Harry and Chelsy: Relationship Musings - Page 41

Iluvbertie · #**801** 06-20-2010, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by segolen

Ascot was on the 12th and the match event was on the 18th...how long does it take to get an airplane and go to SA? not long as I believe...anyway, I haven't seen here there in person, may be some people did...and as far as the sport even was only to be HRH represented...I doubt. Everyone can go there and represent what they like

Ascot is a series of race meetings with the 15th being the first day and the 19th being the last.

The following link refers to her being their 'yesterday' and was posted on the 20th meaning that she was at Ascot for the Saturday meeting not one of the earlier days. Royal romance in crisis as Chelsy Davy tells Prince Harry she pines for home | Mail Online

That means that she was at Ascot while Harry was in SA at the soccer.

Thena · #**802** 06-21-2010, 01:55 AM

Keeping things in perspective... it would be awful if media speculation over his relationship with Chelsy overshadowed the work Harry is doing with Sentebale.

Iluvbertie · #**803** 06-21-2010, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thena

Keeping things in perspective... it would be awful if media speculation over his relationship with Chelsy overshadowed the work Harry is doing with Sentebale.

It will always overshadow things like that. Love and pretty women win over dying babies in a far-off land, unfortunately.

Inge Jones · #**804** 06-21-2010, 04:39 AM

I don't think Chelsy and Harry are suited for the long-term. There is a lot of passion and excitement between them, partly fuelled by the uncertainty of their future together as well as physical attraction. But once they had settled down in marriage I think they would soon find their brains operated at very different levels. To put it bluntly, Chelsy is academic and Harry very much is not. :)

Lumutqueen · #**805** 06-21-2010, 05:33 AM

Somewhere in the back of my mind, a little voice is saying, Harry's girlfriend pines for home, what more of an excuse does he need to move to Africa?
Yes I know he has his obligations as prince, but if he doesn't really care for royal duties, only his excellent charity work, such a sentebale, he can do that without a title.

Plus the Daily Mail article mentions no split, just a crisis. I thought they would have been the first to jump on the bandwagon.

Inge Jones · #**806** 06-21-2010, 05:38 AM

Also Harry is not short of cash - assuming he at least finishes his current contract with the army so as not to let them down, he could live in Africa with Chelsy and *still* make it over to the UK at his own expense any time he needs to perform some royal duties! In this day of rapid travel and communication, it's not like we'd be saying goodbye to him forever.

Lumutqueen · #**807** 06-21-2010, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by segolen

I think they split, because she wasn't on the match England vs Algeria in Cape Town with Harry and William. Everyone knows she is in SA right now, and if the were together, they would have attended the game together....this is what I think, and makes sense to me.

No they wouldn't, this was an official duty for the boys they would not have brought their girlfriends along to such a match.
Plus, she was pictured at Ascot this week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by segolen

Ascot was on the 12th and the match event was on the 18th...how long does it take to get an airplane and go to SA? not long as I believe...anyway, I haven't seen here there in person, may be some people did...and as far as the sport even was only to be HRH represented...I doubt. Everyone can go there and represent what they like

The flight to Johannesburg is 11 and a half hours.
Of course you won't see her here in person, why would you? She's not likely to pop up in front of the newspapers every chance she gets.
How can you doubt something that is a fact, Chelsy as a girlfriend would not have been allowed to sit with the princes at the match. From what I can gather she left SA when William and Harry's official tour started.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inge Jones

Also Harry is not short of cash - assuming he at least finishes his current contract with the army so as not to let them down, he could live in Africa with Chelsy and *still* make it over to the UK at his own expense any time he needs to perform some royal duties! In this day of rapid travel and communication, it's not like we'd be saying goodbye to him forever.

I could see him coming over for the big events, Christmas, Trooping of the Colour and big birthdays etc. If he doesn't have a title, (because if he moves to Africa and still keeps his title, there would be an uproar), then he doesn't have to perform royal duties.

Inge Jones · #**808** 06-21-2010, 05:45 AM

The problem is there are only two of them. I am not sure taking away his title and leaving us without a "spare" would be a good idea. And of course if he ever did need to step into William's shoes permanently, where would that leave his marriage?

Ok, all things considered, maybe it's best if they can both manage to move on. I do like Chelsy, but I am sure she won't be alone for long - nor he.

Lumutqueen · #**809** 06-21-2010, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inge Jones

The problem is there are only two of them. I am not sure taking away his title and leaving us without a "spare" would be a good idea. And of course if he ever did need to step into William's shoes permanently, where would that leave his marriage?

Ok, all things considered, maybe it's best if they can both manage to move on. I do like Chelsy, but I am sure she won't be alone for long - nor he.

I disagree with you completely on the Chelsy thing. She seems to be the only girl for Harry and the only girl who has managed to tame him and make him realize what his passion is.
Depends when he decides to leave, if he finishes his army training etc, he won't be leaving for what 3-4 years?
It wouldn't leave us without a spare, because someone would step into his shoes if he did leave.
If he loses his titles, and succession rights, he won't have to step into Williams shoes, someone else would have to.

Inge Jones · #**810** 06-21-2010, 05:50 AM

Ideally, William would hurry up and have his own heir/s! That would free up Harry completely :)

Lumutqueen · #**811** 06-21-2010, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inge Jones

Ideally, William would hurry up and have his own heir/s! That would free up Harry completely :)

You can't rush love or marriage. If William feels pressured into marrying, his marraige will crumble easily just like his fathers.

Inge Jones · #**812** 06-21-2010, 05:57 AM

Actually, the potential crumbling state of a royal's marriage is not as much of a constitutional problem as his lack of heirs. Both 2nd and 3rd in line to the throne are flying helicopters and neither of them have heirs. I can't say I feel comfortable with the situation.

Lumutqueen · #**813** 06-21-2010, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inge Jones

Actually, the potential crumbling state of a royal's marriage is not as much of a constitutional problem as his lack of heirs. Both 2nd and 3rd in line to the throne are flying helicopters and neither of them have heirs. I can't say I feel comfortable with the situation.

William is 28 today, Harry is 25. Do you expect them to have had kids already?
They are flying helicopters, possible under the safest means possible. You cannot stop them from taking part in military training just because it is dangerous, and they haven't had any kids yet.
Would you like both of them to have married, had kids at an early age, the marriage crumbles and all three parties, especially the children suffer the most?
Saying that if something happens to either of them, thats just the way it happens, you cannot turn back time.

Also don't forget that Charles does have to become king first, William is not the heir yet.
By the time Charles is King, William will most likely be married, and possible have children. Leaving Harry to pursue the life he actually wants him SA.

Inge Jones · #**814** 06-21-2010, 06:13 AM

But Charles is no longer capable of producing heirs. If he loses his sons the next monarch will be Andrew and then Beatrice. I am not sure those guys could do it...

And yes, at 28 and 25 I *do* expect them, as part of their born obligations, to have started producing heirs. Unlike ordinary people, they don't *have* to have established careers in order to afford a home for their family. And they're men - they don't even have to stay home having the babies themselves. All they have to do is take a day off to get married, get their wives pregnant, and get back into their helicopters doing what they want to do and carrying on with their chosen careers. Really how hard can this be for them? It's not like either of them were having trouble (unlike their poor Dad) deciding which woman they actually wanted to be with.

Lumutqueen · #**815** 06-21-2010, 06:21 AM

That wasn't my point.
By the time Charles is King and reigning. His sons will be married and William will be producing heirs. Leaving Harry to basically do what he likes.

Your talking about them like they are robots, born to do a certain job and that is it. Are they not allowed to live a life of their own?
Times have changed, the United Kingdom no longer sees the monarchy like they used to. They are just figures who wear fancy clothes. If Harry and William weren't doing army training and just seen as "sponging" of society, there would be an outcry.

Quite hard, just because these two have been in relationship for a while does not mean they are at all ready for marriage, or for the prospect of children. They are human beings.
I rarely use this line but, look at what happened to their parents marriage, Charles chose a girl to produce babies, she did, then what happened. The boys should not be pressured into getting married and having children when they don't want to.

Andrew and Beatrice might not be ready now, but Andrew was once heir to Charles, he will have been told certain things just in case Charles had no children. Again Charles will be King first, if both boys pass away or have no children. Andrew and Beatrice will recieve the proper training they require just in case.

Look at Prince Albert of Monaco, he's 50 something, not married and doesn't have any legitamate children to continue his succesion.

Inge Jones · #**816** 06-21-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Your talking about them like they are robots, born to do a certain job and that is it. Are they not allowed to live a life of their own?
Times have changed, the United Kingdom no longer sees the monarchy like they used to. They are just figures who wear fancy clothes. If Harry and William weren't doing army training and just seen as "sponging" of society, there would be an outcry.

I think this is a symptom of the ambiguity that surrounds monarchy. We're in uncomfortable middle ground. In a way, if we're going to think of them purely in terms of human beings doing a job, we really have to face the fact that a hereditory head of state is a ludicrous idea. In modern "enlightened" terms, Harry and William would have been born normal commoners and *if* in years to come they had not fallen in love with African women and moved to Africa, they *may* have chosen to run for President of the UK.

The whole ethos behind tolerating a hereditory leader is that we traditionally believe them to be different from us, somehow divinely destined to be married to their duty towards the monarchic system - putting the fundamental need to secure a pure linear succession before *anything* else. Once we understand their needs and interests are as varied as our own, and that they are intent on pursuing those, why would we not expect them to be like us in every other way, including the requirement to gain votes before gaining a position of authority?

Iluvbertie · #**817** 06-21-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inge Jones

Actually, the potential crumbling state of a royal's marriage is not as much of a constitutional problem as his lack of heirs. Both 2nd and 3rd in line to the throne are flying helicopters and neither of them have heirs. I can't say I feel comfortable with the situation.

They do have heirs - the Queen's second son and his daughters, followed by the third son and his children and then the Queen's daughter and her children.

They don't have their own children but they do have heirs.

If something happened to both of them the monarchy would continue with no glitch at all - Andrew would return to the position he was in i28 years ago and Beatrice and Eugenie would follow up the line.

Andrew has served as a Councillor-of-State and is still eligible and will be for the next 21+ years (he will be eligible until either William or Harry's eldest child reaches 21) so he will have been trained to do the job of monarch if necessary, due to being born 2nd in line and having to do the job of C-of-S. The same with Beatrice who will also serve in that capacity at some stage in the future (unless you see the Queen living for over another 21 years). The Councillors-in-State, at least one of whom and often two of them, serve in the role of Head of State whenever the Queen is out of the country, are the next four adults over 21, who are in line to the throne. Edward and Anne have also served in that capacity as has the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent in the earlier years of the Queen's reign. They are fully trained by the Queen just in case.

Iluvbertie · #**818** 06-21-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inge Jones

I think this is a symptom of the ambiguity that surrounds monarchy...

You might see them that way but most people I know recognise that they are also human and that the days of forcing them to marry simply to produce heirs are long gone.

Sister Morphine · #**819** 06-21-2010, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inge Jones

...And yes, at 28 and 25 I *do* expect them, as part of their born obligations, to have started producing heirs...

So in other words, they should marry whether they want to right now or not.
Oh that'll produce a healthy, happy marriage.

Inge Jones · #**820** 06-21-2010, 09:20 AM

Well, ok, we can talk about them as if they are celebrities but basically normal people, or we can look at the aspect that is more to do with the underpinnings of national identity. Of course I don't want them to be unhappy, but at the end of the day I am glad we got Spencer bloodline back on the throne because of the historical connotations. And for that reason I am glad there was an unhappy first marriage with Diana to produce those boys, rather than a happy first marriage with Camilla placing her offspring on the throne instead. Perhaps William should pair up with a foreign princess - but at least let the woman be under 30 and in the best position to pass on the healthiest of genetic material.

Where the focus of this family's relationship with us is in their heredity, keeping the purity of direct first-born succession as far as possible is of the essence. Once that becomes of less importance than their happiness (which could be now, really) then the monarchy has lost its unique identity and has become nothing more than a tourist-attracting celebrity roadshow.