The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 12-31-2020, 05:59 PM
acdc1's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: somewhere in, United States
Posts: 2,191
I was wondering if maybe the Queen made it clear to them that they couldn’t have any references to the royal family in their private enterprises.
__________________

  #202  
Old 12-31-2020, 06:00 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 401
A good point, Curryong, that I had not considered.
__________________

  #203  
Old 12-31-2020, 06:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by acdc1 View Post
I was wondering if maybe the Queen made it clear to them that they couldn’t have any references to the royal family in their private enterprises.
Harry is a member of the royal family himself, and I hardly think the Queen, his grandmother, would have said to him that under no circumstances was he allowed to mention family like his father, brother, sister in law or herself in any statements.
  #204  
Old 12-31-2020, 06:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Harry is a member of the royal family himself, and I hardly think the Queen, his grandmother, would have said to him that under no circumstances was he allowed to mention family like his father, brother, sister in law or herself in any statements.
I'd say it is more than likely that he's been forbidden from talkng about the RF in his working life..
  #205  
Old 12-31-2020, 06:30 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Curry, that is a good point about it being potentially awkward with Meghan not mentioning her own father. I was upset earlier, but I never thought it was about Harry not loving his father or not being on good terms with him.
  #206  
Old 12-31-2020, 06:33 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,712
The thing about not involving the Crown in any commercial activities was worked out months ago at the time of the negotiations. Since then Harry and Meghan have mentioned the Queen in reference to the Commonwealth Trust and there have been exchanges via IG/Twitter on various Royal birthdays etc, including Harry's. I hardly think mentioning his father or grandmother or indeed any relatives on Archewell (unless he insults them of course, which won't happen) is going to constitute a breach of some code or agreement which we don't know the details of anyway.
  #207  
Old 12-31-2020, 06:54 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Poznan, Poland
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by acdc1 View Post
I was wondering if maybe the Queen made it clear to them that they couldn’t have any references to the royal family in their private enterprises.
That might be. If so they could form the intro differently.
  #208  
Old 12-31-2020, 07:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by acdc1 View Post
I was wondering if maybe the Queen made it clear to them that they couldn’t have any references to the royal family in their private enterprises.
That's a good point and one item that I believe would have been part of the January 2020 meeting at Sandringham.
  #209  
Old 12-31-2020, 08:03 PM
RJC's Avatar
RJC RJC is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 263
Their PR companies don't seem to have any idea. They could have made it more about -- this is Archie whom we love and would like to do this in his honour -- rather than the whole mothers thing.
  #210  
Old 12-31-2020, 08:20 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,760
@Curryong - sorry not sorry for Charles and Thomas being left out of Archwell opening of the website. Both fathers have hurt their children by different means but still publicly so why should Harry and Meghan owe filial loyalty to them? The Dads can stay mad. Besides in certain courts of public opinion Charles and Thomas are not getting Father of the Year awards. Both men have negative opinions placed on them and that's due to their voluntary actions.
  #211  
Old 12-31-2020, 08:30 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
@Curryong - sorry not sorry for Charles and Thomas being left out of Archwell opening of the website. Both fathers have hurt their children by different means but still publicly so why should Harry and Meghan owe filial loyalty to them? The Dads can stay mad.
Seriously... What has Charles done for the past couple of months in 2020 that hurt Harry & Meghan?

Let's not forget, it's the Sussexes' decision to leave their roles as senior working royals, they were not kicked out by force.

If anything, Charles have been very generous and accomodating to his children and grandchildren. Some may said that he has been too lenient and not firm/strict enough.

