Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
GHScorpiosRule

From Across The Pond: Royal Weddings and Scandals

Recommended Posts

In case some haven’t seen it, the full text of Harry’s recent speech about his & Meghan’s stepping back as senior royals, to a gathering relating to his Sentebale charity, is here. It was posted by ET Online, the website for the Entertainment Tonight (aka ET) TV show.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

12 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

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.

I don't think time to settle in would have changed anything.  I think that this was the next step in the world changing making its way into the Royal Family.

This is the "spare" saying that he deserves his own life to live instead of every aspect of it being at the whim of the ruler or his/her heirs.

There has been a lot of talk about how Charles wants to slim down the royal family for modernization or frugality. My general opinion of that is that its a line of BS.  Its just the normal thing that happens when a transition of rulers happens or is getting close.  The royals are basically the Queen's kids and her grand kids.  Charles wants to narrow that into his kids and grand kids.  He just happens to have less of those than the Queen.

Harry has to have taken note of that and looked at what his and his family's life will be if they stay Senior royals.

  • Do charitable works on behalf of the Crown to give the public a reason that the monarch should still exist
  • But don't outshine the Heir
  • If there needs to be a diversion from whatever nastiness is going on then be hung out as a distraction
  • Then in twenty or thirty years, when in his 50s or 60s,  step back because William's kids are going to take the lead as Senior Royals

It must chafe. 

If any of us had a friend who was expected to live the entirety of their lives in service to an older sibling or a parent or a grandparent, we'd likely counsel them to think about breaking free and explore building a life for themselves.  If they were being subjected to abuse (media) and the family they were dedicating their lives to support weren't doing anything (publicly) to support them we'd likely strongly urge them to break free and explore building a life for themselves.  If it seemed like maybe the lack of support were because the older sibling and his wife were favorably compared to him and his wife or maybe the negative attention on him and his wife was viewed as  preferable to focus on of sexual abuse of minors of a pervy Uncle or it was easier to let them suffer abuse than stand up to it and maybe upset a precarious situation with the need for their continued status then we'd suggest cutting loose of a toxic family.  If they just had a baby, then you start having to think about what you are teaching your kid and if you want to perpetuate this kind of life to your child.

Frankly, I wonder whether Harry and Meghan would have ever been allowed to step back if they hadn't published their announcement.  It depends on how much emphasis the Royal Family puts on family which is something I have no insight to.  And nothing about how this played out tells me.

I personally feel like Harry announced a "compromise", knowing that it cut off the full time Royal option and led to either the compromise being accepted or being released from even part time duties and more freedom to build their own life.  And they got the latter.  It feels like Harry intentionally backed the Queen/Charles/William into a corner because one or more of them "forced" him into it.  He had to involve public reaction to force someone(s) to give up the perks of having a "spare" doing Royal duties until William's kids are grown. 

 

 

  • Like 23

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

I think the part-time thing would have worked.   After all, the Wessexes, the Kents and the Gloucesters are part-time Royals. 

Actually, all of them are full-time royals who make more appearances than either the Cambridges or the Sussexes.

The last year for which statistics are available is 2018.  Prince Edward was third behind his brother Charles and sister Anne in number of appearances, Sophie was 6th.  Meanwhile, William ranked 8th and Harry 10th.  Overall, Edward made about twice as many appearances as either one of them.

Now, in 2018, Meghan didn't join the family until May and Kate had maternity leave after Louis' birth; so they're a little more difficult to assess.  They ranked 12th and 14th on the list.

The Gloucesters, both in their 70's, were also busy.  The Duke came in 7th, ahead of both Harry and William while the Duchess was 13th, right between Meghan and Kate.

The Duke of Kent, at age 82, made just about as many appearances as Harry.  His wife has health problems and doesn't make royal appearances these days.

So, if the Wessexes, Gloucesters and Kents are part-time; then Harry and William are even more so.

https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/2018-royal-work-statistics-whos-been-busy-whos-been-busier-congrats-your-maj/

Edited by doodlebug · Reason: to remove Princess Michael
  • Like 7
  • Useful 7

Share this post


Link to post

@doodlebug my friend, the Duke of Kent is married to Katharine Worsley who doesn't use her HRH title. She has reduced her royal duties due to a lot of health issues. Prince Michael of Kent (who is a dead ringer for George V and Nicholas II) is the one married to Princess Michael aka Princess Pushie. 

