The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4361  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:33 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
And Dan Wooten denied the rumors of where he got the story.

https://twitter.com/danwootton/statu...984832?lang=en
Of course he did.



LaRae

Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
The first information we had at THAT time was that the Queen was blindsided about them wanting to leave. That was what was being reported at that time. What we found out later was they were in discussions only and the Sussex's launched their site and made their announcement without approval.

Not sure why anyone would bring Oprah into a discussion as confirmation of any facts. Oprah is not their spokesperson.
You'd have to ask the person who said it about Oprah not me.

As far as the info had at that time about being 'blindsided'...it was almost all tabloid driven. Those who got on that bandwagon refused to wait and see ...much like 99 percent of the claims seen in this thread..based on rumor and the DM et al. Creating stories out of nothing more than conjecture.



LaRae
__________________

  #4362  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:34 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
Princess Margarets husband took a title.

I never said royal title.

Let us just agree to disagree on this one, it is probably down to matter of opinion anyway.
Yes Margo's husband did but he was married in 1960.. Anne was more than 10 years later.. things had changed.
__________________

  #4363  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:38 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Of course he did.







LaRae


IA- of course he denied it.

I just find the entire leak angle utterly irrelevant. I did from the beginning and even more so after realizing Harry and Meghan had absolutely nothing even remotely agreed to. So....they had nothing to say.
  #4364  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:38 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,088
No pictures today. Not on the news. Phew. I am glad it's over.
  #4365  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:57 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post

As for Prince Laurent - who I’ve never heard of before now, I think his comments were incredibly rude, commenting on the BRF as a family (as if he knows everyone’s personal relationships) and as part of the monarchy as well. It’s presumptuous of him to say that Harry and Meghan are treated as possessions. Ugh.

I know many Americans don't follow other European royal families besides the British one (and sometimes may not even be aware of their existence), but it suffices to say in this case that Prince Laurent has a complicated history with his own royal family , which he once described as starting with his uncle (King Baudouin), then his father (King Albert II) and now his brother (King Philippe). He's also had a long history of personal scandals and disputes with the Belgian government.



I agree that his comments were inappropriate and that he should not have made them, but, coming from him and given his past history, they don't surprise me.
  #4366  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:04 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I know many Americans don't follow other European royal families besides the British one (and sometimes may not even be aware of their existence), but it suffices to say in this case that Prince Laurent has a complicated history with his own royal family , which he once described as starting with his uncle (King Baudouin), then his father (King Albert II) and now his brother (King Philippe). He's also had a long history of personal scandals and disputes with the Belgian government.



I agree that his comments were inappropriate and that he should not have made them, but, coming from him and given his record, they don't surprise me.
I'm one of those Americans, lol - but I think I pretty much follow the Royals because I love history and I love British history, not for the glitz and glamour (though, that's fun also). Thanks for the info on Prince Laurent - it certainly explains some of his comments. Based on what I've read about other royal families on these boards, it seems like the BRF ,the monarchy, is really unique among other monarchies. They do things differently....

Round table discussion of Harry and Meghan, among other things....

I can't disagree with them about Meghan having a ruthless side, which isn't always a bad thing as it's helped her succeed in difficult circumstances. I think I agree with Richard Kay about Harry wanting less to be famous than to live "a life less ordinary"....It's definitely not flattering to Meghan, lol.

One thing I do completely disagree with is about Charles forcing Harry and Meghan to invite Thomas Markle to the wedding. It's a sad situation, but it's not his place.....
  #4367  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:45 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 22,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I'm one of those Americans, lol - but I think I pretty much follow the Royals because I love history and I love British history, not for the glitz and glamour (though, that's fun also). Thanks for the info on Prince Laurent - it certainly explains some of his comments. Based on what I've read about other royal families on these boards, it seems like the BRF ,the monarchy, is really unique among other monarchies. They do things differently....
They all do things differently. But due to the language the British RF has the most exposure in the American press and as a consequence in the rest of the world.

