The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Step Back as Senior Royals: January 2020

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

But Harry has always known that he is the spare.
Even though Diana said that she and Charles were scrupulous about treating both boys the same, she admitted that others in the RF insisted on emphasizing the importance of William.

So, it's not as if this comes as a shock to Harry and Meghan.

Again, Harry was never second in line , so technically never a spare ( unlike Andrew for example, who was a true spare for most of his younger years). You might argue that, when he and William were under age , Harry was the “ next generation spare “ from a certain point of view, but the moment William had a son, even that honorary spare status was gone.

Harry is 6th in line and that is his reality now. The spare ship has long sailed and Harry and his wife are just behaving as if they overestimated their position and importance.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

That story feels like it was engineered to give the Sussexes an alibi, which is a bad one by the way as it is actually inconsistent with their message to begin with.

And totally inconsistent with the important Commonwealth role given to the Sussexes.
I don't understand, we were told for months that the Sussexes were Senior royals with important roles inside the BRF and now they were in fact on some ejectable seats and good for them to have anticipated the inevitable.
It doesn't make any sense ...

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Again, Harry was never second in line , so technically never a spare ( unlike Andrew for example, who was a true spare for most of his younger years). You might argue that, when he and William were under age , Harry was the “ next generation spare “ from a certain point of view, but the moment William had a son, even that honorary spare status was gone.

Harry is 6th in line and that is his reality now. The spare ship has long sailed and Harry and his wife are just behaving as if they overestimated their position and importance.

Some would argue they behaving like people well aware of their position and importance in the BRF. 6th in line and very very not important in the grand scheme of things.

I am not saying I agree. As pointed upthread I think this whole "slimmed down" stuff is just a new talking point for the media to fill air time but it is not like it hasn't been something rumored over the years.

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Ista

As long as they are doing work for the British monarchy, and therefore the British government, any attempt to limit their coverage to only positive coverage is untenable. They have to accept that not everything they do is going to be free of criticism, which apparently is an issue for them. So yes, it would be awful. The only way to control that stuff is to go the celebrity route, which apparently is where this is headed, as many other posters on this thread have noted.

As far as I remember they both clearly said they didn’t mind criticism, but they want it to be fair. So no lies and no half-truths. And that is the difference between good and bad journalism. I think even many papers loose sight of this in their effort to get clicks and therefore money.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Archie was mentioned in the speech. This isn’t about “hurt feelings.” And I didn’t see Princess Anne’s photo either—and she’s the hardest working Royal after Charles.

This is a well thought out plan to try to get their own way, one way or the other.
The avoidance of visiting Balmoral this summer makes a lot of sense now-I think this has been planned by H&M for a long time-and I don’t think Harry could face his grandmother.

They avoided Balmoral, Sandringham...and frankly I expect to see more such avoidances in the future. While I’m sure he still loves his family, it’s clear he has no respect for them and the institution of the monarchy as a whole. Add this to his insecurity about his place in the family and Meghan’s seeming desire to isolate him from his family, and I venture to guess that Harry will be spending very little time with his father, grandparents, brother, etc...

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

But Harry has always known that he is the spare.
Even though Diana said that she and Charles were scrupulous about treating both boys the same, she admitted that others in the RF insisted on emphasizing the importance of William.

So, it's not as if this comes as a shock to Harry and Meghan.

I actually think part of the problem is that the boys were treated the same for much too long. I get that a parent's instinct would be to minimize the differences so the second child wouldn't feel inferior, especially in a case like this where there were only two children, both boys, and very close in age. But I think it's possible to make children understand that while they're both loved and valued equally in the family, in terms of public, official life, they are destined for very different paths. If 'the spare' has been brought up with no clear differentiation between public and family life, and if he is allowed to believe that any differences between him and his sibling are surface level only, then you can see how his adult life is going to be a series of increasingly severe wake up calls. So I don't think Harry was well served by his parents' good intentions.

And, of course, if Harry didn't have a clear idea of his place within the structure of the monarchy, you could hardly expect Meghan to develop a realistic view of how things were going to work.

[wyevale]

Its crystal clear, now, that those of us who thought Americans congenitally unable to comprehend the business of Monarchy, let alone further its aims or work within its obvious constraints, and who warned about it at the time of this unfortunate couples courtship, are vindicated..

I've heard the name Wallis Simpson, on more lips in the last three days, than I ever thought to do.. but the comparison is inevitable.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by _Heather_

Same. 100% same. I've been a longtime royal watcher, a subscriber to magazines about royals, etc. and I can't tell you how long it's been since I actually read a magazine cover to cover when it includes an article about these two. I've become more and more disillusioned with them and their behavior and attitudes and I really can't stomach them. I certainly don't want them living here and I absolutely would never consider them to be "our royalty." I think it's become starkly clear that for many Americans that consider themselves to be royal watchers they're really only casual royal observers to have zero understanding of the history of the institution and that thinking behind it or the division and differences between royalty and celebrity. For those serious royal watchers, which I would certainly consider myself apart of, this move is widely seen as appalling. Not because they wanted out, but because of the way they went about it. Had they announced at their engagement or marriage that they would be stepping away there might have been a little bit of surprise but no hard feelings. However, this bombshell and resulting chaotic mess has shown their true colors and many Americans who consider themselves to be serious royal watchers are quite put out with them and certainly unwilling to welcome them to be "our royals."