Edited by PikaScrewChu
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, 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.

That was it! Thanks guys. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, doodlebug said:

 

The Duke of Kent, at age 82, made just about as many appearances as Harry.  His wife, the vile Princess Michael didn't make the list because 1. she is lazy and 2. she is hateful and nobody wants her to represent their cause.

 

No, Princess Michael of Kent (born Marie-Christine von Reibnitz), is the Duke of Kent's sister-in-law, the wife of his younger brother Prince Michael of Kent .Thankfully neither of their parents lived to see their younger son make that mistake. Edward, Duke of Kent's wife was born Katharine Worsley  ,who, as far as I know, is a nice person. The Duchess of Kent has been public about her support of others who have suffered from depression as well others who've been fated to have had stillborn offspring. 

Ironically enough, the current Duke of Kent  born 1935 was named for his uncle Edward, Prince of Wales (later Duke of Windsor) who had been his late father's most ardent supporter in their immediate family- until the Abdication and his marriage to the Duchess which resulted in the Duke of Windsor rebuffing his youngest surviving brother's olive branches after the fact until the first Duke of Kent's tragic death which understandably devastated him.  The current Duke of Kent has admitted that he'd never met his namesake until the two of them (as Senior Royals) marched behind George VI's coffin in 1952.

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 4
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

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.   

But that is the Catch 22 of it all.  Everything they are describing as wanting to do independently sounds like what they were/planned on doing as Royals.  The difference is Canada and the Royal rota which both feel like escaping being forced to deal directly with unfriendly media.  Handle the Royal rota and the need for part time is gone.

Part time for H&M is basically full time but with a level of autonomy of how they handle the media and themselves that Royal protocol doesn't allow.  This to deal with issues, personally, that the Monarchy doesn't feel is wise or that they are able to change for the institution.

Part time sets a precedent for anyone else that gets into the tabloid cross hairs to take the same steps to not have to continue with the way things are instead of following the protocol without totally walking away.

And frankly, no one but Harry and Meghan have the level of celebrity to completely walk away.

But I can see why there isn't a lot of Royal support to overhaul the Royal rota.  It was instituted under the idea of the press must be allowed to report without reprisal forty years ago.  The media like how things are.  It makes them a lot of money.  Once you start trying to argue that there is no need to protect the media from the RF reprisals (because they aren't really governing anything) its a very short hop to calls for a referendum on its existence backed up by a pissed off media.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

@doodlebug my friend, the Duke of Kent is married to Katharine Worsley who doesn't use her HRH title. She has reduced her royal duties due to a lot of health issues. Prince Michael of Kent (who is a dead ringer for George V and Nicholas II) is the one married to Princess Michael aka Princess Pushie. 

Oops, sorry!  Wrong Kent.  In any event, the Duke's wife doesn't perform royal duties, so she didn't make the list. I'll fix my post so as not to further tarnish the image of the actual Kents.

And nobody wants Princess Michael supporting their charitable event. I stand by that opinion.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ParadoxLost said:

There has been a lot of talk about how Charles wants to slim down the royal family for modernization or frugality. My general opinion of that is that its a line of BS.  Its just the normal thing that happens when a transition of rulers happens or is getting close.  The royals are basically the Queen's kids and her grand kids.  Charles wants to narrow that into his kids and grand kids.  He just happens to have less of those than the Queen.

The Queen’s kids and grandkids are the ones the press focuses on but the royal family is larger then that. As other posters have mentioned the Queen’s cousins have been full time royals for decades. We have already seen the impact of Charles wanting to slim down the  monarchy with the York and Wessex kids. In past generations those kids would have been expected to take official roles. 

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

Actually, all of them are full-time royals who make more appearances than either the Cambridges or the Sussexes.

The last year for which statistics are available is 2018.  Prince Edward was third behind his brother Charles and sister Anne in number of appearances, Sophie was 6th.  Meanwhile, William ranked 8th and Harry 10th.  Overall, Edward made about twice as many appearances as either one of them.

Now, in 2018, Meghan didn't join the family until May and Kate had maternity leave after Louis' birth; so they're a little more difficult to assess.  They ranked 12th and 14th on the list.

