Harry and Chelsy: Relationship Musings

[Lumutqueen]

Ideally, William would hurry up and have his own heir/s! That would free up Harry completely

You can't rush love or marriage. If William feels pressured into marrying, his marraige will crumble easily just like his fathers.

 

[Inge Jones]

Actually, the potential crumbling state of a royal's marriage is not as much of a constitutional problem as his lack of heirs. Both 2nd and 3rd in line to the throne are flying helicopters and neither of them have heirs. I can't say I feel comfortable with the situation.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Actually, the potential crumbling state of a royal's marriage is not as much of a constitutional problem as his lack of heirs. Both 2nd and 3rd in line to the throne are flying helicopters and neither of them have heirs. I can't say I feel comfortable with the situation.

William is 28 today, Harry is 25. Do you expect them to have had kids already?
They are flying helicopters, possible under the safest means possible. You cannot stop them from taking part in military training just because it is dangerous, and they haven't had any kids yet.
Would you like both of them to have married, had kids at an early age, the marriage crumbles and all three parties, especially the children suffer the most?
Saying that if something happens to either of them, thats just the way it happens, you cannot turn back time.

Also don't forget that Charles does have to become king first, William is not the heir yet.
By the time Charles is King, William will most likely be married, and possible have children. Leaving Harry to pursue the life he actually wants him SA.

 

[Inge Jones]

But Charles is no longer capable of producing heirs. If he loses his sons the next monarch will be Andrew and then Beatrice. I am not sure those guys could do it...

And yes, at 28 and 25 I *do* expect them, as part of their born obligations, to have started producing heirs. Unlike ordinary people, they don't *have* to have established careers in order to afford a home for their family. And they're men - they don't even have to stay home having the babies themselves. All they have to do is take a day off to get married, get their wives pregnant, and get back into their helicopters doing what they want to do and carrying on with their chosen careers. Really how hard can this be for them? It's not like either of them were having trouble (unlike their poor Dad) deciding which woman they actually wanted to be with.

 

[Lumutqueen]

That wasn't my point.
By the time Charles is King and reigning. His sons will be married and William will be producing heirs. Leaving Harry to basically do what he likes.

Your talking about them like they are robots, born to do a certain job and that is it. Are they not allowed to live a life of their own?
Times have changed, the United Kingdom no longer sees the monarchy like they used to. They are just figures who wear fancy clothes. If Harry and William weren't doing army training and just seen as "sponging" of society, there would be an outcry.

Quite hard, just because these two have been in relationship for a while does not mean they are at all ready for marriage, or for the prospect of children. They are human beings.
I rarely use this line but, look at what happened to their parents marriage, Charles chose a girl to produce babies, she did, then what happened. The boys should not be pressured into getting married and having children when they don't want to.

Andrew and Beatrice might not be ready now, but Andrew was once heir to Charles, he will have been told certain things just in case Charles had no children. Again Charles will be King first, if both boys pass away or have no children. Andrew and Beatrice will recieve the proper training they require just in case.

Look at Prince Albert of Monaco, he's 50 something, not married and doesn't have any legitamate children to continue his succesion.

 

[Inge Jones]

Your talking about them like they are robots, born to do a certain job and that is it. Are they not allowed to live a life of their own?
Times have changed, the United Kingdom no longer sees the monarchy like they used to. They are just figures who wear fancy clothes. If Harry and William weren't doing army training and just seen as "sponging" of society, there would be an outcry.

I think this is a symptom of the ambiguity that surrounds monarchy. We're in uncomfortable middle ground. In a way, if we're going to think of them purely in terms of human beings doing a job, we really have to face the fact that a hereditory head of state is a ludicrous idea. In modern "enlightened" terms, Harry and William would have been born normal commoners and *if* in years to come they had not fallen in love with African women and moved to Africa, they *may* have chosen to run for President of the UK.

The whole ethos behind tolerating a hereditory leader is that we traditionally believe them to be different from us, somehow divinely destined to be married to their duty towards the monarchic system - putting the fundamental need to secure a pure linear succession before *anything* else. Once we understand their needs and interests are as varied as our own, and that they are intent on pursuing those, why would we not expect them to be like us in every other way, including the requirement to gain votes before gaining a position of authority?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Actually, the potential crumbling state of a royal's marriage is not as much of a constitutional problem as his lack of heirs. Both 2nd and 3rd in line to the throne are flying helicopters and neither of them have heirs. I can't say I feel comfortable with the situation.

They do have heirs - the Queen's second son and his daughters, followed by the third son and his children and then the Queen's daughter and her children.

They don't have their own children but they do have heirs.

If something happened to both of them the monarchy would continue with no glitch at all - Andrew would return to the position he was in i28 years ago and Beatrice and Eugenie would follow up the line.