Since Prince Laurent compared his family to the Stasi (East-German secret police) in the past, we can consider this comment positively tame. But it is clear that he and several other secondary royals have had difficulties in the past with their position. Prince Harry is certainly not alone and compared to some other European royals the media hysteria that he is receiving seems to be a bit blown out of proportion.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
  #4368  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:49 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
As for Prince Laurent - who I’ve never heard of before now, I think his comments were incredibly rude, commenting on the BRF as a family (as if he knows everyone’s personal relationships) and as part of the monarchy as well. It’s presumptuous of him to say that Harry and Meghan are treated as possessions. Ugh.
You probably would have interpreted what he said differently if you would have looked into his background. He was clearly looking at the situation from a personal perspective, i.e., of how he himself feels/felt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Forgive me if I am skeptic (US spelling) about personal drama, but many Royal Families in Europe are not really personally close other than the usual photo ops and staged public appearances.
Luckily some royal families are close; at least the Dutch royal family is. With busy careers etc of course they don't see each other that much but for example the Dutch cousins (most likely with the exception of the princess Christina's children) have a yearly private outing to have fun and share some time together.
  #4369  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Thanks for the info on Prince Laurent - it certainly explains some of his comments. Based on what I've read about other royal families on these boards, it seems like the BRF ,the monarchy, is really unique among other monarchies. They do things differently....

I don't think they do things that differently actually, and they sometimes even have more "glitz" as you say than the Brits (take the Scandinavian royal weddings and christenings for example).



The thing about the British royal family is that they have more visibility, especially in the English-speaking world (where the biggest international media organizations are based), because Queen Elizabeth II is still the Head of State of 16 countries (totaling almost 140 million people) and the symbolic Head of the Commonwealth (which amounts to 2.4 billion people actually).



Besides, most of the "grand" monarchies of Europe are gone (France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, etc.) and the UK is one of the few "big countries" in the continent (by European standards, I mean) and with an imperial past that is still a monarchy ; another one is Spain, but the international visibility of the Spanish monarchy is mainly in Latin America and in the Iberian peninsula, not so much in the US. Denmark or Sweden are ancient kingdoms with a proud tradition ( I am particularly very fond of the Swedish monarchy) , but they are small countries (in population terms) that do not attract much international attention from the tabloid press except perhaps in neighboring Germany. The Netherlands and Belgium, on the other hand, are old countries, but with relatively new monarchies (established in the 19th century) and, although both once held vast colonial empires (especially the Netherlands), they are not in the same league as Britain, France or Spain in terms of international cultural influence.



Anyway, going back on-topic, my impression is that, excluding Laurent, we don't hear this talk of "how dreadful it is to be royal" or "what a great personal sacrifice being royal means" coming from members of other European royal families or the press/media in their respective countries. Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden, the current King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands , Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark, all are said or reported to have had doubts about their "jobs" as teens or young adults and tensions with their respective families, but it never rose to the scale that we see in the UK ("no one would want to be royal if they could opt out"). I wonder why that is the case (the vicious nature of the British tabloid press notwitstanding).
  #4370  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
all are said or reported to have had doubts about their "jobs" as teens or young adults and tensions with their respective families, but it never rose to the scale that we see in the UK ("no one would want to be royal if they could opt out"). I wonder why that is the case (the vicious nature of the British tabloid press notwitstanding).
Possibly because the UK is the most individualistic of Societies [these days], where 'Family' is of ever decreasing importance, and 'duty' is an all but forgotten virtue - London [in particular] is a magnet for the 'displaced' [of all sorts] - fun-seekers from the World over flock here, and even Young royals meet them, and are influenced accordingly, [not being 'cloistered' in Palaces as they once were]..
If one lives in a Society like that, its ever harder to abide by, {let alone live by} mores and rules ones peer group find utterly bizarre. So 'finding a Mate' prepared to accept such an existence, becomes incredibly tricky - as we have witnessed for Harry
  #4371  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:40 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
As for blazing a new trail or laying out a new path for future royals who happen to be the younger sons or daughters...how presumptuous can these two be? Seriously. Just because they didn't like their situation and wanted out doesn't mean that future younger children will feel the same way. Who are they to say that Charlotte or Louis would want out or should be out if they and their parents don't agree? I find that whole idea presumptuous to the nth degree. But then again, these two are routinely quite presumptuous.

As for Jane Goodall...I really don't understand why it's so incredibly difficult for all of these "acquaintances" to keep their mouths shut instead of fueling the fires that are currently surrounding Harry and Meghan. Yes, I know they were asked and just answered a question. However, it's really not that hard to say that they have no comment, prefer not to speak on the matter, etc. and by making statements such as these they're really just wading into what has become a ridiculous swamp of "he said, she said, they said, a source said" and choosing sides and who/what to believe.

Oprah's shooting her mouth off too. But I give Serena Williams credit - her comment was "no comment".
  #4372  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:41 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
They all do things differently. But due to the language the British RF has the most exposure in the American press and as a consequence in the rest of the world.