You can support Harry & Meghan without bashing other members of the Royal Family
  #212  
Old 12-31-2020, 08:35 PM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
@Curryong - sorry not sorry for Charles and Thomas being left out of Archwell opening of the website. Both fathers have hurt their children by different means but still publicly so why should Harry and Meghan owe filial loyalty to them? The Dads can stay mad. Besides in certain courts of public opinion Charles and Thomas are not getting Father of the Year awards. Both men have negative opinions placed on them and that's due to their voluntary actions.
What a disgusting thing to say : to put Charles and Thomas Markle at the same level, REALLY ?
Its just wrong and untrue. And i'm polite.
That's why this thread is going nowhere , you just can't discuss with people with such phony arguments (and i'm polite as well).
Nauseating.
  #213  
Old 12-31-2020, 08:37 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-Z View Post
why oh why the explicit focus on mothers and strangers?
This is just baiting responses in defense of fathers, brothers and sisters, grandparents, cousins, friends etc etc
If Doria is Meghan's only family member that she is closed to, it potentially explains why fathers, brothers and sisters, grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles were left out on the website.

I personally think it's not just a big slap on Prince Charles and Thomas Markle, but also members of the Royal Family and Meghan's family (particularly on her maternal side, who has stay out of the media spotlight and behave incredibly). But then again, why should I be surprised, given that Harry said in a BBC radio interview that The Royal Family is the family Meghan never had.
  #214  
Old 12-31-2020, 08:43 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 730
Let's not forget that Harry is where he is today because of his parents and grand parents.
If he was Harry Smith from Windsor nobody would be interested, no big wedding no big bank balance.
Other than his army salary his money until recently has all came from family. Trust funds and inheritance.
Just worth noting.
  #215  
Old 12-31-2020, 08:49 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,664
As Archewell grows, perhaps there will be areas where Harry, as a father, stresses the importance of fatherhood and being a hands on parent.

I've not checked the Archewell site yet and only know what's been written here but I do not see Meghan focusing on the topic of motherhood and pictures of their mothers (and Archie's grandmothers) a slap in the face to anyone. Meghan has been about empowering women and girls for a long, long time and in this respect, she's shining a light on the fact that being a mother can be empowering. It's a fact that Diana is Harry's mother and I don't think Charles, or anybody for that matter, would want that shoved under the carpet. It is what it is.

I keep remembering too that Archewell is brand spanking new and what we see now is just the seed starting to sprout. What we see now is not the full extent of what Archewell is planned to be. It's up and running and that's a good start.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #216  
Old 12-31-2020, 09:05 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Seriously... What has Charles done for the past couple of months in 2020 that hurt Harry & Meghan?

Let's not forget, it's the Sussexes' decision to leave their roles as senior working royals, they were not kicked out by force.

If anything, Charles have been very generous and accomodating to his children and grandchildren. Some may said that he has been too lenient and not firm/strict enough.

You can support Harry & Meghan without bashing other members of the Royal Family
Right? I mean, if Charles has hurt Harry in the past, it certainly wasn't on purpose. He certainly loves his "darling boy" a great deal and has tried to do best by him even if he's not perfect (Note: NO ONE is perfect).

The idea that public opinion polls matter at all when it comes to parental/filial love is staggeringly mind blowing.

Thomas and Meghan's relationship is their own thing - it has nothing to do with Charles and Harry.

What cruel post.

I DO understand that maybe it might have been awkward for Harry to mention Charles when Meghan didn't Thomas, but as I think about it.......that's just how life is. H shouldn't have to avoid praising/showing public affection and respect for his father just because M has a lousy relationship with hers.
  #217  
Old 12-31-2020, 09:08 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
As Archewell grows, perhaps there will be areas where Harry, as a father, stresses the importance of fatherhood and being a hands on parent.

I've not checked the Archewell site yet and only know what's been written here but I do not see Meghan focusing on the topic of motherhood and pictures of their mothers (and Archie's grandmothers) a slap in the face to anyone. Meghan has been about empowering women and girls for a long, long time and in this respect, she's shining a light on the fact that being a mother can be empowering. It's a fact that Diana is Harry's mother and I don't think Charles, or anybody for that matter, would want that shoved under the carpet. It is what it is.

I keep remembering too that Archewell is brand spanking new and what we see now is just the seed starting to sprout. What we see now is not the full extent of what Archewell is planned to be. It's up and running and that's a good start.