The Gloucesters, both in their 70's, were also busy.  The Duke came in 7th, ahead of both Harry and William while the Duchess was 13th, right between Meghan and Kate.

The Duke of Kent, at age 82, made just about as many appearances as Harry.  His wife, the vile Princess Michael didn't make the list because 1. she is lazy and 2. she is hateful and nobody wants her to represent their cause.

So, if the Wessexes, Gloucesters and Kents are part-time; then Harry and William are even more so.

https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/2018-royal-work-statistics-whos-been-busy-whos-been-busier-congrats-your-maj/

The 2019 numbers are available. 
2019_Royal_Family_workload_official_enga

  • Like 2
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

And nobody wants Princess Michael supporting their charitable event. I stand by that opinion.

Preach!

I don't believe dismantling the Royal Rota would have made one bit of difference. I mean, what is the other option? Allowing all press at all events? That's kind of a nightmare. Picking and choosing what press can be present? That's ugly, very very ugly, from a freedom of the press standpoint.

These wouldn't be satisfactory options for anyone. I don't think Harry felt there was any option but to step back. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Oops, sorry!  Wrong Kent.  In any event, the Duke's wife doesn't perform royal duties, so she didn't make the list. I'll fix my post so as not to further tarnish the image of the actual Kents.

And nobody wants Princess Michael supporting their charitable event. I stand by that opinion.

How Gabriella turned out to be such a lovely woman with a mother like that is still baffling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Dani said:

The Queen’s kids and grandkids are the ones the press focuses on but the royal family is larger then that. As other posters have mentioned the Queen’s cousins have been full time royals for decades. We have already seen the impact of Charles wanting to slim down the  monarchy with the York and Wessex kids. In past generations those kids would have been expected to take official roles. 

The 2019 numbers are available. 
2019_Royal_Family_workload_official_enga

Thanks!  The numbers are remarkably similar to 2018 and confirm that the Wessexes, Gloucesters and Kents are definitely not part time royals and their workload, especially the Wessexes, is far larger than the Cambridges or Sussexes.

For Kate, 2019 contained no maternity leave, but she made fewer appearances than anyone but the Duchess of Gloucester and Meghan who was on leave.

10 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

Preach!

I don't believe dismantling the Royal Rota would have made one bit of difference. I mean, what is the other option? Allowing all press at all events? That's kind of a nightmare. Picking and choosing what press can be present? That's ugly, very very ugly, from a freedom of the press standpoint.

These wouldn't be satisfactory options for anyone. I don't think Harry felt there was any option but to step back. 

But, here in the US, things like the White House press pool doesn't allow tabloids to participate.  Daily Mail is on a level with the News of the World or National Enquirer, IMO, and there is no reason to include them in the regular pool.  In fact, it implies that Daily Mail is a legitimate news organization adhering to the strictest standards of journalistic integrity which is definitely not the case.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

4 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Thanks!  The numbers are remarkably similar to 2018 and confirm that the Wessexes, Gloucesters and Kents are definitely not part time royals and their workload, especially the Wessexes, is far larger than the Cambridges or Sussexes.

For Kate, 2019 contained no maternity leave, but she made fewer appearances than anyone but the Duchess of Gloucester and Meghan who was on leave.

With Andrew, Harry and Meghan out William and Kate are going to need to seriously increase their numbers. 

It would be too complicated but it would be interesting to see a breakdown based on hours spent. Based on the media coverage it seems that the younger royals lean towards more time intensive projects. For example Kate spending two days shadowing in a maternity wing or Meghan helping design the clothing line for Smart Works. With the increased pressure that may have to change somewhat going forward. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

But, here in the US, things like the White House press pool doesn't allow tabloids to participate.  Daily Mail is on a level with the News of the World or National Enquirer, IMO, and there is no reason to include them in the regular pool.  In fact, it implies that Daily Mail is a legitimate news organization adhering to the strictest standards of journalistic integrity which is definitely not the case.

This needs to be repeated ad nauseum. Because I do think there is some confusion and misunderstanding of all this and why some don't see the larger issues and damaging aspects.  It also goes back to what I posted some months back. That in the U.S., there is a clear divide of what is considered news sources vs tabloid. That divide does not seem to exist in England. And so that's where the situation becomes toxic and unhealthy. 

