The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 02-16-2021, 06:03 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
post 99

Yes but he doesn't live here. He doesn't want to live here.

That's why he's going to be on American television being interviewed by a well known American probably talking about his life in America. We all know that in the event of some hypothetical tragedy parliament would decide what happens next. That reality is of his making not the British people.
__________________

  #102  
Old 02-16-2021, 06:06 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick View Post
TLLK - A balcony appearance is very different to attending private gatherings as royal family members. There will be no balcony appearances, I am sure of that.

We'll have to agree to disagree Roderick. I can easily see the Sussexes joining the extended family on the balcony after Trooping the Color or after Charles' coronation.



Will we see them on the Foreign Office balconies for Remembrance Sunday, no.
__________________

  #103  
Old 02-16-2021, 06:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I was born and brought up in England and have been back many times, sometimes for long stretches of time.

Why is taking part in an interview with Oprah considered 'pompous'? The Sussexes never said they were never going to appear in public again or do interviews etc.

I think the people who could genuinely be regarded as pompous are the never ending talking heads and supposed 'Royal experts' who appear on TV and write newspaper columns weekly, pontificating about this couple and sitting in judgement in a way they would deeply object to if the tables were turned on them!

It's not just the Murdoch Press who enjoy baiting and tormenting the Sussexes in their pages, as well as many many others, but all the tabloids, who use the couple for Clickbait and to make money. In my view that is 1000 times worse than appearing with Oprah for an interview that is not likely to contain anything untoward.
It's taking the mickey out of their self importance. It's what the red tops do. Being royal doesn't guarantee you respect & deference.

As to rest, fair comment.
  #104  
Old 02-16-2021, 06:12 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
There is just one thing wrong with that scenario. Unlike the many cousins and second cousins of the monarch who throng the Balcony at Trooping etc, in the next reign Harry will be the monarch's son and Meghan that King's daughter in law. As the King's son and daughter in law they will have more right to appear on the Balcony than Alexandra's descendants, or the Duke of Kent's or Anne's etc.

Harry will remain Charles's son and William's brother for as long as he lives, as Joe Little of Majesty Magazine put it, Harry remains 'indelibly Royal'. And wherever he lives he will be a King's son and the next King's only brother, with everything that brings with it, including within the US.

The next reign will bring Harry closer to the Throne as the only other son of King Charles, not further away from it, a forgotten Royal on the side, as many here would like it.



We'll have to agree to disagree. While I believe that the Sussexes will join in on the balcony for Trooping the Color and Charles' coronation however I don't see them on the balconies at the Foreign Office for Remembrance Sunday.



Also I believe that Charles will respect his son and daughter-in-law's wish to not be a part of the family that is associated with royal duties and will allow them to continue with their private commercial ventures. Harry will of course always be the son and brother of two future kings, but IMHO he's made it quite clear that he's done with the ceremonial aspects of royal life and the associated duties.
  #105  
Old 02-16-2021, 06:26 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Harry isn't going to be removed from the line of succession. We're in the middle of the biggest crisis since 1945. Even when, hopefully, the virus nightmare ends, the effects on the economy, and social issues such as the effects on children's education, are sadly going to be with us for some time. Parliament has not got time to be debating and voting on bills about Harry.


I hope they've got the sense to be discreet, but they've made very ill-judged comments, such as Harry trying to tell Americans about voting in elections.
  #106  
Old 02-16-2021, 06:30 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Well we'll see what they say. I have zero interest in watching it but I'll read here for the overall opinion. If it's just a dull interview repeating what they've said before I don't see a problem. If it's a nasty gossip fest that tells all (which is what Gayle sort of implied) I think that's the end of them in the royal family. It won't be good. But I find it hard to believe they'll go there. I think it will be a boring love fest for Harry and Meghan.
  #107  
Old 02-16-2021, 06:32 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
There is just one thing wrong with that scenario. Unlike the many cousins and second cousins of the monarch who throng the Balcony at Trooping etc, in the next reign Harry will be the monarch's son and Meghan that King's daughter in law. As the King's son and daughter in law they will have more right to appear on the Balcony than Alexandra's descendants, or the Duke of Kent's or Anne's etc.

Harry will remain Charles's son and William's brother for as long as he lives, as Joe Little of Majesty Magazine put it, Harry remains 'indelibly Royal'. And wherever he lives he will be a King's son and the next King's only brother, with everything that brings with it, including within the US.

