The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 05-15-2017, 01:44 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze View Post
Wouldn't a regular job for Harry's future wife be a security concern? I read something along the lines yesterday, that a constant, well known work schedule would bring in new security risks.
You've a significant point. That is a very real issue, methinks. Sad.
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:17 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze View Post
Wouldn't a regular job for Harry's future wife be a security concern? I read something along the lines yesterday, that a constant, well known work schedule would bring in new security risks.
Eugenie works a regular every day job, at a known location. It hasn't seemed to be a security risk.

It may be slightly different if say a hospital doctor. Because the size of the space they would need to secure. And there would be too many people coming in and out, can't do security checks on trauma patients.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 05-15-2017, 05:15 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,071
If ti did benefit the nation (like international trade or something of that nature) then it would in fact be healthy and good, but realistically, the only ones who are available for princes are heiresses or someone who is already established as part of celebrity.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 05-15-2017, 06:24 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by AristoCat View Post
[....] the only ones who are available for princes are heiresses or someone who is already established as part of celebrity.
Heu... Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby, Catherine Middleton, Máxima Zorreguieta Cerruti, Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Sophie Rhys-Jones, Claire Coombs, Sofia Hellqvist, Marie Cavallier, etc. all do not really qualify as "heiresses" or "established part of celebrity".

The only exception is Letizia Ortiz who was a "celebrity" indeed: picture
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 05-17-2017, 09:05 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Regarding Meghan, someone mentioned on another thread that Meghan might be at the stage in her career where she would naturally be pulling back. If she were a film actress I would agree, because it is true that in the US film acting gigs do begin to dry up for females as they head toward 40, but that does not signify it would be the case for Meghan as she is a television actress. She never broke into films. Television actors have a longer shelf-life (IMO).
Unfortunately, few television actors really do have shelf lives that are much longer than their peers in film, and those who do are generally "character" actors (which Meghan is not), white (which Meghan is not) and either male (which Meghan is not) or women who became recognizable after they'd settled into middle age or a sort of "safe" frumpiness (which she did not). Young, attractive women are still rarely allowed to mature on screen. Some are, but they're still few and far between.

Also, if you watch who gets cast for what, it seems to matter very much just how an actor becomes famous, initially. If they become a household name for their acting, then casting directors seem to care little about what publicity they may garner in their private life. But an actor who first becomes famous for their personal life is rarely cast in subsequent roles of substance; that seems to be a recipe for a career of one-episode guest appearances and stunt casting. So whether or not she marries Harry, Meghan may have already passed a point of no return when it comes to her career.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 08-14-2017, 10:56 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 189
I think the media would be the biggest problem facing an employed royal. Prince Edward's wife Sophie tried, but was criticized by someone no matter what she did. Katherine tried working at St. Andrews and the media hounded her - And she was just a girlfriend then. Any wife of Harry will have heavy media coverage.

True the Duke of York's daughters have been able to work with very little media coverage, but I think they are the exception rather than the norm. Once Charles becomes King, they will become more like the children of Princess Margaret, Duke of Kent etc.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 08-14-2017, 07:47 PM
rominet09's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LIEGE, Belgium
Posts: 3,639
I don't think they could unfortunately for them.... several have tried with disastrous consequences.....
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 08-15-2017, 02:27 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee27 View Post
I
True the Duke of York's daughters have been able to work with very little media coverage, but I think they are the exception rather than the norm. Once Charles becomes King, they will become more like the children of Princess Margaret, Duke of Kent etc.
The York girls are not royal wives, and they have been clearly placed "off the royal duty roster". Its been made clear that they are not required for Royal duties, and so they are free to work if they want to, in a job. (if they do want to). But Harry's wife will be required for royal duties and as such, it will not be appropriate or advisable for her to work in a job.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:25 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,872
It doesn't seem fair that a royal is criticized for whatever they do. If they try and work they are using their royal status, if they only do charities they are called lazy and called upon to get a real job, if they say screw it and give up royal title status and money they are regarded as ungrateful.
I think the York girls husbands should be allowed to work if they want to if Charles truly wants to slim things down; same for Louise and James when they come of age.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:53 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,569
I'm quite sure the York girls husbands will work just as they themselves do...the girls don't work for the 'Firm' so aren't really going to fall under this 'rule'.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 08-15-2017, 11:44 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Not only will the husbands of the York girls be expected to work - so are the York girls themselves. They aren't going on the royal payroll so either they have real jobs - as Eugenie has with the art gallery - or that are seen as do nothing socialites - like Beatrice who has shown an inability to stick to a job for more than 9 months since leaving university.

