The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I'm not sure that the family dynamics would have to be "friendly" for the christening. I can't imagine the Queen refusing to handle the new baby's christening any differently than the other great-grandchildren. The family would not take out their differences with Harry and Meghan on the children.

While I quite agree with The Queen's ability to treat this as any other baptism, and hope any family disputes would be set aside should the couple wish to baptize their daughter as a family celebration in the UK, it was very much remarked on at Archie's baptism that the family could not even manage a picture where William's extreme discomfort was not etched on his face, and Catherine looked ready to launch herself out the door.

While those who commented on this at the time were criticized for "reading too much into it," of course it was later confirmed that tensions were indeed running very high, and I can only imagine that is nothing to how they are running now.

[carlota]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Harry’s role at BetterUp.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/439...health-company


Harry is also working with Oprah on the Apple documentary series on mental health. Glad to see that Harry (and Meghan) are moving on, exploring other fields that interest them.

i find it interesting that harry in the interview said he didn't know how to support his wife through suicidal thoughts (despite his many high level connections) but he's now got no problems accepting a role as chief impact officer of a mental health non profit.

these 2 make no sense.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Erin9

IA- this is a serious issue.

Not sure I’m thrilled that Harry is involved in American disinformation. Really? He’s been here maybe a year....

Also....he just gave an interview full of misinformation....Pretty irresponsible of him. Especially if he’s joining a study on disinformation and misinformation. He and his wife contributed to the problem.

A "Commission on Information Disorder". Sounds positively Orwellian. I can see how that would appeal to a certain political demographic.

Do Americans really want a foreigner looking at their society? Especially one whose CV is embarrassingly sparse compared to eminent figures like a former director of US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

It wouldn't happen here thank goodness. Far too controversial.

The spectacle of Mr & Mrs Windsor disseminating their own misinformation is of course ironic.

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by Moran

BTW, my knowledge of the way CoE functions is rather deficient, but would the Archbishop of Canterbury really be sitting around waiting for a call, in case a royal bride took a fancy to a sudden backyard wedding? Isn't he a busy man with a schedule? I mean, unless there is an emergency, you can't just summon the Queen because you really want to. Is it possible to do with the AoC?

I find that a bit weird too. He's not a pizza delivery service - you can't just ring up and ask him to come round! But maybe you can if you're the Queen's grandson - he might have had the impression that they were worried about arrangements for the real wedding ceremony or something?

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by Moran

But that wasn't what Meghan said. She said she called him with the explicit demand of marrying them right away and he came running. She told him by the phone that she wanted a wedding, it wasn't the spending time with them he might have expected. I find it hard to believe that he'd have so much free time on his hands for them - first for emergencies and then to go over the place to explain in person, as if she were stupid, that it couldn't be done.
Perhaps she made use of a time slot loosely reserved for them. They might have been told that they should feel free to contact Justin Welby for questions... which, on the TV, was turned into "He was in for the ride with our spontaneous idea!"

I am sure that this was an planned event after the planned rehearsal for the wedding ceremony. Something this huge would have to be rehearsed in the actual space. My bet is they had some sort of typical social event following and that she embroidered the space “back yard” ( to put it mildly). The Archbishop is not going to discuss or comment on a private and confidential conversation with parishioners. She threw our Bishop Curry (Episcopal bishop who preached at their wedding) under the bus as well. The CofE service and the Episcopal (US) service is almost identical but I certainly don’t see them going to some church in California for a baptism!

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Charles will never do that. For one, Archie is his grandson! And how could he issue new LP when one thing he doesn't want to do is issue LP about Camilla not being his queen but just his "princesss consort" (and then Catherine after her?). Charles is not Oliver Cromwell who had Charles I., the brother of Charles' ancestress Elizabeth Stuart of Bohemia, executed during the Glorious Revolution. He would never do something to downplay the Royal rank of his family. He will leave things like that to parliament and I doubt parliament will take the time to deprive Camilla and Archie of their long-established rights to their titles.

We are not talking here about punishing Harry and Meghan, we are talking about changing the inheritance laws of the British Royal family and IMHO Charles will never do something to lower the status of his close family. You don't know if such a diminishment will lead to an erosion and where this will end?