The White House Press Corps for example includes representatives from publications/stations such as CNN, New York Times, Associated Press, ABC News, Wall Street Journal, etc. And more importantly, there are rules and guidelines to be followed by members of the Press Corps, that if violated ,they can lose their privileges. They don't get carte blanche to write and say any damn thing they want about the Government, whether it's true or not. 

The Royal Rota include people who work for The Sun, Daily Mail, etc. And not just anyone who works for those but the people who write some of the most hateful things about these people. The Camilla Tominey's for example - a woman who basically tried to take a simple charitable project to help some women of color and tried to create a narrative that they and Meghan by extension were supporting terrorism.

Like do people truly not see how dangerous and irresponsible this was? And imagine that Meghan then had to attend events with THAT woman in her face. More proof of the "journalistic standard"of these publications, The Sun just allowed Samantha Markle to write an opinion piece on her thoughts regarding Harry and Meghan's decision.

These publications are pure gutter tabloid trash. And it would be fine if they were seen and accepted as such. But again they're actually considered the country's newspapers. And I think The Sun may actually be the most read. 

Edited by truthaboutluv
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Blergh said:

No, Princess Michael of Kent is the Duke of Kent's sister-in-law (born Marie-Christine von Reibnitz), the brother of his younger brother Prince Michael of Kent .Thankfully neither of their parents lived to see their younger son make that mistake. Edward, Duke of Kent's wife was born Katharine Worsley  ,who, as far as I know, is a nice person. The Duchess of Kent has been public about her support of others who have suffered from depression as well others who've been fated to have had stillborn offspring. 

Ironically enough, the current Duke of Kent  born 1935 was named for his uncle Edward, Prince of Wales (later Duke of Windsor) who had been his late father's most ardent supporter in their immediate family- until the Abdication and his marriage to the Duchess which resulted in the Duke of Windsor rebuffing his youngest surviving brother's olive branches after the fact until the first Duke of Kent's tragic death which understandably devastated him.  The current Duke of Kent has admitted that he'd never met his namesake until the two of them (as Senior Royals) marched behind George VI's coffin in 1952.

I feel like I need visual aids to keep track of this. 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 7

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Ask and ye shall receive.  This just goes back to the establishment of the House of Windsor in 1917

https://www.britroyals.com/windsortree.asp

Thanks. I think I got most of it. It would be so much easier if they didn't draw from the same bag of names. 

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 9

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, merylinkid said:

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.   

 

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

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! 

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I think the reason they can't get rid of the royal rota is twofold: first, those tabloids likely known where the proverbial bodies are buried and keep some of the really damaging stuff under wraps in exchange for access (I'm thinking, in particular, about information about the family's wealth.  I don't think it's a coincidence that after days of fierce criticism the plug was finally pulled on Andrew only after the publication of a few articles examining some of the shady means that he's come into his money).

Second, the various royal households quite clearly have relationships with certain tabloids for the purpose of getting information out in an unofficial capacity.  The Daily Mail is known to be one of those and I believe the Telegraph is as well.  DM has been abusive to Meghan since the moment her relationship with Harry came to light (they also really went after Andrew in the wake of his career-ending interview, so I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day), but they've also had a lot of very pro-Charles articles in the last several months, including a very sympathetic piece from last week about how Harry and William's households are bleeding Charles dry financially.  So there's two sides to the RF's relationship with the tabloids, one side is the tabs attacking members of the family relentlessly, but the other side is the family using the tabs for their own purpose - and I think Harry tacitly acknowledged that when he said that he wasn't going to get dragged into playing the tabloid game.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Steph J said:

So there's two sides to the RF's relationship with the tabloids, one side is the tabs attacking members of the family relentlessly, but the other side is the family using the tabs for their own purpose 

That's something that Diana was known for, she knew how to play the tabloids better than anyone else in the royal family.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Steph J said:

 

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I think the reason they can't get rid of the royal rota is twofold: first, those tabloids likely known where the proverbial bodies are buried and keep some of the really damaging stuff under wraps in exchange for access (I'm thinking, in particular, about information about the family's wealth.  I don't think it's a coincidence that after days of fierce criticism the plug was finally pulled on Andrew only after the publication of a few articles examining some of the shady means that he's come into his money).

