Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017

[Dman]

He's found "good stock."

 

[Osipi]

Aw crap on a cracker. Now I want a big pot of homemade vegetable soup made with beef stock.

 

[Curryong]

I prefer pumpkin or potato and leek myself. Talk of 'good' blood and stock also reminds me of the horse racing industry.

Apparently, when Queen Victoria's daughter Beatrice was about to marry Henry of Battenberg and her German relatives complained of the match because of his 'unequal' background, Victoria likened them to horse breeders. The vast majority of royals don't marry fellow royals or into the nobility now, anyway.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I just came for the soup tips!

 

[Countessmeout]

The concept of stock here seems as shifting as the sands. If people had said six years ago that Kate would be listed among those coming from good stock, there would have been debate and even outrage. The daughter of former flight attendants, an uncle involved with drugs, nouveau Richie at its trashiest. But now she us an English rise, a fresh breath, good English stock.

Stock is for horses and dogs, not humans. We're not talking breeding. Victoria had it right.

Good stock may ensure you are a good race horse. But the best lineage certainly doesn't endure a good royal.

 

[Rudolph]

The concept of stock here seems as shifting as the sands. If people had said six years ago that Kate would be listed among those coming from good stock, there would have been debate and even outrage. The daughter of former flight attendants, an uncle involved with drugs, nouveau Richie at its trashiest. But now she us an English rise, a fresh breath, good English stock.

Stock is for horses and dogs, not humans. We're not talking breeding. Victoria had it right.

Good stock may ensure you are a good race horse. But the best lineage certainly doesn't endure a good royal.

I'm confused by your comment. Either breeding and being 'good stock' matters to you or it doesn't.

You say Victoria had it right, but mention Catherine being the daughter of a flight attendant.

Is being flight attendant not an honest career? Sophie Wessex's dad was a tyre salesman and her mother a secretary.

I remember Romilly Weeks, the former royal editor for ITV, saying in all her years covering the royals, the 'worst' she ever heard about Catherine was, that growing up she was a bit of a "goody two shoes"

She was a Brownie, she was involved in every club, she's sporty and played school sports. Took piano lessons and did theatre.

So say what you want, but the Middletons belong in the top 0.5% of earners in Britain. Catherine went to the same school as Samantha Cameron and the Frances Osborne. Not exactly a street urchin.

It's your prerogative not to like her, but I think Harry would be very lucky to find his 'Kate'

 

[Empress Merel]

I always find amusing how some people have this image of the royals living this extremely hard life of "limitations and demands", when, on the contrary, a royal life is in reality one of great privilege with very little need to do actually any kind of hard work in return for it.

I suppose much of that perception, at least in the US, came from the versions that Sarah, Duchess of York and Diana, Princess of Wales tried to tell of their own lives in the royal family after their own failed marriages.

Catherine, on the other hand, seems to be the opposite, i.e. she wanted badly to get into the RF (actually pursuing that goal for many years) and, now that she got in, she seems to be pretty happy about it.

I'm still trying to figure out where Meghan falls in that spectrum, although I don't care too much as I still think it's very unlikely she will ever marry Prince Harry.

Right? Getting applauded for doing the bare minimum. What a life.

A for being of ''good stock'' just because someone has benefitted from a headstart in life due to classism , it doesn't make them a good person. So far, Meghan has a far better resumé than Kate ever will have. That said, they're people, not horses and we could do with less people of ''good stock'' in our society. This idea that people from certain social circles are inherentely good or better needs to end. It's outdated.

 

[Jacknch]

Back on topic please - this thread is about Harry's relationship, not a debate on class systems, peoples' backgrounds or comparing one person favourably against another.

 

[AlowVera]

I hope that one day Harry can find his perfect English Rose good stock girl who he may love a little bit even if she is not his true choice but the acceptable choice for the 5th in line. I hope they will be happy. True love is overrated when you have to please the country.

 

[Dman]

I hope that one day Harry can find his perfect English Rose good stock girl who he may love a little bit even if she is not his true choice but the acceptable choice for the 5th in line. I hope they will be happy. True love is overrated when you have to please the country.

Those old days are long gone.

 

[Osipi]

I hope that one day Harry can find his perfect English Rose good stock girl who he may love a little bit even if she is not his true choice but the acceptable choice for the 5th in line. I hope they will be happy. True love is overrated when you have to please the country.

IMO, this is a recipe for disaster. Its been tried before and proven to be a bad idea to put country and duty before love when it comes to a royal marriage. If anyone would know this, it would be Harry. He's witnessed the sad results of this kind of thinking first hand.

 

[AristoCat]

I just wonder if Harry knows what love is and if Meg would be good for him, not just good to him.