As for "never going to be invited" - do you have an idea what Roxals actually did to each other within the family and got away with that? They might not longer trust Harry and Meghan but in public they will be granted their historically earned places at state ceremonies. And believe me, Harry will swear allegiance as the king's son when Charles is crowned. Struggle for money etc. is all forgotten once it comes to the most sacred part of monarchy! I am so sure we will see Meghan, HRH the Duchess of Sussex on Charles' coronation in church in London.

Whether you believe he will or not does not negate the fact that it certainly is his right to do so by issuing new LPs and that was my point. Meghan stated clearly “it’s not their right to take it away” but actually, it is. Whether he does or not is an entirely different matter but it’s certainly his right to do so if he chooses.

We can differ in belief about whether or not we’ll see them with the family again, that’s fine. I simply don’t believe we will both for the comfort of the entire family and because I don’t really think they’ll set foot in the UK again other than maybe for visa related issues on Harry’s part.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Fem

Of course she desperately clings to the titles - this is their brand now, this is how they're not the same as your run-of-the-mill celebrity in LA, they are royal. This is how they earn money, this is how they get plush jobs which won't require them doing anything, this is the foundation on which they're building their brand.

It's very interesting & surprising how a title seems to be so useful in the US. I'd always presumed the US was immune from that sort of thing when it came to serious issues like work.

Originally Posted by Alison H

I find that a bit weird too. He's not a pizza delivery service - you can't just ring up and ask him to come round! But maybe you can if you're the Queen's grandson - he might have had the impression that they were worried about arrangements for the real wedding ceremony or something?

Anything either say is best taken with a (large) pinch of salt.

Unless His Grace actually confirms this happened I think it stretches credulity to imagine that the AofC just popped round to perform some sort of ceremony.

The whole tale just comes across as entitled. As though the Primate of All England is some sort of plaything to be summoned like a minion.

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by carlota

i find it interesting that harry in the interview said he didn't know how to support his wife through suicidal thoughts (despite his many high level connections) but he's now got no problems accepting a role as chief impact officer of a mental health non profit.

these 2 make no sense.

Actually BetterUp is a for profit business, although it seems to be working hard to disguise this fact in all the recent publicity.

BetterUp develops high-performing cultures that fuel business growth by improving leadership behaviors and increasing employee performance.

Basically getting corporations to pay for an app to improve employee performance with some sort of mini CBT techniques.

I also find it interesting that Harry's titles are used A LOT on his employee page:

https://www.betterup.com/en-us/resou...impact-officer

Whereas Princess Beatrice is simply referred to as "Beatrice York" on Afiniti's website:

https://afiniti.com/team/beatrice-york

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Heavs

I also find it interesting that Harry's titles are used A LOT on his employee page:

https://www.betterup.com/en-us/resou...impact-officer

Whereas Princess Beatrice is simply referred to as "Beatrice York" on Afiniti's website:

https://afiniti.com/team/beatrice-york

He's really milking his titles for commercial gain isn't he.

"Call me Harry" never lets you forget who he really is does he?

[ACO]

I think what people took issue with was the idea that Charles (or whoever) would want to change the LP for the grandchild(ren) of mixed racial background. They have every right to do whatever they want but you have to admit if that had occurred many would have questioned why...

I guess if could still happen and they can still explain why they don't want Archie and his sister to be a prince and princess once Charles becomes King.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by ACO

I think what people took issue with was the idea that Charles (or whoever) would want to change the LP for the grandchild(ren) of mixed racial background. They have every right to do whatever they want but you have to admit if that had occurred many would have questioned why...

Not in Britain they wouldn't. It's seems an obvious next step in the modernisation of the monarchy really, to cut down the number of HRH's etc.

What was not acceptable was to try & link this question to the issue of race. It was not fair for M&H to do this & it was not ethical of Oprah Winfrey to let them do it.

All of that could have been explained very clearly in the interview. Instead the issue of race was weaponised. It has done real damage to the reputation of the BRF.

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by ACO

I think what people took issue with was the idea that Charles (or whoever) would want to change the LP for the grandchild(ren) of mixed racial background. They have every right to do whatever they want but you have to admit if that had occurred many would have questioned why...