Second, the various royal households quite clearly have relationships with certain tabloids for the purpose of getting information out in an unofficial capacity.  The Daily Mail is known to be one of those and I believe the Telegraph is as well.  DM has been abusive to Meghan since the moment her relationship with Harry came to light (they also really went after Andrew in the wake of his career-ending interview, so I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day), but they've also had a lot of very pro-Charles articles in the last several months, including a very sympathetic piece from last week about how Harry and William's households are bleeding Charles dry financially.  So there's two sides to the RF's relationship with the tabloids, one side is the tabs attacking members of the family relentlessly, but the other side is the family using the tabs for their own purpose - and I think Harry tacitly acknowledged that when he said that he wasn't going to get dragged into playing the tabloid game.

Not conspiracy theory sounding to me. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

I like Awesomely Luvvie's take on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex situation: About Prince Harry, Meghan Markle and the Love They Chose Over Everything

Great article!  And very correct. I love pointing out that women are always expected to be the ones to give up family and jobs for their husband and child which is true. But this time its a man doing that. People can't understand that. I love it pointing out that what Harry shows how much of man he is. 

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, bijoux said:

Thanks. I think I got most of it. It would be so much easier if they didn't draw from the same bag of names. 

The men, especially, are very limited in options.  Practically everyone was named George or Edward for years and years right down to the youngest generation. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

It is nothing. And no one loves or likes all their family equally.  Maybe Harry's been a bit rougher to get on with because of the situation with his mom.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

I see this as nothing.  Just someone trying to stir chit.

camilla-has-telling-reaction-when-asked-if-she-will-miss-harry-meghan

I also think it's nothing, but I also think that of all the members of the Royal Family, Camilla would be the most sympathetic to Meghan. Camilla cannot possibly have forgotten how hated she was when Charles & Diana broke up, she was probably the most hated woman in England. 

  • Like 11
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Nothing to see here.  Unexpected question takes a second to process.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, GaT said:

I also think it's nothing, but I also think that of all the members of the Royal Family, Camilla would be the most sympathetic to Meghan. Camilla cannot possibly have forgotten how hated she was when Charles & Diana broke up, she was probably the most hated woman in England. 

I saw her reaction as "oh no you don't, you're not sucking me into the fray" kind of a half smirk.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, GaT said:

That's something that Diana was known for, she knew how to play the tabloids better than anyone else in the royal family.

So she thought but look where it got her in the end (even taking her tragic death off the table). 😞

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

I see this as nothing.  Just someone trying to stir chit.

camilla-has-telling-reaction-when-asked-if-she-will-miss-harry-meghan

 

2 hours ago, bobalina said:

It is nothing. And no one loves or likes all their family equally.  Maybe Harry's been a bit rougher to get on with because of the situation with his mom.

 

1 hour ago, Crs97 said:

Nothing to see here.  Unexpected question takes a second to process.

It's nothing of importance. It's just click bait garbage (that was given more clicks by people who clicked the link here) by a tabloid trying to stoke the flames of outrage. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

22 minutes ago, theredhead77 said:

It's just click bait garbage (that was given more clicks by people who clicked the link here) by a tabloid trying to stoke the flames of outrage. 

Yeah, but we're just bottom feeding snarkers, so it's all good.

  • Laugh 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

I really like this dress on Kate. I don’t see her wear this shade of red so often, but I think her darker hair goes better with that color dress. I do love the style so much. I think almost any woman could wear this in her size just not a model figure like Kate. 
 

Isnt Princess Anne a little under dressed compared to Kate and William though? In photo 2 Kate is in the right edge. Anne’s look is very day time and Kate looks like shes headed to an elegant dinner party. 
 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I really like this dress on Kate. I don’t see her wear this shade of red so often, but I think her darker hair goes better with that color dress. I do love the style so much. I think almost any woman could wear this in her size just not a model figure like Kate. 
 

Isnt Princess Anne a little under dressed compared to Kate and William though? In photo 2 Kate is in the right edge. Anne’s look is very day time and Kate looks like shes headed to an elegant dinner party. 
 

 

After looking at the last picture,  I think Kate is overdressed.  Anne and the woman in the last picture look like they are attending a completely different event than Kate.  The men are all in basic enough suits that could be for any number of occasions. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

After looking at the last picture,  I think Kate is overdressed.  Anne and the woman in the last picture look like they are attending a completely different event than Kate.  The men are all in basic enough suits that could be for any number of occasions. 

