The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #601  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:59 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathia_sophia View Post
Hmm, the thing about Andrew and Harry. I do understand the point. But, even though it is the Royal Family, we are talking about two family nucleus. Why would I be upset with my grandmother if my father cut me off financially when she finances my uncle? Same royal family, but two different family nucleus, which are separated from each other financially. Or am I missing something here?
Exactly, I wish people would stop dragging Andrew's into the Sussex's thread and vice versa. These two are completely different like chalk and cheese. They are disliked for different reasons.

Andrew never publicly vowed to be financially independent and continued to live in Palace/Castle grounds (already secured), whereas Harry & Meghan live in Santa Barbara (which required high security cost) and did include "financial independence" in their public statement.
__________________

  #602  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:03 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
.



Remember Meghan’s great friends, George and Amal Clooney? Have you heard them utter a single word in support of her since the got involved with The Prince’s Trust? It’s been total silence from them since then- because they know which relationship is more important and even more so, more mutually beneficial.

I’m sure her involvement with the Prince’s Trust plays a part in their silence.

I tend to think of George as a fairly intelligent, classy guy anyway - I have trouble believing he would applaud an interview like this.
__________________

  #603  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:03 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
So much of this in and out and who pays for what should have been clearly worked out *before* Harry and Meghan sailed off into the sunset to sunny California via Canada. I wonder if they knew that by being totally out and independent that they'd be totally on their own financially. That's the big question.
I think the question has mostly been answered, though, by the Oprah interview. I think they thought they would get funding and, when it started to become apparent that their funding was going to dry up to large extent, they tried to force the Crown's hand with that website unveiling. Then, they didn't get their way and thus, they signed the Spotify & Netflix deals, bought the Montecito mansion, and decided to air their 'truth' to the world with Oprah. They honestly didn't think they'd be financially cut off. Of course, BP made it clear in their statement that "recollections may vary".

By the way, can we also be clear here that Santa Barbara is NOT Los Angeles? It's not even the same county and it's a good 90 miles from LA, and I imagine the drive is at least 2 hours if not more on most days. It's a little closer than Palm Springs or San Diego but not a hop, skip, jump.
  #604  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:08 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
I’m sure her involvement with the Prince’s Trust plays a part in their silence.

I tend to think of George as a fairly intelligent, classy guy anyway - I have trouble believing he would applaud an interview like this.
Yes, George is a savvy, thoughtful businessman, not to mention legit Hollywood royalty given his family connections. Meghan can only aspire to Clooney level connections and respect.
  #605  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:08 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,959
Let's stay on topic...which is the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Its not about the referendum on the Monarchy, Andrew or anything else.

All off topic posts will be deleted without notice.
__________________
.

  #606  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:12 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Wait, the Queen pays for The Duke of York's security out of her private wealth. But if the PoW did that for the Sussex's it's wrong? Okay... Why didn't she make it conditional that he help the FBI? The Duke of York's controversy is 1000 times worse than the Sussex's.
I think you didn't understand the discussion surrounding Sussexes security. There is nothing wrong with Prince Charles paying for their security out of his own pocket. What people strongly objected to was the Sussexes keeping their taxpayers funded Met Police security - which they were expecting to keep, per the interview with Oprah.

Prince Charles can do whatever he wants with his private money. But he apparently decided that paying millions for Sussexes security is not something he wants to do, and as these are his private money, he can do whatever he wants.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Know what surprised me a lot? When all this cropped up after the Sussex interview, to actually see a staunch British republican being quoted as stating "I'm with Team Queen on this one" (paraphrasing). How the monarchy remains relevant matters in the UK. Its an issue for the kingdom, not the globe.
Yes, I think the reaction from the press, from republican figures as well as british public did not react well to the interview. If we consider YouGov polls, aside from Prince Charles no other royal suffered a big drop in popularity. It says a lot about how the interview is considered in the States as opposed to UK and Europe.
  #607  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:26 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
What would the British public vote to do if suddenly the BRF couldn't raise the cash for charity? Let them sit around Balmoral drinking gin?
It's in the the memories of most of the older members of BRF when the income from the Duchy of Cornwall for the, then, Duke of Cornwall was used at his will and pleasure. It was Charles that defined and wrote the book on how to make the Duchy of Cornwall a profitable entity. For centuries, there were no charity work or royal duties or walkabouts among the people. I believe that the British public actually values the charity work and the service that the monarchy provides for the people.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #608  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:29 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Where did that scenario come from? When Harry stated in the interview that Charles stopped taking his calls (temporarily apparently) he didn’t state that it was due to him asking his father for money. I know that is the conclusion that a tabloid came to but it’s not part of the interview.
That's the conclusion I came to. Harry's rather incoherent ramblings weren't any good for establishing any times and connections. Meghan was more precise.


