The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 04-03-2019, 01:03 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
How about we just look at it this way and then let it go and get back on topic.

The Duke and Duchess are junior royals as far as the line of succession to the crown is concerned but they are considered senior full time working members of the family "Firm". Separate the work they do from the rank they hold within the family.

I don't think the line of succession is the basis of being a "senior" Royal. It's the closeness to the monarch. Just imagine for a moment that Charles, Andrew and Edward each had ten children, all married and with 10 kids of their own. That would put The Princess Royal at place 303 of the succession. Would that make her a minor Royal? I think not, she is still the daughter of the queen. And thus a senior Royal. Oh, she would never be a Councillor of State, but that isn't needed IMHO to be a "senior" Royal, but she is one of those who can go unannounced to her mother and talk to her.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 04-03-2019, 04:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvingdoors View Post
That is literally impossible. The royal family - any royal family- is build and retain its order because of difference in rank. There is a very specific order- hence the curtesing and bowing and so forth.
Junior is another way to say Minor.

Like it or not, Harry may be a full time working royal (as many other minor royals are at the moment) and he may be a consular of state- only due to him currently being the only royal born adult between him and William (and as mentioned once the queen pass away the next adult born royal who can potentially become a consular will be Beatrice - who we can all agree is a minor royal; I actually think it will be either Camilla or Catherine being consort).
While Harry is the son of a future king, he is no longer really a part of the main line, this has been made clear a few weeks ago when it was announced his office will be answering to the same Buckingham office that handles all the other minor royals. If that is not a capital letter neon sign of “look out minor royal” I don’t know what is.
A queen consort is like “the Mrs.” or “The First Lady”. If anything happens to The King, the queen consort doesn’t take over; a consort is not even in the line of succession. Just like if anything happens to a President, a First Lady doesn’t take over.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 04-03-2019, 04:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,467
I so love the fact that H&M now have their own possibility to tell their stories and to reach out to the people interested in their work and life (as much as they want to share). They are now the masters of their story, no longer the lying and nasty tabloids. I'm so happy so many people follow them now.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 04-03-2019, 06:40 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
A queen consort is like “the Mrs.” or “The First Lady”. If anything happens to The King, the queen consort doesn’t take over; a consort is not even in the line of succession. Just like if anything happens to a President, a First Lady doesn’t take over.
I think you might want to reread my post and than take a second to read it again. Because we’re talking about becoming a “consular of state”, which a consort can become (ie prince Philip, is a fine example).
How you got from that to taking over [the throne] (which I presume is where you line of thinking is at) I can not say.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:07 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 597
HarperBazaar.com is reporting that Harry and Meghan have been included in the Royal Family twitter - since they do not yet have their own twitter handle.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebr...itter-account/
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:16 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
HarperBazaar.com is reporting that Harry and Meghan have been included in the Royal Family twitter - since they do not yet have their own twitter handle.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebr...itter-account/
That’s great. I know people speculated whether there would be a SussexRoyal twitter account, and now we know.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:23 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 11,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvingdoors View Post
Looks like Kensington Palace account gained 200k followers since the announcement of the split. (I know a couple myself, people who followed before but unfollowed because they kept getting harassed Meghan and Harry fans for daring to be critical of Meghan).

https://instastatistics.com/#!/kensingtonroyal


I want to say i’m shocked about them having their own account, but at the same time i’m not. Like I’m not surprised that one of their pictures is that of them with their backs to the photo (do they not get it that this kind of picture is so very disrespectful?).

IMO a separate account is a foolish idea and move on their and the family part (as it is for the duke of york), they should have gone under the Royal Family account like all the other minor royals.
How is it disrespectful???? They were not posing for a photo like that. The photo was taken from behind as they were on a balcony. Its a beautiful and artistic photo. Perhaps they thought to showcase the talent of a photographer, instead of the usual boring poses we see with some royals. You will find plenty of photos of royals from behind. No shock or disrespect.

I know you would love to shove them into the 'minor royal' category and shove them into some corner never to be seen again, but not reality

This is no different then KP's social media page which now just belongs to William and Kate. Would it better if it was called Frogmore Cottage and not by their names

The one job of any royal, whether heir or not, is to promote their charities. This is the 21st century. The quickest and best way to get word out is through social media. People don't read the old newspapers, rarely on media. Young people get their news from social media. It is INTELLIGENT move of royals to get that and to embrace that.

No one is going to look to Buckingham palace twitter for news on Harry. And what purpose would that serve their causes? None. This isn't about promoting the future king (and only the future king should get attention). Its about the work they are doing.

Leave the UK behind and look at other royal families. Many royals have their own social media. They use it as a way to reach out. Even the overly traditional Bhutanese do. Even your Horrifying to imagine, junior royals have the audacity to have instagrams to promote their work. Shocking I know.