Andrew has served as a Councillor-of-State and is still eligible and will be for the next 21+ years (he will be eligible until either William or Harry's eldest child reaches 21) so he will have been trained to do the job of monarch if necessary, due to being born 2nd in line and having to do the job of C-of-S. The same with Beatrice who will also serve in that capacity at some stage in the future (unless you see the Queen living for over another 21 years). The Councillors-in-State, at least one of whom and often two of them, serve in the role of Head of State whenever the Queen is out of the country, are the next four adults over 21, who are in line to the throne. Edward and Anne have also served in that capacity as has the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent in the earlier years of the Queen's reign. They are fully trained by the Queen just in case.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think this is a symptom of the ambiguity that surrounds monarchy...

You might see them that way but most people I know recognise that they are also human and that the days of forcing them to marry simply to produce heirs are long gone.

 

[Sister Morphine]

...And yes, at 28 and 25 I *do* expect them, as part of their born obligations, to have started producing heirs...

So in other words, they should marry whether they want to right now or not.
Oh that'll produce a healthy, happy marriage.

 

[Inge Jones]

Well, ok, we can talk about them as if they are celebrities but basically normal people, or we can look at the aspect that is more to do with the underpinnings of national identity. Of course I don't want them to be unhappy, but at the end of the day I am glad we got Spencer bloodline back on the throne because of the historical connotations. And for that reason I am glad there was an unhappy first marriage with Diana to produce those boys, rather than a happy first marriage with Camilla placing her offspring on the throne instead. Perhaps William should pair up with a foreign princess - but at least let the woman be under 30 and in the best position to pass on the healthiest of genetic material.

Where the focus of this family's relationship with us is in their heredity, keeping the purity of direct first-born succession as far as possible is of the essence. Once that becomes of less importance than their happiness (which could be now, really) then the monarchy has lost its unique identity and has become nothing more than a tourist-attracting celebrity roadshow.

 

[Lady Ann]

WOW, The Spencer Blood Line... funny....Diana was the one who wanted them boys to have a " normal life" The Spencers know the duty that must come but also wanted them both to live, love, and marry for themselves and not just to produce a healthy offspring...which will come in time. I think it is a good thing that both William and Harry want to live life and enjoy it for a bit...

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well, ok, we can talk about them as if they are celebrities but basically normal people, or we can look at the aspect that is more to do with the underpinnings of national identity. Of course I don't want them to be unhappy, but at the end of the day I am glad we got Spencer bloodline back on the throne because of the historical connotations.

When was the Spencer bloodline on the throne?

I know that Diana was a descendent of Charles II through one of his many illegitimate children but then so is Sarah Duchess of York and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall so it can't be that as otherwise it wouldn't have mattered which one of them Charles married as that line would be the same whether he married Diana or Camilla.

Of course Charles is a descendent of every royal house that has ever sat on the throne - Norman, Plantagenet, Tudor, Stuart, Hanover etc whereas Diana can't claim descent from the Hannoverians but only the Stuarts, Tudors, Plantagenets and Normans.

 

[Inge Jones]

Oh I didn't know Camilla was in there as well. Lol ok well in that case he might as well have married her in the first place. I am not at all sure I agree with this "sewing the wild oats" advice Charles is said to have received from his uncle. And in these days of trying to spread the message of more responsible sex, it's definitely not something we want to see in William or Harry's behaviour.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Diana and Camilla were distant cousins.
In this day of precautions young people are quite free with 'sewing their wild oats' but William and Harry don't seem to have done so. They both seem to have been in monogomous relationships since their early 20s but they might still have a breakout in them of course. We don't know what the future holds.

 

[Lumutqueen]

...Where the focus of this family's relationship with us is in their heredity...

All these princes are to you is heir makers basically.
You saying the purity of someones blood is more important than peoples happiness?
All our monarchy is, is a ceremonial role, they are a tourist attraction to many many people. We no longer see them the way they were viewed in Queen Victoria's time.

Both boys should marry who they love, and I hope they are commoners.

 

[Inge Jones]

Then maybe they should not be part of a monarchic system at all? The thing is, the British people pay for this system based on the people in it being somehow "special" and not there to look out for their own emotional fulfilment. Unlike the old days when Kings could do what on earth they pleased and we believed that was because they were specially blessed by God or could behead us, these days why would we want to pay for a set of normal, flawed, self-fulfilling people to have a privileged lifestyle? We only do it for tradition's sake, so they might as well do it the traditional way. They no longer govern directly, so their only real *constitutional* role is to keep on producing the next in line with the fewest side-steps possible. If that's not the role they want for themselves then I wish them well in their future lives as commoners.

I mean even as commoners they can do celebrity fete openings and things like that, and get a small fee.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Well they aren't going to be commoners anytime soon.
They will produce heirs when they are ready, every one this planet can understand that you do not marry or have a child unless you are ready, or at least I thought they did.
You are calling for a republic based on the fact that William and Harry want to have their own lives before having children. Every monarch in one way or another has lead their own life before settling down into the role they were born to do.

 

[4Pam]

^ Well said Lumutqueen.

 

[Inge Jones]

I just don't happen to like the modern idea that teens last till 30. In my generation we were grown up at 21. No wonder retirement age is having to be pushed back till 70!

 

[Lumutqueen]

Whose says they are teens at 30?
I am a teenager myself, and Harry and William are certainly not acting like teenagers.
I think what you mean is that, they are not having children and are not married by the time they are 30.

 

[Thena]

There are many couples who move because one of spouse's job. I have a friend from Texas who married a man from Scotland. They lived in Japan for five years because her husband's job was transferred there. I can understand if Chelsy is homesick, but if she's going to use that to end the relationship, she's going to come off as immature.

In the end, Harry needs to find a partner who is going to support him as he supports his grandmother, father and brother. Chelsy isn't quite that person yet, but she still has the potential to grow.

 

[segolen]

... She seems to be the only girl for Harry and the only girl who has managed to tame him and make him realize what his passion is...
.

well, I think only Harry can answer this, we only make assumptions...and It's all over the news now, tv news as well...I hope its only a temporary split as it was before. I really like them as a couple, even though I was more Wills/Kate's team...I'm waiting to see the next photos of Chelsy in the press. She has a tendency to put on fake tan on, when she brakes up with Harry, lol..."I'm sorry, I've being mean here

 

[4Pam]

...Where the focus of this family's relationship with us is in their heredity, keeping the purity of direct first-born succession as far as possible is of the essence...

Pure bloodlines or not the monarchy is still very intriguing because there is so few of them. Why would you want William to marry a woman because of her background when he doesn't love her? Do you prefer another marriage disaster like Charles and Diana? William deserves a woman that loves and cares for him. A woman who will be there through the good and bad, a great mother to his children.

Look at Charles and Camilla- they're happy and Charles looks more relaxed and approachable now that he's with the woman that he loves as opposed to
when he was with Diana and he looked so aloof and seemed like he didn't want to be there.

When you're going to be the future king or queen you better have one heck of a husband or wife standing by your side who is patient and tolerant of some of the challenges that will be thrown in your direction. You're in for the long haul. A king or queen does not have a set time to serve like a prime minister. You don't get to quit (unless you have health problems). You were born to serve the people of your country so you need to get your marriage right. At the end of the day her/his bloodlines wouldn't matter if you're unhappy and can't get
along.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Do you prefer another marriage disaster like Charles and Diana?

I can answer that question.

And for that reason I am glad there was an unhappy first marriage with Diana to produce those boys, rather than a happy first marriage with Camilla placing her offspring on the throne instead.

 

[Inge Jones]

Why would you want William to marry a woman because of her background when he doesn't love her?

Nono! Don't misunderstand. I am assuming he *does* love Kate, or surely he would have finished with her by now. Assuming he has the woman he eventually wants to marry and have kids with, it would secure the succession better if he were to actually get on with it before a) he has a helicopter accident or b) her fertility begins to reduce - which it does from age 30 as is well known. Delaying it because of some notion of "I'm too young to settle down" is what I am complaining about.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Many women in their 30s, even early 40s can have healthy pregnancies and deliver healthy children. I'm 28, the same age as both William and Kate. I am in no way ready to get married and have children, even if my parents were married at 22 and most of my high school classmates are on baby #4 right now. Obviously the two of them are of a similar mindset or else they would have married and started a family by now.

You may not think 28 is "too young", but that's you. There's no magic age where suddenly you feel totally ready for the responsibilities a marriage and family entail, and that goes for people who AREN'T royalty as well. Some people are totally ready for that at 18, some don't get married until their mid-30s. It all depends on the people in that relationship. Clearly, they don't think they're ready. Whether William will be King of Great Britain or not, he shouldn't marry because of the calendar or public pressure. That's a sure-fire way to fail.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Nono! Don't misunderstand. I am assuming he *does* love Kate, or surely he would have finished with her by now. Assuming he has the woman he eventually wants to marry and have kids with, it would secure the succession better if he were to actually get on with it before a) he has a helicopter accident or b) her fertility begins to reduce - which it does from age 30 as is well known. Delaying it because of some notion of "I'm too young to settle down" is what I am complaining about.

Princess Mary was 33 when she had her first.
Princess Mette-Marit was 30 when she had IA.
Princess Maxima was was 32.
Princess Mathilde was 28.

Each of there husbands went through training before marrying and having heirs, Frederik went through some of the most tough and dangerous.
Be involved in army, naval or air force training you take the risk of being injured, it comes with the territory.
Just as you say "I'm too young" is a bad excuse, which is ridiculous.
I say "My fertilty is going down" is just as bad.

 

[cd_1]

ok i have a general question: what has harry done after his A levels? he hasnt a university degree, has he?

 

[Lumutqueen]

ok i have a general question: what has harry done after his A levels? he hasnt a university degree, has he?

No.
He took a gap year, then went into training.

 

[Iluvbertie]

ok i have a general question: what has harry done after his A levels? he hasnt a university degree, has he?

Since age 18 he has had 18 months as a gap year and the rest of the time in the army mainly doing training of some sort but with a brief stint in Afghanistan.