This is, however, the least important part of what I wrote. Charles has been funding Harry for years and Harry can well afford to support his wife and family, although perhaps he might have to scale down. The comparison in the article was incorrect.
  #609  
Old 03-14-2021, 10:41 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
I think the question has mostly been answered, though, by the Oprah interview. I think they thought they would get funding and, when it started to become apparent that their funding was going to dry up to large extent, they tried to force the Crown's hand with that website unveiling. Then, they didn't get their way and thus, they signed the Spotify & Netflix deals, bought the Montecito mansion, and decided to air their 'truth' to the world with Oprah. They honestly didn't think they'd be financially cut off. Of course, BP made it clear in their statement that "recollections may vary".

By the way, can we also be clear here that Santa Barbara is NOT Los Angeles? It's not even the same county and it's a good 90 miles from LA, and I imagine the drive is at least 2 hours if not more on most days. It's a little closer than Palm Springs or San Diego but not a hop, skip, jump.
Montecito is about the same distance as San Diego...a two hour drive north rather than south.

Maybe you meant San Francisco, which is about a 7 hour drive north from Los Angeles?
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
  #610  
Old 03-14-2021, 11:03 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 538
https://pagesix.com/2021/03/14/markl...014-blog-post/
  #611  
Old 03-14-2021, 11:11 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Montecito is about the same distance as San Diego...a two hour drive north rather than south.

Maybe you meant San Francisco, which is about a 7 hour drive north from Los Angeles?
No, I know the difference between SF and Santa Barbara. I used to live in the Central Valley.

My point is that no one considers San Diego or Palm Springs to be synonymous to LA and Montecito/Santa Barbara is approximately the same distance (mileage it's about 25-30 miles closer than either SD or PS) from LA as either of those cities. SoCal is, as you know, being from LA, huge and very spread out. But saying "LA mansion" when the Sussexes live in Santa Barbara is like me saying "Portland mansion" when someone lives in Eugene. Uhm, no, not even close.
  #612  
Old 03-14-2021, 11:12 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
IMO- it’s one of those things that they’re not outright saying, but you can see coming anyway based on what is and is not happening.

Louise and James do not use the HRH style that they’re entitled to, unlike Beatrice and Eugenie. A decade made a difference in expectations.

Beatrice and Eugenie, despite the HRH, are not working royals. Unlike male line grandchildren of the monarch in other generations, such as the Queen’s cousins.

Things have clearly changed. They’re saying it without saying it IMO.

Times have changed from 1917. It only took one year and the war to end to finish off all the German "equal" families, they lost their political power. From then on, you didn't need princesses anymore to form political alliances. The king of the UK and the Tsar of Russia were first cousins as their mothers were sisters. Did this help the Russians? The German emperor and the king of the Uk were first cousins because they were both grandchildren of Queen Victoria. So what?



Later it seems only the "Of Greece and Denmark"-family managed some noble, international marriages with reigning houses (Sofia, queen of Spain, Philip, Elisabeth's husband, Marina, duchess of Kent, Anne-Marie of Denmark as queen of Greece) while the members of other Royal families started to look elsewhere for husbands and wifes. The whole system ended with some "punishments" for minor members at first, but later on the families accepted their new members.



Like the abdication, but then Elisabeth marrying Prince Philip, Charles marrying Diana (a peer's daughter), William marrying Catherine (a British commoner) and Harry marrying Meghan (a divorced, bi-rascial American).



So why should there be more princesses beyond the monarch's daughters?

Chances that they marry another monarch are next to nothing, so they marry "down" anyway.
  #613  
Old 03-14-2021, 11:30 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
No, I know the difference between SF and Santa Barbara. I used to live in the Central Valley.

My point is that no one considers San Diego or Palm Springs to be synonymous to LA and Montecito/Santa Barbara is approximately the same distance (mileage it's about 25-30 miles closer than either SD or PS) from LA as either of those cities. SoCal is, as you know, being from LA, huge and very spread out. But saying "LA mansion" when the Sussexes live in Santa Barbara is like me saying "Portland mansion" when someone lives in Eugene. Uhm, no, not even close.
My fault. I do know the difference, it's just that I keep forgetting where exactly they live!
  #614  
Old 03-14-2021, 11:38 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,799
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News March 2021 -

Why We Care About the Royal Family Feud
The British monarchy has endured for more than a millennium, and the queen is a symbol of stability.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj...ud-11615507719

I though this opinion column in the Wall Street Journal by Peggy Noonan was quite interesting.

IMO- she nailed how Meghan sees herself: as a moral instructor and ethical leader.

This was an interesting point about the damage done when he painted the family as frightened:

“Harry and Meghan famously leveled two big charges, that the House of Windsor is racist and that it is weak. Previous incarnations of criticism painted it as invincible—the sharp-elbowed courtiers, the coldhearted family, they can crush you like a bug. No, Harry said, they are the bugs, trapped in fear of the tabloids that control whether they’ll keep the throne. “There is a level of control by fear that has existed for generations. I mean generations,” he said. “My father and my brother”—Prince Charles and Prince William —“they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.” That must be a comfort to them.

No immediate-family heir to the British throne has ever talked like this. You are made quite vulnerable when people suddenly see you as weak. What remains of your mystique is lessened when you’re seen as just another group of frightened persons.”
  #615  
Old 03-14-2021, 11:57 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
That doesn't mean The Duke of Sussex was wrong though. Nor does it mean he set out to destroy the family business.
  #616  
Old 03-15-2021, 12:04 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 236
This argument just cross my mind.

If the reason why Archie should get HRH Prince at birth because he'll be HRH Prince anyway when Charles becomes king as a monarch's grandson, but what if (god forbid) Charles predeceases his mother (say, he didn't survive Covid last year)? Archie would never be a monarch's grandson, no?

But in this same hypothetical scenario, if George were born as Georgiana and Charlotte as Charles and last year both Charles and William didn't survive Covid, then without the 2012 LP there'd be Lady Georgiana Moutbatten-Windsor as the heir apparent to the throne and with her brother HRH Prince Charles as the spare.
(Edit: or other scenario if it's Georgiana - Charlotte - Louis then it'd be Lady Georgiana as heir apparent, Lady Charlotte as the spare, and HRH Prince Louis as the spare of the spare, hence why 2012 LP is necessary).

And if Archie gets the title mainly because he's bi-racial, in my interpretation of racism, by doing it I say the BRF is racist.
  #617  
Old 03-15-2021, 12:10 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
This argument just cross my mind.

If the reason why Archie should get HRH Prince at birth because he'll be HRH Prince anyway when Charles becomes king as a monarch's grandson, but what if (god forbid) Charles predeceases his mother (say, he didn't survive Covid last year)? Archie would never be a monarch's grandson, no?

But in this same hypothetical scenario, if George were born as Georgiana and Charlotte as Charles and last year both Charles and William didn't survive Covid, then without the 2012 LP there'd be Lady Georgiana Moutbatten-Windsor as the heir apparent to the throne and with her brother HRH Prince Charles as the spare.

And if Archie gets the title mainly because he's bi-racial, in my interpretation of racism, by doing it I say the BRF is racist.
Very sensible and logic reasoning here. And one thing that's never been mentioned that is a real kick in the back of the front. Racism doesn't just work one way, it can and does work *both* ways between groups of people.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #618  
Old 03-15-2021, 12:14 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
That doesn't mean The Duke of Sussex was wrong though. Nor does it mean he set out to destroy the family business.


It’s one more reason why he shouldn’t have done the interview. One of many. Some things could and should have been left unsaid.

I’m not sure about Harry’s intentions with this interview. I can give him more benefit of the doubt than Meghan though. They were both angry, venting, lashing out, looking for sympathy IMO. I’m willing to believe Harry at least may not have fully thought through the consequences of what he was saying.
  #619  
Old 03-15-2021, 12:17 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
If the reason why Archie should get HRH Prince at birth because he'll be HRH Prince anyway when Charles becomes king as a monarch's grandson, but what if (god forbid) Charles predeceases his mother (say, he didn't survive Covid last year)? Archie would never be a monarch's grandson, no?

