General News for Prince Harry, Part 1: December 2016 - November 2017

[Osipi]

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I have put the website on speed dial though and will be enjoying that too as it seems there are many, many articles and such there that have captured my interest.

Now.... back to Harry and the lack of recent elephant pictures.

 

[CarolynHarris]

Thanks everyone! Much appreciated!

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

When we look at foreign monarchies, we see that often the monarch does not reside at all in the "headquarters":

King Felipe V of Spain lives at La Zarzuela and not the Royal Palace in Madrid.

King Philippe of Belgium lives at the Château de Laeken and not the Royal Palace in Brussels.

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden lives at Drottningholm Palace and not the Royal Palace in Stockholm.

Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg lives at Schloss Berg and not the Grand-Ducal Palace in Luxembourg.

King Willem-Alexander will move to Huis ten Bosch Palace and not the Royal Palace in Amsterdam.

Etc.

So King Charles living at Clarence House and use Buckingham Palace for official events is quite in line with the practice in other monarchies.

Denmark is an exception as the Queen indeed lives in one of the four mansions which together form Amalienborg Palace, but she still maintains the tradition of having different residences throughout the year (Marselisborg, Fredensborg, etc.).

1. This thread is about Harry.

2. I don't think Charles/William will look to other monarchies when they decide with the UK government where to live when they take the throne.

3. King Harald and Queen Sonja also resides in the main Royal Palace in Oslo.

 

[wyevale]

Whether the [then] King and Queen are able to remain at Clarence House, with Buckingham Palace used for receptions/offices and Tourists will be a matter for the Government in office at the time of the Accession...

 

[Leopoldine]

[...]

Perhaps a focus on charity work as the core....keep the major events like Ascot, the Garden party (couple of the big ones) but all the little ribbon cutting type ceremonies gone?

Ascot -- there's an interesting point. HM and her father, as well as George V and of course King Edward VII were very enthusiastic fans of the turf, all of them knowledgeable and active horse owners and breeders. Charles does not seem to be all that interested. Luckily, Camilla is, so we might see a little shift, where it is the consort who is the principal royal racing fan.

Be that as it may, Ascot, though closely identified with HM, is not really the duty of the monarchy. All of those little ribbon-cuttings and plaque unveilings and tree-plantings, that's your monarchical bread and butter royal duty right there. OK maybe not so much the actual acts of scissors cutting ribbons per se, but those little visits are so important. Happily, that kind of personal contact is a strength of Harry's. As he defines his future role, he seems to have realized that, and that that side of him was inherited from Diana.

 

[LauraS3514]

Whether the [then] King and Queen are able to remain at Clarence House, with Buckingham Palace used for receptions/offices and Tourists will be a matter for the Government in office at the time of the Accession...

And don't forget that Buckingham Palace will be undergoing extensive renovations and upgrades in the near future that will last for years. Right now, they plan to work around The Queen, but in the event of Charles's succession they may have him stay at Clarence House to speed up the timeline.

 

[Spheno]

Ascot -- there's an interesting point. HM and her father, as well as George V and of course King Edward VII were very enthusiastic fans of the turf, all of them knowledgeable and active horse owners and breeders. Charles does not seem to be all that interested. Luckily, Camilla is, so we might see a little shift, where it is the consort who is the principal royal racing fan.

Be that as it may, Ascot, though closely identified with HM, is not really the duty of the monarchy. All of those little ribbon-cuttings and plaque unveilings and tree-plantings, that's your monarchical bread and butter royal duty right there. OK maybe not so much the actual acts of scissors cutting ribbons per se, but those little visits are so important. Happily, that kind of personal contact is a strength of Harry's. As he defines his future role, he seems to have realized that, and that that side of him was inherited from Diana.

Ascot IS her duty. Ascot is part of Crown Estate.

 

[Osipi]

Getting back to Harry here......

Harry isn't a horse racing fan and neither are his brother and his father so what happens with Ascot is totally up in the air and subject to another conversation in an appropriate thread.

It could all tie in with Harry's statement of bringing the monarchy into the 21st century. There will be changes with a new reign. There will be things that the royal family (and Harry included) that will be done totally different than how the "Firm" ran under HM.

I'm tending to think we'll see more global campaigns such as United for Wildlife of which Harry is an ambassador. We will see more organizations banding together for a single event such as we've seen several times with the Royal Foundation's list of charities and causes. Harry, himself, has started up the international Invictus Games.

All of these are part and parcel of why the monarchy "cannot go on as it has done under the Queen".

