The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just wonder why is it always the BRF who gets into such problems with family members? They can't be the only Royal family or if so, why? Would love to see your opinions and thoughts.

They are not the only Royal family to 'get into trouble' as you put it. All or most, of the others have had their problems as well. You just have to read the right forums and such to find the news on the other families. :)
 
Its all in the extent of how much a person is in the public eye and in the public interest.

Suicides happen every day all over the world. Robin William's suicide shocked the world. Why? Because Williams was so very well known, loved and respected by the work he did as a comedian.

Its the same with royal families. Some are in the public eye far more than others in a wider range of geographical areas. We hear about Princess Beatrice in world wide news far more often than we'll hear of Prince Seeiso of Lesotho. Many people don't even realize there *is* a Lesotho let alone a prince of that country. ?
 
[...]

Back to Harry and Meghan, I believe Meghan at least, does think things through. She just comes to different conclusions than one might think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just wonder why is it always the BRF who gets into such problems with family members? They can't be the only Royal family or if so, why? Would love to see your opinions and thoughts.


Teenaged Prince Louis of Luxembourg impregnates his girlfriend, then goes through a very messy public divorce.

Maria Teresa calls the press to her home to accuse her mother-in-law of emotional cruelty and racism. Recently she has been accused of bullying domestic staff up to the point of physical violence. The Government was forced to conduct an independent investigation of these shocking charges, resulting in complete reform of the workings of the Grand Ducal Household.

The Grimaldis endured some serious scandals in the 1980's. They kept the tabloid press VERY busy!

The House of Windsor is indeed very messy. But they are a very large family with many contingent branches as well as the most famous. They also have the misfortune to be subjected to an aggressive, often unfriendly press pack...unlike the other Royal houses.
 
Last edited:
Teenaged Prince Louis of Luxembourg impregnates his girlfriend, then goes through a very messy public divorce.

Maria Teresa calls the press to her home to accuse her mother-in-law of emotional cruelty and racism. Recently she has been accused of bullying domestic staff up to the point of physical violence. The Government was forced to conduct an independent investigation of these shocking charges, resulting in complete reform of the workings of the Grand Ducal Household.

The Grimaldis endured some serious scandals in the 1980's. They kept the tabloid press VERY busy!

The House of Windsor is indeed very messy. But they are a very large family with many contingent branches as well as the most famous. They also have the misfortune of a subjected to an aggressive, often unfriendly press pack...unlike the other Royal houses.

I think the Windsors are by far the best known royal family, probably the only one with a truly international reach. The fact that they get interest from the large UK media as well as the enormous American market puts them on another level.

Also, I’ve never been starry eyed over Diana but she was hugely charismatic in a way that no one in the current BRF or anyone in any of the other royal families can match, and she tragically died young. It’s been decades since she died and she still sells.

The BRF likely sees this level of attention as a curse rather than a blessing. I think if you put any family under the microscope the way they are you’d find feuds and scandals. Then they get blown out of proportion by the over heated press and the whole process starts to feed on itself. It also creates the temptation for family members to try to harness all this energy for their own benefit and we’re seeing the sad results of that now.
 
[...]

Back to Harry and Meghan, I believe Meghan at least, does think things through. She just comes to different conclusions than one might think.

I agree that it does look like a planned narrative she wanted to convey and did so with the help of Oprah and her team. Imo Harry goes along with it, although from him, i don't get the feeling he thought it out up front..

The fact that the immediate complaint against Piers Morgan followed, and Harry made the effort to stipulate a day later that the racist remark was not by HM of P.Philip, tells me that other than that, they were happy with the interview the way it turned out or they would have taken action.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The optics were quite clear from the beginning. The *star* and the main focus of the interview was Meghan. Harry, more or less, was a bobble head on the dashboard that was part of the entire car optics. Harry, who by far knows and understand the working of the monarchy and the way things work in the royal family, was actually given bobble head role rather than asked specific questions about *his* family. As many have said, Harry looked a wee bit uncomfortable.

We have *Meghan's* interpretation of a system that she'd only been involved in for a very short, New York minute as opposed to a viewpoint from someone that has lived his entire life in it.

There was a totally different aura and entertainment value with Harry's antics with James Corben. It was lighthearted and sarcastic in a humorous way but never, once, really purported to strike out and hurt anyone at all. What a difference between the two presentations we were given to see eh?
 
Oh yes, the James Corden one was more to Harry's favorite image of the 'Jolly lad', while Meghan usually goes for the 'Strong independent person' image.

Both images were shattered for me with the Oprah interview.
 
I would be interested in seeing those reports, as the consensus among the reputable sources and British royal family experts I have come across is that the Queen never considered making Princess Anne's children HRH or Prince/ss.

