The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1021  
Old 04-20-2021, 12:58 PM
PetticoatLane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: A Small Town, United Kingdom
Posts: 636
The Kate crying article was such a non-entity at the time I'd actually forgotten about it until the interview. My group of friends and work colleagues ranging in ages from 20-45 literally never talked about it at the time and I'd wager a good 90% of the British people would say it never even entered their radar. The BRF know that today's papers are tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers, complaining about it gives the story air and a life of its own that it wouldn't have if you'd just let it go.

That article certainly didn't carry the massive emotional weight of, say, a 4-year-old Princess Elizabeth doing a Nazi salute on the front page of the Sun, the many, many articles accusing Prince Philip of being involved in ordering an MI6 assassination of Diana, a pic of Harry wearing a Nazi uniform to a party or literally anything Charles or Camilla have ever been accused of (which let's remember led to Camilla being physically assaulted by members of the public when doing her groceries).

Meghan clearly had mental health challenges during her time working for the RF but equally cared little to nothing about the mental health of people she attacked so brutally in that Oprah interview.
__________________

  #1022  
Old 04-20-2021, 01:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Ae something he can speak to. Didnít Anne and Edward write an Op-Ed in The NY Times disputing what their brother had said?
Not to the best of my knowledge. I think that Anne did make some remarks to the effect that generally the family didn't air their grievances in public, and that not everyone had the same experiences with their parents as Charles had had. But Charles was mainly unhappy about the way he felt he'd been pushed into marriage. He didn't criticize everybody.. Diana criticked the RF, but she was on her way out of the RF...
__________________

  #1023  
Old 04-20-2021, 01:46 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I agree with that - and if Harry and Meghan had kept it behind the scenes, I would not feel as negatively as I do towards them. Up until a few days before the interview, I generally supported them.

But Harry, Meghan, and their supporters can't have it both ways. If Meghan and Harry can publicly criticize their family and encourage friends to publicly do so, they shouldn't complain when they are publicly criticized (the royal family has not publicly criticized them). It is interesting to read thoughtful posts from people I don't agree with. Everyone has the right to post their thoughts as long as it is respectful and follow forum rules.


I was fairly supportive of them until the Africa interview. I pretty much ignored tabloid reports (including ones that turned out to be true: William and Harry werenít getting along). I thought they did some good things, had some interesting ideas. Didnít really care about any issues around Archieís birth, the baby shower, etc. Ignored Meghan is difficult. Forgot entirely the crying story. And so on.

Their decision to start complaining in Africa led me to start viewing them differently. It all went downhill from there. They made a decision to start really putting themselves and their point of view out there. The price you pay is: some people arenít going to like what they see. I didnít. Their choice. They opened themselves up to criticism IMO. I do agree you canít have it both ways: you canít put yourself out there, make public criticisms.... and not expect criticism to publicly reverberate back. Though the royal family hasnít done so, others have and will. It is what it is- as long as it is respectful.
  #1024  
Old 04-20-2021, 01:51 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Agreed. Also, Charles apparently already closed his checkbook when it comes to providing for his son - who is still in good shape financially. That’s why Harry said what he said on air. I believe H is insecure in general, and that may be why he has been so upset about William getting more attention/“power”. I also think it’s why he was upset about Charles “cutting him off”, equating that to his (H) not being important enough.

William getting more attention and, more specifically, "more power" is unfortunately beyond anyone's personal reach. It is just how hereditary monarchy works. There can be only one king and one heir presumptive at any given time and, by law, when Charles is king, William will be the heir if he is still alive and not otherwise disqualified; after that, if William outlives Charles, he will be the king and George will be the heir, again as long as neither one is disqualified (e.g. by joining the Catholic Church or contracting marriage without consent). If Harry can't grasp that basic concept, I'm afraid there is no way forward and any further discussion is pointless.

On the issue of being cut off, I also fail to see where H&M stand. On one hand, they claimed thet wanted to be financially independent and were presumably leaving full-time royal work to pursue opportunities of securing a private income (which they have indeed, e.g. with the Spotify and Netflix deals). On the other hand, Harry is frequently complaining about his father having cut him off and his having to rely on the money "his mother left him". It looks like he wants to have it both ways, which is not possible.
  #1025  
Old 04-20-2021, 01:56 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,406
I was supporting them the hour before the announcement came out and even then I wanted them to be half in half out at first until I realised the stunt they'd pulled and how it wouldn't work for them to do Hollywood commercial work and be working royals at the same time. I think if they were unhappy they had the right to leave but the way they did it was probably the worst way possible.

