The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 07-08-2021, 12:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
If the reputation of the monarchy needs to be protected by using other royals to cover the monarch and heirs apparent, then IMO the monarchy will fail as that kind of protection will not and should not offset the rot that comes with that kind of operating procedure. To be clear, I am not stating that this has never happened, when Mark Bolland worked for Charles, there were accounts that negative and not completely true stories involving Edward and Harry were planted as part of the pro-Charles campaign.

While not done thus far in this thread, I know that some like to invoke "the Crown must always win," which is in and of itself fiction, but that is more about Queen Mary advising her granddaughter that The Crown and her new role as Elizabeth R must supersede the wants and needs of Elizabeth Mountbatten. So the Crown always wins when its cornerstone is a dutiful monarch, not wily and ruthless courtiers screwing over lesser royals to protect the monarch and heirs .


Regarding William and Harry's partying ways, I have seen numerous photos of inebriated William (and Kate), so that was not covered up by the media. Now if William was so drunk that he was falling down in the street, falling fully-clothed in a pool, getting in physical confrontations with photographers, playing strip poker with people he just met, and it was either photographed or multiple witnesses were willing to give their accounts to the media but either it got squashed by "the palace" or the media took a pass in order to further some Golden William narrative, then shame on them. However I suspect that William, while probably enjoying his drink and partying, was not as wild as his brother, or as one of the commenters stated, William never got caught. In other words, William has likely gotten falling down drunk, but he was smart enough not to do it in front of paparazzi or people who would take his picture on their mobile phone and then sell it to the tabloids. In fact as I write this, I recall stories of William losing a tooth and swimming in a moat, but if he was smart enough to do these things away from the cameras and in the company of (mostly) discreet friends, that does not represent some kind of screwing over of Harry, it is on Harry that he provided the media fodder by acting out in front of the paparazzi and indiscreet companions.

Regarding reports of William's infidelity being squelched. I guess I don't understand why William, the heir to the heir without a money-generating duchy to call his own, is so powerful that he can squash true stories, but his father, with his higher status and resources, cannot. I will also tack on that I cannot believe that there are not a few reporters, knowing how reporting on Charles and Diana's marriage filled the coffers of many of their ilk and raised their profiles, are not willing to go rogue to report truthful information about William and his supposed infidelity. But if William has indeed been using what resources are at his disposal to "smartly squelch" claims of infidelity and these claims are indeed true, then woe betide William and his accomplices.
William's solicitor sent around a letter warning the papers that they couldn't print rumours unless they had actual proof. Which they didn't, so nothing was published. Frankly looking in to it the claims originate from a drunk Giles Coren (journalist and Soho House member) who later claimed to have been drunkenly joking and a woman in Utah who isn't in anyway connected with anyone. So whilst I have no idea about the state of Cambridges' marriage I'm inclined to think there was no proof because there isn't any to find. You can bet all the papers were looking for it.

KP also let about 95% of negative stories about the Cambridges stand without comment or attempts to sue them.

William's past behaviour was covered by the press in much the same way Harry's was, starting from when he was about 15 and attending events marketed towards public school kids "beer in his hand and a girl on each knee" IIRC. It's just less remembered than Harry's is because he didn't get caught with a Nazi uniform or playing naked billiards. Nor did he cultivate the "funny,cheeky William" persona that Harry did.

Lots of publicists for celebrities and politicians will also try and quash one story by offering another. One technique is give them a less famous celebrity who wants the publicity and doesn't mind a scandal and apology tour rather than the more famous client who doesn't.
__________________

  #22  
Old 07-08-2021, 01:22 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 318
I'm sure it's true to some extent, but just as an example, neither the courtiers nor the tabloid press forced Harry to play strip poker with strangers in Las Vegas. Had William done the same, I don't think anyone could have stopped the tabloids from running those cell phone pics. I don't doubt that William's done things that have been hushed up, that maybe wouldn't have been hushed up had Harry done them. But past a point, hushing things up simply isn't possible. Harry's done several of those things, and William apparently hasn't done any.
__________________