I think the woman in the last picture, at least the 1 I saw, with Catherine was Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Prince Edward’s wife & William’s Aunt.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, bijoux said:

Thanks. I think I got most of it. It would be so much easier if they didn't draw from the same bag of names. 

Could be worse. Victoria preferred that her descendants honored her or her husband Albert. 

Her eldest daughter Victoria (Empress Frederick) had several children. The oldest was legally named Viktoria Elisabeth Auguste Charlotte. She went by Princess Charlotte. One of the younger daughters was named Friederike Amalia Wilhelmine Viktoria. She went by Princess Viktoria.

This wasn't uncommon. Queen Mary's first name was Victoria but she chose to go by Mary as to not be confused with Queen Victoria. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

After looking at the last picture,  I think Kate is overdressed.  Anne and the woman in the last picture look like they are attending a completely different event than Kate.  The men are all in basic enough suits that could be for any number of occasions. 

Yes this is true. 

Share this post


Link to post

Did Princess Michael ever do official appearances as a working royal?  I know there was a lot of kerfuffle when she married Prince Michael due to her father being a member of the Nazi party and having served in the German army during WWII, so perhaps the RF didn't want her out there as their representative.  And Prince Michael doesn't seem to be a working royal - was he ever?  What do they live on?  Does the Queen support them?  

Another thing I've always wondered about is what the Queen's relationship with her Lascelles cousins, the sons of her father's only sister, was like.  It seems that the Kent and Gloucester branches always were a part of the extended RF, there for Christmas, on the balcony after the Trooping of the Colour, etc.  But it doesn't seem the Lascelles branch was included to any extent.  Of course, I think she had a special interest in the Kents, which comes from her father wanting to look out for them due to the premature death of their father.   As well, I think the Kent children lived for a time during the war at Windsor, which is where Elizabeth and Margaret were for most of the war.  But the two Lascelles cousins would have been closer to Elizabeth in age (3 years and 20 months older than she was) than her other cousins.  The Kents were 9, 10, and 16 years younger and the Gloucesters were 15 and 18 years younger than she was.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Calvada said:

Another thing I've always wondered about is what the Queen's relationship with her Lascelles cousins, the sons of her father's only sister, was like.  It seems that the Kent and Gloucester branches always were a part of the extended RF, there for Christmas, on the balcony after the Trooping of the Colour, etc.  But it doesn't seem the Lascelles branch was included to any extent. 

From what I know, Princess Mary, Countess Harewood (mom to the Lascelles cousins) was very close to her brother David (Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor) and resented being told by her other brother, King George VI (Elizabeth’s Dad) that she couldn’t attend his wedding to Wallis Simpson, that they were to essentially treat him as person non grata. The disagreement on how to handle the relationship with their brother the former king may have caused those cousins not to be close.
 

And given she was a girl with several brothers and no way would her children inherit she might have just wanted some peace and quiet, as much as The Princess Royal can have anyway (Princess Anne didn’t have the title until she died, there can only one Princess Royal at a time). 

  • Like 6
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

After looking at the last picture,  I think Kate is overdressed.  Anne and the woman in the last picture look like they are attending a completely different event than Kate.  The men are all in basic enough suits that could be for any number of occasions. 

Sophie’s dress looks dressier when you see a full length picture. It was a night time reception so Kate seemed slightly overdressed and Anne really underdressed. 
23647774-7908915-image-a-4_1579548062433

Edited by Dani
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Good summation of the Princess Royal Mary, Countess Harewood, Scarlett!

 

Although she obeyed her next eldest brother George VI's edicts to stay away from the Duke  of Windsor's wedding, she DID try to vainly promote civility among her family but the Duke of Windsor just snubbed her while her mother Queen Mary icily rejected her gestures (and from George VI onward, all the brothers and their nuclear families followed Queen Mary's lead).

