The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #741  
Old 08-26-2012, 08:27 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,658
tea-n-tiaras

Unless you carry the title then you don't have either the privileges or the responsibilities. Charles, William and Harry have no direct responsbilities for the Cof E - only the Monarch is designated Defender of the Faith.

The Monarch is NOT seen in ths country as a leader of moral guidance - truly, she isn't although she is Defender of the Faith. The Faith is the Anglican Church which is not emphatic or dogmatic in its teachings. There is a definite sub-text here that the church should be dis-established, ie not linked to the Monarch. In that way, the monarch could be of any faith (an aside comment for info.)

I do not impose my values or morals on anyone - each to their own in my opinion. Where the law comes into play that it different - we should all abide by that and Harry has not broken any law.

I don't approve of his behaviour - but I dont see it as seriously as many nor as destructive to the monarchy and frankly, judging by an approval rating of 75%, neither do the majority of people in this country.

I'm not as despondent as you, as I think this will bring him up short. He does need to sort it out, and I think he will get the support to do this. But it won't be public and therefore you and I will not know about it directly.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 08-26-2012, 08:32 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 7,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariel1 View Post
Harry should state that he will never take a drink of alcohol again, because he sees what it does to him, especially his judgement. He is "allergic", better word "sensitive" to alcohol and it makes him behave this way, whatever you call "this way". If he doesn't do anything else for his country, the monarchy, and himself, it would be a contribution for him to swear off alcohol. He doesn't need it to lead an interesting life. He already has an interesting life, and it could be very much more interesting if he got straight on this and reexamined his values.
I can barely understand the comments on how Harry might have done this to make sure the girls at home knew he was not ready for marriage. If marriage is such a desperate situation for Harry--to be feared--so badly, maybe he should start thinking about finding a worthy life partner, and being alcohol free would help him find such a partner.
He probably should marry fairly soon, and if the only way to do it is to resign the army and work "at home" for his family, that would be a positive step. But who is helping Harry think straight? He sure needs a mentor. A guide. Maybe even a clergyman.
I'm definitely on board with your plan, however, I think that Henry will have a very hard time swearing off any and all alcohol. He spends a lot of time in bars and other venues where alcohol is easily obtained. Even when he attends black tie charity functions and dinners, there's alcohol (though thankfully he has yet to get drunk at one of those). I do think it would be a good idea to settle down just a little; maybe start developing other interests besides clubs, bars, parties, etc. Personally, I think marriage is a long way away for this young man. In order to to be ready for such a commitment, one needs to have all the partying and whatever out of one's system. Obviously with Henry it's not the case. I think if he were to marry or even be in a serious relationship right now, it could very well end badly. I think he needs to do some soul-searching, and preferably away from his partying gang of 'mates'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Agreed. I believe, however, that this will be very, very hard to do given his circle of friends. Alcohol is almost everywhere a person socializes; and unless a person has a core group of non-drinking friends (say, an AA group) remaining sober is almost impossible. However, The Duke of York has managed to remain a teetotaler since the early '80s; it is possible.
Unfortunately, this is probably the biggest issue; alcohol is almost everywhere. It's easy to obtain, and for some strange reason, it's seen as a 'necessity' in order to have a good time. Henry would be wise to stay away from it, but given his party-going ways, I don't see that happening. Too bad really, because he's not setting a very good example for the younger generation.
__________________

__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 08-26-2012, 08:57 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Month Representative - Britain
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach (CA), United States
Posts: 1,413
Harry and his friends (Skippy and Arthur) have deleted their facebook pages.

Is the mysterious 'Spike Wells’ really Prince Harry? - Telegraph

Prince Harry Vegas photos: Prince forced off Facebook as fears grow over more damaging revelations | Mail Online
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 08-26-2012, 09:06 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
tea-n-tiaras

Unless you carry the title then you don't have either the privileges or the responsibilities. Charles, William and Harry have no direct responsbilities for the Cof E - only the Monarch is designated Defender of the Faith.

The Monarch is NOT seen in ths country as a leader of moral guidance - truly, she isn't although she is Defender of the Faith. The Faith is the Anglican Church which is not emphatic or dogmatic in its teachings. There is a definite sub-text here that the church should be dis-established, ie not linked to the Monarch. In that way, the monarch could be of any faith (an aside comment for info.)

I do not impose my values or morals on anyone - each to their own in my opinion. Where the law comes into play that it different - we should all abide by that and Harry has not broken any law.

I don't approve of his behaviour - but I dont see it as seriously as many nor as destructive to the monarchy and frankly, judging by an approval rating of 75%, neither do the majority of people in this country.

I'm not as despondent as you, as I think this will bring him up short. He does need to sort it out, and I think he will get the support to do this. But it won't be public and therefore you and I will not know about it directly.
I understand only the monarch carries the title, hence, the reason I said he was 3rd in line to carry the titles Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the CoE. Do you honestly believe that the people have no moral expectations of QE II?

The law is in and of itself an imposition of moral values upon a society. I am sure there are laws that some people find silly, yet they obey them. The law imposes values. Therefore, if you believe people should follow the law then you do believe that moral values should be imposed to some extent.

I think a 75% approval rating doesn't mean that people think what Prince Harry did was just fine. It is a reflection of the affection people feel for him. He seems to be a likable, charming man. Hence, the desire to see him reform his ways. I don't think many would say, "Dear son of mine, I hope you will grow up to behave just like Prince Harry."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 08-26-2012, 09:57 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 185
Quote:
can speak for my milieu - normally I just don't bother talking about my interest in royalty. This, however, has made the news on the major networks - and I have to say the view here seems to be laughter - not outrage. ("Well that didn't stay in Las Vegas.") When it gets mentioned there is disbelief - not in his actions but in that he allowed himself to be compromised publicly. Its assumed almost at once that he wanted to exhibit himself - no one can make out why it would happen otherwise.



That is pretty much the re-action here also. Jokes are flying everywhere, and yes the one thing people cannot understand is why?


Tyger I really enjoy reading your post.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 08-26-2012, 11:53 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,370
It astonished me how people get upset with the victims of having their privacy violated. Same thing happened with Charles and Camilla and their phone convo. Everyone made a big deal about one line but what the heck about the illegal nature in which the convo was obtained and a violation of privacy?! From what I can gather Harry got drunk and went to his hotel room! Some bimbo took pix of him and sold them for a buck. He didn't do nething illegal in there? Drugs? Sexual assault? Planning a terrorist attack? If not then I don't see how what he does in his own room is anybody's business.
__________________
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
  #747  
Old 08-26-2012, 11:57 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,278
The big issue there was that both Charles and Camilla were married to other people at the time, and I think that had something to do with how people reacted (not being so concerned about the privacy issue). There was concern, if I remember correctly, about who was doing the "bugging" and why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
It astonished me how people get upset with the victims of having their privacy violated. Same thing happened with Charles and Camilla and their phone convo.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 08-27-2012, 12:06 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,370
And you know whose business the conversation was? Andrew and Diana, not the whole freakin world!
Btw was this twit who sold the pix American?! If so I am so freakin embarrassed; not all American girls are like that.
__________________
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
  #749  
Old 08-27-2012, 12:28 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchessmary View Post
Just my opinion. Remember he lost his mother at a vulnerable time in his life. He really hasn't had a firm feminine hand to guide him. Camilla has already raised her kids, Charles has backed off, so what do you expect? I think Diana would have said: "Stop being an idiot."
Sadly he hasn't had that guidance. William seemed to learn from an early age that he was going to be a big cheese one day.
True he lost his mother at a crucial age and he was more impacted by the loss than William. Harry was Diana's baby and he was still into cuddling with her when she died.

But to say that Charles backed off is wrong. The boys were already spending more time with Charles than Diana. And long before Diana died, they spent more time with the nanny than with either parent.

After Diana's death, Charles made it a point to spend more time with Harry.