The next reign will bring Harry closer to the Throne as the only other son of King Charles, not further away from it, a forgotten Royal on the side, as many here would like it.
Here is the issue though - some people assume because of Harry's birth he has some right to be on the balcony, they are wrong. Everyone who is there is there because HM invites them. Likely because they are both part of her family and indeed in many cases they are her "workers" who bring their family along to an event organised by the CEO of Windsor Inc. There is no doubt in my mind H&M will be there if they want to be, HM and indeed, in time Charles, will always invite them. The only difference will be the prominence they will be given, it may be they are not invited to take part in the carriage ride and like most of the other "wider family" they make their way by car and back. Remember, the likes of Lady Sarah Chatto grew up probably in some ways closer to the Queen than Harry and certainly Meghan and yet HM is still able to separate her private feelings and affection from how Sarah is treated "officially"- the same will be true of H&M - they will always be loved by the Queen that doesn't translate to carriage rides, royal patronages and the like.

Interesting that the news of the interview has been released so far ahead of it actually happening. I wonder if it was in hope of pushing some of these issues e.g. patronages and military roles to a conclusion.
  #108  
Old 02-16-2021, 06:34 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,439
Mark Borkowski (PR guru) did an interview with Mike Graham on Talkradio on the Harry & Meghan's future especially on their interview with Oprah. Unlike royal correspondent, Mark Borkowski is focus more on media aspect, particularly in America. I understand that Mike Graham and other radio hosts on Talkradio have been extremely critical of Harry and Meghan, so please ignore the title of the Youtube video.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Here is the issue though - some people assume because of Harry's birth he has some right to be on the balcony, they are wrong. Everyone who is there is there because HM invites them. Likely because they are both part of her family and indeed in many cases they are her "workers" who bring their family along to an event organised by the CEO of Windsor Inc. There is no doubt in my mind H&M will be there if they want to be, HM and indeed, in time Charles, will always invite them. The only difference will be the prominence they will be given, it may be they are not invited to take part in the carriage ride and like most of the other "wider family" they make their way by car and back. Remember, the likes of Lady Sarah Chatto grew up probably in some ways closer to the Queen than Harry and certainly Meghan and yet HM is still able to separate her private feelings and affection from how Sarah is treated "officially"- the same will be true of H&M - they will always be loved by the Queen that doesn't translate to carriage rides, royal patronages and the like.

Interesting that the news of the interview has been released so far ahead of it actually happening. I wonder if it was in hope of pushing some of these issues e.g. patronages and military roles to a conclusion.
I think you raise a very good point on the distinction between being welcome personally by The Queen & Royal Family and Appearing in public as part of the Royal Family. Lady Sarah Chatto (who is not a working royal) have always been closed to The Queen, as her niece. The Queen herself has invited the Chatto family to Christmas at Sandringham and is happy to for them to appear publicly as part of the Royal Family. Arthur Chatto was a page-of-honour to The Queen between 2009 and 2015.

Similar could be said for most non-working royals in the Kent and Gloucester branch, where The Queen and possibly palace staffs are happy for them to appear as part of the Royal Family. Whilst they may not be really close to the Queen, they have not done anything too controversial/scandalous that barred them from appearing in the balcony. The exception that I could think of is Marina Ogilvy, especially in the 90s, but things start to recover.

It depends on how the Oprah's interview would go and whether this (and any other projects/speech/action by the Sussexes) would be considered "controversial" or "scandalous"
  #109  
Old 02-16-2021, 06:55 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,388
Mike Graham has barely had a good word to say about Meghan since she and Harry married. He and Angela Levin, who is a regular guest of his are the sort of pontificating talking heads about the Sussexes that I referenced in a previous post.

And any guest like Borkowski who might have something favourable to say about the couple are inevitably pulled back by Graham into 'Oh Yes, but...' negative territory.
  #110  
Old 02-16-2021, 07:15 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Here is the issue though - some people assume because of Harry's birth he has some right to be on the balcony, they are wrong. Everyone who is there is there because HM invites them. Likely because they are both part of her family and indeed in many cases they are her "workers" who bring their family along to an event organised by the CEO of Windsor Inc. There is no doubt in my mind H&M will be there if they want to be, HM and indeed, in time Charles, will always invite them. The only difference will be the prominence they will be given, it may be they are not invited to take part in the carriage ride and like most of the other "wider family" they make their way by car and back. Remember, the likes of Lady Sarah Chatto grew up probably in some ways closer to the Queen than Harry and certainly Meghan and yet HM is still able to separate her private feelings and affection from how Sarah is treated "officially"- the same will be true of H&M - they will always be loved by the Queen that doesn't translate to carriage rides, royal patronages and the like.