  #23  
Old 07-08-2021, 01:25 PM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Nowheresville, United States
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
I agree. However, I also see this very much as a product of their upbringings and the attitudes employed there. For Margaret, she was very much a key part of the "We Four" attitude of George VI and the Queen Mother. While her education differed from HM's, she was still very much raised with a belief that she was equally important and a key part of both the family and the monarchy. She was indulged, spoiled, and clearly raised with the belief that she had a significant role to play and was, understandably, dumbfounded and stricken when she realized that that wasn't necessarily true as her nephews and niece came along. For Andrew, he was the oldest of the DoE and HM's "second family" and was much adored for his place as their "do-over" baby. I don't at all mean that Charles and Anne weren't loved and cherished by their parents but their childhoods were markedly different than those of Andrew and Edward. By the time Andrew and Edward came along their parents had settled into their roles, had more time to be parents, etc. For Harry, we know that Diana especially but even Charles raised their sons with the mentality that both were equal. While I have no doubts at all that they loved them equally and believed them both to be each as important as the other, in practical terms they did them no favors. Now Harry is finding himself in the exact same position that Margaret found herself in when her belief that she was a key and intrinsic part of the monarchy was deeply shaken and proven not to be true. While being more hands-on and more present for their children has been a wonderful thing for these last three generations, there's something to be said for the clear lines and designations drawn in previous generations about future roles, expectations, division of family vs. business, etc.
Heather, your points are very well taken and I do hope William will figure out a way not to dumbfound his younger two. I’m glad they had three children for the sake of the “spares”
  #24  
Old 07-08-2021, 01:40 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
I'm sure it's true to some extent, but just as an example, neither the courtiers nor the tabloid press forced Harry to play strip poker with strangers in Las Vegas. Had William done the same, I don't think anyone could have stopped the tabloids from running those cell phone pics. I don't doubt that William's done things that have been hushed up, that maybe wouldn't have been hushed up had Harry done them. But past a point, hushing things up simply isn't possible. Harry's done several of those things, and William apparently hasn't done any.
I also don't think it's always been as simple as "protect the heirs at all costs whilst throwing all the spares to the wolves".


Harry's "cheeky chappy, jolly Hero Prince Harry" persona seems to have been largely an invention of PR and Edward Lane Fox. Not that he wasn't some of those things some of the time, but he himself has basically said that during this period of his life he was an angry, out of control person who was heavily using drink and drugs until after he met Meghan. So that would be a case of using all their resources to make him look great. William in contrast often came off as "boring".

There are stories out there post Vegas but not much of it was actually printed by the UK tabloids because everyone liked the fun Harry image and they mostly focused on that combined with the genuinely good things like Invictus and Race to The Pole, Sentebele etc. None of the RRs have seemed particularly surprised about some of his recent pronouncements re his anger and drugs either and they all said that KP went to bat for Harry and Meghan over untrue stories which then weren't published.


There used to be stories like "Kate's BBF hosts VIP sex parties! Sources claim she may have attended!" that weren't quashed so she wasn't spared salacious gossip either.
  #25  
Old 07-08-2021, 01:51 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
Heather, your points are very well taken and I do hope William will figure out a way not to dumbfound his younger two. I’m glad they had three children for the sake of the “spares”

It is a very delicate balance that is difficult to strike. Maybe the best solution is the Dutch model where the younger siblings are not expected to be full-time working royals and are raised from birth already knowing that they must have private careers like everybody else when they grow up.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is feasible for the British Royal Family, with its current level of committments in the UK and the Commonwealth, to be reduced to only the King and the Queen consort plus the heir and his/her spouse as full-time working royals.
  #26  
Old 07-08-2021, 02:56 PM
ladyjolene's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It is a very delicate balance that is difficult to strike. Maybe the best solution is the Dutch model where the younger siblings are not expected to be full-time working royals and are raised from birth already knowing that they must have private careers like everybody else when they grow up.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is feasible for the British Royal Family, with its current level of committments in the UK and the Commonwealth, to be reduced to only the King and the Queen consort plus the heir and his/her spouse as full-time working royals.
The monarchy will automatically prune itself with the queen's cousins retiring and I'm pretty sure the Wessex family is raising their two to know that they won't be working royals. And Anne's kids don't do royal engagements that I'm aware of (I'm no expert). Andrew's daughters did go to uni and did have some sort of career, right? Though didn't Andrew want B and E to be working royals? That leaves the queen, Charles/Camilla, Anne, William/Kate, and Edward/Sophie. That's starting to get pretty small when you think about all the patronages and duties to the commonwealth.
  #27  
Old 07-08-2021, 03:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
William's solicitor sent around a letter warning the papers that they couldn't print rumours unless they had actual proof. Which they didn't, so nothing was published. Frankly looking in to it the claims originate from a drunk Giles Coren (journalist and Soho House member) who later claimed to have been drunkenly joking and a woman in Utah who isn't in anyway connected with anyone. So whilst I have no idea about the state of Cambridges' marriage I'm inclined to think there was no proof because there isn't any to find. You can bet all the papers were looking for it.

KP also let about 95% of negative stories about the Cambridges stand without comment or attempts to sue them.

William's past behaviour was covered by the press in much the same way Harry's was, starting from when he was about 15 and attending events marketed towards public school kids "beer in his hand and a girl on each knee" IIRC. It's just less remembered than Harry's is because he didn't get caught with a Nazi uniform or playing naked billiards. Nor did he cultivate the "funny,cheeky William" persona that Harry did.

Lots of publicists for celebrities and politicians will also try and quash one story by offering another. One technique is give them a less famous celebrity who wants the publicity and doesn't mind a scandal and apology tour rather than the more famous client who doesn't.
If I remember correctly, that woman in Utah also described herself as a "Sussex Squad", and Giles Coren wrote that tweet just a day after he attended a Soho House event in Amsterdam with H&M.
  #28  
Old 07-08-2021, 03:16 PM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladyjolene View Post
The monarchy will automatically prune itself with the queen's cousins retiring and I'm pretty sure the Wessex family is raising their two to know that they won't be working royals. And Anne's kids don't do royal engagements that I'm aware of (I'm no expert). Andrew's daughters did go to uni and did have some sort of career, right? Though didn't Andrew want B and E to be working royals? That leaves the queen, Charles/Camilla, Anne, William/Kate, and Edward/Sophie. That's starting to get pretty small when you think about all the patronages and duties to the commonwealth.
I think the message was already conveyed to a number of royals a number of years ago. Prince Michael, no title and no royal engagements on behalf of the Queen. Prince Edward is quoted in Ingrid Seward's book that it was made clear to him that his duty to monarchy was a lifetime service in the armed forces. Had Edward's life gone according to royal requirement he would probably still be in the armed forces. That might have been the plan for Andrew as well - for all we know.
  #29  
Old 07-08-2021, 03:22 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
I sincerely think it was when it got to the point that the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex went into split mode (whatever was the cause of it), that really hit home the differences between the two brothers and their positions in the hierarchy of things.

Harry felt he should have his own separate foundation and offices similar to what William would have in retaining the Royal Foundation. He was told no and told his office would be at Buckingham Palace and answerable to the Queen's office. This wasn't something done to prove William was "above" Harry or demote Harry in any way but rather, to me, was part of what we've been seeing for a while now. A soft transition between monarchs. None of the Queen's other children besides Charles has their own "court". TPTB realized that with the Royal Foundation split, it wouldn't be ages before William actually does have his own court as the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge and Harry would still be financially dependent on his father to fund his working and private life while William stepped into his father's shoes with the Duchy of Cornwall.

The bottom line is that Harry felt he should have something that no second son (spare) has ever had since the 14th century. Perhaps this was the straw that broke the camel's back along with so many other things that affected this couple. Whirlwind courtship and wedding, jumping into full time duties hitting the ground running and starting a family along with everything else. William took his time and gradually moved up in his roles with his wife. Harry and Meghan dived in the deep end of the pool. It didn't end well at all.

You do anything in haste, you get to repent at leisure.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #30  
Old 07-08-2021, 03:33 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 7,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
(...)
The bottom line is that Harry felt he should have something that no second son (spare) has ever had since the 14th century. Perhaps this was the straw that broke the camel's back along with so many other things that affected this couple. Whirlwind courtship and wedding, jumping into full time duties hitting the ground running and starting a family along with everything else. William took his time and gradually moved up in his roles with his wife. Harry and Meghan dived in the deep end of the pool. It didn't end well at all.

You do anything in haste, you get to repent at leisure.
Well, the previous king (George VI) and the second-to-last (George V) were 'second sons' - so it seems the only way he could have gotten what he wanted is if he had taken William's place as heir.
  #31  
Old 07-08-2021, 03:41 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Well, the previous king (George VI) and the second-to-last (George V) were 'second sons' - so it seems the only way he could have gotten what he wanted is if he had taken William's place as heir.
This is true but at the time Harry wanted his own court, he never could have stepped into the role as heir with William already providing the next in the line to the throne. George with Charlotte as George's spare.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #32  
Old 07-08-2021, 04:18 PM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,833
In a rather strange move of a few hours I have reread the discussion boards of the Sussex's from when they started dating onwards. It is actually a good read and I highly recommend it. It is essentially the same people discussing the same stuff - and yes guys we have been discussing the same stuff now since 2019.

It is quite sad when you read the comments about the suggestion about the move to Africa, the rumoured feud and then the split of the foundations. Essentially 3 years has given us a lot more information, most that I think if fluff courtesy of Omid Scobie but absolutely no new insight.

I was looking for an article about why Frogmore was selected and all I got was the Sussex's describing it as there dream house and forever home.
  #33  
Old 07-08-2021, 06:10 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
In a rather strange move of a few hours I have reread the discussion boards of the Sussex's from when they started dating onwards. It is actually a good read and I highly recommend it. It is essentially the same people discussing the same stuff - and yes guys we have been discussing the same stuff now since 2019.

It is quite sad when you read the comments about the suggestion about the move to Africa, the rumoured feud and then the split of the foundations. Essentially 3 years has given us a lot more information, most that I think if fluff courtesy of Omid Scobie but absolutely no new insight.

I was looking for an article about why Frogmore was selected and all I got was the Sussex's describing it as there dream house and forever home.
Claire, do you know what other properties H&M may have considered before settling on Frogmore Cottage?

I sort of remember a columnist mentioning Adelaide Cottage, even though a courtier may have been in there and I know the late Margaret Rhodes' cottage would have been available. Also, the tenant in Forest Lodge died suddenly about 2 years ago so that may have been available. The timing for Forest Lodge wouldn't have been ideal, but IMO it would be worth the wait.
  #34  
Old 07-08-2021, 07:42 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In Britain in particular, the second-born having a bad boy or bad girl reputation has become somewhat of a cliché in the past 50 years or so, see Margaret, Andrew and Harry. Interestingly that was not necessarily the case in previous generations. As far as I understand it for example, both the future kings George V and George VI had a much better reputation than their respective older brothers. And the future king Edward VII was notorious for his bad behavior when he was still the Prince of Wales.
Prince Edward (the future Duke of Windsor) was an extremely popular Prince of Wales, especially in the twenties.

I wonder what is in store for the next generation, heir George and spare Charlotte.
  #35  
Old 07-09-2021, 05:25 AM
MARG's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 10,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
. . . .I was looking for an article about why Frogmore was selected and all I got was the Sussex's describing it as there dream house and forever home.
I believe people forget that any accommodation is "in HM's gift". H & M were probably consulted by HM and yes it was major work restore Frogmore Cottage but she was obviously aware that their reason for not wanting to move into KP was that William had announced that he wanted the two houses split. Hardly sensible to think they would move from Nott Cott to an apartment in KP as may well have been the original intent.

Instead, finding Nott Cott too small with the arrival of Archie, they rented a private home until Frogmore Cottage was ready, all the while being vilified daily about the cost of the renovations. The BRF hung them out to dry for the tabloids and offered nothing except that the cottage was due for work, etc. They were not going to admit that William had flown into a rage with Harry and was In the process of kicking them out of their shared offices. The accusations of H&M not finding KP grand enough, etc. ad nauseum, were all left to fester in the media while they vilified the Sussexes for "abandoning the Cambridge's". How's that for irony when William was the one who kicked them out.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #36  
Old 07-09-2021, 05:37 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 24,051
It seems posters have little to add that is specifically related to this documentary.

For now it seems the thread has turned into an excersize of re-hashing the same arguments that we have been chewing on for the last couple of years. We do not want to have two simular discussions on the same topic, between the same posters and with the same arguments. That means that it is time to close this thread.

Please send us a PM when anything relevant to this documentary needs to be posted and this thread can be re-opened.

You can continue to discuss the duke and duchess of Sussex in their thread in the Sussex forum, which you can find here.


This thread is now closed.
__________________

__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
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
"Queen of the World" (2018) - ITV Documentary on Queen Elizabeth II Dman The Electronic Domain 28 10-03-2018 03:00 PM
"The Real Camilla: HRH the Duchess of Cornwall" (2018) - ITV Documentary Nico The Electronic Domain 35 07-24-2018 07:57 PM
"Diana, Our Mother: Her Life and Legacy" (2017) - ITV/HBO Documentary Dman The Electronic Domain 62 07-29-2017 06:47 PM
"Harry at 30" (2014) - ITV Documentary Dman The Electronic Domain 11 09-10-2014 06:51 PM




Popular Tags
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily 18th birthday abdullah ii albert prince consort all tags austria braganza british royal family cadwallader camilla castile charles congo danish royal family de la cerda denmark dubai expo duchess of kent duke of cambridge guzman hamdan bin ahmed history identifying india ingrid-alexandra ivrea japanese imperial family japan history jordan royal family king edward iii king henry iii king philippe king willem-alexander louis mountbatten maria ii monarchist movements monarchists mountbatten nara period need help noble families norway crown princely couple official visit orleans-braganza pedro ii politics portugal prince andrew prince charles prince of wales prince of wales in jordan queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria samurai state visit tokugawa uae wine glass


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:08 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises
×