Since Prince Laurent compared his family to the Stasi (East-German secret police) in the past, we can consider this comment positively tame. But it is clear that he and several other secondary royals have had difficulties in the past with their position. Prince Harry is certainly not alone and compared to some other European royals the media hysteria that he is receiving seems to be a bit blown out of proportion.
Good point!

Um, what? The Stasi? Wow....

Ultimately, I understand the desire for freedom some Royals have; it’s got to be hard when you’re young and you want to have fun, but your life is governed by rules that you don’t always understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
You probably would have interpreted what he said differently if you would have looked into his background. He was clearly looking at the situation from a personal perspective, i.e., of how he himself feels/felt.
That’s fair.....
  #4373  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't think they do things that differently actually, and they sometimes even have more "glitz" as you say than the Brits (take the Scandinavian royal weddings and christenings for example).



The thing about the British royal family is that they have more visibility, especially in the English-speaking world (where the biggest international media organizations are based), because Queen Elizabeth II is still the Head of State of 16 countries (totaling almost 140 million people) and the symbolic Head of the Commonwealth (which amounts to 2.4 billion people actually).



Besides, most of the "grand" monarchies of Europe are gone (France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, etc.) and the UK is one of the few "big countries" in the continent (by European standards, I mean) and with an imperial past that is still a monarchy ; another one is Spain, but the international visibility of the Spanish monarchy is mainly in Latin America and in the Iberian peninsula, not so much in the US. Denmark or Sweden are ancient kingdoms with a proud tradition ( I am particularly very fond of the Swedish monarchy) , but they are small countries that do not attract much international attention from the tabloid press except perhaps in neighboring Germany. The Netherlands and Belgium, on the other hand, are old countries, but with relatively new monarchies (established in the 19th century) and, although both once held vast colonial empires (especially the Netherlands), they are not in the same league as Britain, France or Spain in terms of international cultural influence.



Anyway, going back on-topic, my impression is that, excluding Laurent, we don't hear this talk of "how dreadful it is to be royal" or "what a great personal sacrifice being royal means" coming from members of other European royal families or the press/media in their respective countries. Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden, the current King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands , Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark, all are said or reported to have had doubts about their "jobs" as teens or young adults and tensions with their respective families, but it never rose to the scale that we see in the UK ("no one would want to be royal if they could opt out"). I wonder why that is the case (the vicious nature of the British tabloid press notwitstanding).
This was very educational - thank you!
  #4374  
Old 01-23-2020, 08:11 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 22,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't think they do things that differently actually […]
they are not in the same league as Britain, France or Spain in terms of international cultural influence.
You are of course absolutely right. The late count of Paris (Henri sr) only took his own dynasty -the Capets/Bourbons- and the house of Habsburg seriously. In a way he may have had a point .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno
Anyway, going back on-topic, my impression is that, excluding Laurent, we don't hear this talk of "how dreadful it is to be royal" or "what a great personal sacrifice being royal means" coming from members of other European royal families or the press/media in their respective countries. Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden, the current King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands , Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark, all are said or reported to have had doubts about their "jobs" as teens or young adults and tensions with their respective families, but it never rose to the scale that we see in the UK ("no one would want to be royal if they could opt out"). I wonder why that is the case (the vicious nature of the British tabloid press notwitstanding).
That is an interesting issue you are raising here.

In the Netherlands the RF tended to have veiled complaints for decades in the sporadic interviews they gave. Prince Claus, Queen Beatrix, WA and even Bernhard and Juliana at various points said that it was a difficult function. Queen Juliana even mentioned it during her enthronement speech. They made it clear that it was of course a duty but also a personal burden. IIRC Prince Claus even called it 'almost inhumane' in an interview with Hella Haasse. The complaints stopped somewhere in the early 2000s. They must have made a decision not to mention it again to the press, which IMO was a correct decision.

I suppose that expectation management of newcomers is important too. I am not sure what happened with the Duchess of Sussex but perhaps more attention could have been given to that. The late Prince Claus was shocked when he started to realize what his life was like after his marriage. He had expected that he could continue as a diplomat. A short attempt to work in the gov. department for Development Aid was stopped after a right-wing newspaper started a press campaign against it. Even in the old days there were complaints: Prince Hendrik -husband of Wilhelmina- once described himself as 'only the luggage', which perhaps counts as much for secondary royals as it does for prince consorts. Even Wilhelmina herself mentioned in her autobiography the 'cage' in which she spent her life.

But how difficult it may be for some in the continental reigning families, in the UK it must be much harder. And that is mainly due to the gutter press indeed. Although it was difficult in the 80s and 90s recently it must have become even more difficult due to the dazzling speed of online media and the pressure to create new online content every few minutes.