Harry will never be a 'minor royal'. He will be the second of only 2 sons of the future king Charles. It will 25-30 years before George and his siblings take on full time royal duties and Harry and Meghan slide further out of the spotlight. Other then dating stories and weddings, there wont be much stories for the Cambridge trio for many years to come. It will be those like Anne, Edward and Andrew who when their mother is gone, will slowly begin to fade like the Kents and Gloucesters already have.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:40 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lewisville, United States
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria View Post
Again, amazing to see the followers they are getting. IMO, they in-fact did need their own social media account. The royal family social media account alone is having a hard time regulating their pages with hateful comments from stans and fans from both Cambridge and Sussex supporters, although I will say some of the most ardent ones are in the minority as the majority of people actually do support both couples.

Also, compared to other members, Harry and Meghan have a bigger profile dealing with the Commonwealth, and this is not a knock on other members. This is not a competition. It's divide and conquer in the ultimate way in highlighting all of the causes that they want people to support (in a good way, not the Ghengis Khan way).
They are focused on the Commonwealth, and I would guess SM with Meghan will be popular in the US and Canada, since she has so many ties with those two countries.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 04-03-2019, 10:13 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuchessMia View Post
That’s great. I know people speculated whether there would be a SussexRoyal twitter account, and now we know.

SussexRoyal has been 'bought' (or whatever they do) from the guy who 'owned' it and it's now sitting idle on Twitter. The person who 'owned' it has created a new one called 'sussexroyal2' This came out today.

Speculation is they (Sussexes) will be using it before too long.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 04-03-2019, 10:25 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,769
It hasn’t been purchased. He is actively tweeting from it. It was deactivated temporarily which caused some to speculate but it was short lived. BP states the Sussexes have no plans for a Twitter.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 04-03-2019, 10:36 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curbside View Post
They are focused on the Commonwealth, and I would guess SM with Meghan will be popular in the US and Canada, since she has so many ties with those two countries.
This is the reason why I believe they have a separate IG account, and will follow with a Twitter handle, when the time is right. It's because the Sussexes can market themselves to North America and Canada. Yes - market THEIR brand. Because if people believe that the main branches in the BRF are not a brand within themselves and don't have a marketing strategy, you're solely mistaken.

Granted, the BRF are behind the times, unlike the Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch Royal Families, but they have made such leaps and bounds in this regard. Finally they have realised how to capitalise in two markets they barely scratched.

The US had the late Princess Grace, and was certainly in love with the late Diana, Princess of Wales, but she was the English Rose. The Cambridges are definitely popular, but again, they are both English. The US now have a current "American Rose" as a Princess.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 04-03-2019, 11:36 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
It hasn’t been purchased. He is actively tweeting from it. It was deactivated temporarily which caused some to speculate but it was short lived. BP states the Sussexes have no plans for a Twitter.
I am glad they have no plans to use Twitter. Tweeting as a form of communication leaves a lot to be desired, in that it lacks clarity, warmth and accuracy, not to mention trolls.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 04-04-2019, 02:12 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 11,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I am glad they have no plans to use Twitter. Tweeting as a form of communication leaves a lot to be desired, in that it lacks clarity, warmth and accuracy, not to mention trolls.
They already use twitter. Kensington Palace, Clarence House and Buckingham palace all have their own twitter accounts. Any social media comes with trolls, even Instagram, that's a reality. Anyone who thinks they can move in the modern world, at least those in the limelight, without trolls is kidding themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 04-04-2019, 04:38 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 293
My response in italics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
How is it disrespectful???? They were not posing for a photo like that. The photo was taken from behind as they were on a balcony. Its a beautiful and artistic photo. Perhaps they thought to showcase the talent of a photographer, instead of the usual boring poses we see with some royals. You will find plenty of photos of royals from behind. No shock or disrespect.

you obviously never worked in hospitality: number one rule- never stand with your back to the guest or the lobby. Showing ones back is equal to saying: “you and your opinion don’t matter so we’re ignoring you” which is a dreadful and disrespectful message to send when your entire job and is to literally be a representative of the country (and this its people) you live in. Think about it this way: why is it frowned upon (and in some circles unheard of doing) to turn your back when walking away from the queen? Because it’s considered disrespectful.

The picture may be artistic and would fit well on the wall on an art museum, but it does not fit as an official picture for a state representative - for the exact same reasons the Christmas picture was a bad choice.


I know you would love to shove them into the 'minor royal' category and shove them into some corner never to be seen again, but not reality

They are not being “shoved” anywhere they are not already part of. They are minor royals (I have already stated why). I know it sucks for some to internalize it- welcome to the real world: royalty style.
I don’t mind them having public roles, And as long as they do have public roles people have every right to criticize them!!