 

[wyevale]

"cannot go on as it has done under the Queen"

This eminently quotable quote [I think we need reminding], is from a one time 'spare', who will NEVER reign, be no more than a second son/younger brother/Uncle of the next Kings, and will only ever be [at best] a footnote in the history of the BRF.
The next Kings will decide the shape of the 'Firm' in the future.. NOT Harry.

 

[Osipi]

This eminently quotable quote [I think we need reminding], is from a one time 'spare', who will NEVER reign, be no more than a second son/younger brother/Uncle of the next Kings, and will only ever be [at best] a footnote in the history of the BRF.
The next Kings will decide the shape of the 'Firm' in the future.. NOT Harry.

I agree yet disagree. It most certainly be Charles' reign with him as the spearhead of the "Firm" but it will be his sons, their wives, his grandchildren and his extended family members that will be an important part of the "Firm" on an operational basis. It is that way for HM, The Queen now. Things that happen within the Firm aren't simply thought up by the monarch and issued as a directive in a memo. They consult each other, seek advice from each other and even sometimes work as a team.

Harry may only be a "spare" but I think he's more important in the scheme of things than you give him credit for. Harry, himself, also doesn't just come up with ideas (such as the Invictus Games) and just run right out getting busy and doing it but also seeks advice and approval from those he trusts to steer him in the right direction.

It'd be quite a sad thing if everything was in the power of the monarch and the rest were just puppets on a string to command to perform. I think that, in and of itself, would be the greatest danger to the institution of the monarchy more so than anything else. Some have stated that it may be a good idea for Harry to just give up and go away somewhere deep in Africa or something. Thing is, if Harry was to do that, who is to say that his walking away would strengthen the monarchy? Personally, I think should the public see a dissatisfied Harry taking his toys and going to another playground as a reason for them to think "Hey... maybe he's onto something here. Why do we need a monarchy?"

These are just thoughts that cross my mind and are my own opinions but one thing that comes from these discussions is that they make us think. We're not buying into sensational headlines but actually expressing opinions and listening to other's opinions and actually coming up with some interesting points of view.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

No, people think like that when he says stupit things like this: ''Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time'' and when the the manipulating British press then write that Harry says no-one in the royal family wants to be monarchs.

 

[Osipi]

To be honest, I think this really is an example of the media digging their own grave when it comes to royal reporting. I was kind of dubious for a while of them going directly to social media to pass on information but actually now, I think they should do it more often and bypass the media as much as they possibly can. It won't stop the media from making what they will out of things but at least the public gets the information firsthand without the "middle man" of the media.

 

[Pranter]

ITA with what you said Osipi.

 

[camelot23ca]

I think Harry needs to be careful about what he says. It's nice to open up a little and I like the fact that the younger generation of royals are speaking more openly to the press. I think the current generation of new monarchs and adult monarchs-to-be do themselves no favours if they don't engage directly with the citizens they serve, and for all intents and purposes that means regular interviews and interactions with the press. There has to be some sense of familiarity and affection for the individual, as well as respect for the institution, otherwise a hereditary monarchy makes no sense.

That being said, Harry is NOT a future monarch and, also, it's possible to be too open about some subjects. I don't know why, for example, we need to know his thoughts about walking behind his mother's coffin. Those are the sorts of comments that are going to be sensationalized the moment they come out of his mouth and I can't see them serving any good purpose beyond maybe a temporary feeling of catharsis for Harry.

Harry seems to have a lot of good qualities but I can't shake the feeling that he's a loose cannon and still a bit immature. I've never understood why it wasn't feasible for him to stay in the army, instead of having to try to carve out some sort of role for himself within the working BRF.

 

[Osipi]

This might be an way out there in left field idea but perhaps if they're going to give interviews at all, the best way to go about it would be an interview that is immediately available for public consumption (such as on YouTube) rather than giving "exclusives" to certain publications in the media which the general public has to pay green dollars to even see. Doing the exclusives is just asking for another publication to "tell" the nonpaying public what their thoughts on the words in an interview are.

Of course, at my insistance, all interviews going out publicly would have to be closed captioned and I'd want to be assured that the person doing the captioning was credible. Can't win for losing here can I?

 

[Lady Nimue]

Harry seems to have a lot of good qualities but I can't shake the feeling that he's a loose cannon and still a bit immature. I've never understood why it wasn't feasible for him to stay in the army, instead of having to try to carve out some sort of role for himself within the working BRF.

The way it was explained to me was that Harry wasn't going to be going anywhere in the army, for a variety of reasons (not all of the reasons flattering to him). Rather than sit still while younger men past him by up the chain of command, he (apparently) decided to cut his losses and leave. (Recall his leaving came as a total surprise. Just weeks/months prior it was being bandied about in the press about the many years he would be serving. It was a done deal).

 

[DeeT]

I disagree, Camelot23ca. I would rather hear from Harry about his thoughts, like walking behind his mother's coffin than some made up story from a journalist that gives an opinion or thinks they have the inside scoop. Harry knows what he feels and that he is not a future monarch, he clearly explained his thoughts, however there are those in the media that do not appear to have the basic journalism skills.

It is ok to have different opinions, however, what I've seen written recently are either straight lies or incompetence. Some of these writers and so called insiders do not appear to use proper references or fact checking and when they do it is from dubious sources. I'd rather just have direct info from the source as I am intelligent enough to form my own opinion. I agree with Osipi as I don't need the 'middle man' of some of these media.

 

[camelot23ca]

The way it was explained to me was that Harry wasn't going to be going anywhere in the army, for a variety of reasons (not all of the reasons flattering to him). Rather than sit still while younger men past him by up the chain of command, he (apparently) decided to cut his losses and leave. (Recall his leaving came as a total surprise. Just weeks/months prior it was being bandied about in the press about the many years he would be serving. It was a done deal).

Interesting. I do remember the news coming as a surprise and thinking it was a shame because it seemed Harry had found his niche and always seemed so positive about his experience in the forces.

I think it must be hard, in some ways, to be the only spare in these royal heir-and-spare situations, especially when the two people involved are the same gender. It just invites constant comparisons and sets up a dynamic where the heir is seen as the responsible one who can do no wrong and the younger sibling is set up as the one who gets all the flak. The Queen and Princess Margaret being the classic example. At least when there are three or more children in the family the comparison isn't so stark.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think it must be hard, in some ways, to be the only spare in these royal heir-and-spare situations, especially when the two people involved are the same gender. It just invites constant comparisons and sets up a dynamic where the heir is seen as the responsible one who can do no wrong and the younger sibling is set up as the one who gets all the flak. The Queen and Princess Margaret being the classic example. At least when there are three or more children in the family the comparison isn't so stark.

But it has not always been so. It fluctuates. It wasn't so long ago that Harry was being polled as more popular than William, that many people wanted to see Harry as the next King, etc. Unless all that was pure bait-journalism. May be.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

No, people think like that when he says stupit things like this: ''Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time'' and when the the manipulating British press then write that Harry says no-one in the royal family wants to be monarchs.

Out of context maybe so, but in the context of the whole discussion it wasn't stupid--I said before, everything said can be snipped and twisted into something it is not if you only take part of it and remove the context.

Reading the whole article, he seemed to mean that no one in the family was going all Richard III with ambition and power, but when their turn comes (as they move up in the heirarchy) they want to serve their people and country.

 

[Mirabel]

The problem is, people often don't read the whole article.
They read the headlines, and things get taken out of context.
A seemingly innocuous statement becomes controversial.

On the whole, I think it is better to say as little as possible!

 

[Osipi]

If we look at things from another angle, for a very, very long time Charles has held the title "The Prince of Wales". Basically what The Prince of Wales title designates is "King in Waiting". There was no job description. There were no expectations really of how Charles should lead his life while waiting. It just was expected that one day he would be King. To this day he's not really talked about his plans, his ambitions or his thoughts on when this all happens. He stuck to finding and defining what he wanted his Prince of Wales tenure would be like. He *chose* ways and means to benefit the people. He didn't have to. He could have done his duty supporting the "Firm" and his monarch and spent the rest of his time gardening and painting.

Harry is in the spot of the "Spare". Its not a role that he picked out for himself and to be honest, there's no job description for a "Spare" either. He could resign himself to doing his duty to the "Firm" and his monarch but spend the rest of his time building model race cars. He's not. He's taking what has been put on him and trying to make it his own. He'll have a little bit more leeway than his brother has but I believe he's doing a good job of "Sparing" and making a difference. William did the same with taking time to serve the public in his own way with air ambulance work. He also knows his "King in Waiting" role is imminent and he needs to prepare for that also.

"Sparing" and "Heiring" and "Monarching" perhaps aren't the prime choices that they would pick and they're not fighting their way up a corporate ladder to attain the power and the glory and the prestige those "titles" bestow on one but rather resigned these roles as a "fact of life" and like death, it'll happen whether we want it to or not.