 

[AlowVera]

Yes Harry witnessed it first hand but it seems his wishes as 5th in line are secondary to him providing a fairytale narrative. Any girl that does not fit that narrative will have her reputation smeared. Whoever Harry chooses I hope she fits the narrative or else. The hysterical overreaction of Harry just dating a girl is comical. He has already destroyed the monarchy and his life according to some.........for simply dating.

 

[Osipi]

I find it very hard to believe that Harry would base his marriage on finding someone that the media, the trolls of the general public or Aunt Prudence who knows a courtier that gets her hair done at the same place ol' Pru does might do to flame, denigrate, demean and in general just act really, really nasty about his choice. We've gone that fairy tale route before and providing a "narrative" for the braying masses can be accomplished in many ways without a marriage.

It would take a person of very low self esteem to even begin to think that the public "hysteria" or "fawning" or "insert your own adjective here" would make a difference on how they conduct their private lives and Harry most certainly does not fit into that mold whatsoever.

There is only one person that can prevent Harry from having his wishes fulfilled and the blessing to marry his person of choice and that is his grandmother and personally, I don't see why she would have any objection. Harry has absolutely no guidelines whatsoever of parameters that his future bride must fit into. William didn't and he's the heir to the heir and the future king.

 

[Skippyboo]

And if Meghan doesn't want to make choices and compromises that marrying a British royal will require then she will move on like Chelsy and Cressida did.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

IMO, this is a recipe for disaster. Its been tried before and proven to be a bad idea to put country and duty before love when it comes to a royal marriage. If anyone would know this, it would be Harry. He's witnessed the sad results of this kind of thinking first hand.

Margaret, Anne, Charles and Andrew choose for love: divorce, divorce, divorce and divorce. So that oldfashioned marriages would be a "recipe for disaster" seems debatable to me.

 

[Skippyboo]

Margaret, Anne, Charles and Andrew choose for love: divorce, divorce, divorce and divorce. So that oldfashioned marriages would be a "recipe for disaster" seems debatable to me.

It's a bit a stretch to say Margaret and Charles chose the person they married for love since they did not marry Peter Townsend and Camilla. When Charles did marry for love- Camilla, it turned out pretty well. Sarah was basically left to herself when Andrew was off in the Navy and she got herself into trouble.

However, what happened in the relationships of Harry's relations does not directly matter to his current or future relationships. What happened to his parents may influence his personality but it isn't a direct thing like because his parents got divorced and had affairs then William and Harry will get divorced, have affairs etc.

 

[HistoryGirl]

Margaret, Anne, Charles and Andrew choose for love: divorce, divorce, divorce and divorce. So that oldfashioned marriages would be a "recipe for disaster" seems debatable to me.

Seems a toss up, like all relationships.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Seems a toss up, like all relationships.

Pretty much. IMHO if a marriage is based on love, friendship, mutual interests, the will to be together, it has a much better shot, than one based on being from same social class. IMO also, if a person is told to only look for a spouse from certain social gtoup only, it creates resentment.

 

[Abbigail]

I just wonder if Harry knows what love is and if Meg would be good for him, not just good to him.

Well none of us really know what romantic love is until we live and learn and experience and Harry has done that, so there's no reason to believe he knows less about it than the rest of us. From what we've seen the last few years, I think he has matured a lot and seems to know exactly what he wants out of life, as a royal and just as a man.

I'm not sure there's much difference between someone being good for you and being good to you. If the latter is true then chances are the former is as well. Certainly in this particular case, I don't see a difference.

 

[Osipi]

One reason I think that this relationship with Meghan is a good one for him is because of a definition of love that I heard a long time ago and its stuck with me.

"Love is wanting and supporting the other person to be the best possible person they can be"

Many times in a new relationship, a couple tend to try to "people please" their partners so much that their own sense of individuality is lost. Harry and Meghan each already have their separate roles in doing things that doesn't interfere with their relationship and although it is a long distance relationship, I think holding onto their own sense of identity at the beginning of the relationship will just strengthen it more than detract from it. Two people strong in their self identities are more inclined to form a good, equal and strong partnership than a couple where one is dominant and the other one recessive.

 

[Mbruno]

There is only one person that can prevent Harry from having his wishes fulfilled and the blessing to marry his person of choice and that is his grandmother and personally, I don't see why she would have any objection. Harry has absolutely no guidelines whatsoever of parameters that his future bride must fit into. William didn't and he's the heir to the heir and the future king.

Let's not forget that the Succession to the Crown Act says that the monarch's consent to marriages of the first six persons in line to the throne must be declared in a meeting of the Privy Council, meaning it has to be ratified in practice by the government. If the government opposed the marriage, then my understanding is that the Queen would be forced to deny consent.