This is no different then KP's social media page which now just belongs to William and Kate. Would it better if it was called Frogmore Cottage and not by their names

What a silly thing to even bring up. The Kensington palace account retained its name because the Cambridge’s title will eventually change to Wales and eventually king and queen. While Harry (and Meghan should the marriage last) will forever remain Sussex


The one job of any royal, whether heir or not, is to promote their charities. This is the 21st century. The quickest and best way to get word out is through social media. People don't read the old newspapers, rarely on media. Young people get their news from social media. It is INTELLIGENT move of royals to get that and to embrace that.

i have never stated that i mind the royals having social media accounts. What I clearly have said is that it is more fitting for a minor royals (Harry and Meghan included) to be under a single main account - that is the “royal family” account. While the actual heirs get their own accounts same as they have their own courts!: good morning and welcome to the world of how royal families work!

No one is going to look to Buckingham palace twitter for news on Harry. And what purpose would that serve their causes? None. This isn't about promoting the future king (and only the future king should get attention). Its about the work they are doing.

Again welcome to his royalty works.
Harry and Meghan can most certainly promote their charities through the main royal family social media account. Same as Anne and Edward have done.


Leave the UK behind and look at other royal families. Many royals have their own social media. They use it as a way to reach out. Even the overly traditional Bhutanese do. Even your Horrifying to imagine, junior royals have the audacity to have instagrams to promote their work. Shocking I know.

yes let’s talk about the continental monarchies of Europe- Where minor royals (that is younger siblings of the heir) are not considered senior royals and do not take on public duties except for large events. This is where the British royalty differ from its Europeans cousins.
And again: no one is against the royal family having social media accounts. Unlike some I prefer to look at the whole picture (past, present and future) and not just a single piece.


Harry will never be a 'minor royal'. He will be the second of only 2 sons of the future king Charles. It will 25-30 years before George and his siblings take on full time royal duties and Harry and Meghan slide further out of the spotlight. Other then dating stories and weddings, there wont be much stories for the Cambridge trio for many years to come. It will be those like Anne, Edward and Andrew who when their mother is gone, will slowly begin to fade like the Kents and Gloucesters already have.
Doesn’t matter that he is one of only two siblings (so was the queen). You can shout it off the roof tops, but it does not change the fact that doing public duties does not make one a senior royal (other wise we’d have a lot of Windsor cousins referred to as senior royals), nor does being consular of state. A senior royal is someone who is in the direct line. Harry, from the second George was born- let alone Charlotte!, stopped being part of the direct line (as will one day be the case for Charlotte and Louis, and any other future siblings should there be any), he is now 100% a cadet branch - cadet is a nice way to say minor - same as the queen three children, same as Margaret when Charles was born. In fact the only younger royal sibling in the last century to not fall down to minor royal status is the queen father, and that is because his older brother did not have children of his own to inherit the crown when he abdicated

Anne, Andrew and Edward have become minor royals from the second William was born and Charles direct line was secured (that is why Edward and Sophie, who smartly understood this, did not let their children take on HRH titles, same for Anne who understood gang even before the boys were born). Therefore, if we look at the amount of work the queen children do, being a minor royal does not equal luck or having public interest; simply see the queen other grandkids and her three younger children in the last 20 years- The above trio continued to receive public interest in the 90’s because William and Harry were too young to generate media interest. They are the hardest working royals (assist form the queen and Charles) yet they are minor royals. The amount of engagements Harry does may increase when the older generation retires, but it will not change his position as a minor royal.
Seriously, this is such a basic matter of how royalty has always worked: Senior- anyone in the direct line to become monarch, Minor- anyone no longer in the direct line to become the monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 04-04-2019, 06:34 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,595
I've got a question on the matter. Where does "Team Windsor" fit in if everybody is worried about being major or minor or sharp or flat and needing to be conscious of rank and file and precedence when it comes to the "Firm"?

I prefer to see it all as a family effort when it comes to the "Firm" with it being one for all and all for one. The monarchy itself.

BTW: The Instagram account is fast approaching 3.5 million people. That is simply amazing!
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 04-04-2019, 07:39 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvingdoors View Post
The amount of engagements Harry does may increase when the older generation retires, but it will not change his position as a minor royal.
Seriously, this is such a basic matter of how royalty has always worked: Senior- anyone in the direct line to become monarch, Minor- anyone no longer in the direct line to become the monarch.

Honestly, reading what and how you write, one would think there are clear rules written in iron about who is or isn't a "Senior" Royal. Well, there isn't anything written in official documents about that and when we look back to past decidions by former kings or Queen Victoria, than these consered all members of their family to be senior compared to all other people in Britain.

So the question is: how does the queen considers Harry to be - senior or minor? About that, nothing is known officially. But the way she created Harry a Royal duke on marrying and gave him some honorable positions like with the marines or her Commonwealth Trust shows me that for her Harry is a very important prince of the UK. And honestly I cannot see that she deems (and it's her will that creates seniority at court!) her own children as "minor" Royals or that she thinks herself, her eldest son and the eldest son of the Prince of Wales plus a little boy named Prince George of Cambridge are the only "senior" Royals - that's so unrealistic when we think back at how her own father insisted that a mere niece of his wife was high-ranked enough to become a Royal princess of Denmark ( Princess George Valdemar of Denmark, born Hon. Anne Bowes-Lyon) when the Danes had doubts about it or when we think about a mere Mountbatten-lady (Louise) was deemed "Royal" enough to become queen of Sweden, when she was only the grand-daughter and niece of daughters of Queen Victoria. Or the other Mountbatten who only was the granddaughter in female line of Queen Victoria, but noble enough to become Queen of Spain.



Yes, all those ladies were "minor" compared to king George VI. and queen Elizabeth II. but obviously "Senior Royal" material in the eyes of the world.


So why should someone who has seen these lifes within her family deem her own children "minor"? Especially someone who is so fixed on the Blood Royal that she changed the order of precedence at Court from the normal order in society, so that Blood-princesses rank higher than the wifes of Blood princes when their husbands are not with them?



As nothing is written down officially, who are we to claim that the second son of the next king is only a "minor" Royal while a young boy who just started school in earnest is a "senior" One? It is Royal tradition that only the heir gets his own court and all the others are part of the "Court of St. James". As the current queen is so old that William as the heir of the heir needs his own court - at Kensington Palace, it still is the way it is done that Harry as a working Royal gets his offices as part of "The Court of St. James" (at Buckingham Palace), but that doesn't mean he is a "minor" Royal because that would mean not to get his own offices at all!
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 04-04-2019, 10:28 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 293
If this is true, and this was done without contacting this man first, they ought to apology to him. Honestly poaching another person username is just disrespectful and of poor behavior on the part of Harry, Meghan the staff member who handled the account creation for them and Instagram.

The least they should have done was contact him and buy it from him, or they could have been the ones to use an underline or something for their username.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-47...alflow_twitter
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 04-04-2019, 10:44 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
That's going a bit far. They likely worked with IG to come up with a username that's available. And if it's in the policies he agreed to, it sucks, but it is what it is. I'm sure they would've came up with something else if this wasn't a viable option. Sussexroyal is still his on Twitter.

I'm usually against buying and selling of social media handles. It encourages bad behavior.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 04-04-2019, 11:01 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
SussexRoyal has been 'bought' (or whatever they do) from the guy who 'owned' it and it's now sitting idle on Twitter. The person who 'owned' it has created a new one called 'sussexroyal2' This came out today.

Speculation is they (Sussexes) will be using it before too long.


LaRae
The sussexroyal2 was created in 2014 - it shows clearly on the bio page. It was probably created by the same person who owns sussexroyal.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 04-04-2019, 11:14 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
That's going a bit far. They likely worked with IG to come up with a username that's available. And if it's in the policies he agreed to, it sucks, but it is what it is. I'm sure they would've came up with something else if this wasn't a viable option. Sussexroyal is still his on Twitter.

I'm usually against buying and selling of social media handles. It encourages bad behavior.
So what you’re saying is.. if you’re famous enough you can abandon basic decency to other people?
The username was already in use (sparingly or everyday, makes no difference- it was taken!)
common courtesy and decent human behavior says you at least contact the person before poaching. Obviously Harry Meghan, their social media person knew the username was taken.. they could have contacted the man and at least asked him if he’ll be willing to give it up. If not...

Well, this is from Instagram help center- seems pretty straight forward to me.
So mr. Jo and me. Jane are asked to play around with their username, so can Harry and Meghan.

“What can I do if an Instagram username is already claimed but seems inactive?

If a username you want is being used by an account that seems inactive, you can choose an available version of the username. You can add periods, numbers, underscores or abbreviations to help you come up with a username that's not already in use.“
https://help.instagram.com/513717858639392
__________________

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Royal Groups created by fans on the Social Networking websites Shikha Pal General Royal Discussion Archive 4 10-10-2008 06:19 AM




Popular Tags
administrator alqasimi althorp archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy belgian royal family castles chittagong clarence house crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria crusades current events cypher danish history denmark diana princess of wales duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch dutch royal family family search foundation french royalty future future wife of prince hussein germany hamdan bin mohammed henry v hill historical drama house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of saxe-coburg and gotha jerusalem jumma king philippe king salman languages lithuanian castles mail memoir mohammed vi monaco history monaco royal monarchist monarchy nobel 2019 norway official visit palaces prince charles prince of wales princess benedikte qe2 queen mathilde russian imperial family saudi arabia settings spanish history spencer family state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tracts trump united kingdom valois


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:31 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×