The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3181  
Old 05-24-2021, 11:14 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
It [the Foundation] wasn’t a sole William operational setup with him graciously offering a hand to Harry at all.
If I understood US Royal Watcher's post correctly, that was the description of William's "court" at Kensington palace, not of the Foundation.
__________________

  #3182  
Old 05-24-2021, 11:26 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,727
If I'm not mistaken, even the staff and press officers and PR people at KP served for both William and Harry and then Catherine and later on, Meghan when she married Harry. Everything, their "court", their staff, their foundation was both of the brother's as Charles funded all of it. This is what will happen for William as his three kids grow into adulthood. Harry, Meghan and their family would continue to be supported by Charles as he becomes king (if they had stayed as full time working royals). So its even not appropriate yet to state that William has his own court, really. His bills still land on Charles' desk to be paid.

Thanks Curryong for mentioning that both William and Harry used part of their inheritance from Diana as seed money for their foundation. I'd totally forgotten about that.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3183  
Old 05-24-2021, 11:57 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I can't state with absolute surety why the Royal Foundation was split and whose bright idea it was but, as I stated earlier, I believe it was a move agreed on in preparation for the transition between monarchs and under whose umbrella funding would fall and in the future, no matter how it was done, William would be financed by his Duchy of Cornwall while Harry would still depend on his father for funding.
I assume you’re being sarcastic with the “bright idea”, but I think it actually was. William and Harry’s roads were going to diverge at some point anyway; this shouldn’t have been an issue except that H and M got their noses out of joint. Their future may not have been as prestigious as being King and Queen, but they would have been an immense value to Charles and then to William. Their support would have been vital to both Kings, but of course they chose to look at that in disdain, thinking themselves as deserving better, instead of being proud to be an integral part of both future reigns.
  #3184  
Old 05-25-2021, 12:26 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I assume you’re being sarcastic with the “bright idea”, but I think it actually was. William and Harry’s roads were going to diverge at some point anyway; this shouldn’t have been an issue except that H and M got their noses out of joint. Their future may not have been as prestigious as being King and Queen, but they would have been an immense value to Charles and then to William. Their support would have been vital to both Kings, but of course they chose to look at that in disdain, thinking themselves as deserving better, instead of being proud to be an integral part of both future reigns.
I'm echoing a huge BINGO at this. Harry and Meghan were given roles that really cemented them as ambassadors to the Commonwealth nations and that is really nothing to sneeze at. I believe the "Firm" and the BRF actually went out of their way to assure Harry that he was valued and wanted and an integral part of "Team Windsor" but, as you said, Harry didn't see it that way. Perhaps he was too blinded by what he felt was his due and perhaps by ideas that Meghan had that would "modernize the monarchy". Neither one of them, and even William and Catherine and all the other members of "Team Windsor" had the right to expect to rewrite how the institution works.

One day the lightbulb is going to go on in Harry's head and he'll realize everything he's thrown away. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near him then.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3185  
Old 05-25-2021, 01:56 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: Wilmington, United States
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
It's incredibly sad. Charles never knew his paternal grandfather, and he barely knew George VI; he regrets that to this day. I can't imagine how painful it is for him, for HM, to never see Archie.....time is going to run out, eventually. The problem is, Harry says he wants to break the cycle of what he sees as essentially abuse, so there's no reason for him to ever want Archie and his soon to be born sister to know his grandfather/great-grandmother.
How many times did Charles see Archie when he was residing at Frogmore Cottage? We have been told, by the media, that it was only 2 or 3 times. If true, why didn't he make more of an effort? Why didn't Charles try to help Harry when it was clear the Sussexes were struggling? Harry asked his family for help but was rebuffed. Charles shoulders some of the blame for this deteriorating situation.
  #3186  
Old 05-25-2021, 01:58 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I'm echoing a huge BINGO at this. Harry and Meghan were given roles that really cemented them as ambassadors to the Commonwealth nations and that is really nothing to sneeze at. I believe the "Firm" and the BRF actually went out of their way to assure Harry that he was valued and wanted and an integral part of "Team Windsor" but, as you said, Harry didn't see it that way. Perhaps he was too blinded by what he felt was his due and perhaps by ideas that Meghan had that would "modernize the monarchy". Neither one of them, and even William and Catherine and all the other members of "Team Windsor" had the right to expect to rewrite how the institution works.

One day the lightbulb is going to go on in Harry's head and he'll realize everything he's thrown away. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near him then.

Charles, I have no doubt, emphasized to Harry that he was to be a significant part of his reign. I don't know if Harry didn't listen or if he listened MORE to Meghan, but considering the age of the working Royals and of Charles himself, there was an opportunity there to do important work. Then again, that's not H and M's priority, which is to be SEEN, to garner all the attention.

I think Meghan came into this with a desire to "revolutionize" the monarchy...HER way. Well, for one thing, modernization (slowly) is possible, but not revolution. If she wanted the freedom to do exactly as she wished, she shouldn't have married a Prince. Given Harry's "whatever Meghan wants, Meghan gets", I'm guessing he didn't instruct her too well on Royal life.
  #3187  
Old 05-25-2021, 02:01 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Long Beach, United States
Posts: 2
After viewing “The Me You Can’t See” this evening, I am completely convinced that further conversation regarding titles, inheritances, and any other sort of royal politics as they pertain to the Duke of Sussex are completely irrelevant at this juncture.

This guy has really been driven to believe a narrative about his mother, the BRF, and even the paparazzi themselves that is utterly fallacious in it’s conception. I was flabbergasted when I watched Prince Harry actually say that Diana was essentially chased down and killed because she was in a relationship with someone who was not white. And then in the same breath, go on to say that Meghan had the same bounty out on her head.

What in the actual......? He wasn’t given the latitude to grieve his mother properly as a child, OK I get that. But since when do we live in a world where correlation equals causality? The burden of proof is on Harry and to an extent Meghan as well to provide the extraordinary evidence necessary to support this rather extraordinary claim. Until then, it reeks of their own biased subjectivity.
  #3188  
Old 05-25-2021, 02:22 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by SplendaLover View Post
How many times did Charles see Archie when he was residing at Frogmore Cottage? We have been told, by the media, that it was only 2 or 3 times. If true, why didn't he make more of an effort? Why didn't Charles try to help Harry when it was clear the Sussexes were struggling? Harry asked his family for help but was rebuffed. Charles shoulders some of the blame for this deteriorating situation.
Where do we have any information about the number of times Charles saw Archie after he was born? He was at the christening, we know that for sure. Apart from that one time, we have absolutely nothing, one way or the other, to prove or disprove, the number of times Charles saw Archie. Furthermore, who is to say that Charles' efforts weren't spurned by the Sussexes? I mean, we had Harry telling us a couple months ago that he was ashamed to tell his family about Meghan's suicidal ideations, but then this week, he told us that he said something and was met with silence. So, who really knows what the actual truth of the matter is? Certainly not Harry.
  #3189  
Old 05-25-2021, 03:05 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Right, thanks for reminding me FF actually confirmed that many of the petty, negative rumours really did happen (even announcing Archie at the wedding as well), except they happened in a way where the Sussexes were completely innocent and everyone else was at fault.

I'll say it again then, almost all the most negative stories came directly from them or were confirmed by their proxy. Meghan was even warned that the NY baby shower wouldn't be perceived well by the public and the palace did defend that one.
To be fair the version in FF goes into great detail about the process of picking a tiara, denies an emerald one was first choice although an early consideration. The bother started when Meghan arranged for her hairdresser to come over from, Paris I think, for a fitting with the tiara but Angela kelly the queens assistant said she could not come up to London from Windsor when they requested.

To summarise there was an incident over the tiara, not which one but when it could be removed from the vaults for the fitting, Harry felt Angela Kelly was being difficult , which was not her place, Harry was angry , there were words and as a result he went to the queen.

Angela did eventually come up to London to remove the tiara from the vaults.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SplendaLover View Post
How many times did Charles see Archie when he was residing at Frogmore Cottage? We have been told, by the media, that it was only 2 or 3 times. If true, why didn't he make more of an effort? Why didn't Charles try to help Harry when it was clear the Sussexes were struggling? Harry asked his family for help but was rebuffed. Charles shoulders some of the blame for this deteriorating situation.
This where there is a conflict in the story, firstly about the visits to Archie , do we now believe the press. Do we know for sure if invitations were made or turned down.
Secondly Harry is mixing up stories, what help did he ask for?
All we have been able to gather is that they wanted a HIHO package which was refused, from his own mouth he said he did not go to his family when Meghan was unwell.
If we are now believing the press, or ' sources said' they were offered a slow introduction to royal life similar to W & K, a country estate, even a commonwealth country was considered, but all was refused.
As I said the other day we need to be careful not to confuse fact with ' sources said'
We do know that they didn't go to Balmoral along with the rest of the family to visit the Queen they instead flew to the South of France, there was a great debate on here about travelling to Balmoral and the difficulties with a young baby only for them to go abroad instead.
Having said all that William has said, on record , that he wanted his father to slow down to spend more time with the children, so it could be true, the point is we do not know.
  #3190  
Old 05-25-2021, 03:38 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by NefariousPillow View Post
After viewing “The Me You Can’t See” this evening, I am completely convinced that further conversation regarding titles, inheritances, and any other sort of royal politics as they pertain to the Duke of Sussex are completely irrelevant at this juncture.

This guy has really been driven to believe a narrative about his mother, the BRF, and even the paparazzi themselves that is utterly fallacious in it’s conception. I was flabbergasted when I watched Prince Harry actually say that Diana was essentially chased down and killed because she was in a relationship with someone who was not white. And then in the same breath, go on to say that Meghan had the same bounty out on her head.

What in the actual......? He wasn’t given the latitude to grieve his mother properly as a child, OK I get that. But since when do we live in a world where correlation equals causality? The burden of proof is on Harry and to an extent Meghan as well to provide the extraordinary evidence necessary to support this rather extraordinary claim. Until then, it reeks of their own biased subjectivity.
I get where you are coming from but Harry's view of his mother is the same as William's and at present, he is publicly demanding the BBC withdraw the Panorama documentary and ensure it is never screened again. He is being backed by the BRF but William's ignorance of commerce is glaringly obvious. That documentary has been sold to innumerable TV stations in innumerable countries around the world.

As to the "What the actual . . . . ? Yes there were dire predictions should Diana continue dating a Muslim, and yes she and any man she was with were always going to be hounded after the documentary was aired because . . . Diana. Was there displeasure regarding her conduct, yes. Were there threats, not that anyone would tell us, but I am guessing the average Brits were more racist then than they are now? Were the Sussexes lives threatened, yes. Harry was called a "race traitor" for marrying Meghan. Was Meghan's life threatened, oh yes, she had married into the pristine bloodlines of the BRF and the child she was carrying was called an abomination and a stain on the aforementioned bloodline? The threats were quite clear and yes they were considered credible. Frogmore, a gift from HM, is unique in property given to royal offspring in that it lies within the private grounds of Windsor, not the Great Windsor Park.

It is my personal opinion that HM thought that Harry and Meghan would feel happier and more secure in their own space but within the Castle walls so to speak. The tabloids turned it into a bat to bash them regarding the money spent to restore Frogmore Cottage and the Palace did nothing to stop it. With the amount of malice, hatred and bile hurled at them and any joy in their home would have long gone I should think.

As to not having the latitude to grieve his mother? That was true. HM made the decision to stay at Balmoral to give them time to mourn, all the while the media were baying for her blood and demanding that Diana's "boys" be returned to Kensington Palace so they could all see them grieving or even give the tabloids a chance at a photo of a crying child. The Queen was finally forced to comply. You only have to look at the speculation of the media as to how they would handle Prince Philip's funeral and if one of them should break down to see not much has changed.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, William and Harry (who was still very young) were not like any of the many other thousands of children who lose a parent as they didn't have the anonymity to recover in private. Photos of them were with an awful lot of dosh.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #3191  
Old 05-25-2021, 03:41 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Where do we have any information about the number of times Charles saw Archie after he was born? He was at the christening, we know that for sure. Apart from that one time, we have absolutely nothing, one way or the other, to prove or disprove, the number of times Charles saw Archie. Furthermore, who is to say that Charles' efforts weren't spurned by the Sussexes? I mean, we had Harry telling us a couple months ago that he was ashamed to tell his family about Meghan's suicidal ideations, but then this week, he told us that he said something and was met with silence. So, who really knows what the actual truth of the matter is? Certainly not Harry.
Perhaps its possible that the first story is NEARER to the truth, ie that Harry didn't tell his family about Meg's depression because he was ashamed.. Now he realizes that that didn't make him look good, and he's saying that Charles knew they were struggling and didn't offer any help and that he repeatedly asked for help but was rebuffed.
Or perhaps both stories are untrue. Perhaps Meghan was Ok, and they didn't want the Royals around.... and wanted to stay alone. No harm in that, provided you dont tell fibs about it to attack your family later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Not that I necessarily think it is true but people say he is putting on a show now. How do you know he wasn't putting on shows then? Most of the stuff we saw was literally in front of the media. It was game face time. Not like these people don't play the media game and honestly it is a major part of being a royal. Fake it until you make it. And we know their PR office stays busy.
So if he was putting on a show then, ie he was pretending that he liked doing the royal job and that he liked meeting people and felt that he was doing some good by his tours and visits. NOW, he is telling us the truth in saying that he DIDNT like meeting poorer more unfortunate people, including ex soldiers and survivors of poverty and disasters and that he hated being sent on tours to see and help them?
If that is the truth then the "real Harry" is someone who didn't like people at all, and was miserable at having to interact with them and try to help them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Whether we acknowledge it or not, William and Harry (who was still very young) were not like any of the many other thousands of children who lose a parent as they didn't have the anonymity to recover in private. Photos of them were with an awful lot of dosh.
I dont think that that's the case. For quite a while after Dianas death the Press had an agreement that they would leave the boys alone till they had had their education, and while there were occaisional pictures of them, by and large they were left alone.
  #3192  
Old 05-25-2021, 03:49 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Where do we have any information about the number of times Charles saw Archie after he was born? He was at the christening, we know that for sure. Apart from that one time, we have absolutely nothing, one way or the other, to prove or disprove, the number of times Charles saw Archie. Furthermore, who is to say that Charles' efforts weren't spurned by the Sussexes? I mean, we had Harry telling us a couple months ago that he was ashamed to tell his family about Meghan's suicidal ideations, but then this week, he told us that he said something and was met with silence. So, who really knows what the actual truth of the matter is? Certainly not Harry.
Once again if we believe ' sources said' the original date of the Christening was changed as the couple had arranged it without checking if the Queen or Charles had prior engagements, and as it turned out both did, but the Queen was still unavailable for the revised date and did not attend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
If I'm not mistaken, even the staff and press officers and PR people at KP served for both William and Harry and then Catherine and later on, Meghan when she married Harry. Everything, their "court", their staff, their foundation was both of the brother's as Charles funded all of it. This is what will happen for William as his three kids grow into adulthood. Harry, Meghan and their family would continue to be supported by Charles as he becomes king (if they had stayed as full time working royals). So its even not appropriate yet to state that William has his own court, really. His bills still land on Charles' desk to be paid.

Thanks Curryong for mentioning that both William and Harry used part of their inheritance from Diana as seed money for their foundation. I'd totally forgotten about that.
I cannot remember the detail but when the foundation was changed to just the Cambridges did Harry receive some of the funds to start his own foundation / fund / charity.
  #3193  
Old 05-25-2021, 04:22 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bordertown, Australia
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
So if he was putting on a show then, ie he was pretending that he liked doing the royal job and that he liked meeting people and felt that he was doing some good by his tours and visits. NOW, he is telling us the truth in saying that he DIDNT like meeting poorer more unfortunate people, including ex soldiers and survivors of poverty and disasters and that he hated being sent on tours to see and help them?
If that is the truth then the "real Harry" is someone who didn't like people at all, and was miserable at having to interact with them and try to help them.
This was the prince who proposed just over 12 months ago a sort of half in, half out arrangement for his royal duties, so he didn't want out of them completely at that time. Then again, that statement was issued before the Queen said no to the idea and before Charles had apparently declined to keep funding the couple in California.
  #3194  
Old 05-25-2021, 04:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick View Post
This was the prince who proposed just over 12 months ago a sort of half in, half out arrangement for his royal duties, so he didn't want out of them completely at that time. Then again, that statement was issued before the Queen said no to the idea and before Charles had apparently declined to keep funding the couple in California.
Yes but I think its pretty obvious that they wanted Half in Half out (which would of course mean they were doing some royal duties) because by doing that, they would be keeping up the image of themselves as royals, in the eyes of the American and world public. And I suspect also, they may have thought that if they were "half in" there would be a rock solid case for funding from te tax payer and from Charles. They would still have free security as working royals, and Charles would continue to pay them £2M a year for their expenses...
  #3195  
Old 05-25-2021, 04:39 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,804
Assuming for a second the 2-3 times Charles saw Archie is correct for discussion purposes and one of those is the Christening:

It's not a lot but the Sussexes didn't want to go to Balmoral when the rest of the family gathered, they went off on two of their own holidays, Charles IS a busy man and if things were frosty with the Cambridges it would also be harder to meet up and see all the grandchildren at once. And then 4 months after he was born they left the UK (including Christmas which is another baby seeing time) and he has never returned.

I flat out don't believe Harry said to his father "Meghan is suicidal please help us, I'm begging you" and Charles said "no, deal with it on your own". There are stories about him, HM, William and we know Kate was definitely in therapy around this time. Even if they were as cruel as Harry is painting them, they wouldn't want the bad press from her making an attempt.

More likely they were being told "no" to a lot of other things that made them very unhappy. No court, no HRH for Archie, no commercial deals, no political statements, accepting gifts and freebies etc.

They've never actually said how Meghan eventually got help and HM consented to their Canadian break so if they had said "we need a year off to deal with our mental health problems in privacy" I also doubt that would have been denied.

Quote:
I dont think that that's the case. For quite a while after Dianas death the Press had an agreement that they would leave the boys alone till they had had their education, and while there were occaisional pictures of them, by and large they were left alone.
True, we mostly only saw them at official events and the very occasional pap shot of them until they finished uni. That's why Charles was so furious when his own brother's production company invaded their privacy at school.
  #3196  
Old 05-25-2021, 04:41 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I cannot remember the detail but when the foundation was changed to just the Cambridges did Harry receive some of the funds to start his own foundation / fund / charity.
Yes, they did. There was then a complaint made that the transfer was against the rules. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...ds-cambridges/
  #3197  
Old 05-25-2021, 05:16 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Assuming for a second the 2-3 times Charles saw Archie is correct for discussion purposes and one of those is the Christening:



More likely they were being told "no" to a lot of other things that made them very unhappy. No court, no HRH for Archie, no commercial deals, no political statements, accepting gifts and freebies etc.

They've never actually said how Meghan eventually got help and HM consented to their Canadian break so if they had said "we need a year off to deal with our mental health problems in privacy" I also doubt that would have been denied.



True, we mostly only saw them at official events and the very occasional pap shot of them until they finished uni. That's why Charles was so furious when his own brother's production company invaded their privacy at school.
That was my impression. There were obviously SOME pics of them at official events, they are public figure but the press did leave them alone till they were older. And when they went back to school, they had housemasters who would have been there to take care of them and give them space to grieve in private. I think that at that stage when they were in the first year or 2 after Di's death they probably spent some of their time off with their Spencer aunts who would have been able to give them some privacy.. and there are no shots of them.
WRT H and Meg having time off from royal duties, I think that the story that seeped out about them maybe living in Africa was almost certianly an attempt by the RF to give them some down time.. It woudl have been difficult IMO to live in Africa because of secuirty, so that may be why it was abandoned. Possibly other locations were also considered like maybe Canada or Australia which would have been in the Commonwealth and safer.. I wonder if they did consider those and if H and Meg didn't accept because at heart that was not what they wanted. I'm sure Meg didn't want to be in Africa anyway though Harry might have liked it.. and I'm sure neither of them wanted an English country estate...
I can't really imagine that they asked for Archie to be HRH. Surely if they had they would have ben told "you know perfectly well that he'll be HRH.. unless you dont want it, when Charles is King?"
  #3198  
Old 05-25-2021, 06:28 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 439
Look at how many pages we've written, trying to make sense of Harry's contradictory statements when there is a very simple explanation: the only currency he has is telling tales about the RF. And I mean tales - long and dramatic. Be honest, would you take the Harry from these shows as a shining example of successful therapy? I wouldn't.


If he wants to stay relevant, he needs to invent new past for himself. This isn't the end. The "compassionate" conversation with Oprah was a dead giveaway. There is worse to come. He has nothing else to offer. All those deals they brag with have this far amounted to big announcements. Spotify had them for exactly one podcast of their own. Invictus isn't the kind of thing that will bring the big money they need to keep themselves in the lifestyle they want. Harry only has his past with the RF. And I'm saying Harry because Meghan already exhausted her store. Even her most ardent supporters know she was in the RF for less than two years. How many shocking stories can she produce? It's all on Harry now.



To be fair, I don't think they expected things to go like this. IMO, they really believed they'll have a Hollywood empire ready to build due to their titles and they'd be able to really achieve something based on their titles but not dragging on the RF for ages. It's the same delusion that they were so much more popular than the Cambridges (comparing themselves to a couple that, after 7 years of marriage, had become known and slightly boring, not to the crowd-gatherind newlywed Cambridges), that it was their place to revolutionize the monarchy despite being No 6 and with the prospects of climbing down, not up, despite Meghan claiming that she didn't know anything about the monarchy. That didn't stop her from knowing what was best for the same monarchy. They overestimated their own importance and just how much they could achieve without being representatives of the monarchy and basically exiles from its official part. They thought themselves as worthy of the same perks Prince Michael and the York princesses received without realizing that these three didn't make themselves exiles from the official part, it was just that everyone knew there was no place there for them due to precedence, not bad relationship with the Crown.


Would Harry have been invited to speak only of therapy? I doubt it. He isn't a professional and the people who tuned it expected Diana, the RF, dirt and so on. He didn't have a choice, so he gave them this dirt. But I refuse to believe he's happy with it. I think he feels trapped and lashes out against his family for "forcing" him to land himself into this. Which is ridiculous for a man his age but... his dad cut him off financially, so...


There will be more. I'm not sure I'll actually read or listen. I can already say what the program will be.
  #3199  
Old 05-25-2021, 06:44 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
L

Would Harry have been invited to speak only of therapy? I doubt it. He isn't a professional and the people who tuned it expected Diana, the RF, dirt and so on. He didn't have a choice, so he gave them this dirt. But I refuse to believe he's happy with it. I think he feels trapped and lashes out against his family for "forcing" him to land himself into this. Which is ridiculous for a man his age but... his dad cut him off financially, so...


There will be more. I'm not sure I'll actually read or listen. I can already say what the program will be.
but what else can Harry speak about, or make programmes about? I wondered why Spoitify or Netflix took them on at all... it doesn't seem like they had ideas of what sort of programmes they'd make? Royal history? IMO they dont have the qualifications.. or even the contacts to do progs like that. Charities? Not going to bring in a lot of money. So all that was left was "the innermost secrets of the RF and why they left and their mental health."
I dont know if he's happy with it.. but I find it hard to believe that he's really doing it against his will. I think that Meghan certainly has grudges enough about her time in the RF.. she's angry and when she's angry so Is H. So he does half believe that both of them were treated oh so badly.. and that he had to leave or they'd boht be suicidal. And I think that Harry does have issues with his father and perhaps with the RF as a whole (they probably told him "no" at various times) and so it is not hard for him to work himself up to a state where he is angry, lashes out at charles etc and doesn't care if what he says is true or not.
  #3200  
Old 05-25-2021, 06:48 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Where do we have any information about the number of times Charles saw Archie after he was born? He was at the christening, we know that for sure. Apart from that one time, we have absolutely nothing, one way or the other, to prove or disprove, the number of times Charles saw Archie. Furthermore, who is to say that Charles' efforts weren't spurned by the Sussexes? I mean, we had Harry telling us a couple months ago that he was ashamed to tell his family about Meghan's suicidal ideations, but then this week, he told us that he said something and was met with silence. So, who really knows what the actual truth of the matter is? Certainly not Harry.
And really, Charles was there for Meghan when her father couldn’t be. Blaming him for her and Harry’s actions fails to give any credit to the Sussexes for their own choices...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
Having said all that William has said, on record , that he wanted his father to slow down to spend more time with the children, so it could be true, the point is we do not know.
I don’t think it’s fair to speculate about this based on William’s comments from a few years ago. I don’t think the original comment was fair at all. It seems the only photos the BRF have of Archie are ones from when he was an infant, so either none of them had seen him much before Megxit or else they couldn’t get permission to post. Charles clearly adores his grandchildren, and I’m sure he would have made time to visit if he’d been allowed.

Heaves:

Quote:
It's not a lot but the Sussexes didn't want to go to Balmoral when the rest of the family gathered, they went off on two of their own holidays, Charles IS a busy man and if things were frosty with the Cambridges it would also be harder to meet up and see all the grandchildren at once. And then 4 months after he was born they left the UK (including Christmas which is another baby seeing time) and he has never returned.
Things were not “frosty” with the Cambridges, though, quite the contrary.
__________________

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 3: March - April 2021 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2203 04-06-2021 12:08 PM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baptism british british royal family british royals camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of sussex elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers luxembourg monarchist movements monarchists mongolia pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan speech st edward suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:26 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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