I guess if could still happen and they can still explain why they don't want Archie and his sister to be a prince and princess once Charles becomes King.

I don’t disagree at all. I’m sure that is what some people take issue with. And honestly, I think it’s a no win situation. On the one hand, changing the LPs may simply have been a part of the plan all along no matter who Harry married, what her race was, or how many children they had. On the other, I can certainly see why the race card would be the first thing many people jump to if it were to happen that the LPs were changed. Archie and his sister are just as special as any other child but they’re no more special just simply because they happen to be biracial and arguing that the LPs absolutely shouldn’t be changed for any reason, even if it’s in line with plans for a slimmed down monarchy or in accordance with what almost all European monarchies are doing currently, only and totally because they happen to be biracial isn’t right, either. These two children should never be discriminated against because they’re biracial but by the same token special measures shouldn’t be taken for them that wouldn’t ordinarily be simply because they’re biracial. If the LPs were always going to be changed then they still should be. If they weren’t, then they shouldn’t. But I do think either way is a no win situation, particularly with Meghan fueling the fire.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Durham

Not in Britain they wouldn't. It's seems an obvious next step in the modernisation of the monarchy really, to cut down the number HRH'S etc.

What was not acceptable was to try & link this question to the issue of race. It was not fair for M&H to do this & it was not ethical of Oprah Winfrey to let them do it.

All of that could have been explained very clearly in the interview. Instead the issue of race was weaponised. It has done real damage to the reputation of the BRF.

You sure? I think many would question why it would start with Archie. There is a reason why many reacted the way they did. Right or wrong, it is a valid question.

Not saying I even agree but I can definitely see the other side.

Anyways it will be interesting how they proceed with Archie and his sister in the future. I feel something needs to be cleared up one way or another.

[Durham]

The palace should have pushed back hard here & made it abundantly clear that any changes to future LP'S would be made by the sovereign in the best interests of the monarchy.

This issue is just going to fester.

Originally Posted by ACO

You sure? I think many would question why it would start with Archie. There is a reason why many reacted the way they did. Right or wrong, it is a valid question.

Not saying I even agree but I can definitely see the other side.

Anyways it will be interesting how they proceed with Archie and his sister in the future. I feel something needs to be cleared up one way or another.

It is a valid question I agree & it needs to be met head on. With a statement forcefully refuting any suggestion of racism.

If people then continue to believe the poison that came from H&M then that's up to them. But I believe the palace has made a serious miscalculation by not responding directly to this accusation.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

We are not talking here about punishing Harry and Meghan, we are talking about changing the inheritance laws of the British Royal family and IMHO Charles will never do something to lower the status of his close family. You don't know if such a diminishment will lead to an erosion and where this will end?

By "inheritance laws", do you mean the rules on the use of royal titles and styles? If so, several monarchs in Europe have been doing it for quite some time:

1. King Harald V decided that Sverre Magnus would not be an HRH (only a plain Prince) and that Princess Märtha-Louise's children would be untitled.
2. Queen Beatrix decided that Prince Constantijn's and Prince Friso's children would only be counts/countesses and not, for example, HH Prince/Princess [xxx] of Orange-Nassau (as, I believe, was still possible under the Law on Membership of the Royal Family).
3. King Juan Carlos decreed that children of Infantes/Infantas would have the consideration only of Grandees of Spain with the style of Excellency and that only the children of the Prince of Asturias would be HRH Infante/Infanta (previously, children of Infantes were Infantes too).
4. King Carl Gustaf stripped CP's and Madeleine's children of the HRH (previously all persons in the line of succession to the Swedish throne were HRHs).

So they have all "downgraded" the status of members of their families compared to previous practice. How would Charles be different if he did the same? Not all members of a monarch's family have to be royal. The cut has to be made somewhere and, nowadays, a grandson in collateral line is normally pretty far from the throne and not expected to become a state-funded working royal.

I don't know if Charles will make any changes and, as I said, I doubt he would discuss any change plans with the Family while the Queen is still alive (since royal titles still fall under her prerogative exclusively). Nevertheless, if he made any changes as King, e.g. to his grandchildren's titles, I doubt it would be seen as something scandalous or interpreted as any form of "downgrading" of the family's status.

Originally Posted by Durham

It's very interesting & surprising how a title seems to be so useful in the US. I'd always presumed the US was immune from that sort of thing when it came to serious issues like work.

Yes, old school textbooks, when discussing inbound immigration in the 19th and early 20th century, used to brag about how America was a land of opportunity where family name did not matter for upward social mobility (based instead on hard work and merit). That supposedly contrasted with the rigid social class in Europe with its landed aristocracy and titles.



Of course, those claims were always questionable, especially that "family name" or "family fortune" (I am not talking about "titles") didn't matter in America, but it is still part of the idea of the American dream, even for recent immigrants today.

[Somebody]

Interesting how Harry is joining two initiatives that are both areas in which he might be interested but has A LOT to learn about: Mental Health (an issue for both of them that they admitted they unfortunately feel ashamed of and have no clue how to deal with) and Disinformation (which he happily had his wife spread about his own family).

Originally Posted by Heavs

Harry joining a commission on US disinformation despite only being there for a year........Hmm.

They have been victims of it but have now admitted to throwing completely unfact checked disinformation out there for sensationalist reasons and had a *tabloid* of all things proved that. Among the many other things many media outlets fact checked from their interview. I think we were up to about 12 things factually proven false.

I hope being a "Silicon Valley Contact Officer" for an app is a positive step forward but I'm not sure it's going to be an eye opener in terms of work for him.

But we'll see.

Not having direct reports seems a clear sign that this 'job' isn't a real position but more an interesting alliance for both parties.

[cathy50]

Originally Posted by Heavs

Actually BetterUp is a for profit business, although it seems to be working hard to disguise this fact in all the recent publicity.



Basically getting corporations to pay for an app to improve employee performance with some sort of mini CBT techniques.

I also find it interesting that Harry's titles are used A LOT on his employee page:

https://www.betterup.com/en-us/resou...impact-officer

Whereas Princess Beatrice is simply referred to as "Beatrice York" on Afiniti's website:

https://afiniti.com/team/beatrice-york

Yes, only the HRH is left out.
I can't stop laughing when reading what Harry wrote. Resilience and mental power, how much he improved LOL
and of course he mentions the british military once in a while, let's see how long they will remain happy with it. there have been rumours already against him.
the media blew up the whole afghanistan thing, just like they did with Andrew and Falklands, both came in handy for the RF, but the truth behind Harry's deployment was a whole team was there to protect him- so he was able to feel important and play a little war, while others risked their lifes for him.

Curious about what Harry will write about his second job. How much he has been into disinformation

The US is really good for any surprise, to ask somebody of his poor education, not even being american (will he soon be?) to work with high profiled employees on serious matters like society ? In Europe this would never work.

By the way, does nobody check his status. He must have a work permit now? Or is it done by vitamin B to Obamas?

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I'm not sure that the family dynamics would have to be "friendly" for the christening. I can't imagine the Queen refusing to handle the new baby's christening any differently than the other great-grandchildren. The family would not take out their differences with Harry and Meghan on the children.

There isn't one way in which the queen handles her great-grandchildren's christenings. She attended some of them but not all (and it was not dependent on whether the baby was a royal highness or had royal parents - but on health and availability it seems). Pictures with the queen were only released for the christenings of the Prince of Wales's grandchildren - as far as the queen was present; and not for the christening of her other great-grandchildren even if she attended.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Heavs

Actually BetterUp is a for profit business, although it seems to be working hard to disguise this fact in all the recent publicity.



Basically getting corporations to pay for an app to improve employee performance with some sort of mini CBT techniques.

I also find it interesting that Harry's titles are used A LOT on his employee page:

https://www.betterup.com/en-us/resou...impact-officer

Whereas Princess Beatrice is simply referred to as "Beatrice York" on Afiniti's website:

https://afiniti.com/team/beatrice-york

lol of course the titles are included. Not surprised.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Somebody

There isn't one way in which the queen handles her great-grandchildren's christenings. She attended some of them but not all (and it was not dependent on whether the baby was a royal highness or had royal parents - but on health and availability it seems). Pictures with the queen were only released for the christenings of the Prince of Wales's grandchildren - as far as the queen was present; and not for the christening of her other great-grandchildren even if she attended.

I don't think she attended Archie's christening, did she?