Interesting that the news of the interview has been released so far ahead of it actually happening. I wonder if it was in hope of pushing some of these issues e.g. patronages and military roles to a conclusion.

Excellent points tommy100. I especially like the example of Lady Sarah Chatto who reportedly is very close to her aunt and a much loved member of the wider family but does not automatically participate in all of ceremonial activities.



The Sussexes made their choice known to the BRF, the UK and the world when they chose to step back from senior royal duties in January 2020. They clearly do not want to participate in that life anymore, but IMO will make the occasional appearance at events that the wider family attend in the future. And sometimes it just might involve a balcony.
  #111  
Old 02-16-2021, 07:35 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Mike Graham has barely had a good word to say about Meghan since she and Harry married. He and Angela Levin, who is a regular guest of his are the sort of pontificating talking heads about the Sussexes that I referenced in a previous post.

And any guest like Borkowski who might have something favourable to say about the couple are inevitably pulled back by Graham into 'Oh but...' negative territory.
And that's why I put a disclaimer in the post to put in perspectives. As someone who is not a fan of the Sussexes, I'm quite happy to read opposing/differing opinions on this forum, as well as as other publications in order to see where they are coming from.

Here is an opinion column in the Guardian defending the Sussexes and attacking the those who defended the Royal Family or monarchist/royalists. Marina Hyde herself has left-leaning views and considered herself as a Republican (anti-monarchist).

Whatever you think of Harry and Meghan, their media critics are far worse
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-critics-worse

I think this article is much more scathing than Mike Graham's comment considering she also attacked Beatrice and Eugenie and spreading a rumour not confirmed by No 10. of a plan (ironically started by the Daily Mail) of sending the Earl and Countess of Wessex to live in Scotland to improve the Union ahead of Scottish Parliament election. She also wrong to suggest that the Sovereign Grant is paid by the taxpayer. Of course, I'm not surprise that The Guardian has recently published multiple articles criticising the monarchy and The Royal Family, especially during the time when it's 69 years since the Queen ascend to the throne and Eugenie have just given birth.

Do I disagree or even detest what Marina Hyde has written? Yes, but I also believed in freedom of speech and she is entitled to have a platform and express her views, despite some mistakes in the article itself. And this applies to Mike Graham and other journalists/reporters who are critical of both The Royal Family and Sussexes. I have tried my best to post different or opposing perspective by different publications & media in order to provide a more balance view including in this instance on Harry & Meghan's Oprah interview.
  #112  
Old 02-17-2021, 12:53 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Here's a straightforward interview with a Scottish reporter based in L.A., about the upcoming Oprah interview with M&H:
  #113  
Old 02-17-2021, 01:29 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
As others have said the duke & duchess appear to be morphing into celebrities... There are real commercial advantages to be gained here for the Sussexes. It’s a springboard for future ambition.

That they continue to do this sort of thing, taking advantage of & monetising their status in the American market, will continue to divide opinion of course. Here in Britain it will also probably further erode goodwill towards the idea of having a royal family.
Historically many members of the British royal family and some other royal families lead life in a fishbowl, which inevitably makes them very similar to being celebrities as a result of the fame and the popular interest.

There have been a number of U.K. documentaries examining this reality, including: The Scrutinized Lives of William & Harry: Prisoners of Celebrity. Yet another documentary from the late 1990s, early 2000s about William, 'Young Royal,' describes him as a 'rock star royal.' There are a number of associations between the royals and celebrity. That's factual.

Meghan was a moderately known working actor within the entertainment and fashion industries at the time she met Harry. It was meeting and marrying Harry which catapulted her to a level of celebrity status which hadn't existed for her previously. But the scrutiny once she married Prince Harry became intrusive and over-the-top.

Part of why M&H were attracted to each other was sharing the same interest in giving back to others. That's a huge driving force in their lives. Plus Meghan is used to working, as a self-made millionaire. There's nothing wrong with either of them wanting to lead independent lives together in which they can generate their own income and not be beholden to U.K. taxpayers.

The reality is that M&H have been criticized in the U.K. media nonstop, even when they go for weeks and months not being seen in public, or with only a few Zoom appearances on behalf of their charities and other worthy groups. No matter what M&H do, they will be criticized, so it's smart of them to carve out their own lives on their own terms, and make their own choices.

Part of the reason for the media storm in the U.K. surrounding the Oprah interview and anything and everything about M&H, is that Harry made the choice to depart with Meghan and Archie, and the U.K. media can no longer 'monetize' the Sussexes or their offspring.


Quote:
Originally Posted by REAL COUNTESS View Post
... He was happy as a Soldier, he was one of them, when he exited the Military he changed MO, he was lost. Sadly to say after he married, he lost some of himself, he was made to change, sorry to say this, but not for the better. Turning his Back on the Family he knew, was born into it, he grew up with and his friends made him bitter IMO...
Harry has said that during his time in the military, he was able to lead a more normal life. He seems to have always loved the military. Harry was apparently born to be a soldier and he thrived in the military. He was not happy about having to give it up, though he did in 2015 out of a sense of duty to his grandmother and to the royal firm.

it is well known that Harry had previously thought about stepping away from being a senior royal on more than one occasion prior to ever meeting Meghan. Both Harry and William have expressed in numerous interviews over the years, a desire to lead more 'normal' lives. Living life in the royal fishbowl has many drawbacks, as well as advantages. Losing their mother was an enormous trauma for both of him. It's the military, the creation of Sentebale and Invictus, and meeting and marrying Meghan which IMO made a man out of Prince Harry, and gave him a sense of purpose.

It's a fact that Harry is a blood royal prince, and nothing will ever change that. He fell deeply in love and got married, and he's protecting his core family unit. He's not breaking the law by deciding to put his core family first.

The kind of changes I see in Harry are very positive. If that's what being in love can wrought, I think it's wonderful. I look forward to seeing the Oprah interview, and learning whatever the 90 minutes will provide.

For those who aren't aware, Oprah Winfrey is already a self-made billionaire (actor, producer, publisher, philanthropist, broadcaster). She wields enormous influence, and she's surely someone it would be a distinct honor to get to know and to be in the position of befriending. In addition to the Duchess of York, Oprah has also previously interviewed Earl Spencer.
  #114  
Old 02-17-2021, 05:41 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post

There have been a number of U.K. documentaries examining this reality, including: The Scrutinized Lives of William & Harry: Prisoners of Celebrity. Yet another documentary from the late 1990s, early 2000s about William, 'Young Royal,' describes him as a 'rock star royal.' There are a number of associations between the royals and celebrity. That's factual.

The difference is that those were documentaries that they claim they didn't participate in. You can make a documentary about anyone without their permission.


They did do interviews the one that sticks out in my mind is the one with Matt Lauer where Harry makes the somewhat controversial statement that he will "never know" if someone else had a hand in their mother's death.


As I see it the problem with this interview is that it is being made out to be an ax to grind type interview about the royal family. Gail didn't help matters by announcing it was going to be a no holds barred interview.


My guess is that it's just going to be a generic interview about their charities with pictures of Archie- that might be why they keep him hidden.
Which is no problem I just have no interest in seeing that.


I don't think they want to sever all their ties with the royals with an interview telling nasty bits of gossip about them. Harry is slated to go to the UK to see them all again.
  #115  
Old 02-17-2021, 05:58 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Historically many members of the British royal family and some other royal families lead life in a fishbowl, which inevitably makes them very similar to being celebrities as a result of the fame and the popular interest.

There have been a number of U.K. documentaries examining this reality, including: The Scrutinized Lives of William & Harry: Prisoners of Celebrity. Yet another documentary from the late 1990s, early 2000s about William, 'Young Royal,' describes him as a 'rock star royal.' There are a number of associations between the royals and celebrity. That's factual.
Last time I check, those royals didn't monetise their titles for the American market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Part of why M&H were attracted to each other was sharing the same interest in giving back to others. That's a huge driving force in their lives. Plus Meghan is used to working, as a self-made millionaire. There's nothing wrong with either of them wanting to lead independent lives together in which they can generate their own income and not be beholden to U.K. taxpayers.
That isn't possible when they are still known as The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
The reality is that M&H have been criticized in the U.K. media nonstop, even when they go for weeks and months not being seen in public, or with only a few Zoom appearances on behalf of their charities and other worthy groups. No matter what M&H do, they will be criticized, so it's smart of them to carve out their own lives on their own terms, and make their own choices.
I'm tired of people who act that Harry and Meghan are the only royals who got treated like this, Camilla and Kate actually got it worse back then, remember "Waity Katie"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Part of the reason for the media storm in the U.K. surrounding the Oprah interview and anything and everything about M&H, is that Harry made the choice to depart with Meghan and Archie, and the U.K. media can no longer 'monetize' the Sussexes or their offspring.
Yet they can monetise their BRITISH titles in a country that doesn't recognise said titles though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Harry has said that during his time in the military, he was able to lead a more normal life. He seems to have always loved the military. Harry was apparently born to be a soldier and he thrived in the military. He was not happy about having to give it up, though he did in 2015 out of a sense of duty to his grandmother and to the royal firm.
Nobody forced him to quit the army, it was Harry's own decision to left because he didn't like being a desk officer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
For those who aren't aware, Oprah Winfrey is already a self-made billionaire (actor, producer, publisher, philanthropist, broadcaster). She wields enormous influence, and she's surely someone it would be a distinct honor to get to know and to be in the position of befriending. In addition to the Duchess of York, Oprah has also previously interviewed Earl Spencer.
Both of those people aren't senior members of the BRF, so it's apples and oranges.
  #116  
Old 02-17-2021, 06:30 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Historically many members of the British royal family and some other royal families lead life in a fishbowl, which inevitably makes them very similar to being celebrities as a result of the fame and the popular interest.

There have been a number of U.K. documentaries examining this reality, including: The Scrutinized Lives of William & Harry: Prisoners of Celebrity. Yet another documentary from the late 1990s, early 2000s about William, 'Young Royal,' describes him as a 'rock star royal.' There are a number of associations between the royals and celebrity. That's factual.

Meghan was a moderately known working actor within the entertainment and fashion industries at the time she met Harry. It was meeting and marrying Harry which catapulted her to a level of celebrity status which hadn't existed for her previously. But the scrutiny once she married Prince Harry became intrusive and over-the-top.

Part of why M&H were attracted to each other was sharing the same interest in giving back to others. That's a huge driving force in their lives. Plus Meghan is used to working, as a self-made millionaire. There's nothing wrong with either of them wanting to lead independent lives together in which they can generate their own income and not be beholden to U.K. taxpayers.

The reality is that M&H have been criticized in the U.K. media nonstop, even when they go for weeks and months not being seen in public, or with only a few Zoom appearances on behalf of their charities and other worthy groups. No matter what M&H do, they will be criticized, so it's smart of them to carve out their own lives on their own terms, and make their own choices.

Part of the reason for the media storm in the U.K. surrounding the Oprah interview and anything and everything about M&H, is that Harry made the choice to depart with Meghan and Archie, and the U.K. media can no longer 'monetize' the Sussexes or their offspring.




Harry has said that during his time in the military, he was able to lead a more normal life. He seems to have always loved the military. Harry was apparently born to be a soldier and he thrived in the military. He was not happy about having to give it up, though he did in 2015 out of a sense of duty to his grandmother and to the royal firm.

it is well known that Harry had previously thought about stepping away from being a senior royal on more than one occasion prior to ever meeting Meghan. Both Harry and William have expressed in numerous interviews over the years, a desire to lead more 'normal' lives. Living life in the royal fishbowl has many drawbacks, as well as advantages. Losing their mother was an enormous trauma for both of him. It's the military, the creation of Sentebale and Invictus, and meeting and marrying Meghan which IMO made a man out of Prince Harry, and gave him a sense of purpose.

It's a fact that Harry is a blood royal prince, and nothing will ever change that. He fell deeply in love and got married, and he's protecting his core family unit. He's not breaking the law by deciding to put his core family first.

The kind of changes I see in Harry are very positive. If that's what being in love can wrought, I think it's wonderful. I look forward to seeing the Oprah interview, and learning whatever the 90 minutes will provide.

For those who aren't aware, Oprah Winfrey is already a self-made billionaire (actor, producer, publisher, philanthropist, broadcaster). She wields enormous influence, and she's surely someone it would be a distinct honor to get to know and to be in the position of befriending. In addition to the Duchess of York, Oprah has also previously interviewed Earl Spencer.
I have no issue with Harry and Meghan becoming celebrities making their own money and I think in general moat people wouldn’t either. The issue is when its perceived they are using their royal links to “cash in”. I’m not saying that is happening but many people and media in the UK believe it is, and that is an issue because if it happens they are making money of the Queen and their royal links. This is a bit of a grey area as to be fair other members of the Queen’s family do this to some extent- e.g Zara but she also has a professional career as a horsewoman which is her main reason to be well known but of course being the Queen’s granddaughter adds value to that. But then again she probably gets away with it more as she has never had “the royal life” which sees taxpayer money spent of bodyguards, duties and houses. The issue with Harry and Meghan is what are they offering other than themselves being former royals? To be honest to a degree it would maybe be better if Meghan went out and got an acting role and became an actress again then she would be able to say she is a professional working woman who's role requires some celebrity.

As for the military- Harry left because like all military personnel progressing up the ranks and career ladder he was asked to take a desk job and decided he’s rather not do that. It wasn’t in any way “for the firm or Queen”.

We can see from how the Oprah interview is being teased that they seem to be relying on their names and their royal links to sell it - "talking about leaving the royal family" etc, Gale saying nothing is off the table. They (whether H&M themselves or Oprah's people or the network) are clearly hoping those royal links will drive up viewership and thats the rub for these two. If they want to make it as "celebrities" in their own right - go do that. Become a rugby player good enough to represent you country international like Mike or win an Olympic medal like Zara or heck be an actress again and let your work speak for itself. They are quite happy to use their royal links to be "famous" and that is the issue.
  #117  
Old 02-17-2021, 06:58 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I have no issue with Harry and Meghan becoming celebrities making their own money and I think in general moat people wouldn’t either. The issue is when its perceived they are using their royal links to “cash in”. . Become a rugby player good enough to represent you country international like Mike or win an Olympic medal like Zara or heck be an actress again and let your work speak for itself. They are quite happy to use their royal links to be "famous" and that is the issue.
True.. but a lot of people do have issues with their decision to become celebrities making their own money... Meghan was never a great actress and if she took up acting again it would be obvious that she got the parts because she is the Duchess of Sussex...Harry could have stayed in the army but he didn't want to do a desk job..
  #118  
Old 02-17-2021, 09:15 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
There is just one thing wrong with that scenario. Unlike the many cousins and second cousins of the monarch who throng the Balcony at Trooping etc, in the next reign Harry will be the monarch's son and Meghan that King's daughter in law. As the King's son and daughter in law they will have more right to appear on the Balcony than Alexandra's descendants, or the Duke of Kent's or Anne's etc.

Harry will remain Charles's son and William's brother for as long as he lives, as Joe Little of Majesty Magazine put it, Harry remains 'indelibly Royal'. And wherever he lives he will be a King's son and the next King's only brother, with everything that brings with it, including within the US.

The next reign will bring Harry closer to the Throne as the only other son of King Charles, not further away from it, a forgotten Royal on the side, as many here would like it.

Harry will always be Elizabeth II's grandson, Charles' son, and William's brother. That is true and something that cannot be ever taken away from him. However, his royal title and style (HRH Prince Harry), his peerages and even his and his children's place in the line of succession can be taken away from him and he shouldn't take them for granted.


Will it happen? I don't think so, but the possibility exists. Taking away the HRH actually depends solely on the monarch's discretion and is the easiest "punishment" to inflict on him. Taking away his peerages would require an act of the UK Parliament and removing him and his descendants from the line of succession would require not only an act of the UK Parliament, but also legislation (or consent) from the Commonwealth realms that share the line of succession with the UK. The latter are probably very remote possibilities given how complicated it would be to do it.


Since William has three children, I don't think Harry getting "closer" to the throne when Charles ascends will be an issue. At best, he will move up to 5th in line and, since he doesn't live in the UK, he won't be able by law to serve as Counsellor of State or Regent. Later, George will probably have children of his own (as will his siblings) and Harry will move down again.
  #119  
Old 02-17-2021, 09:20 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,758
Taking away Harry's HRH and removing him and his children from the line could very well happen. I am just curious if they are willing to open that can of worms though because no doubt once you do then the questions of others will arise...
  #120  
Old 02-17-2021, 09:24 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Taking away Harry's HRH and removing him and his children from the line could very well happen. I am just curious if they are willing to open that can of worms though because no doubt once you do then the questions of others will arise...
Its not likely they will do so. However one coudl argue that since Harry and Meg have volutnarilly removed themselves from the UK and from royal duties, why do they want/need HRH and a peerage?
__________________

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





Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names biography british british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! history house of windsor japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers monarchist movements monarchists mountbatten plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech st edward thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:10 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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