   Some mustache must have decided that "freedom of the press" was more important than the Sussexes mental health and quite frankly SAFETY.   

Didn't William and Kate back off of royal duties and engagement after George was born? And possibly Charlotte? Not as much as Henry and Meghan seem to be. Maybe I'm remember wrong but wasn't there a time when they were doing a lot less? I vaguely remember people complaining about that for awhile while others thought it was just while their kids were young? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Didn't William and Kate back off of royal duties and engagement after George was born? And possibly Charlotte? Not as much as Henry and Meghan seem to be. Maybe I'm remember wrong but wasn't there a time when they were doing a lot less? I vaguely remember people complaining about that for awhile while others thought it was just while their kids were young? 

They did back off of doing the engagements while the kids were younger with the Queen's blessing.   

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

1 minute ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

They did back off of doing the engagements while the kids were younger with the Queen's blessing.   

Thank you. I thought I remembered that happening but wasn't completely sure.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Blergh said:

Her Majesty approved the marriage of her grandson with someone who had been divorced which is a BIG deal considering that she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and until 2002, in that faith, marrying someone who had been divorced whose former spouse was living was out of the question.

Yes, that was also the FIRST wedding the Queen attended of a divorced person. When Princess Anne got married to Timothy Lawrence QEII didn’t go**. When Prince Charles married Camilla she didn’t go (she did attend the blessing but not the actual ceremony). Often people will do things for their grandchildren they wouldn’t do for their children. 

@Steph J informed me that I was mistaken- I thought she just went to the blessing of Princess Anne and Timothy Lawrence-MY BAD. 

  • Like 7
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

They did back off of doing the engagements while the kids were younger with the Queen's blessing.   

William and Kate were also given a several years of living in relative obscurity when they first married and they lived far away from the press and London.  They had a relatively small cottage in Wales and William did search and rescue piloting for the RAF.  That gave them a lot of time to 'settle in' to their marriage without intense scrutiny.  They also did only a very select number of official royal appearances and overseas tours during that time as the Palace cited William's RAF commitment as his first responsibility.

Unfortunately, Harry and Meghan weren't granted that luxury.   He was already a full time working royal, his military days far behind him.  Due to Meghan's age, waiting to start a family was not an option.  I think that, had they met sooner, had they had the luxury of time and distance from the press and the Palace; they might've been better able to handle what was to come for them and maybe they'd have been able to figure out a better path to continue as working royals.

Quote

Often people will do things for their grandchildren they wouldn’t do for their children. 

Ain't that the truth?  And, for a 93 year old lady, I think the Queen has done a fairly admirable job of keeping up with the changing times.  I also think she is already 'semi-retired' and the actual day-to-day work of the monarchy is being handled on her behalf by Prince Charles as a sort of pseudo-regent.  I don't blame her; I think her sense of duty is admirable; but I sorta think she wishes she could just retire and hang out in her housecoat and comfy slippers with the dogs at home.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

Yes, that was also the FIRST wedding the Queen attended of a divorced person. When Princess Anne got married to Timothy Lawrence QEII didn’t go. When Prince Charles married Camilla she didn’t go (she did attend the blessing but not the actual ceremony). Often people will do things for their grandchildren they wouldn’t do for their children. 

The Queen was at Anne's wedding to Tim Laurence (and she looks pretty happy to be there in this video - I'm so used to the Queen's perpetual scowl at this point that it kind of threw me to see her smiling to much)  Weirdly, it doesn't look like Prince Philip Peter Phillips was there.

Edited by Steph J · Reason: Edited because Prince Philip and Peter Phillips are actually two different people.
  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Steph J said:

The Queen was at Anne's wedding to Tim Laurence (and she looks pretty happy to be there in this video - I'm so used to the Queen's perpetual scowl at this point that it kind of threw me to see her smiling to much)  Weirdly, it doesn't look like Prince Philip was there.

Prince Philip arrived with Anne and Zara and you can see him entering the church with them around the 10 minute mark.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Steph J said:

The Queen was at Anne's wedding to Tim Laurence (and she looks pretty happy to be there in this video - I'm so used to the Queen's perpetual scowl at this point that it kind of threw me to see her smiling to much)  Weirdly, it doesn't look like Prince Philip was there.

I thought that was their blessing? Thank you though I will amend!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's important to note that the Princess Royal's 2nd wedding took place at Balmoral and the site was by no means randomly chosen. Back in 1992, the Church of England STILL forbade marriages of divorced folks whose former spouses were still living and Her Majesty is the Supreme Governor of that institution. However; by virtue of Balmoral being in Scotland, the Queen was able to attend the wedding as the bride's mother since her authority as Supreme Governor of the Church of England doesn't cross the Scottish border!  This was one of those times the Queen has had to take steps to lay down her Wonder Woman mantle  so she can be with her nearest and dearest as Diana Prince. 

 

Oh, and the Queen Mother initially tried to blow off attending this wedding citing a prior engagement (no shortage of ribbon cuttings for the Royals) but Her Majesty put her royal foot down and virtually ordered her mother to cancel said engagement to attend the Princess Royal's wedding so there'd be ONE happy family fete to counter the Annus Horribilus !  Yep between two of her children's marriages rather publicaly hitting the skids   capped off with the Windsor Castle fire, she'd HAD it by that point! 

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 12
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

think the part-time thing would have worked.   After all, the Wessexes, the Kents and the Gloucesters are part-time Royals.   Why can't the Sussexes be?

I think the part time thing would have worked if they were staying in Great Britain as the aforementioned couples/families are, but wanting to do it while living in Canada really wasn't plausible.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I thought that was their blessing? Thank you though I will amend!

Wasn't it that Anne got married in Scotland at Balmoral because the Church of Scotland had no restrictions against remarriage after divorce?  I think that was done because the Church of England still had that rule in place, and, as head of the Church of England, it would've been unseemly for the Queen to attend otherwise.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

The Queen was able to attend Anne's second marriage because they married in The Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland has no objection to divorced persons remarrying.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, bobalina said:

The Queen was able to attend Anne's second marriage because they married in The Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland has no objection to divorced persons remarrying.

Jinx!!

It looks like a goodly number of us are well versed in royal trivia.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, doodlebug said:

Jinx!!

It looks like a goodly number of us are well versed in royal trivia.

True but it helps with trying to work out their MO! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Prince Philip arrived with Anne and Zara and you can see him entering the church with them around the 10 minute mark.

Blerg.  I wrote Prince Philip but I meant Peter Phillips (in my defense, my head is full of cold medication right now).  However, on rewatch I think he arrives with Princess Margaret and just doesn't pose for pictures in front of the church with the newlyweds, Zara, and the Queen afterwards.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

  As noted above, if the Royal Rota went away, and certain tabs were flat out banned from Royal Events, it might have worked.   But if they would still have been required to speak to the tabs while doing their sometimes events, then nope, nope, nope.   Which you would think that would be easy enough to change.   Some mustache must have decided that "freedom of the press" was more important than the Sussexes mental health and quite frankly SAFETY.   

Sadly, I have to agree with you. It's somewhat like having a kook on the job deliberately setting out to  make their colleagues' lives miserable and everyone including the bosses knowing it- but the bosses telling the victims that they STILL have to stay civil and keep working with said kook (or even worse being told by other family to keep putting up with and tolerating a family bully  at family functions 'because he/she's family'). No, I TRULY can't blame the Duke of Sussex for saying 'NO MORE' re that condition! 

  • Like 10

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