Anne was neither antiquated nor rigid in her own child-rearing. Keen for Peter and Zara to have ordinary childhoods, she broke with royal tradition by choosing not to give them HRH titles when they were born, a peerage she would have been offered from the queen. “I think it was probably easier for them, and I think most people would argue that there are downsides to having titles,” she says. “So I think that was probably the right thing to do.” (Our interview happened to take place a month after Harry and Meghan announced they would be giving up their HRH titles.)

From https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/04/princess-anne-opens-up-about-her-lifetime-as-a-royal

Princess Anne was reportedly offered the chance to give her children a title, but she refused (as did her husband, Captain Mark Phillips, who had been offered a title on their marriage).

From https://www.tatler.com/article/geor...y-are-princes-and-princesses-and-some-are-not

There is an article I'm trying to find that after Zara's birth, the Queen offered to give Anne's children HRH Prince/ss titles


Thank you! I remember the Vanity Fair article, but its incorrect suggestion that an HRH title is a peerage does not provide a basis to infer whether it was an HRH title or merely a peerage which was offered from the queen. (For newer readers, a peerage is a title of duke, marquess, earl, viscount, or baron/lord.)

The actual quotation from the Princess Royal states only "titles" and is not precise about whether the titles were royal titles or peerage titles.

The Tatler article also does not precise whether the titles offered to Princess Anne's husband and children were HRH titles, or titles from the peerage.


At the time Princess Anne gave birth to her first child, the media coverage suggested that the titles she was offered for her husband and children were merely peerage titles, rather than HRH Prince/ss titles.

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/11/16/...irth-to-boy-fifth-in-line-to-the-british.html


In a departure from tradition, the child will not be given a title. [...] No reason was given but it was speculated that the young parents, both of whom are known as freewheeling and independent, did not want peerages for themselves or their children.​


BBC ON THIS DAY | 15 | 1977: Princess Anne gives birth to Master Phillips


Both the princess and her husband are said to have rejected an offer from the Queen of titles which would have enabled their children to be born into the peerage.​
 
I'm going to address another point that has been brought up about this thread. As the interview is a over and done deal, why haven't we moved on from that? That was the question.

The best answer I can come up with for that is that there are repercussions coming forth still from that interview and perspectives being written about and we're discussing those. And... on the other opposite side of the coin, there's been absolutely nothing at all coming from Harry and Meghan's corner about them that has warranted any kind of public attention. Not even for Mothering Sunday yet. All's quiet on their home front about things concerning them that would be considered "news".
 
I'm going to address another point that has been brought up about this thread. As the interview is a over and done deal, why haven't we moved on from that? That was the question.

The best answer I can come up with for that is that there are repercussions coming forth still from that interview and perspectives being written about and we're discussing those. And... on the other opposite side of the coin, there's been absolutely nothing at all coming from Harry and Meghan's corner about them that has warranted any kind of public attention. Not even for Mothering Sunday yet. All's quiet on their home front about things concerning them that would be considered "news".


Harry send flowers and someone had to drive to Althorp and row over the lake to the island to lay them at her urn, as noone but closest family actually knows where she is buried for real. I think in the village's church, but what do I know?
 
Harry send flowers and someone had to drive to Althorp and row over the lake to the island to lay them at her urn, as noone but closest family actually knows where she is buried for real. I think in the village's church, but what do I know?

Family stay at Althrop.
 
Harry send flowers and someone had to drive to Althorp and row over the lake to the island to lay them at her urn, as noone but closest family actually knows where she is buried for real. I think in the village's church, but what do I know?

It was a very private internment but the family involved definitely know where her remains rest. Nothing here in the US has been mentioned anywhere that I've seen what Harry did to remember his mother today. It was respected as a private thing, I'd imagine.

Family stay at Althrop.

Althorp is the residence of Diana's brother, Charles, 9th Earl Spencer and his family live there day to day still.
 
However, it isn't wrong for anyone to question them or to agree or to disagree with them. My point has always been the rational that the 'rules' cannot be changed is flawed.

Why weren't they changed for Master Archie and his future siblings? To me the obvious answer would be, 'we will not know' for some time. I can live with that.

But people should be allowed to question, agree, and disagree, as long as its done politely.

We are in complete agreement concerning that aspect. But it eludes me why the questioning should be limited to the decision not to change the HRH Prince/ss rules for the children of Prince Harry, while the decisions not to change the HRH Prince/ss rules for the child(ren) of Princess Eugenie, the children of Princess Anne, the children of Princess Margaret, the children of Prince Richard (Duke of Gloucester), the children of Prince Edward (Duke of Kent), the children of Princess Alexandra, or the children of Prince Michael of Kent remain almost completely unquestioned.
 