If Harry had spun out of control during his teens and the behavior continued throughout his life then I would have attributed it the loss of his mother and agreed with you on that point. But at nearly 28 and only having a few incidents of bad behavior, the lastest cannot be attributed to anything but poor judgement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 08-27-2012, 12:31 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Get out your draping and head for those table legs because we're warping back to 1912!
Oh dear, wrong century! I grossly underestimated, 38 finger-wagging pages and counting . . . so let's make that 1812!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 08-27-2012, 12:41 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 470
The other day, over a game of cards, my brother and I were talking about what various members of his family would say, including his mother (if she was still alive), his father and stepmother, his brother and sister-in-law, his grandmother and grandfather, his great-grandmother (if she was still alive), and his Auntie Anne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 08-27-2012, 12:48 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
And you know whose business the conversation was? Andrew and Diana, not the whole freakin world!
Btw was this twit who sold the pix American?! If so I am so freakin embarrassed; not all American girls are like that.
I am thinking the same thing XC, and wondering if this incident has turned him off American women.

We are not all mercenary slags, Harry!
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 08-27-2012, 01:48 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdngirl View Post
Tyger I really enjoy reading your post.
Thank you, cdngirl. I'm not everyone's cup-of-tea so I appreciate the kind word.

P.S. We must be on the same wavelength because I enjoy your posts, too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 08-27-2012, 01:56 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,370
England! Great Britain, ALL OF EUROPE! We are not all like this ^+%#!&
Don't think badly of us...or at least not anymore than you already do.
On the other hand, good gracious stop trying to tie everything Harry does to his mother. There have been other impactful events in his life, and every time he does something questionable why place on his dead mother? Some people with 2 healthy parents do bad things, and there are orphans who never put one foot wrong.
__________________
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
  #755  
Old 08-27-2012, 02:03 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 336
People's opinion and Harry's friends condemnation of these women iritates me. Why are they to blame for everything? Harry was there, he knew perfectly well these photo's where taken and he allowed it to happen. His friends allowed it to happen. These girls were probably just as drunk and yet, Harry is the victim and the girls are the evil &%#$@.
And as far as I'm concerned, when you invite people to a private party (wether you know them or not) and you allow them to take photo's, these photo's belong to them and it is up to them to do with them whatever they want. So if you don't want you naked a$$ splayed all over the papers you shouldn't bring yourself in that position.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 08-27-2012, 03:16 AM
chelly's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 158
I think the problem people have is that they sold the pics to the tabloids. And the fact that they violated Harry's privacy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 08-27-2012, 03:55 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by chelly
I think the problem people have is that they sold the pics to the tabloids. And the fact that they violated Harry's privacy.
That's definitely not the issue people have with this situation, the issue is what Henry did.
Privacy doesn't really come into it, you can debate backwards and forwards but it still comes down to the fact Henry got drunk, got naked, and allowed a stranger to take pictures of him. That's the issue.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 08-27-2012, 04:07 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
The issue to me isn't that he got drunk, or got naked, or that there were photos taken or even that the photos were sold but...rather that judgement shown by Harry in inviting people he had barely met up to his room - total lack of judgement for someone who is in the position he is in. He isn't a victim to me but the perpetrator of this farce through his own stupidity - he caused it to happen and I blame no one but Harry.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 08-27-2012, 05:06 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath
People's opinion and Harry's friends condemnation of these women iritates me. Why are they to blame for everything? Harry was there, he knew perfectly well these photo's where taken and he allowed it to happen. His friends allowed it to happen. These girls were probably just as drunk and yet, Harry is the victim and the girls are the evil &%#$@.
And as far as I'm concerned, when you invite people to a private party (wether you know them or not) and you allow them to take photo's, these photo's belong to them and it is up to them to do with them whatever they want. So if you don't want you naked a$$ splayed all over the papers you shouldn't bring yourself in that position.
Because they are dusgusting low lifes looking to make a buck off another persons celebrity. They are almost as bad as those bimbots who wanted to get famous from sleeping with Tiger Woods.
__________________
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
  #760  
Old 08-27-2012, 05:28 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
you can debate backwards and forwards but it still comes down to the fact Henry got drunk, got naked, and allowed a stranger to take pictures of him. That's the issue.
If that's an issue, my, have I sinned in my life!
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


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





Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:43 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]