Charles isn't going to be supporting them and nor is William or George so they will have to marry well, earn their own money, support themselves from their trustfunds or seek government assistance.

They are neither wanted or needed as working royals - either by the next couple of Kings or the British public (my two trips there in the last two years saw not one person speak with any liking for the girls - total 'wastes of air and space' was the most common comment I heard when I asked what people thought about them. No one I have ever spoken to in Britain or elsewhere in my travels who is British has ever had a good word to say about the girls - except for the British posters on here.

Even when I was at Trooping the Colour and they came past in the carriage the comments were scathing about the girls from everyone around me.

I know there has been no 'confirmation' from BP or the BRF about the future role of the girls but the story about a slimmed down royal family has been doing the rounds now for close on a quarter of a century. The people will feel betrayed if Charles doesn't follow through with this idea now - rightly or wrongly. The press are in control and they have made it clear - good Diana's sons vs bad Fergie's daughters - and so no role for the girls.

Some places I have been I have read that the public expect even Charles' siblings to be wiped from the engagements roster at his accession - not just the Queen's cousins - but definitely Andrew, Edward and Sophie. Anne is given a pass due to her past hard work.

I do read a lot of places other than here and the DM and it does make for some very interesting reading with a range of views expressed with this seeming to be in the minority of wanting a large BRF.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 08-15-2017, 11:56 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,569
In hindsight Andrew might wish they had refused the HRH titles for his girls...they might be much better off, as Anne's children are, without them.




LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 08-16-2017, 12:10 AM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 573
The York princesses are granddaughters of the current Monarch. When Charles ascends to the throne, they are nieces to the Monarch. Other than their titles, they would be on the same level as what Princess Margaret's children are currently. Lady Sarah and the Earl and Countess of Snowdon do not undertake royal duties.

The BRF had to go into damage control after the scandal surrounding the Countess of Wessex. I suspect there is now an unwritten rule that the Monarch's children and their respective spouses should only perform royal duties. It's unfair, especially if their spouse are not really in the public eye.
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 08-16-2017, 12:11 AM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
In hindsight Andrew might wish they had refused the HRH titles for his girls...they might be much better off, as Anne's children are, without them.
LaRae
And in time, Edward's kids - if a Letters Patent ever is issued
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 08-16-2017, 12:30 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,224
it would have been wrong for Andrew to refuse to have his daughters HRH nad I'm sure the idea never entered his head. As the grandchildren of the queen in the male line they are princesses. With Edward it was different, because the RF had endured a period of trouble with the scandals and Diana's death and since Ed's children were so far down the line, it was understandable for them not to use royal titles.
Beat and Eugenie can work if they want to or live as rich socialites if they want to. the only difference is they are titlted Princess.. but that doesn't sotp them working.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 08-16-2017, 12:35 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
It doesn't seem fair that a royal is criticized for whatever they do. If they try and work they are using their royal status, if they only do charities they are called lazy and called upon to get a real job, if they say screw it and give up royal title status and money they are regarded as ungrateful.
I think the York girls husbands should be allowed to work if they want to if Charles truly wants to slim things down; same for Louise and James when they come of age.
Of course the Yorks' girls husbands (if they get any) will be able to work. Royal husbands apart from P Philip, have had careers.. there's no barrier.
and I cant imagine why you think that "royals who "only do charities" are called lazy." if they are dedicated to their role, and put in the time and have a real interest, they could hardly be called lazy. Charles's work is mostly in the charity field apart from managing the DOC Estates.. and I think most people would say that he is dedicated, interested in the work and very hard working.
If he were someone who did a few engagements a month, took liltte interest in the background of his charities etc, yes I think he could be called lazy but charity wrok per se is not lazy man's work.

