The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1741  
Old 01-08-2021, 08:32 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
My bad, I thought Princess Margaret and Prince Richard were in the same generation
As first cousins they were in the same generation but born 14 years apart.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1742  
Old 01-08-2021, 08:42 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,704
Princess Margaret was the 'spare' until Prince Charles was born late in 1948. She then saw, as the Queen's children grew up and had children themselves, her role near to the Throne diminish. I pointed out in my previous post that had she taken the route of many in Continental royal houses she could have had a satisfying role elsewhere from her twenties onwards.

Prince Harry is the first Royal who is near to the Throne to walk away. It's been stated in many articles that in spite of Charles intending to slim down the monarchy that Harry (and his wife) were going to be a vital part of that small knot of royals performing fulltime Royal duties.

However, being a future King's son and a fulltime Royal doesn't require a form of servitude, of contemplating years and years of doing the same sort of engagements for ever until old age and death! If a person feels unfulfilled, unhappy or miserable in the performing of his role as a full time Royal (or his spouse does) then he has every right to withdraw from it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1743  
Old 01-08-2021, 08:50 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 729
The Queen mother said something about service and privilege.
The bottom line is that everything Harry has achieved is because of his birth. The trust funds, his mother's inheritance. His name.
He achieved personally his military achievements but for whatever reason he did not wish to continue with that.
Meghan was well known within a certain level of the entertainment world, but not internationally known until she married Harry.
I get annoyed when people who served the Queen are put down as subservient when they maybe saw it as an honour.
If this latest reveal about being subservient really is a leaked story from Harry I would be really disappointed in him. But what is new.
If it is untrue he should sue.
Reply With Quote
  #1744  
Old 01-08-2021, 08:58 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Princess Margaret was the 'spare' until Prince Charles was born late in 1948. She then saw, as the Queen's children grew up and had children themselves, her role near to the Throne diminish. I pointed out in my previous post that had she taken the route of many in Continental royal houses she could have had a satisfying role elsewhere from her twenties onwards.

Prince Harry is the first Royal who is near to the Throne to walk away. It's been stated in many articles that in spite of Charles intending to slim down the monarchy that Harry (and his wife) were going to be a vital part of that small knot of royals performing fulltime Royal duties.

However, being a future King's son and a fulltime Royal doesn't require a form of slavery, of contemplating years and years of doing the same sort of engagements for ever until old age and death! If a person feels unfulfilled, unhappy or miserable in the performing of his role as a full time Royal (or his spouse does) then he has every right to withdraw from it.
I take the point you are trying to make but please do not use the word slavery. That is unacceptable.
Reply With Quote
  #1745  
Old 01-08-2021, 09:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,704
I've changed the word to servitude if that is acceptable, as in below, meaning 1.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/servitude

Why would Harry sue over remarks made by an historian and author to a magazine? Robert Lacey has probably never met Harry, isn't in communication with him as far as is known and he is giving his own views on Meghan and Harry's leaving the Royal fold and on the Royal Family structure, which is an heirarchal one. Lacey hasn't quoted Harry on anything about Megxit in this interview so there is nothing to sue about.
Reply With Quote
  #1746  
Old 01-08-2021, 09:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I've changed the word to servitude if that is acceptable.

Why would Harry sue over remarks made by an historian and author made to a magazine? Robert Lacey has probably never met Harry, isn't in communication with him as far as is known and his giving his own views on Meghan and Harry's leaving the Royal fold and on the Royal Family structure, which is an heirarchal one. Lacey hasn't quoted Harry on anything about Megxit in this interview so there is nothing to sue about.
I am happy to discuss not argue, but as I said they have a privilege life in return for duty not servitude.
Harry chose a different life , he did not wish duty.
Which is fine, but he did and still does have a privileged life because of his birth.
If he is happy in his new life, good for him, but please do not forget his birth and his place in the world because of his birth. He even acknowledged that himself on his new website by referring to his mother. He used his birthright to promote his new life.
Reply With Quote
  #1747  
Old 01-08-2021, 10:04 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,704
Harry is not responsible for his birth (none of us are) nor of the family into which he was born. And others, such as the Wessexes, tried to pull away from the Royal round by continuing their private businesses though it didn't work out for them.