Some criticism on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was certainly deserved [complaining about their hard life while visiting Africa, the rogue public announcement, etc.].But in the media hysteria of the last weeks it seems the press was really scratching the barrel to find something to write about so people visit their websites. A large range of articles were overblown and some were quite frankly absurd. Absurd is also the Kremlin-watching where every word, look and gesture is weighed and over-interpreted to suit whatever the narrative of the day is.

I have read that paparazzi photos of the Sussexes are expected to bring in 1 million dollars for the photographer, which is a large incentive to intrude on the privacy of the couple. As was noted earlier in this thread: the tabloids are not a neutral entity. They make money from the royal family, they make money from creating hypes and they are sued by the duke and duchess while they have already settled legal claims worth nearly a billion (?) pounds.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
  #4375  
Old 01-23-2020, 08:46 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
You are of course absolutely right. The late count of Paris (Henri sr) only took his own dynasty -the Capets/Bourbons- and the house of Habsburg seriously. In a way he may have had a point .



That is an interesting issue you are raising here.

In the Netherlands the RF tended to have veiled complaints for decades in the sporadic interviews they gave. Prince Claus, Queen Beatrix, WA and even Bernhard and Juliana at various points said that it was a difficult function. Queen Juliana even mentioned it during her enthronement speech. They made it clear that it was of course a duty but also a personal burden. IIRC Prince Claus even called it 'almost inhumane' in an interview with Hella Haasse. The complaints stopped somewhere in the early 2000s. They must have made a decision not to mention it again to the press, which IMO was a correct decision.

I suppose that expectation management of newcomers is important too. I am not sure what happened with the Duchess of Sussex but perhaps more attention could have been given to that. The late Prince Claus was shocked when he started to realize what his life was like after his marriage. He had expected that he could continue as a diplomat. A short attempt to work in the gov. department for Development Aid was stopped after a right-wing newspaper started a press campaign against it. Even in the old days there were complaints: Prince Hendrik -husband of Wilhelmina- once described himself as 'only the luggage', which perhaps counts as much for secondary royals as it does for prince consorts.

But how difficult it may be for some in the continental reigning families, in the UK it must be much harder. And that is mainly due to the gutter press indeed. Although it was difficult in the 80s and 90s recently it must have become even more difficult due to the dazzling speed of online media and the pressure to create new online content every few minutes.

Some criticism on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was certainly deserved [complaining about their hard life while visiting Africa, the rogue public announcement, etc.].But in the media hysteria of the last weeks it seems the press was really scratching the barrel to find something to write about so people visit their websites. A large range of articles were overblown and some were quite frankly absurd. Absurd is also the Kremlin-watching where every word, look and gesture is weighed and over-interpreted to suit whatever the narrative of the day is.

I have read that paparazzi photos of the Sussexes are expected to bring in 1 million dollars for the photographer, which is a large incentive to intrude on the privacy of the couple. As was noted earlier in this thread: the tabloids are not a neutral entity. They make money from the royal family, they make money from creating hypes and they are sued by the duke and duchess while they have already settled legal claims worth nearly a billion (?) pounds.
This is all interesting, but with regards to the bolded part....Maybe it might be a good idea in the future for newcomers to the Royal family to dip their toes in the "pool" instead of jumping right in. I truly believe that the Queen, Charles, etc.. have supported Meghan the way they know how - and honestly, I don't think they should be expected to be mind readers. If she was not doing well, I'd have thought she'd have felt comfortable enough with her father-in-law or HM (based on reports) to ask for help. The point is though, maybe the BRF might need to change things up a bit, the way they had to after Diana died. So for instance, maybe instead of assuming everything is ok, check in with the newcomer after a few months - it doesn't have to be formal, maybe the person this newcomer is closest to can take some time and see how he or she is doing.
  #4376  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:23 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
This is all interesting, but with regards to the bolded part....Maybe it might be a good idea in the future for newcomers to the Royal family to dip their toes in the "pool" instead of jumping right in. I truly believe that the Queen, Charles, etc.. have supported Meghan the way they know how - and honestly, I don't think they should be expected to be mind readers. If she was not doing well, I'd have thought she'd have felt comfortable enough with her father-in-law or HM (based on reports) to ask for help. The point is though, maybe the BRF might need to change things up a bit, the way they had to after Diana died. So for instance, maybe instead of assuming everything is ok, check in with the newcomer after a few months - it doesn't have to be formal, maybe the person this newcomer is closest to can take some time and see how he or she is doing.
If they change anything in the future it will be insisting for a longer courtship time. The whirlwind romances have always spelt bad news for the BRF. Even with time sensitive brides they could suggest freezing eggs, so that things aren't rushed just for the sake of getting pregnant.

Another thing I could see happening as only the spouses of direct heirs will work for the Firm. While the other married-ins would be private citizens. So no more Sophies, Feriges, and Meghans in the firm. They would all be like Tim, a few times a year supporting their spouse and the BRF but other than that they are out of the spotlight. I think that would be good for the children too. There would of been less expectation of seeing Archie and knowing his godparents if Meghan had stayed a private citizen and Archie only had one royal parent.
  #4377  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:19 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
If they change anything in the future it will be insisting for a longer courtship time. The whirlwind romances have always spelt bad news for the BRF. Even with time sensitive brides they could suggest freezing eggs, so that things aren't rushed just for the sake of getting pregnant.

Another thing I could see happening as only the spouses of direct heirs will work for the Firm. While the other married-ins would be private citizens. So no more Sophies, Feriges, and Meghans in the firm. They would all be like Tim, a few times a year supporting their spouse and the BRF but other than that they are out of the spotlight. I think that would be good for the children too. There would of been less expectation of seeing Archie and knowing his godparents if Meghan had stayed a private citizen and Archie only had one royal parent.
I think both are good ideas, though I’m not sure a longer courtship is a guarantee that anything will work out. Didn’t Harry have a long term girl friend who broke up with him because she knew she couldn’t handle being in that life? Then again, it ended without any messiness (that I know of), and that wouldn’t have been the case had they been married and they divorced.

With the second idea, that’s really interesting. It would be good for the children, no doubt - it’s hard enough not having one of their parents around, but two? This would allow them the chance to grow up as normally as possible - and take the pressure off the “married-in”. Maybe when the kids got older, they could participate more...
  #4378  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:31 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
If they change anything in the future it will be insisting for a longer courtship time. The whirlwind romances have always spelt bad news for the BRF. Even with time sensitive brides they could suggest freezing eggs, so that things aren't rushed just for the sake of getting pregnant.

Another thing I could see happening as only the spouses of direct heirs will work for the Firm. While the other married-ins would be private citizens. So no more Sophies, Feriges, and Meghans in the firm. They would all be like Tim, a few times a year supporting their spouse and the BRF but other than that they are out of the spotlight. I think that would be good for the children too. There would of been less expectation of seeing Archie and knowing his godparents if Meghan had stayed a private citizen and Archie only had one royal parent.

I think they could use the help though. Besides is Meghan and Harry truly that much of a whirlwind romance they were together for at least a year and half.

It doesn’t compare to Diana that was ridiculous.

The only issue was it was long distance and she I don’t think got a good understanding of his life.
  #4379  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:41 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
Slightly off topic but important nonetheless...

I think it is time that the BRF decide to do something about this spare going wild syndrome that they have been plagued with for the last three generations. I think with Margaret and to some extent Andrew, the BRF were under the impression that the shenanigans would be tolerated because of the deference that the public had for the RF. However, by the time Harry was born, the deference was largely gone, Margaret had been causing problems for decades and the family did nothing to prepare for a more meaningful life for Harry (and give meaning to Andy's life when he was no longer the spare).

Some of this can be attributed to EII's willingness to go to any lengths to avoid confrontation. She has been a good Monarch but has been a very weak and ineffectual head of the family.

William and Charles need to start planning on a meaningful life for Charlotte and Louis once George starts having kids of his own and they are no longer the "spares". Obviously, Harry's example is a cautionary tale of how not to do things. But he is right about one thing--the "spares" lives need to have some sort of meaning once they are no longer needed in the "spare" role.
  #4380  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:45 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,530
Whirlwind is relative when discussing age and stage in life.

If at twenty two fresh out of university William had decided to marry Kate after less then two years of dating, may be concerning. Young, still figuring out life, not really fault experiences. First serious relationship ever. At their age, a long courtship makes sense. As it did for the cousins.

Harry abd Meghan were adults. They had years of adult experience. Harv both had long term relationships which showed them both what they wanted and what they didn't want in a partner.

These aren't a couple who ran off and eloped after weeks or months blindly. They were in love and both at a stage where ready for marriage and kids.

It's ridiculous to suggest a time requirement be put on dating before marriage. No couple is the same.

Just because you date for a long time doesn't heir you any more stable. You get to a point where it's seen as the natural next step. Some people like the Cambridges marry, some like Beatrice and Dave break up.
__________________

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 house of windsor hypothetical monarchs 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 02:32 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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