 

[Jantie]

Not sure what thread to put this to, but further to the photos comparing Prince Philip with Prince Harry, here is one of Prince Charles showing his resemblance to PH.
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/130/590x/secondary/Prince-Charles-beard-964572.jpg

From article Former Daily Express photographer reveals some of his favourite pictures and stories | Life | Life & Style | Express.co.uk

 

[Osipi]

Great find Jantie! I'd never seen a picture of Charles with a beard before and I have to say that he looks so much better with it at that time than he did without it. Its the same with Harry. Then again, I am partial to men with beards.

 

[cepe]

Me too

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.a6Lxb2Dzjn76EnuY8SuQtwDuEs&pid=15.1

 

[Curryong]

Great find Jantie! I'd never seen a picture of Charles with a beard before and I have to say that he looks so much better with it at that time than he did without it. Its the same with Harry. Then again, I am partial to men with beards.

Does your husband have a beard, Osipi?

I must say that, apart from the closeness of eyes and around the top of the bridge of the nose, I've never seen much physical resemblance between Charles and Harry. I see more between Harry and both his grandfathers really, though Charles sometimes appears in his son's expressions, when he grimaces etc. I saw a photo of a young Johnnie Spencer with Frances, once. He was grinning and looked just like a chunkier version of clean shaven Harry!

 

[Osipi]

Does your husband have a beard, Osipi?

I must say that, apart from the closeness of eyes and around the top of the bridge of the nose, I've never seen much physical resemblance between Charles and Harry. I see more between Harry and both his grandfathers really, though Charles sometimes appears in his son's expressions, when he grimaces etc. I saw a photo of a young Johnnie Spencer with Frances, once. He was grinning and looked just like a chunkier version of clean shaven Harry!

He most definitely has a beard and has had one since I've known him. Of course now that we're retired and don't venture out too much because we prefer to be homebodies, its kind of like he's got this Duck Dynasty thing going on which I think is a bit OTT.

I've always seen a remarkable resemblance between Harry and both his father and his grandfather but his coloring is definitely from the Spencer side of the family. Harry also has more of Diana's mannerisms than William does but William resembles his mother more. There was a time too when Peter Phillips and William could have passed as brothers.

Its amazing what making gene soup can do. Never know how exactly its going to turn out and is different each and every time.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

No, running away from the family for they are the ones to tar and feather him if they chose. I would like for him to stay a long time in Africa, I have a love of those magnificent animals there, he has done wonders in helping elephants with his charity and in educating the people, so buy a hut or whatever suits his fancy and live there part of the year each year........he seems like his brother to love the country and wants to do good so maybe lots of time there away from pressures he faces at home would do wonders for him. He just needs to know that his *ordinary* is not the same as the *ordinary* for the general population...he will never be ordinary in this lifetime.

Eh! Harry's family IMO are very far from wanting to ever tar and feather him. He's a cheeky character and I believe that's the part of his personality which has always endeared him to his family and indeed to the public. I believe his family is quite happy to see Harry happy and coming more into his own in a more purposeful and fulfilling way in his life.

If Meghan Markle makes Harry happy, his family isn't going to nix the relationship. It's Meghan who has been giving up a lot just to be with Harry, and she will be giving up even more should they marry. But it's between them, and if the relationship is strong and has depth, then maybe what she is giving up is less important to her than how she feels about Harry, and how he feels about her.

Harry's quotes were used out-of-context and are easy to slant and misconstrue, plus nothing he said hasn't already been expressed before in different ways and contexts by other British and European royals (and as noted in this thread, by Prince Philip in the early 1960s).

 

[Osipi]

There's also another way of looking at this recent controversy over what Harry meant or didn't mean. With it taking on the flavor of being controversial, I would imagine that many more people actually went and read/listened to the interview rather than that interview just being an "OK. Harry did a interview. I'll get around to reading/listening to it one of these days"

More people paid attention. More people formed opinions. Perhaps more people are coming to know Harry the man rather than the prince who is dating an American actress and was photographed nude in Las Vegas. Maybe more people are paying attention to Harry now than just what headlines are presented. This interview did put him up front and personal on center stage and regardless of the aftermath, people were drawn to pay attention to it.

It may serve Harry well into the future and then again, it may not. If anything, it definitely will be one of those "remember when...." moments.

 

[Skippyboo]

Most people probably just saw the headline blurb on the news or on Twitter. They are too busy with their actual lives to stop and track down the actual interview in Newsweek.