But in this same hypothetical scenario, if George were born as Georgiana and Charlotte as Charles and last year both Charles and William didn't survive Covid, then without the 2012 LP there'd be Lady Georgiana Moutbatten-Windsor as the heir apparent to the throne and with her brother HRH Prince Charles as the spare.

And if Archie gets the title mainly because he's bi-racial, in my interpretation of racism, by doing it I say the BRF is racist.
Interesting! But if Archie went directly from being the great-grandson of the monarch to the nephew of the monarch, then I guess he would never at any point have been close enough to have an HRH. Whereas even if William and Charles had both predeceased the Queen, William's younger children would still be the siblings of the monarch.
  #620  
Old 03-15-2021, 12:22 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,166
Meghan zigzags throughout the discussion with Oprah about Archie's title. For those who can access it, here is a link to the interview - the discussion about Archie's title starts at the 27 minute mark.

The discussion starts off with Meghan stating that it is important that Archie have a title because if he does not have a title he will not get security. So at this juncture the implication is that Archie needs to be a prince from birth in order to get security. Then Oprah asks how was it explained to her that the great-grandson of The Queen will not be a prince. Interestingly, Meghan's response is more about what is going to happen when Charles ascends and Archie is the grandson of a monarch as opposed to what is going to happen at Archie's birth when he is the great grandson of a monarch. So even though Meghan uses the word safety throughout the discussion, she is now taking issue with some future event. So now the issue is that Archie will not become a prince when Charles ascends because the convention is going to be changed resulting in one set of grandchildren, the Cambridges, having Prince and Princess titles and another set, the Sussexes, not having Prince and Princess titles. Then Oprah asks about there not being a photocall on the hospital steps and then we're back to present day and Meghan states that the hospital steps photocall is a tradition for Princes and Princesses, and since Archie is not a prince, then that tradition does not apply to him and furthermore why offer him up when there is no intention to keep him safe.

My reaction:
* There are HRH / Princes and Princesses who do not have security, so I am not seeing how Meghan is under the impression that being a Prince or Princess means you get security.

* To me it seems like it would have been a more productive discussion for Harry and Meghan to advocate for their children to get security regardless of whether they have titles, assuming that there is some level of threat. The tour of South Africa was at the request of the Foreign Office, security for Archie should have been part of the discussions before a final agreement was made.

* Meghan takes issue with being told that the George V LP that stipulates that male line grandchildren are HRH / Princes and Princesses is going to be replaced with a Charles III LP that will limit the HRH / Princes and Princesses and her children will not become HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess X. She is incredulous as to how that can happen, but if George V can do it for whatever reasons he had in 1917, then Charles III can do it for whatever reasons he will have in 202X. And that is another thing, Meghan wants the viewers to believe that the idea of revising the LP came about because of Archie's impending arrival when the writing was on the wall (to me) that this is how things were going to be when the Wessex children were not given the HRH / Prince and Princess title and styling.

* To me there may be some legitimate concerns about security, but I find it hard to believe that if Harry and Meghan were UK based working royals, and there was a credible threat against their children that security would be provided, whether it be taxpayer funded security or privately funded security.

* To me linking their children's safety to them having titles does not hold water. I think that Harry and Meghan wanted their children to have the HRH / Prince and Princess title and styling from birth like the Cambridge children and are unhappy that Archie was not given a prince title at birth. Their grievance was further compounded by Meghan being informed (I think Harry already knew) that their children will not get the HRH / Prince and Princess title and styling when their grandfather ascends due to it being Charles' intent to issue new letters patent.

* Note: since I doubt that Charles plans to issue the new LP within seconds of his ascension, there will be a window of time where the Sussex children will technically be HRH / Prince and Princess but I suspect that TPTB hope that the Sussex children continue to use their birth names until the new LP makes it official that they are not HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess X.
__________________

Closed Thread


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
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021 JessRulz Current Events Archive 874 03-07-2021 08:05 PM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor background story biography britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles canada china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon daisy dna doge of venice doll dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii emperor family life family tree fashion and style george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove italian royal family jack brooksbank jewellery king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince constantijn prince dimitri prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess dita queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima royal ancestry royal court royal jewels serbian royal family solomon j solomon speech suthida taiwan thailand uae customs united states of america wales wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:21 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×