Last edited:
We are in complete agreement concerning that aspect. But it eludes me why the questioning should be limited to the decision not to change the HRH Prince/ss rules for the children of Prince Harry, while the decisions not to change the HRH Prince/ss rules for the child(ren) of Princess Eugenie, the children of Princess Anne, the children of Princess Margaret, the children of Prince Richard (Duke of Gloucester), the children of Prince Edward (Duke of Kent), or the children of Prince Michael of Kent remain almost completely unquestioned.

One easy way to see the reason for *all* of these people not having the rules changed for them is simple. None of them were ever or are in the position of being a heir to the throne in any way.

Another trivial aspect of all this is that with the change to absolute primogeniture, the long used term "heir presumptive" is no longer in play. Princess Elizabeth of York became "heir presumptive" at the time of George VI's becoming king. This was because it was possible that the King could perhaps still have a son that would usurp Elizabeth's position as her father's heir. ?
 
Another trivial aspect of all this is that with the change to absolute primogeniture, the long used term "heir presumptive" is no longer in play. ?

It might still be a thing if a future monarch does not marry, or does not have children. The person next in line would be an heir presumptive, not an heir apparent.

But yes, since that scenario is highly unlikely, I agree - it is a term we may not hear very often again.
 
One easy way to see the reason for *all* of these people not having the rules changed for them is simple. None of them were ever or are in the position of being a heir to the throne in any way. ?
Wasn't Princess Margaret's son in just the same position Archie was before Prince Edward was born? He was styled Viscount Linley and as far as I know, Margaret never made a fuss about it.


ETA: I take this back. Wasn't Princess Margaret's son two places ahead of Archie's position before Prince Edward was born?
 
Last edited:
Wasn't Princess Margaret's son in just the same position Archie was before Prince Edward was born? He was styled Viscount Linley and as far as I know, Margaret never made a fuss about it.

He was higher. He was fifth.

Peter Phillips was fifth in line when he was born. Zara sixth.

Archie is currently seventh and likely to remain in the top ten until the Cambridge kids have kids of their own. Same position Edward held for about 23 years until George was born.
 
He was higher. He was fifth.

Peter Phillips was fifth in line to the thorn when he was born. Zara sixth.

Archie currently seventh. Same position Edward held for about 23 years until George was born.
Yeah, corrected this. I need to learn to count on my fingers better!


Still escapes me why the rules need to be changed for Harry, specifically. What makes "the son of a future king" so much more special than "the daughter of a recent king"? In retrospect, I think the BP decision to present "the boys" as basically equal was a mistake. The only answer I can see to the question I asked is... Harry and Meghan were the only ones who kicked a fuss about it. Why did he consider it proper is the one-million dollar question and my answer isn't a favourable one for him or the BP.


ETA: Re: Edward - he's basically considered a minor royal by those who have even heard about him. And he's the monarch's *son*. Seeing people react as if some mortal injustice has befallen the most princeliest prince of all - Archibald Harrison - looks slightly out of place to me. These are the people Archie should be compared against, not his direct line cousins because from this far, he'd only drop down the line.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, corrected this. I need to learn to count on my fingers better!


Still escapes me why the rules need to be changed for Harry, specifically. What makes "the son of a future king" so much more special than "the daughter of a recent king"? In retrospect, I think the BP decision to present "the boys" as basically equal was a mistake. The only answer I can see to the question I asked is... Harry and Meghan were the only ones who kicked a fuss about it. Why did he consider it proper is the one-million dollar question and my answer isn't a favourable one for him or the BP.

Maybe because Harry didn't have to go to King school. William used to go across the river from Eton to Windsor castle for tea with the Queen on Sundays specifically for "king lessons" if I'm remembering rightly here.
 
Yeah, corrected this. I need to learn to count on my fingers better!


Still escapes me why the rules need to be changed for Harry, specifically. What makes "the son of a future king" so much more special than "the daughter of a recent king"? In retrospect, I think the BP decision to present "the boys" as basically equal was a mistake. The only answer I can see to the question I asked is... Harry and Meghan were the only ones who kicked a fuss about it. Why did he consider it proper is the one-million dollar question and my answer isn't a favourable one for him or the BP.

They never presented them as equal...in terms of Kingdom.

It is hard for the siblings I think because they are hughly important growing up and then as adults they become less.and less constitutionally.

But the thing is he is still Prince Harry it is just his children who.really wouldn't be treated like their cousins. And they shouldnt be really.