I defended and supported them when many didn’t - especially Meghan- but no more; I’ve wiped my hands of them.

I think Americans have a Romantic notion of royalty, which is why so many think the story of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor is one of the greatest love stories ever and proof that the royal family is a stuffed shirt institution which is ultimately useless. I used to think that way about Edward VIII, but I stopped as soon as I understood the ramifications of his attitudes. It’s one reason I love George VI so much. The NY Times published an editorial with the headline “Good for Meghan and Harry”. I skimmed it and it was all about fairy tales and happy endings, no doubt vilifying the Big, Bad, BRF for trying to crush their individuality (I’m guessing because I refused to read it behind the skim). The NY Times is a phenomenal newspaper, but no, that wasn’t fit to print. So anyway, Americans don’t know or care about the charitable work and long hours the BRF put in because the only times they are reported in here are pretty much for weddings and silky entertainment shows with gossipy mentalities.

I agree with you that most people would have been ok had M and H decided that they needed to live another lifestyle - in fact, the Queen and Charles were fine with it and trying to work out an accommodation. Harry should understand how this all works, but neither he nor his wife care - and that’s really the crux of the matter. They care only about themselves and have left wreckage behind them in their wake.

Originally Posted by wyevale

Its crystal clear, now, that those of us who thought Americans congenitally unable to comprehend the business of Monarchy, let alone further its aims or work within its obvious constraints, and who warned about it at the time of this unfortunate couples courtship, are vindicated..

I've heard the name Wallis Simpson, on more lips in the last three days, than I ever thought to do.. but the comparison is inevitable.

Not all Americans, so no, it’s not congenital. In a post I just made, however, I explained why you are right for the most part.

[tausi]

Originally Posted by camelot23ca

I actually think part of the problem is that the boys were treated the same for much too long. I get that a parent's instinct would be to minimize the differences so the second child wouldn't feel inferior, especially in a case like this where there were only two children, both boys, and very close in age. But I think it's possible to make children understand that while they're both loved and valued equally in the family, in terms of public, official life, they are destined for very different paths. If 'the spare' has been brought up with no clear differentiation between public and family life, and if he is allowed to believe that any differences between him and his sibling are surface level only, then you can see how his adult life is going to be a series of increasingly severe wake up calls. So I don't think Harry was well served by his parents' good intentions.

And, of course, if Harry didn't have a clear idea of his place within the structure of the monarchy, you could hardly expect Meghan to develop a realistic view of how things were going to work.

I agree.
I imagine it was hard to give preferential treatment to Prince William given that Prince Charles only has 2 kids who had lost their mother at a very young age.

May be that's why Catherine decided to have at least 3. This way Charlotte and Louis will have each other while George is following his destiny as a future heir.

[moby]

Checking the comments on their announcement on their Insta and I am actually amazed by how the tides seem to have turned against them so fast. When they first posted it, the comments were mostly positive. Now the comments with the most likes are the ones chastising them for the move. The words most repeated seem to be "financial independence"--they are mocked either for the vagueness of language or the hypocrisy of the idea or both.

[TRCRoyal]

Media reports are saying that Meghan flew to Victoria to be with Archie and Jessica Mulroney, but Jessica was in Toronto today at Cityline Studio for a live segment. Something is not right ��

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by wyevale

Of COURSE 'they knew'.. they've been holed up abroad plotting this for SEVEN weeks..[and on her part, FAR LONGER}

I expect them to end up as 'ex-Royals', and soon - Still Duke & Duchess, but not Royal Highnesses, and not in receipt of Duchy of Cornwall monies.. in fact any BRF monies, beyond what Harry inherited from his mother & QEQM -
Their ability to monestise their link to the Crown will be severely constricted by the Queen's and UK Govt lawyers..

As for what remains of their personal relationship with his family, I imagine they are 'shot to pieces', and since the Duchess likes things that way, I can't see and 'bridges being built'.

They can live where they chose, and 'good riddance'..

I think they have been planning this for far longer than their recent "break."

This was in the works by them for months, if not the past year--that "documentary" at the end of the Africa trip was most definitely calculated and designed to tug on heartstrings and have people feel sorry for them.

I agree with all you've written above.


And in reply to this--

Originally Posted by wyevale

Its crystal clear, now, that those of us who thought Americans congenitally unable to comprehend the business of Monarchy, let alone further its aims or work within its obvious constraints, ...

I am an American, so please, don't paint us all with the same brush.

[LadyGlendower]

Originally Posted by moby

Checking the comments on their announcement on their Insta and I am actually amazed by how the tides seem to have turned against them so fast. When they first posted it, the comments were mostly positive. Now the comments with the most likes are the ones chastising them for the move. The words most repeated seem to be "financial independence"--they are mocked either for the vagueness of language or the hypocrisy of the idea or both.

Those press stories about having their heads up their financial asses must be going viral quickly.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by tausi

I agree.
I imagine it was hard to give preferential treatment to Prince William given that Prince Charles only has 2 kids who had lost their mother at a very young age.

May be that's why Catherine decided to have at least 3. This way Charlotte and Louis will have each other while George is following his destiny as a future heir.

A key difference though , and I keep coming back to this point, is that William was never first in line when he was a kid., as he still isn’t now.

Compare and contrast it to the Spanish royal family for example. Leonor and Sofía were treated equally while Felipe was still Prince of Asturias, but the moment he became King and Leonor became Princess of Asturias a clear distinction was made between her and her sister and they began to be treated differently . See for example the ceremony where King Felipe awarded Leonor the Golden Fleece and, in his speech, clearly outlined her role as heir and her sister’s role as merely to support Leonor. At the time , many of us thought Felipe’s words were too harsh, even cruel to a young girl like Infanta Sofía, but it is good that the girls know from an early age what they should expect of the their future within the family.

[TRCRoyal]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

A key difference though , and I keep coming back to this point, is that William was never first in line when he was a kid., as he still isn’t now.

Compare and contrast it to the Spanish royal family for example. Leonor and Sofía were treated equally when Felipe was still Prince of Asturias, but the moment he became King and Leonor became Princess of Asturias a clear distinction was made between her and her sister and they began to be treated differently . See for example the ceremony where King Felipe awarded Leonor the Golden Fleece and, in his speech, clearly outlined her role as heir and her sister’s role as merely to support Leonor. At the time , many of us thought Felipe’s words were too harsh, even cruel to a young girl like Infanta Sofía, but it is good that the girls know from an early age what they should expect of the their future within the family.

I imagine there would be private conversations as well that explain that just because you're not going to be a king/queen doesn't mean you're not important... etc.

I could sense that Harry was not comfortable being a royal (he's indicated so many times), but I never assumed there was jealousy between him and William... until now.

[wyevale]

so please, don't paint us all with the same brush.

My apologies...

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Elenath

Would this be do awful? It gives them more freedom and control over what is printed. I doubt they only want positive news to come out, they never said this, they don’t want the media to print lies or half-truths. Doesn’t seem so unreasonable to me. And there is a difference between good and bad journalism and irony agreeing or disagreeing with what’s printed. The Daily Mail is bad, The Times is good journalism.

No, no it doesn't give them more control over what is printed. It is naive to believe that.

And The Daily Mail is not "journalism."

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

A key difference though , and I keep coming back to this point, is that William was never first in line when he was a kid., as he still isn’t now.

Compare and contrast it to the Spanish royal family for example. Leonor and Sofía were treated equally when Felipe was still Prince of Asturias, but the moment he became King and Leonor became Princess of Asturias a clear distinction was made between her and her sister and they began to be treated differently . See for example the ceremony where King Felipe awarded Leonor the Golden Fleece and, in his speech, clearly outlined her role as heir and her sister’s role as merely to support Leonor. At the time , many of us thought Felipe’s words were too harsh, even cruel to a young girl like Infanta Sofía, but it is good that the girls know from an early age what they should expect of the their future within the family.

I’ll be honest, while practically it was probably a good thing, those words do seem unnecessarily cruel. I hope the King made it clear to Sofia that she’s just as loved as her sister....which is what I’m sure Charles and Diana did with Harry. Sadly it feels like that didn’t take with Harry - though maybe it’s more that Meghan feels that way and she’s encouraging Harry to think that way...

[tausi]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

A key difference though , and I keep coming back to this point, is that William was never first in line when he was a kid., as he still isn’t now.

Compare and contrast it to the Spanish royal family for example. Leonor and Sofía were treated equally when Felipe was still Prince of Asturias, but the moment he became King and Leonor became Princess of Asturias a clear distinction was made between her and her sister and they began to be treated differently . See for example the ceremony where King Felipe awarded Leonor the Golden Fleece and, in his speech, clearly outlined her role as heir and her sister’s role as merely to support Leonor. At the time , many of us thought Felipe’s words were too harsh, even cruel to a young girl like Infanta Sofía, but it is good that the girls know from an early age what they should expect of the their future within the family.

That's a great point. I remember KIng Felipe speech, I initially thought the same - harsh. But he probably knows from experience, it was necessary.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

I think they have been planning this for far longer than their recent "break."

This was in the works by them for months, if not the past year--that "documentary" at the end of the Africa trip was most definitely calculated and designed to tug on heartstrings and have people feel sorry for them.

I agree with all you've written above.


And in reply to this--




I am an American, so please, don't paint us all with the same brush.

Thank you! I think the Americans who don’t “get” the monarchy just see the royals as celebrities on the level of movie stars - perhaps because of Grace Kelly. I think those of us who do “get it” probably are also history lovers and have read about the monarchy as part of British history..