I don't know of any royals who have left the "job" and taken ordinary work who are called ungrateful? Some continental royals have given up the conventional royal role, (usually younger sons etc) and they work in ordinary jobs.. they retain their titles usually but their children aren't always titled prince/ss... but something like count/countess...
but I dont know of anyone who calls them ungrateful because they are not required for "royal duties" or because they prefer an ordinary career, so long as they are not the heirs...
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 08-16-2017, 12:47 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
And in time, Edward's kids - if a Letters Patent ever is issued
Edward's children don't have HRH because 'The Queen's Will' has been made known. No LPs are actually needed. That is an unnecessary formality because the change was enforced by the simple procedure of 'The Queen's Will' being made known.

I even wrote to BP to have that confirmed and received that in writing from BP - The Queen's Will - is all that is needed.

The only way to deal with Edward's children via LPs would be to limit HRH to the grandchildren of the monarch through the heir apparent and that would have stripped HRHs from the Queen's cousins.

Even William's dukedom is dated not from the date of the issue of the LPs but the date The Queen's Will was made known - that is the 29th April, 2011 not the date in May when she actually signed the LPs. The same with other honour recipients - the date is the date announced not the date invested, which can be months later (or in some cases even years or never). The piece of paper isn't the crucial thing at all.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 08-16-2017, 02:03 AM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Edward's children don't have HRH because 'The Queen's Will' has been made known. No LPs are actually needed. That is an unnecessary formality because the change was enforced by the simple procedure of 'The Queen's Will' being made known.

I even wrote to BP to have that confirmed and received that in writing from BP - The Queen's Will - is all that is needed.

The only way to deal with Edward's children via LPs would be to limit HRH to the grandchildren of the monarch through the heir apparent and that would have stripped HRHs from the Queen's cousins.

Even William's dukedom is dated not from the date of the issue of the LPs but the date The Queen's Will was made known - that is the 29th April, 2011 not the date in May when she actually signed the LPs. The same with other honour recipients - the date is the date announced not the date invested, which can be months later (or in some cases even years or never). The piece of paper isn't the crucial thing at all.
I had to look that up! But yes - the the Queen's or King's Will is enough relating to titles. Actually - that kind of makes sense.

Here is what my research has discovered:

"At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent. The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice). The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases...in particular the view of the Law Officers that "the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed", and the opinion of Sir Geoffrey Ellis that "precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown"). How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial."
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 09-09-2017, 12:46 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,732
A friend suggested, in a discussion here in Australia last night, that in theory Meghan could bolster the marital coffers by accepting guest parts in films after her marriage, at least in the US. I had so many reasons why this wouldn't work, either in Britain and the US, that I could hardly get them all out.

Meghan would be needed for Royal duties in the UK as the Queen and Charles and Camilla age. She would be a support to Harry.

Security concerns would be horrendous. And RPOs couldn't be used in the US.

If she accepted an ongoing role in Britain the tabloids would go mad criticising, examining forthcoming plot developments, trying to pick up gossip from fellow cast and crew. Any friendships, especially with male fellow actors would be examined and speculated on.

I just can't see an acting career working at all.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 09-09-2017, 01:06 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,399
I have to agree. There is just no way that an acting career could ever be compatible with being a working royal. But.... waitaminute.... all is not lost!

Perhaps as time passes and Meghan is looking to decide where to focus her energies on personal projects such as Kate being interested in photography and becoming patron of the National Portrait Gallery, Meghan could take on something to do with dramatic arts. She'd definitely know the ropes and be able to encourage people with aspirations.

Then again, she may be called on too to do a "Princess Beatrice" and do a officially sanctioned "cameo" role like Bea did in "Young Victoria".

Princess Beatrice's walk on part with the Queen - Telegraph
__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
prince harry, prince william, royal duties, working wife


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Royals Working Out christinacg Royal Life and Lifestyle 4 07-25-2016 11:04 PM
Queen Rania's working visit to the US: May 2007 asturiana King Abdullah and Queen Rania and Family 65 11-06-2010 07:50 AM
Working visit to the UK: June 3-5, 2008 chelsea King Abdullah and Queen Rania and Family 26 06-22-2008 04:09 AM
Queen Sonja working for UNESCO Larzen King Harald and Queen Sonja 2 06-12-2006 11:12 AM
Mette-Marit working for NORAD (Autumn 2003) Alexandria Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Family 8 09-04-2003 01:06 PM




Popular Tags
best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark earl of snowdon fashion poll general news grand duke jean hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume historical infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy news picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince emmanuel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince of wales prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess sofias hats princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margerthe queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sofia rohan state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises