Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017 - Page 109

miche · #**2161** 12-15-2016, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

Reading your post, Miche, I had to chuckle quite loudly to myself here because from all I've read when it comes to Harry and the Cambridge children, Uncle Harry is probably the bright spot of the day when he comes through the door. I think it was when W&K&H entertained the Obamas that George asked "why is Uncle Harry being so quiet?" as Uncle Harry was on his best behavior.

I think, at least in my mind, that if the kids are over the moon with being with Uncle Harry, any friend of his would be an instant hit with them too. I can well imagine Meghan joining in the horseplay as much as Harry does. Of course this is all in my head from the bits and pieces we've been able to put together but its an amusing scene that made me smile.

Just b/c Harry is a bright spot for George (base on what Michelle Obama said) doesn't mean its right for him to bring his girlfriend to stay at his sibling house. She's a stranger to these kids

There are other properties at Sandringham that Harry can stayed at. If the press wanted to make up stories about Meghan being there with him at Christmas, they can write that he will stay at those houses.

Also just b/c that Harry's girlfriend doesn't mean they should just invite her to stay at their house with their small children in there.

I don't even think non royal family would do that when the significant other as only been there for less than a year and its long distance. Its not like they know her

Dman · #**2162** 12-15-2016, 04:22 PM

I'm sure the family would welcome Harry's guest to their houses folks. No one would have to worry about the kids or anything like that. They love and trust him and would welcome his girlfriend with open arms. The royals entertain guest on a regular bases, especially at their country houses.

royal rob · #**2163** 12-15-2016, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman

Yeah, but why go into all this talk about big break ups and who's going getting custody of the kids, when this couple is just dating and trying to see where things are going to go?

Because I'm interested in what happens in the BRF re children living aboard.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

American Observer7 · #**2164** 12-15-2016, 04:43 PM

Did Harry ever follow through with getting Meghan a bodyguard?

Ish · #**2165** 12-15-2016, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss whirley

I won't click on that trash, but 80 years ago Bertie was King. He was pretty open-minded with marriages. He let Elizabeth marry Philip despite the Nazi connections with Philips in-laws. He let his nephew marry a jewish woman. It was said he couldn't deny Margaret anything, had he lived longer I think he would have approved her marriage to divorcee Peter Townsend, and fought for her against the the government powers that be. So I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's real tacky that the DM is slating Bertie like this, or so I presume as I won't click on that nonsense.

80 years (and 5 days) ago Edward VIII abdicated because he wanted to marry a divorced American.

King or not, George VI would not have then allowed one of his children to marry a divorcee, on the grounds that if a divorcee American spouse was acceptable for George's heir or his spare then why did Edward have to abdicate?

Whether or not he would have allowed Margaret to marry Peter Townsend some 20 years later (about 60 years ago) is another issue, although as the CoE's stance on divorce was still absolutely against it I wouldn't call it a sure thing - the advantage that he would have had over Elizabeth in this regards is that she was then a 20-something woman still relatively new to her role dealing with older, more established men, while he would have been an older, more established man himself.

Pranter · #**2166** 12-15-2016, 05:10 PM

I don't think Queen Mary supported it at the time. I doubt the King would of either.

Keep in mind she could of married him...but she didn't want to lose the position.

LaRae

Osipi · #**2167** 12-15-2016, 05:27 PM

When you think about then and now, there are so many changes that its impossible to compare the then times with the now times. Take TV for example. Some of the stuff that is broadcast during prime time TV hours today would have made our grandmothers reach for the smelling salts and give men of the cloth plenty to fill their sermons with each week raving against the Evil Box in the living room.

We just have to look to Charles, Anne and Andrew to see clearly that divorce has become a more acceptable choice with remarriage in the royal family to divorced people also acceptable.

If the BRF remained in the same mindset without change over the years, they would quickly be seen as anachronistic and irrelevant to today's world. Kind of like sticking to the point that TV is just a passing fad and its best to just rely on the radio for all one's needs.

miss whirley · #**2168** 12-15-2016, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish

80 years (and 5 days) ago Edward VIII abdicated because he wanted to marry a divorced American.

King or not, George VI would not have then allowed one of his children to marry a divorcee, on the grounds that if a divorcee American spouse was acceptable for George's heir or his spare then why did Edward have to abdicate?

When Bertie became King in 1936 his children were 10 and 6. So of course he wouldn't approve marriages for them at the start of his reign as they were mere children. So of course I can only talk about how he handled - or would of handled - their love lives at a later age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter

I don't think Queen Mary supported it at the time. I doubt the King would of either.

Keep in mind she could of married him...but she didn't want to lose the position.

LaRae

Queen Mary was bendable. She initially didn't support her grandson Earl of Harewood marrying a jewish woman. But with Bertie's approval and the hopeful groom's dogged determination she eventually relented.

AlowVera · #**2169** 12-15-2016, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Piers Morgan bragging again about being 'friends' with Meghan. If anything dooms this relationship, a friendship with the former editor of News of the World and Daily Mirror will be on top of the list.

Remember when Piers was asked by the BBC, "Why can't you just leave Prince Harry alone?" (Piers was Harry's chief tormentor back in the Nazi fancy dress days)

No it does'nt doom anything, Americans know Piers as the guy who took Larry King's place and that was how Meghan knew Piers and I knew him....she agreed with his opinion regarding gun control and I remember also agreeing with him and thinking he was just a talking head. Piers also was a fan of the show and follows not only Meghan but other members. Again Americans simply do not have the same history and know nothing about how awful he is.

Also they are hardly friends, and at the time of the meeting Meghan tweeted about her trip to England and meeting Piers as well as other people in the media and fashion.

Save
Save

Rudolph · #**2170** 12-15-2016, 05:42 PM

As we thought, Meghan won't be spending Christmas at Anmer. The Telegraph reports the Cambridges are going to Bucklebury this year.

Curryong · #**2171** 12-15-2016, 05:46 PM

It'll be lonely this Christmas for Prince Harry as Meghan, William and Kate all celebrate elsewhere

I don't think Harry will be exactly lonely, the Yorks (minus Sarah, of course) Wessexes, Tindalls and others will be packing the house. It's only for a couple of days, anyway. I'm sure Harry will have the time of his life. Everybody seems to enjoy the Sandringham get-together.

American Observer7 · #**2172** 12-15-2016, 05:46 PM

It'll be lonely this Christmas for Prince Harry as Meghan, William and Kate all celebrate elsewhere

Why doesn't Harry just fly to California with Meghan since his brother and his family will be with the Middletons this year?

Pranter · #**2173** 12-15-2016, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss whirley

When Bertie became King in 1936 his children were 10 and 6. So of course he wouldn't approve marriages for them at the start of his reign as they were mere children. So of course I can only talk about how he handled - or would of handled - their love lives at a later age.

Queen Mary was bendable. She initially didn't support her grandson Earl of Harewood marrying a jewish woman. But with Bertie's approval and the hopeful groom's dogged determination she eventually relented.

She never relented about Wallis though as I recall. She could be very 'unbendy' A daughter is different than a grandson, marrying decades later.

LaRae

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

When you think about then and now, there are so many changes that its impossible to compare the then times with the now times. Take TV for example. Some of the stuff that is broadcast during prime time TV hours today would have made our grandmothers reach for the smelling salts and give men of the cloth plenty to fill their sermons with each week raving against the Evil Box in the living room.

Not just that....you would of gone to jail!

LaRae

wyevale · #**2174** 12-15-2016, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Harry may have to give up country pursuits.

Why, in Gods name should one person in a relationship give up a pursuit, because the other doesn't enjoy it ?
In healthy relationships enough space is accorded to both partners that they may enjoy their pleasures separately if that's whats needed...

Pranter · #**2175** 12-15-2016, 05:58 PM

Oh good grief, that article, they act like Harry would be sitting in a room all alone eating a TV dinner! LOL

I think he can make do with the rest of his family....

LaRae

Ceallach · #**2176** 12-15-2016, 06:03 PM

First pictures of the couple. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/240177...e-date-london/

miss whirley · #**2177** 12-15-2016, 06:09 PM

So People is claiming Meghan will be at Anmer with Harry and the Cambridges. And the Telegraph is claiming no Meghan and the Cambridges will be in Bucklebury. Talk about wildly different claims. One has to be wrong, or both. Either way shaky journalism is afoot.

miche · #**2178** 12-15-2016, 06:13 PM

Telegraph claim is more believable to me than People let invite a stranger to stay and sleep for may days in the same house as our young children.

AdmirerUS · #**2179** 12-15-2016, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceallach

First pictures of the couple. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/240177...e-date-london/

LOL. The Sun paid what I am sure was a pile of money for bad photos of Harry talking while the woman with him looks miserable.

Curryong · #**2180** 12-15-2016, 06:51 PM

I don't think she looks miserable. Cold, maybe! I think she's looking down at where she's stepping while Harry is talking. After all, there is absolutely no reason for Meghan to be by Harry's side if she doesn't want to be.

That photo is a split couple of seconds in time taken by a passerby in a bus, as a young couple in love make their way to a theatre date. Absolutely no reason for Meghan to be miserable IMO, and if she'd been grinning her head off observers would be saying 'What a publicity hound! She knew she would be photographed!' She can't win!