      The closest to an ally she had in these vain efforts was George, Duke of Kent but he was rebuffed by the Duke of Windsor despite the two of them having been close prior to the Edward VIII's Accession. It should be noted that in the late 1920's, the Duke of Kent not only hung out with what was described as the 'fast set' but he also became a severe alcoholic and possibly morphine & cocaine addict. In one of the rare noble acts in his life, the Prince of Wales did all he could to help his younger brother get through these addictions so that he was relatively clean by the time of his marriage to the beautiful, glamorous Princess Marina of Greece (yes, a first cousin of the Duke of Edinburgh) but their closeness wound up permanently derailed via the Abdication. Then, his tragic death in 1942 ended all chances  of reconciliation between the brothers. 

  • Like 5
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

This is a suspiciously nice article from the Daily Mail:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7909539/amp/Meghan-Markle-dons-160-boots-98-Lululemon-leggings-Archie-walk-Canada.html

There's another article which I can't find that implies that the Queen wanted to strip them even further, all the way down to their Earl/Countess titles.

And another claiming William and Harry have patched things up:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/amp30596042/prince-harry-ends-feud-william-secret-peace-talks/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calvada said:

Did Princess Michael ever do official appearances as a working royal?  I know there was a lot of kerfuffle when she married Prince Michael due to her father being a member of the Nazi party and having served in the German army during WWII, so perhaps the RF didn't want her out there as their representative.  And Prince Michael doesn't seem to be a working royal - was he ever?  What do they live on?  Does the Queen support them?  

Another thing I've always wondered about is what the Queen's relationship with her Lascelles cousins, the sons of her father's only sister, was like.  It seems that the Kent and Gloucester branches always were a part of the extended RF, there for Christmas, on the balcony after the Trooping of the Colour, etc.  But it doesn't seem the Lascelles branch was included to any extent.  Of course, I think she had a special interest in the Kents, which comes from her father wanting to look out for them due to the premature death of their father.   As well, I think the Kent children lived for a time during the war at Windsor, which is where Elizabeth and Margaret were for most of the war.  But the two Lascelles cousins would have been closer to Elizabeth in age (3 years and 20 months older than she was) than her other cousins.  The Kents were 9, 10, and 16 years younger and the Gloucesters were 15 and 18 years younger than she was.

Prince and Princess Michael aren't supported by the queen any longer. They never received money per se, however she paid the rent on their place until 2008. However Prince Michael has represented the queen on various occasions, especially if it has something to do with the Romanovs.

Edited by PikaScrewChu
  • Like 1
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post

Dartmouth's Prince Andrew High School takes name change discussion to online forum

Quote

 

Belinda Oxner, the chair of Prince Andrew's school advisory council, said she thinks the name should be changed.

"No public establishment should be named after a living individual," she said. "You can't determine what their future actions are going to be … it should be a standard policy."

 

I take her point about not knowing how a living individual will turn out (especially as in this case the school must have honoured a baby Prince Andrew when it was named) but making a policy like this would be a slippery slope!  There are a lot of schools, buildings, roads etc named after the current Queen and a fair number honouring other members of the Royal family that are still among us.  I guess they'd need to make this a "going forward" policy otherwise I can't see it happening!

Edited by PennyPlain
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, PennyPlain said:

Dartmouth's Prince Andrew High School takes name change discussion to online forum

I take her point about not knowing how a living individual will turn out (especially as in this case the school must have honoured a baby Prince Andrew when it was named) but making a policy like this would be a slippery slope!  There are a lot of schools, buildings, roads etc named after the current Queen and a fair number honouring other members of the Royal family that are still among us.  I guess they'd need to make this a "going forward" policy otherwise I can't see it happening!

I personally think policies like this should be the norm.  Why should anything be named after Prince Andrew just for being born into a super-privileged family?  I honestly don't think schools should be named after people to begin with, because of situations like this.  Of course I live in the American South where many of us graduate from high schools names after known White Supremacists and Rapists.  

  • Like 12
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

So Harry's back in Canada, after blowing off a reception hosted by his brother.

And Meaghan is threatening to sue over photos if her and Archie on a walk. If she truly wants complete privacy she may need to move to a private island for a few decades.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, bobalina said:

So Harry's back in Canada, after blowing off a reception hosted by his brother.

And Meaghan is threatening to sue over photos if her and Archie on a walk. If she truly wants complete privacy she may need to move to a private island for a few decades.

 

Considering who else attended the Reception, I highly doubt he "blew it off."   Something tells me he was never on the original list of attendees.    Or did Charles and Camilla blow it off too by not being there?   Every family member does not attend every event.

  • Like 23

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