In any case, Harry could still marry without consent. The only legal effect would be that he and his descendants from the marriage would be excluded from the line of succession to the throne. In principle, unlike in Sweden, Denmark or the Netherlands, I believe the the exclusion from the line of succession would not affect his royal titles and styles. Prince Michael of Kent for example was disqualified from succeeding to the Crown when he married Marie Christine (who is Catholic); nevertheless, he never lost his HRH status as a grandson of a British sovereign in male line.

 

[Mbruno]

Well none of us really know what romantic love is until we live and learn and experience and Harry has done that, so there's no reason to believe he knows less about it than the rest of us. From what we've seen the last few years, I think he has matured a lot and seems to know exactly what he wants out of life, as a royal and just as a man.

I'm not sure there's much difference between someone being good for you and being good to you. If the latter is true then chances are the former is as well. Certainly in this particular case, I don't see a difference.

Do we even know if they are actually "in love", whatever that means ? I mean, we barely see them together and it looks to me more like a long-distance relationship where each of them has his/her own life and they only get together from time to time.

 

[Abbigail]

Do we even know if they are actually "in love", whatever that means ? I mean, we barely see them together and it looks to me more like a long-distance relationship where each of them has his/her own life and they only get together from time to time.

I was not talking about this relationship specifically. But just because we don't see them together doesn't mean they aren't spending more time together. You seem to be implying that it's casual relationship, which I find hard to believe, especially on Meghan's part. And I doubt Harry would have released that statement, exposing Meghan to even more scrutiny and harassment, if the relationship wasn't serious. How serious? Who knows. Time will tell.

 

[Mbruno]

I was not talking about this relationship specifically. But just because we don't see them together doesn't mean they aren't spending more time together. You seem to be implying that it's casual relationship, which I find hard to believe, especially on Meghan's part. And I doubt Harry would have released that statement, exposing Meghan to even more scrutiny, if the relationship wasn't serious. How serious? Who knows. Time will tell.

I don't think their relationship is casual, but I don't see Harry more "in love" with Meghan than he was with Chelsy Davy (his "true love" IMHO) or Cressida. I don't understand why people assume that wiith no facts to back it. I suspect it's just wishful thinking.

PS: Even more so, I don't see Meghan showing "great love" for Harry, but that may be just her discreet nature.

 

[Osipi]

That's really just it. We have absolutely no clue what goes on with this relationship or when they see each other or anything at all. These two people are so far under the radar that they probably need sonar to find them somewhere in the deep blue sea.

 

[Abbigail]

I don't think their relationship is casual, but I don't see Harry more "in love" with Meghan than he was with Chelsy Davy (his "true love" IMHO) or Cressida. I don't understand why people assume that wiith no facts to back it. I suspect it's just wishful thinking.

PS: Even more so, I don't see Meghan showing "great love" for Harry, but that may be just her discreet nature.

I don't see anyone saying he is more in love with Meghan than he was with Chelsy or Cressida? We don't really know any of these people or the details of their love lives but I would say Harry and Chelsy were probably more like first loves. They were young, more carefree, less concerned with media attention. They grew a part, moved on and seem to have matured. It makes sense to me that Harry is now more discreet about his personal life. A lack of pics or details about he and Meghan likely speaks more to that than it does about how either feels about each other.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Do we even know if they are actually "in love", whatever that means ? I mean, we barely see them together and it looks to me more like a long-distance relationship where each of them has his/her own life and they only get together from time to time.

We don't need to see them for them to spend time together. We have no clue how often they actually see each other.

How does anyone know if Meghan shows 'great love' for Harry? Who does she have to show it to, to Harry, or to people viewing this relationship from outside?

 

[Mbruno]

We don't need to see them for them to spend time together. We have no clue how often they actually see each other.

Well, it is a fact that they live most of the time in two different continents separated by an ocean. That by itself imposes a physical constraint on the amount of time they can spend together compared to a situation , let's say, where they both lived in the same city.

Furthermore, Meghan still seems very much focused on her career, while Harry is focused on whatever personal projects he might have. It appears to me that they both prioritize that over their relationship (in terms of the amount of time they are together for example).

 

[Abbigail]

Well, it is a fact that they live most of the time in two different continents separated by an ocean. That by itself imposes a physical constraint on the amount of time they can spend together compared to a situation , let's say, where they both lived in the same city.

Furthermore, Meghan still seems very much focused on her career, while Harry is focused on whatever personal projects he might have. It appears to me that they both prioritize that over their relationship (in terms of the amount of time they are together for example).

Did they tell you this themselves?

We know that they are in a relationship, that each has taken time to visit the other. We also know that they both want a family, because they have talked about it. So to say they both prioritize other things over their relationship is based on...what exactly? The fact that they are still working? Seems odd.