I still think things like "Together" and the Smart Works Collection were good ideas. And I've always loved the idea of Invictus and Sentebale.

Here's a piece from Vanity Fair and well, I have a few issues with it.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/202...tal-royal-rift
  #1026  
Old 04-20-2021, 01:57 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
On the issue of being cut off, I also fail to see where H&M stand. On one hand, they claimed thet wanted to be financially independent and were presumably leaving full-time royal work to pursue opportunities of securing a private income (which they have indeed, e.g. with the Spotify and Netflix deals). On the other hand, Harry is frequently complaining about his father having cut him off and his having to rely on the money "her mother left him". It looks like he wants to have it both ways, which is not possible.
If I remember correctly, by "financially independent" they originally meant giving up funding from the sovereign grant, which was only 5% of their income to begin with. The other 95% came from Charles, and they seemed to assume they'd be keeping it.

Somehow, this is still up:

https://sussexroyal.com/funding/
  #1027  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:05 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
If I remember correctly, by "financially independent" they originally meant giving up funding from the sovereign grant, which was only 5% of their income to begin with. The other 95% came from Charles, and they seemed to assume they'd be keeping it.

Somehow, this is still up:

https://sussexroyal.com/funding/

Well, i guess that, if you have a rich dad, you may feel entitled to be privately funded by him in perpetuity even though you are no longer working for him or his "Firm". I suppose that is a private matter for the family and, if the rich dad is OK with that, it is none of our business. Apparently, Charles is no longer OK with it though and that is his right too.
  #1028  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
If I remember correctly, by "financially independent" they originally meant giving up funding from the sovereign grant, which was only 5% of their income to begin with. The other 95% came from Charles, and they seemed to assume they'd be keeping it.

Somehow, this is still up:

https://sussexroyal.com/funding/
I suppose it might be simply that Harry hasn't got a clue about money, and even when he was told last year that Charles supplied the vast majority of his income, he didn't realise that Charles might not always do so.... and now a year later, he is still feeling peeved that his father has called a halt...
  #1029  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:07 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,653
What kind of Middle aged couple, what kind of husband and father much less, with a child and one on the way expects their dad to financially fund them permanently(?)

I’d be embarrassed
  #1030  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
What kind of Middle aged couple, what kind of husband and father much less, with a child and one on the way expects their dad to financially fund them permanently(?)

Iíd be embarrassed
I think he just doesn't know much about money. Possibly Meghan advised him that if they left royal life they could make their own money, and she was at first anyway the one who was pro active about making the move and looking around ofr business opportunities.. but Harry perhaps felt that Charles would continue with the allowance for life, or at least for a long time.. and now he's saying that they only did the Netflix deal when told that noone was going to pay for their security and that they'd have to find the cash themselves.
Or perhaps they thogut of Meghan being the one who did the business deals and earned the money, and Harry only came round to it reluctantly...
  #1031  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:14 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 168
Now that I think on it, it's kind of strange. When they first made the announcement, there was a lot of back and forth on here about whether Charles should cut them off. Many felt strongly that he should, but far fewer thought he actually would. But apparently he did, and around that same time, too.
  #1032  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
William getting more attention and, more specifically, "more power" is unfortunately beyond anyone's personal reach. It is just how hereditary monarchy works. There can be only one king and one heir presumptive at any given time and, by law, when Charles is king, William will be the heir if he is still alive and not otherwise disqualified; after that, if William outlives Charles, he will be the king and George will be the heir, again as long as neither one is disqualified (e.g. by joining the Catholic Church or contracting marriage without consent). If Harry can't grasp that basic concept, I'm afraid there is no way forward and any further discussion is pointless.

On the issue of being cut off, I also fail to see where H&M stand. On one hand, they claimed thet wanted to be financially independent and were presumably leaving full-time royal work to pursue opportunities of securing a private income (which they have indeed, e.g. with the Spotify and Netflix deals). On the other hand, Harry is frequently complaining about his father having cut him off and his having to rely on the money "his mother left him". It looks like he wants to have it both ways, which is not possible.
Agreed, and Harry should know that...that itís nothing personal, that William is not more loved by his father or grandmother, even if heís getting more attention/ďpowerĒ. Of course, I understand what itís like to be insecure, and in general, no matter how many times people tell you youíre loved and valued, you might not believe it. That doesnít excuse Hís behavior, but it might explain it.

I think H is equating money, again, with being loved and valued. I guess itís possible that all of a sudden, with Meghan, he became truly spoiled, greedy, and entitled, but he never, ever struck me as that before.
  #1033  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:21 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
I was supporting them the hour before the announcement came out and even then I wanted them to be half in half out at first until I realised the stunt they'd pulled and how it wouldn't work for them to do Hollywood commercial work and be working royals at the same time. I think if they were unhappy they had the right to leave but the way they did it was probably the worst way possible.

I still think things like "Together" and the Smart Works Collection were good ideas. And I've always loved the idea of Invictus and Sentebale.

Here's a piece from Vanity Fair and well, I have a few issues with it.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/202...tal-royal-rift

I posted abut this in the Future thread. I saw this on Twitter - I will not be reading. I think itís nothing but the print version of clickbait, and so, so wrong. The BRF has gone on with their business for a year - they arenít missing Harry and Meghan in the sense that they are falling apart. The Sussexes are also incredibly unpopular in the UK. There is no Republican uprising.

Anna P. must have been hanging out with Robert Lacey too much.
  #1034  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:23 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,653
They still would have enough money to live much more comfortably for the rest of their lives than 90% of Americans if the lost the California mansion and trappings and stopped trying to keep up with the Hollywood and inherited wealth set. But I suppose that crazy outrageous thought would never occur to them.

Going to raise rescue chickens in Topeka does not sound glamorous does it?
  #1035  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Not to the best of my knowledge. I think that Anne did make some remarks to the effect that generally the family didn't air their grievances in public, and that not everyone had the same experiences with their parents as Charles had had. But Charles was mainly unhappy about the way he felt he'd been pushed into marriage. He didn't criticize everybody.. Diana criticked the RF, but she was on her way out of the RF...
I’m trying to find it...maybe it was in response to his biography, but I know they did respond to say that Charles’ portrayal of their parents was unfair, like you said. My main point, though, was that Charles knows what it’s like to get blowback from comments he maid
  #1036  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:30 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetticoatLane View Post
The Kate crying article was such a non-entity at the time I'd actually forgotten about it until the interview. My group of friends and work colleagues ranging in ages from 20-45 literally never talked about it at the time and I'd wager a good 90% of the British people would say it never even entered their radar. The BRF know that today's papers are tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers, complaining about it gives the story air and a life of its own that it wouldn't have if you'd just let it go.

That article certainly didn't carry the massive emotional weight of, say, a 4-year-old Princess Elizabeth doing a Nazi salute on the front page of the Sun, the many, many articles accusing Prince Philip of being involved in ordering an MI6 assassination of Diana, a pic of Harry wearing a Nazi uniform to a party or literally anything Charles or Camilla have ever been accused of (which let's remember led to Camilla being physically assaulted by members of the public when doing her groceries).

Meghan clearly had mental health challenges during her time working for the RF but equally cared little to nothing about the mental health of people she attacked so brutally in that Oprah interview.


Indeed. I said it before: the majority of people watching the Oprah interview had absolutely no idea there was ever a story on Kate crying. Those who had overall forgot it and dismissed it as tabloid garbage. Since Iíve been on this forum for a long time, Iím sure I heard about it. I canít say I really remember that though. Letting things go doesnít seem to be a quality Harry or Meghan possesses in abundance. But- theyíd have been wise to do so IMO.

Good grief. Iíd forgotten about the Philip ordering Dianaís death stories. I remember them now though. That, other stories listed, and many more do put a lot of the Sussex complaints even deeper into the petty categories IMO.

I hadnít really thought of it that way: Meghan and Harry have had their own mental health issues, but neither seemed to think about the mental health of those they publicly attacked. Ouch. Revenge seems to have won out.
  #1037  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:37 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,294
Sometimes when a person faces something for the first time in his life, it brings on panic attacks and mental stress and worry and the result of that can manifest as anger. Anger against anything and everything without clear, rational thought.

They wanted the half in, half out and the method of obtaining it as a manifesto failed miserably. They were either in or they were out and they opted for out. However, they were given a year and things would be reviewed again. Perhaps Harry and Meghan felt that "review" would swing in their favor and that they were so missed and needed by the "Firm", that they'd be given what they wanted. I sincerely believe that the interview came about because the review did not swing in their favor and they found themselves totally on their own with no financial help coming in and having to pay for any security they wanted.

Meghan did not fit into the royal world and they've left that. Now Harry has left the royal world he knows and has moved over to the celebrity culture world and that's a totally different world for him. There'll be no deference to him because he's a "prince". He'll be responsible for taxes as much as the rest of us are. He's living in Meghan's world now. As they both have seemed to estrange most of their families, they've left no one to blame in the future except themselves. I hope their marriage is strong enough to withstand what lies ahead for them (whatever that may be).
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1038  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:38 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I think H is equating money, again, with being loved and valued. I guess itís possible that all of a sudden, with Meghan, he became truly spoiled, greedy, and entitled, but he never, ever struck me as that before.
I suspect you might be right and if so, it doesn't reflect well on the RF to not have taught him the difference. It isn't as if he was left to beg his bread by the side of the road while William was swimming in bucks. And it shouldn't have been this hard either. Why, when I was in my early teens, my brother got the best food, literally. I got the crap in comparison. It never occurred to me to complain or think I was less loved and valued. I could see that it was a matter of life and death. An ailment that necessitated certain foods. And with the economic crisis, coupons and so on the best for the two of us just wouldn't cut it, so the healthy one went with the crap option. It was just how things were. It's beyond me why someone who has had all his needs and likely whims met would have been allowed to form an opinion that money equaled love.

From where I stand, Harry has been going down Andrew's path for a while and it isn't a good look. I've always got a soft spot for Andrew and Fergie despite their massive mass of glorious failures but I never had much patience for his insistence to underline Beatrice and Eugenie's royal prominence. I only hope Diana's money hold so we won't see any shady business from Harry as well.
It's about time the BP learned their lesson but I suppose we'll see after some 20 years or so.
  #1039  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:53 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
I suspect you might be right and if so, it doesn't reflect well on the RF to not have taught him the difference. It isn't as if he was left to beg his bread by the side of the road while William was swimming in bucks. And it shouldn't have been this hard either. Why, when I was in my early teens, my brother got the best food, literally. I got the crap in comparison. It never occurred to me to complain or think I was less loved and valued. I could see that it was a matter of life and death. An ailment that necessitated certain foods. And with the economic crisis, coupons and so on the best for the two of us just wouldn't cut it, so the healthy one went with the crap option. It was just how things were. It's beyond me why someone who has had all his needs and likely whims met would have been allowed to form an opinion that money equaled love.

From where I stand, Harry has been going down Andrew's path for a while and it isn't a good look. I've always got a soft spot for Andrew and Fergie despite their massive mass of glorious failures but I never had much patience for his insistence to underline Beatrice and Eugenie's royal prominence. I only hope Diana's money hold so we won't see any shady business from Harry as well.
It's about time the BP learned their lesson but I suppose we'll see after some 20 years or so.



I think it is a systemic problem that has to do with how younger children of monarchs (or future monarchs) are raised in the UK and what is expected of them. Other monarchies have/had this problem too, but most of them are now moving in the next generation to the "Dutch model" where younger siblings are cut off from state funding when they come of age, so they already grow up knowing they will have to have a career in the private sector.

The fact that some royal families, including the Windsors, are privately wealthy does help because, even if they are cut off from state funding, the collateral branches can tap on the family's private money and maybe, as other posters said, that is what Harry expected.

Note: for the purposes of this discussion, I am counting the income from the Duchy of Cornwall as "private money" although I understand that is controversial.
  #1040  
Old 04-20-2021, 02:59 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,653
I suppose Kate at least is trying if the recent reports of the Cambridge children coming in to shop with their own money and budgeting are correct. You know she will understand money matters and how people people have to save, budget and make wise choices than most of her in-laws, husband included. It’s a small but vital step in assuring her children are taught what Harry evidently was not and maybe history won’t repeat itself in that regard.
__________________

Closed Thread


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 & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2203 04-06-2021 12:08 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american baby names biography britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles canada carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house cpr dna dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii elizabeth ii emperor family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo hereditary grand duchess stťphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jewellery jewelry kensington palace list of rulers maxima mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family plantinum jubilee pless prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess ariane princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria resusci anne royal court royal jewels royalty of taiwan russian court dress spain stuart thailand thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:01 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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