I don't recall any media reproofs for them or accusations of being undutiful at the time they announced they would be keeping their businesses on and pursuing a private life. They did not reject the royal titles Edward was given, (nor should they, as Edward was son of the monarch.)

And Harry before he left Britain emphasised his respect for his grandmother as sovereign, referring to her as his Commander in Chief, the woman he served throughout the ten years of his military career.
Reply With Quote
  #1748  
Old 01-08-2021, 10:41 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
My bad, I thought Princess Margaret and Prince Richard were in the same generation
Yes they were the same generation but very different. Not only in their position to the throne. But also in their gender.

Richard was the younger son of a Duke. He was never expected to even become Duke of Gloucester, not alone take on royal duties. He had the education expected of a gentleman of his position in society. And as expected of men, he had career goals to be an architect.

Margaret on the other hand was the spare to the throne. And a woman. Even Elizabeth was home-schooled, tutors instead of boarding school like male heirs. Alexandra was the first royal woman to be sent to boarding school. Even if she had not been spare to the throne, Margaret grew up on a time where the idea that a woman's place was in the home with kids and supporting her husband was still strong. Her lack of formal education, being raised in a time when women weren't encouraged for careers, and her role as the spare to the throne all shaped any choices made in her life.


If she was even born a generation later, things may have been different. Like her niece Anne she would likely have received a higher education. And may have found more private interests beyond simply supporting the crown. Anne has always had her riding and horses, beyond her royal duties.


If she had the education of Anne, or even her daughter Sarah, and grew up in a decade where a woman working was more normal, Margaret may very well have been different. She may not have been satisfied as simply a support for her sister while the kids were young.



I still find it sad that Harry had to leave the royal family to be able to explore personal business. There is really no need for full time royals, besides the monarch and direct heirs. A handful of part time royals would more then fill any other needs. Harry and others should not only be applauded for wanting to make their way personally, but encouraged to do so as well.


The York girls are the perfect example you can do both. Even though they aren't official working royals. They both manage to have private jobs while they have a dozen or so patronages as well. There is a way to balance both.
Reply With Quote
  #1749  
Old 01-09-2021, 01:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post

The York girls are the perfect example you can do both. Even though they aren't official working royals. They both manage to have private jobs while they have a dozen or so patronages as well. There is a way to balance both.
I agree that the York girls that can claim both. I believe the public's big out cry is that neither of the York girls have ever received compensation for any of their patronages or appearances. Any money spent they pay for [transportation etc.] Harry and Meghan can not claim that and it seems [at least media is claiming] that they still want both plus the huge protection expense while not living in the UK. I just think this argument is all about money from the Taxpayer. Plain and simple. Once that gets satisfied, there should be no problem by anyone. JMO
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #1750  
Old 01-09-2021, 02:24 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,495
The Yorks are not working royals and never were. They do not represent the queen and they support their charities as private individuals. THey are nothing like Haryr and Meghan.
Reply With Quote
  #1751  
Old 01-09-2021, 04:15 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Robert Lacey may still be respected by some, but not by me and I suspect not by many others. That comment about subservience is a slap in the face to the hard working members of the BRF. Was Mr. Lacey saying the institution of the monarchy was about subservience before his loathsome book? When he spent years writing about the Royals? NOPE. NOPE. He has sold his soul.

As for H and M, given what has happened in my country, I don’t want to hear a word from Harry (she’s a citizen).
Reply With Quote
  #1752  
Old 01-09-2021, 05:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
The Yorks are not working royals and never were. They do not represent the queen and they support their charities as private individuals. THey are nothing like Haryr and Meghan.

And due to this fact, I'm was surprised that the Sussexes' statement appeared to reference them along with Prince Michael of Kent since they're titled members of the BRF who have employment outside of the institution when stating their desire to be official representatives while earning a private income.


https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/r...-a4369861.html


Quote:
Under a section on the website titled "As agreed and set out in January 2020" the Duke and Duchess of Sussex provided more details on their stated aim to become "privately funded members of The Royal Family with permission to earn their own income and the ability to pursue their own private charitable interests.The statement nodded to other members of the Royal Family who maintain HRH titles while earning money privately:

"While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place."

"

That being said, I do hope that the Sussexes have had the opportunity to share with the York princess and Prince Michael what they were referring to in their statement.
Reply With Quote
  #1753  
Old 01-09-2021, 05:49 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
And due to this fact, I'm was surprised that the Sussexes' statement appeared to reference them along with Prince Michael of Kent since they're titled members of the BRF who have employment outside of the institution when stating their desire to be official representatives while earning a private income.


https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/r...-a4369861.html


That being said, I do hope that the Sussexes have had the opportunity to share with the York princess and Prince Michael what they were referring to in their statement.
They were being entirely disingenuous with their statement, working whilst having a title and doing private patronages on the side isn't the same as wanting to use your titles to make money. And they lashed out because they were denied that part. Otherwise why complain?

It's possible that one day they might become members that turn up at Trooping etc again but it might not be any time soon, especially if they want to turn up with a Netflix camera crew in tow.
Reply With Quote
  #1754  
Old 01-09-2021, 06:16 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
They were being entirely disingenuous with their statement, working whilst having a title and doing private patronages on the side isn't the same as wanting to use your titles to make money. And they lashed out because they were denied that part. Otherwise why complain?

It's possible that one day they might become members that turn up at Trooping etc again but it might not be any time soon, especially if they want to turn up with a Netflix camera crew in tow.
I personally think Meghan did herself and Harry no favours by naming Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie and Prince Michael of Kent in her court papers. All it does is ruin Harry & Meghan's relationship with them or even the other members of the Royal Family.

Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie and Prince Michael of Kent do earn their living and have royal patronages. And again, it's not the same as using their title to make money.

In terms of Trooping of the Colour, it all depends on how the Royal Family and Palaces decide on who could appear on the balcony. Currently, it's the descendants of The Queen, Princess Margaret, (1st) Duke of Gloucester and (1st) Duke of Kent. Not only did they have to agree with decision as a family, but also consider public opinions.

Meghan even mentioned that she felt unprotected by the Royal Family as an institution. Again, some members of the Royal Family would be very upset or even frustrated that their staff has been thrown under the bus.
Reply With Quote
  #1755  
Old 01-09-2021, 11:25 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
In terms of Trooping of the Colour, it all depends on how the Royal Family and Palaces decide on who could appear on the balcony. Currently, it's the descendants of The Queen, Princess Margaret, (1st) Duke of Gloucester and (1st) Duke of Kent. Not only did they have to agree with decision as a family, but also consider public opinions.
Did Diana and Sarah make balcony appearance after the brouhaha in early 90's prior to the divorce?
Reply With Quote
  #1756  
Old 01-10-2021, 04:28 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,692
The discussion is supposed to be about the personal relationships between members of the Royal Family, not a re-hash of discussions already had elsewhere about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex or the careers/employment of the royals.

Further posts unrelated to the topic will be deleted.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1757  
Old 01-16-2021, 05:47 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 720
Tom Bradby did an interview with Alan Titchmarsh on the ITV show, Love Your Weekend With Alan Titchmarsh. When I first read the Evening Standards article, I felt there are some conflicting claims on the relationship between Harry & Meghan and the other royal family members. Second time reading, it was less so, because Tom Bradby summarised that the relationship (mainly) between William and Harry is impacted by "their positions in life"

Duke of Sussex ‘heartbroken by situation with family’ after US move, says Tom Bradby
But friend and ITV News anchor Tom Bradby said Harry and Meghan were ‘content’ with their new lives
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/h...y-b899977.html
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, princessanne, relationship, relationships, siblings


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
Relationships Between Members of the Swedish Royal Family Grandduchess24 Royal House of Sweden 61 10-12-2020 03:33 PM
Relationships between members of the Norwegian royal family. Dennism Royal House of Norway 89 08-19-2020 02:16 PM
Relationships between the Members of the Danish Royal Family jellybeans Royal House of Denmark 329 11-26-2019 06:24 PM
Relationships between Members of the Spanish Royal Family kil Royal Family of Spain 1497 02-20-2019 08:17 PM
Relationships between members of the Princely Family michelle Princely Family of Monaco 324 08-11-2018 03:22 AM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american history anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names british royal family buckingham palace canada carolin cht coronavirus cpr duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon elizabeth ii emperor family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg hypothetical monarchs interesting introduction jewellery jewelry jumma kids movie list of rulers maxima mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family pless prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen louise queen maud resusci anne royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress settings spain stuart thailand thai royal family videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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