And apparently Harry was always fine with this. Relieved even. Until now and all Meghan's protestations.

So really who has the issue about not being as high profile. They had a huge platform in the royals. Whole thing is just so sad.
 
Maybe because Harry didn't have to go to King school. William used to go across the river from Eton to Windsor castle for tea with the Queen on Sundays specifically for "king lessons" if I'm remembering rightly here.
I'd think it was another reason to see the difference in their stations but that's me. I just don't get many of his decisions, from acting under the illusion that he was entitled to security to taking part in this sad interview.
 
I'd think it was another reason to see the difference in their stations but that's me. I just don't get many of his decisions, from acting under the illusion that he was entitled to security to taking part in this sad interview.

Therein lies the difference in the world that saw the interview and us that frequent TRF threads. People that watched the interview saw only what was being said and took that at face value and didn't really raise any questions. Neither did Oprah btw. It was what is was.

Here, questions are being asked and it reminds me a lot of when I first came here. I found out that I could check off my "learn something new everyday box" just by listening and asking questions no matter how simple and perhaps even unintelligent those questions I asked would seem to be to me today. The discussions here are serving a purpose.
 
Therein lies the difference in the world that saw the interview and us that frequent TRF threads. People that watched the interview saw only what was being said and took that at face value and didn't really raise any questions. Neither did Oprah btw. It was what is was.

Here, questions are being asked and it reminds me a lot of when I first came here. I found out that I could check off my "learn something new everyday box" just by listening and asking questions no matter how simple and perhaps even unintelligent those questions I asked would seem to be to me today. The discussions here are serving a purpose.
Indeed. I think many people still see William and Harry just as "Diana's boys" who would somehow stay equal even if they aren't. I recommend a crash course here, on the TRF threads, to get cured of this notion. You guys are great.
 
I cant' help feeling that actually Harry knows litlte more than Meghan..about the rules of royal life. Either that or he DOES know better but he can't persuade HER that the various things she's said in this interview are incorrect - so he just agrees with her...
 
So really who has the issue about not being as high profile. They had a huge platform in the royals. Whole thing is just so sad.

They were the 4th couple in the land. OK, 4th is not 1st, 2nd or 3rd, but, out of 67 million people in the UK, and I think nearly 2.5 billion across the Commonwealth, it's really not bad!
 
Still escapes me why the rules need to be changed for Harry, specifically.

Okay this is my first real 'opinion' rather than just playing devil's advocate. Putting on my CJ Cregg hat, if I was an advisor, the minute I heard The Sussex's were expecting I'd sit down with the Queen and this would be the scene...

"Ma'am, I strongly urge you to re-write the LP's to say that starting from this birth all Great-grandchildren on the Monarch are automatically granted HRH unless specifically refused by their parents,"

"Why?" Her Majesty would reasonably ask.

"Ma'am, if you don't, someone, somewhere could and likely would say that this child isn't given it because of his ethnic makeup."

Possibly Her Majesty would say "But that's untrue, and ridiculous. The rules were made in 1917."

"That's correct ma'am. However, in 1917 people of color were lynched in the US and couldn't even use the same lavatory until the late 60's. Someone will bring it up, and the only way not to have a horse in that race, is to cancel the race. This is the world we live in now."
 
Last edited:
Okay this is my first real 'opinion' rather than just playing devil's advocate. Putting on my CJ Cregg hat, if I was an advisor, the minute I heard The Sussex's were expecting I'd sit down with the Queen and this would be the scene...

"Ma'am, I strongly urge you to re-write the LP's to say that starting from this birth all grandchildren on the Monarch are automatically granted HRH unless specifically refused by their parents,"

"Why?" Her Majesty would reasonably ask.

"Ma'am, if you don't, someone, somewhere could and likely would say that this child isn't given it because of his ethnic makeup."

Possibly Her Majesty would say "But that's untrue, and ridiculous. The rules were made in 1917."

"That's correct ma'am. However, in 1917 people of color were lynched in the US and couldn't even use the same lavatory until the late 60's. Someone will bring it up, and the only way not to have a horse in that race, is to cancel the race. This is the world we live in now."

That is absolutely ridiculous. No one said that. No one even cared the day he was born. Meghan said that because she obviously desperately wants her children to be titled. As bad as Andrew.
 
They were the 4th couple in the land. OK, 4th is not 1st, 2nd or 3rd, but, out of 67 million people in the UK, and I think nearly 2.5 billion across the Commonwealth, it's really not bad!

Shrugs shoulders. Wasnt good enough for them.
 
Like I said that's my opinion. If The Duchess hadn't said it, it still would have come up eventually. I'm not saying it's right the world is like this, only that it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom