The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3641  
Old 01-19-2020, 07:38 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that the aim of remaining "part time" royals just wasn't going to wash in any way, shape or form. As I was seriously hoping that the aim of the Sussexes "financially independent" part was solely aimed towards their foundation and finding out as *fact* that it is otherwise so, it became an either/or situation. You work for the "Firm" or you don't. Period.

I just can't see the Queen or anyone else involved with the family "Firm" b

This would happen with *anything* Harry and Meghan were attached to. The question would be are they representing their regiment (for example) or using said regiment to be in the spotlight to promote something to do with their own "brand".

The free ride and the free platform is gone as it should be. Promotion and advertising doesn't come cheap these days and like any other business, Harry and Meghan will have to foot the bill to do so.

BTW: "The Great British Break Off" headline really made me chuckle.
That's what has been said for the last 10 days.. that they can't be half in and half out of the RF.. THey can't work in the commercial field and still be royals. Ed and Sophie were trying to do it on a smaller scale.. they had their own businesses which were not "global".. and were UK based.. and they were doing a bit of royal duty... and it all went pear shaped. SO I think the queen was not going to allow that any more...It would always be a mess whether their money was going to support their charities or for their personal support...and if they were based abroad a lot, it would be almost impossible to control things. the queen put her foot down and wasn't having it...I think maybe she felt she COULD let them give it a try and see how it worked out but in the end she didn't...
__________________

  #3642  
Old 01-19-2020, 07:39 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
The Guardian only looked at coverage from the past 18 months. If you looked at the 15-20 years Kate's been in the public eye, there have been plenty of 18-month periods where the coverage has been mostly negative. This isn't one of them, because she's done an excellent job in role she chose to take on, and the press eventually got bored with trying to find things to criticize when there really weren't any. The same would have happened with Meghan had she behaved the same way as Kate. There were far worse things said about Camilla than about either Meghan or Kate for decades, and basically no positive coverage until fairly recently. Is it fair that marrying into the royals requires enduring that? No, but it's not unique to Meghan, and it shouldn't have come as surprise. If she was truly unaware that the press could be that bad, that's her own fault for not having bothered to look into how previous royal brides were treated by the press.

Harry's far from blameless here, but if he'd set out with the intention of quitting the royal family because his wife didn't like it, he'd have just married Chelsy Davy or Cressida Bonas and done that to begin with. Meghan is getting blamed because she incorrectly assured him that she could handle it when, by her own words, she had no idea what would be involved. Now that he's married and has a baby, she's decided she doesn't like it anymore, and put him in a situation where he has to choose - and where there's basically no right answer. Harry's responsible for his own actions, but Meghan's responsible for creating the situation.

I'm not sure what you wanted the queen to do by way of support. Issuing public statements of support for royals being pilloried by the media for various perceived offenses against fashion and the status quo isn't the way it's done - she hasn't done it for anyone else, and if Meghan believes it should have been done for her because she's special, that's just further proof of what her detractors have said about her. It's not the queen's fault that Meghan's relatives are so much worse than Kate's or Camilla's or anyone else's. The queen isn't going to tell Thomas and Samantha Markle to stop saying mean things about Meghan, because it would be wildly inappropriate for her to publicly insert herself into someone else's family drama that doesn't involve her. Even if she did, does anyone seriously think that would have made them stop doing it? Meghan should have understood that. If she didn't, that's her own shortcoming, not the queen's.

No one would have cared all that much that they wanted to effectively retire early from royal life, but that's not what they did. Instead, they announced a "have their cake and eat it too" arrangement as thought it had been decided, when it hadn't been and wasn't up to them to decide. There was no good reason to do that, and I'm not sure how anyone can take anything either of them says seriously after they shamelessly lied to the public like that.


I especially think this is a great point...Frankly, if he’d always wanted out, he didn’t need the excuse of a wife and/or child; he’d have broached the subject long ago.

I have zero sympathy for Meghan now. I’ve come to see her as someone who sees the opportunity and is seizing the opportunity to make a bigger name for herself, to profit from her newfound fame (no, she wasn’t famous before, she was just an actress) both monetarily and career-wise. She appears to have no reservations about Harry leaving his family - and it’s not like they can just pop on by.


Quote:
Harry's far from blameless here, but if he'd set out with the intention of quitting the royal family because his wife didn't like it, he'd have just married Chelsy Davy or Cressida Bonas and done that to begin with. Meghan is getting blamed because she incorrectly assured him that she could handle it when, by her own words, she had no idea what would be involved. Now that he's married and has a baby, she's decided she doesn't like it anymore, and put him in a situation where he has to choose - and where there's basically no right answer. Harry's responsible for his own actions, but Meghan's responsible for creating the situation.
__________________

  #3643  
Old 01-19-2020, 07:45 AM
Helen.CH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Chambery, France
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
If that is true, I am sure it will be hurtful for Harry.
I read a tweet this week from a soldier of one if these regiments Harry was meant to deal with. This soldier mentioned and quoted his superior aswell with saying their names, this gave me " proof" the situation is really as he was saying. Exactly what was said above the soldiers feeling disgusted with H. behaviout towards HM....
  #3644  
Old 01-19-2020, 07:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
It's a huge loss for the British Royal Family.
Harry and Meghan were engaging, fun and very serious about making a difference.
The general public develops a sense of endearment towards it's royals and a trust that loyalty is reciprocated with the Queen and family batting in the best interests of the people regardless of which party is in government.
Though warmth will return and the damage will heal, I feel that being King might be more lonely than it should be for those who are left.

Harry and Meghan will strive to do meaningful work.

I'm surprised about the loss of Harry's military roles.
I'm surprised that, given that Harry is still in the line of succession, he doesn't have to live at least 50% in Britain and to familiarize his son with his homeland.
I never got a good vibe from them as a couple.. but I didn't expect the complete bail out like this to happen. and I think that it is likely that Harry and Meg just do not want to come back to the UK so the RF feel they can't insist on Archie's having time in the UK.. or it will push and stress the pair too muich if there are argumetns about that.
  #3645  
Old 01-19-2020, 07:53 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
A Canadian minister interviewed by the CBC (Canada's equivalent to the BBC) was quoted in this forum as saying that, as members of the Royal Family, Harry and Meghan do not need a visa to come to Canada as visitors; they can visit at any time and without asking for permission (permanent residency and working of course are different matters).
You prove my point, if they’re private citizens in Canada she should be on a visitors visit until a more permanent solution is found.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Now I am inclined to believe they will keep only minimal security while in the UK and will have to pay for it themselves in Canada if they want it. Prince Charles will probably pay for their security from his private income however.

It all depends on how they are classed in the countries they are visiting. Members of a Royal Family, or private citizens whose family happen to the monarchy in the UK. We cannot assume they will get a Zara and Mike situation for instance because they are still titled, and are still higher profiled.

Personally, I believe they should pay for the lot themselves.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #3646  
Old 01-19-2020, 07:59 AM
Soula's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Somewhere in southern Australia, Australia
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
As much as I hate to say it, I think actually the fact that they, as a couple, only lasted 18 months working for the royal "Firm" is going to be a bit of a drawback for both Harry and Meghan in commercial dealings. If they're thinking that their "royalness" and popularity attained through their work with the "Firm" is going to be a draw, they perhaps should think again.

After all that has gone down recently, I would imagine the general consensus is that they tried and failed at what they were doing. They both were seen as people with a good sense of altruism that sincerely wanted to help people out of the goodness of their hearts and now they're going "commercial" and wanting to make money for themselves doing it. That's going to close a lot of pockets right there and then.

I don't believe that they're going to be successful as they think they will be going forward but then again, they just might ace it. We'll see what happens.

One thing I can predict as a sure as the sun rises in the east each morning, the gutter press is going to be worse than before. What they've experienced in the UK with the Daily Mail and all is going to be seen as praise compared to what they'll face now. They're on their own and no wall of protection from "palaces" as a buffer.

So, to quote Douglas Adams in "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", So long and thanks for all the fish!

Spot on!

I find it interesting that there hasn't been much support from their 'celebrity' friends. A few have spoken in support but there has been silence for the most part. Their effort to 'modernise the monarchy' (which always made me cringe) has ended up with them no longerbeing a part of it. Very sad for the Queen.
__________________
Soula
  #3647  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:01 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
They’re linked, there would be little point using one without the other. From now on they’re Henry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex,

Just as a side comment that does not apply to H&M's case, King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has recently stripped five of his grandchildren of the HRH style and the associated title of Prince/Princess of Sweden, but they were allowed to keep Prince/Princess prefixed to their Christian names as a matter of courtesy (they just won't use the HRH anymore). The same arrangement was made by King Gustav VI Adolf for Carl Gustaf's sisters who married morganatically under the old (pre-1980) Swedish succession laws.


Likewise, there are other examples in Europe of peope who lost (or renounced) the HRH or are no longer eligible to get that style upon being born, but were allowed to keep Prince/Princess prefixed to their Christian names. For example, Märtha Louise of Norway.



In Belgium, King Philippe decreed in 2015 that the grandchildren of his siblings would no longer be HRHs and would no longer bear the title of Princes/Princesses of Belgium , but Prince Amedeo's two children are referred to by the Palace with Prince/Princess prefixed to their names (just without the HRH before it and without "Prince of Belgium" postponed to the names and family names as usual practice for members of the Royal Family). There is an ongoing debate, not least here on TRF, if that usage is specific to Amedeo's children (because they are imperial princes of Austria and royal princes of Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia by patrilineal descent) or if, based on the wording of the 2015 royal decree, all descendants of King Léopold I who are not Princes/Princesses of Belgium and HRHs could nonetheless still use Prince/Princes prefixed to their given names and family names.



I do think, however, that the British way is more sensible. There is no point really in dropping the HRH style and not dropping Prince as a prefix either.


I may wrong, but I suspect that US media in particular will continue to call Harry 'Prince Harry' anyway and there is little that can be be done to prevent that from happening, other than Harry presenting himsef in public as 'Harry, Duke of Sussex', which is actually an odd and rather impractical style. He might as well use 'The Duke of Sussex' only, which is far more practical.
  #3648  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:02 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soula View Post
I find it interesting that there hasn't been much support from their 'celebrity' friends. A few have spoken in support but there has been silence for the most part. Their effort to 'modernise the monarchy' (which always made me cringe) has ended up with them no longerbeing a part of it. Very sad for the Queen.
It would complicate matters dont you think they would not want their friends having to put up with this?
  #3649  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:10 AM
Soula's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Somewhere in southern Australia, Australia
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenbeee View Post
It would complicate matters dont you think they would not want their friends having to put up with this?
No I don't think so. I would have expected that this was the time that they would spoken out. But you could be right and once the dust settles it may be different.
__________________
Soula
  #3650  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:10 AM
moby's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
I guess if they thought the press was going to leave them alone:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...able-work.html
This is cringe. I didn't pay much attention to this story before as I thought they could have made up Harry's part of the conversation with their own subtitles but seeing this...ugh.... And to do it in front of Beyonce, Jay-Z, and Pharrell who are massive successes in the entertainment industry where Meghan is from...to have a Prince of the UK pitch for his wife... double, triple cringe. A royal couple coming off desperate. I would have died from embarrassment if I were Meghan. Anyway props for the hustle.

Anyway, mostly sad for the familial relationships that have been unnecessarily massively strained, perhaps even broken by the rashness of these two. May they be happy. As the Rollingstones said, "you can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes, you'll find, you get what you need."

The statement is particularly interesting to me. Anyone who's done their bit crafting public statements know that these things often go through drafts, some parties offering lines and elements that are, to them, non-negotiables, then its gets passed around several times for everyone's approval. My cynical mind is wondering if the lines on intense scrutiny and Meghan being part of the family was something Harry fought for. Then again it just all might be sincere...
  #3651  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:24 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by moby View Post
The statement is particularly interesting to me. Anyone who's done their bit crafting public statements know that these things often go through drafts, some parties offering lines and elements that are, to them, non-negotiables, then its gets passed around several times for everyone's approval. My cynical mind is wondering if the lines on intense scrutiny and Meghan being part of the family was something Harry fought for. Then again it just all might be sincere...
It's possible, but I doubt it. There's already a contingent blaming the royals for forcing her out (based on nothing, as far as I can tell), and this was an easy way to at least try to head that off. They may genuinely like her as a person, or because she makes Harry happy... They may want to keep the door open for Meghan to return to official status... There may come a point in the future where they're forced to choose between graciously welcoming back Meghan as well as Harry, or welcoming back Harry but not Meghan and accepting yet another royal divorce as the fallout.

I doubt Meghan wanted that statement in there at all. It undercuts the victim narrative too much.
  #3652  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:24 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by moby View Post
This is cringe. I didn't pay much attention to this story before as I thought they could have made up Harry's part of the conversation with their own subtitles but seeing this...ugh.... And to do it in front of Beyonce, Jay-Z, and Pharrell who are massive successes in the entertainment industry where Meghan is from...to have a Prince of the UK pitch for his wife... double, triple cringe. A royal couple coming off desperate. I would have died from embarrassment if I were Meghan. Anyway props for the hustle.
I think this the incident where what people already believe shows in how they react to this. I never regarded this as a pitch, but more as a joke. I think the press regarded it as a joke as well, otherwise they would have jumped all over it last year. They use it now because it fits the current narrative and people how don't like them join in. None of us know when that deal was agreed upon, but the voice over was reportedly done at the end of last year. I wouldn't be surprised if all of this was agreed upon when Disney made a contribution to their charity.
  #3653  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:30 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
to have a Prince of the UK pitch for his wife... double, triple cringe
it is horrifying, and contributed [not a little] to the precipitous collapse in the popularity of this [once] much loved Prince..
  #3654  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,306
It certainly makes me think it was right that they shouldn't be able to use HRH anymore
  #3655  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:34 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helen.CH View Post
I read a tweet this week from a soldier of one if these regiments Harry was meant to deal with. This soldier mentioned and quoted his superior aswell with saying their names, this gave me " proof" the situation is really as he was saying. Exactly what was said above the soldiers feeling disgusted with H. behaviout towards HM....
It was ONE ex marine who spoke out, to Nigel Farage and others and it was before the deal. He said he spoke in haste about the not wishing to drink a toast, paid tribute to Harry's years of service, Invictus etc, but objected to the 'privatisation of the military'.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...-the-monarchy/
  #3656  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:46 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
This blog post was written on Thursday, but it’s still worth reading ...I couldn’t agree more.

https://fromberkshiretobuckingham.bl...am-summit.html


I totally agree. You can’t be half in and half out. You are either part of the royal family (the brand) and work to support it or you are not. The crown always wins! Meghan and Harry will discover this the hard way.
  #3657  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:48 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
It's possible, but I doubt it. There's already a contingent blaming the royals for forcing her out (based on nothing, as far as I can tell), and this was an easy way to at least try to head that off. They may genuinely like her as a person, or because she makes Harry happy. Though he seems a lot less happier on the whole since they got married, it could be different behind closed doors. They may want to keep the door open for Meghan to return to official status, especially if there's concern about the state of their marriage. There may come a point in the future where they're forced to choose between graciously welcoming back Meghan as well as Harry, or welcoming back Harry but not Meghan and accepting yet another royal divorce as the fallout.

I doubt Meghan wanted that statement in there at all. It undercuts the victim narrative too much.
What it all boils down to for me is that in all of this, the Queen had in her mind her first and primary concern and that is for the monarchy. She did what is the best move for the monarchy and its "Firm". That cannot be tampered with at any cost by anyone regardless of how close their familial relationship happens to be. If there is any kind of indication that the changes that were to be adapted would infringe on the work the monarchy does, out the window it has to go.

We saw this with Andrew and we're seeing it now with Harry and Meghan. Its strictly business and personal likes and dislikes do not figure into it. If Harry and Meghan wish to commercialize their activities, then they can no longer in any way, shape of form even allude to being "royal" as that would associate them with being part of the family "Firm". It also prevents contracts being made commercially with the Sussexes with the implication that in doing so, they get an "in" with the royal family and its "Firm" and rake in more profits that way. So basically what it boils down to is that Meghan really only has her "Meghan Markle" reputation to draw on even should she be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. We see how far its gotten Sarah, Duchess of York in commercial business. It'll basically be the very same now with Harry. Their royal connections are kaput. They're on their own and "independent" in far more ways than I think they counted on being.

Those precious contacts that they may be relying on may turn to dust when its realized that the Sussexes are totally divorced from the royal family business. I don't expect them to draw the crowds they used to draw as a "golden royal couple" and they'll fade away into obscurity except for the tabloids still having a field day with them. Like any celebrity, they're going to be at the mercy of public opinion even more now than they were before. They've lost the royal fishbowl and have been dumped into the ocean to fend for themselves against the sharks. They've lost more than they bargained for. I wish them well in whatever they end up doing but I do think there'll come a time where they will regret the moves they made.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3658  
Old 01-19-2020, 09:07 AM
Helen.CH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Chambery, France
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
It was ONE ex marine who spoke out, to Nigel Farage and others and it was before the deal. He said he spoke in haste about the not wishing to drink a toast, paid tribute to Harry's years of service, Invictus etc, but objected to the 'privatisation of the military'.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...-the-monarchy/
Of course it was before Hm's statement, but I refer to somebody else not the journalist you are mentioning.
  #3659  
Old 01-19-2020, 09:13 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Dalkeith, United Kingdom
Posts: 6
I think Lady Daly has got the outcome wrong. Harry and Meghan hoped to remain Royals, but to only do some duties, some tours, etc., in fact, what suited them. The rest of the time they hoped to be private and make money from their Royalty. However, it is an unwritten rule that you can't make money and be Royal.



So what they have gained is the right to be 'ordinary', the right to pick which media people get invitations to their 'events', the right not to live in the UK. But what they have lost is their Royal status, and Harry has lost many positions in the military, and in the Commonwealth. He has lost the daily support of the Palace, the 'cachet' of being Royal. And why would they need to made money. Harry is personally wealthy, and gets money, via Prince Charles, from the Duchy of Cornwall. Is it an American thing?



So Harry will be based in Canada, with trips to the US and UK. He will have left his friends and his way of life. Let us hope that his relationship with Meghan and Archie is enough to make him happy. No. Harry has not won.
  #3660  
Old 01-19-2020, 09:18 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,343
Rosa Monckton, Close friends of Diana, Princess of Wales has tweeted;


https://twitter.com/moncktonr/status...434088448?s=21
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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 of Sussex and The Invictus Games: 2014 and 2016-2018, 2020 Dman The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1150 09-06-2020 08:30 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american history anastasia once upon a time ancestry armstrong-jones baby names biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen carolin cht cpr duchess of sussex duke of sussex earl of snowdon family tree games general news thread george vi gradenigo haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie history hochberg hypothetical monarchs imperial household interesting introduction jewellery jewelry jumma kids movie list of rulers luxembourg mailing maxima monarchy mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family pless prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen maud resusci anne royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress spain stuart thai royal family videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:01 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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