Who exactly is trying to diminish Diana's influence on Harry? It's Charles who gets the short stick most of the time, truthfully, when it comes to stuff like this.
  #218  
Old 12-31-2020, 09:12 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 401
I think I am in the minority that I find the website itself very nice and welcoming. I also do not buy for a moment that any agreement to keep the Royal Family out of commercial endeavors could somehow be construed to mean that Harry could not say that his father modeled compassion for him. I do appreciate Curryong's insight that perhaps that decision was made to avoid highlighting that Thomas would inevitably be missing from any mention of "parents." Even if this is the case, I still think it is a terrible slap in the face to Charles and a wrong decision, but I think Curryong is probably on to something in terms of how and why the decision was made.

Osipi, you may feel differently (or perhaps not) when you look at the site. While I am in the minority here in thinking the site itself is quite nice, the messaging is- to be frank- just bizarre. If the idea was to promote how empowering motherhood is, one wonders why not just leave it at that: We are two people whose mothers modeled compassion for us. Or, indeed, mothers and other strong, enlightened, women. Instead, they said they had compassion modeled by their mothers and by complete strangers, so indeed, they are going to pains to point out that they are not just focusing on mothers, but on everyone who models compassion. This makes the exclusion of Harry's father, one of the world's foremost servant-leaders, absolutely bizarre.

For those who follow the Royal Family and have done for decades and for whom Charles's philanthropy, charity, care for others- yes, his compassion- is well known, for his son to start an organization based on this concept and say outright, this is based on how compassion was modeled "by my mother and complete strangers" has taken me, and perhaps others, aback. I am not saying I "fault" Harry or "have a problem" with it, just that I am... taken aback.
  #219  
Old 12-31-2020, 09:28 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,664
OK. I've had a chance to look over the Archwell site. With the photos they've selected for the background, it amplifies the first couple of lines "I am my mother's son and I am my son's mother". I see nothing wrong with that at all. I don't see a slap in the face to anyone there either.

Now for the lines "We have experienced compassion and kindness,From our mothers and strangers alike." Maybe I'm interpreting it differently but I don't see them saying it's *only* their mothers and strangers. I took it to be kind of an A-Z kind of thing encompassing all strata of human relationships with A being the love and compassion of a mother to Z being complete strangers. Everyone else falls in between and that, of course, could include fathers and siblings and aunts and uncles and cousins by the dozens and friends and acquaintances.

Just my interpretation of what I've seen.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #220  
Old 12-31-2020, 09:32 PM
kathl29's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 513
Although I think the sentiment they are trying to imply is actually quite nice the wording about mothers they they have chosen is problematic. As other posters have pointed out this could be due to clauses previously determined that we are not aware of and I hope so.

When Diana died, Charles stepped up and raised both boys by himself (yes with nannies etc before everyone attacks me) and both William and Harry have turned out well and Charles deserves to take some credit for that, not just Diana.

All this wording does is give the media the chance to reflect on the fact that it is a slap in the face to Charles yet again. If they are bound by previous clauses then perhaps they should have focused on being parents and the future rather than being children and the past.

Is this intentional? Only Harry and Meghan know the answer to that. The cynical part of me says there is more money to be made by including Diana at the moment. If it is intentional and not due to any previously determined clause then I would suggest that the upcoming 12 month review will be very interesting.
__________________

__________________
Above all, be the heroine of your life ... (Nora Ephron)
Closed Thread

Tags
archie mountbatten-windsor, duchess of sussex, duke of sussex, meghan markle, prince harry, sussex


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 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
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 1: September-December 2020 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2223 12-19-2020 02:13 AM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones background story bridal gown british royal family british royals buckingham palace canada chittagong commonwealth countries coronavirus daisy dna doge of venice dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii emperor facts family life fantasy movie hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume historical drama history introduction jewellery king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mail mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names northern ireland norway plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess laurentien queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding royal wedding gown russian court dress settings speech stuart suthida taiwan thailand tips uae customs united states of america von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:45 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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