The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Library
Click Here to Login

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #421  
Old 10-26-2020, 07:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I couldn’t agree more. I find that she has achieved a brilliant balance between motherhood, supporting her husband and the Queen and finding her niche as very much her own person. You laid it all out beautifully.
I agree, she took her time to settle into the role, be with her children when they were very young, Regardless of your status in life could there be a more important role than being with your children at such a young age. I was always disappointed in fellow posters who viewed her as lazy because she opted to spend the early years with her children, I know not everybody in the world has that option but she did and took it.
__________________

  #422  
Old 10-26-2020, 07:33 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As the second in line, William had to consider not only Harry's personal happiness, but also how his marriage would impact the Royal House.

Harry's marriage to Meghan might or might not be successful in the long run (it is still early to tell), but I think it is fair to say that, even in such a short period of time, it has already proven to be negative for the Royal House at least in the UK and the major Commonwealth realms. In this sense, William's concerns were justified.
Since Harry is way down in line of succession I don't think it would in the long run have great impact. when a royal marries and there is personal unhappiness (suppose Harry decided to marry a choice of bride that would please his brother or the media instead of Meghan) then that could have bad repercussions as well.

I don't know why Harry's marriage to Meghan should be judged as being successful or unsuccessful. I don't recall any other recent marriages where there is the speculation of it not being successful. I did not see this with Bea or Eugenie for example; And Bea married someone who was just coming out of a relationship when he started dating Bea and he had a child with his ex fiancee--which arguably is more complex than Harry and Meghan's situation as far as family situations. I think for Harry and Meghan it is the best thing to hope for the best and not watch to see if it would be successful or not. They do have a child now and I think they are happy in their personal lives.

It would of course have truly serious ramifications if William did not marry and have heirs of its own then there would be huge pressure on Harry not to move to another country with his wife and child and start a new life.

As long as Harry is not close to the throne, I don't think that it should have serious negative implications. If there were another scandal of an unhappily married royal who perhaps felt pressured by his brother and the media to drop someone he loves and finds someone his brother approves of, that would be bad. And as I recall, both Cressida and Chelsy have had gotten negative press. Chelsy in particular was criticized and in the media. Perhaps anybody Harry married would get negative press.


I don't see that william is right in this regard. The couple is still together.

Down the road, it might bring more attention to the role of the spares. This would be something that would concern CHarlotte and Louis and their future roles as royals. Would they be able to pursue their own interests and not necessarily have full time work with the Firm.

If this did not happen with Harry, it may have impacted the next generation and perhaps it would have been inevitable that something like this could happen.
__________________

  #423  
Old 10-26-2020, 07:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I agree, she took her time to settle into the role, be with her children when they were very young, Regardless of your status in life could there be a more important role than being with your children at such a young age. I was always disappointed in fellow posters who viewed her as lazy because she opted to spend the early years with her children, I know not everybody in the world has that option but she did and took it.
I wasn't around then, but did posters really say that? Sad.

George, Charlotte and Louis are lucky that their parents are able to be around as much as they are for their childhoods. I've no doubt HM and Charles wished they could have done the same...

So, how dare Robert Lacey make snide remarks about Kate? Of course, he seems to be making them about everyone except Harry....
  #424  
Old 10-26-2020, 07:58 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 659
I think Lacey was not all that severe with Kate. She came off better than William did. He does not give anybody a complete "break" from criticism. Except perhaps Michael Middleton.
  #425  
Old 10-26-2020, 08:35 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I wasn't around then, but did posters really say that? Sad.

George, Charlotte and Louis are lucky that their parents are able to be around as much as they are for their childhoods. I've no doubt HM and Charles wished they could have done the same...

So, how dare Robert Lacey make snide remarks about Kate? Of course, he seems to be making them about everyone except Harry....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
I think Lacey was not all that severe with Kate. She came off better than William did. He does not give anybody a complete "break" from criticism. Except perhaps Michael Middleton.
I cannot really determine the overall opinion of The Royal Forum. However, from reading through the social media, the "Lazy Kate" mostly come from some Republicans (anti-monarchist), Meghan supporters and feminists. Some Meghan fans and 3rd/4th wave feminist have criticised Kate for not having a career before marriage and being "submissive" (i.e. by following protocol and keeping her head down) to the "archaic" "old, pale, stale, male" monarchy.
  #426  
Old 10-26-2020, 08:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I wasn't around then, but did posters really say that? Sad.

George, Charlotte and Louis are lucky that their parents are able to be around as much as they are for their childhoods. I've no doubt HM and Charles wished they could have done the same...

So, how dare Robert Lacey make snide remarks about Kate? Of course, he seems to be making them about everyone except Harry....

Yes there were some people on royal discussion forums, social media and tabloid comment sections that said that about Catherine.
  #427  
Old 10-26-2020, 09:49 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I cannot really determine the overall opinion of The Royal Forum. However, from reading through the social media, the "Lazy Kate" mostly come from some Republicans (anti-monarchist), Meghan supporters and feminists. Some Meghan fans and 3rd/4th wave feminist have criticised Kate for not having a career before marriage and being "submissive" (i.e. by following protocol and keeping her head down) to the "archaic" "old, pale, stale, male" monarchy.
This is probably getting too off topic, but I’ll just say that I have little - actually, I have no- patience for people who judge others’ decisions negatively just because these decisions wouldn’t have been their own.

TLLK:

Quote:
Yes there were some people on royal discussion forums, social media and tabloid comment sections that said that about Catherine.
Sigh. Well, they sound like mighty unhappy people. In the meantime, Kate is clearly happy with the choices she’s made and the life she lives..and that’s all that matters
  #428  
Old 10-26-2020, 10:39 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Jersey City, United States
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Yes there were some people on royal discussion forums, social media and tabloid comment sections that said that about Catherine.
That was being said well before Meghan came on the scene. I remember defending Kate saying that she and William were enjoying their "reverse retirement" at that time. I felt they were being given time to be as private and normal as they could before they lost that ability . I am still glad Kate had that choice to do so.
  #429  
Old 10-26-2020, 11:19 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claricecolin View Post
That was being said well before Meghan came on the scene. I remember defending Kate saying that she and William were enjoying their "reverse retirement" at that time. I felt they were being given time to be as private and normal as they could before they lost that ability . I am still glad Kate had that choice to do so.
I love the idea of 'reverse retirement' because indeed, for royals that do not abdicate (although I'm not sure that is the case for William), there is no retirement, so any prolonged time off needs to be taken when younger; before the highest duty calls.
  #430  
Old 10-27-2020, 01:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I love the idea of 'reverse retirement' because indeed, for royals that do not abdicate (although I'm not sure that is the case for William), there is no retirement, so any prolonged time off needs to be taken when younger; before the highest duty calls.
I love “reverse retirement” also, and you’re exactly right. Being the monarch, or heir, sadly often means putting duty ahead of family, no matter how much you love your family. I’m sure it killed a very young HM to be away from her Charles and Anne for so long - and it obviously affected him deeply. He couldn’t spend as much time with William and Harry as he’d I sure he’d have liked - it’s been William who’s encouraged him not to be such a workaholic. The fact that he and Kate can do things differently is wonderful...
  #431  
Old 10-27-2020, 05:42 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I love “reverse retirement” also, and you’re exactly right. Being the monarch, or heir, sadly often means putting duty ahead of family, no matter how much you love your family. I’m sure it killed a very young HM to be away from her Charles and Anne for so long - and it obviously affected him deeply. He couldn’t spend as much time with William and Harry as he’d I sure he’d have liked - it’s been William who’s encouraged him not to be such a workaholic. The fact that he and Kate can do things differently is wonderful...
Exactly, and IMO the queen would have supported them in the private time they had before stepping out into the bigger stage. How often have royal watchers commented on Charles upbringing because his parents were away so much . I also believe Harry and Meghan would have been given the same opportunity if they had wished.
  #432  
Old 10-27-2020, 06:56 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
Exactly, and IMO the queen would have supported them in the private time they had before stepping out into the bigger stage. How often have royal watchers commented on Charles upbringing because his parents were away so much . I also believe Harry and Meghan would have been given the same opportunity if they had wished.
I agree, she absolutely would - I have no doubt that the Queen, Philip and Charles are all thrilled that Wiiliam and Kate have this precious time together. George VI’s tragic early death was devastating to his family for obvious reasons, but one effect is that it meant the new Queen didn’t have the time to be the kind of mother she wanted to be. This job is a demanding and difficult one, and very sadly HM’s ascension to the thrown deeply affected Charles. However, she has lived an extremely long, interesting life - and because she has, it means that her son and grandson won’t see the throne as very young men. As a result, it’s allowed Charles the ability to step back and enjoy his son and his family - and it’s allowed William, who had a fraught childhood, the ability to sort of relive that ideal childhood with his own kids.
  #433  
Old 10-28-2020, 04:40 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I love “reverse retirement” also, and you’re exactly right. Being the monarch, or heir, sadly often means putting duty ahead of family, no matter how much you love your family. I’m sure it killed a very young HM to be away from her Charles and Anne for so long - and it obviously affected him deeply. He couldn’t spend as much time with William and Harry as he’d I sure he’d have liked - it’s been William who’s encouraged him not to be such a workaholic. The fact that he and Kate can do things differently is wonderful...
I dont think that Charles is any less of a workaholic now than he ever was.. he may see a bit more of the grandkids but he's still devoted to his work, unless illness slows him down. The queen too IMO was always devoted to her work, and she did put that ahead of family duties and prioritised being with Philip at times ahead of "being with Charles, Anne and Philip"...

Will and Kate had a chance to spend time as a couple with their kids, for a few years, since they weren't the heirs. They could spend time in private -though I think both of them could have done a bit more public work..during that time. However, they have both taken on more work, in the last year or 2 and I think that Kate is growing into a more active royal role and enjoying it. And indeed compared to being lectured by Harry and Meghan, its possible to prefer Will and Kate coming slowly up to the mark at public duties.
  #434  
Old 10-28-2020, 04:54 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
Exactly, and IMO the queen would have supported them in the private time they had before stepping out into the bigger stage. How often have royal watchers commented on Charles upbringing because his parents were away so much . I also believe Harry and Meghan would have been given the same opportunity if they had wished.
Im really not sure about this. I think if Harry and Meg had asked for a few years to play themselves in, the queen would have agreed to it but I think she was expecting them to start their royal life on marriage and take on teh full time job. William was different, when he married, the queen was younger and she and Philip were both working.. but now, Philip's retired, and she is very old.. and I am not sure if she really felt it was necessary/ a good idea for her second grandson to go in slowly...to his life of royal duty. I think that as a young woman she accepted that she had to give up any years of private life to help her father and then take over as queen.. and she's still partly of that mindset.. that if the Crown needs you, you take up the job. I think she might have agreed to Meghan being played in a bit more slowly, letting Harry take on the bulk of royal duties for the couple when they got married.. but Meg could start her family and have couple of years of private life. However I think Meghan was eager to get into the job and so the queen OKe'd it.. then when tension began to arise, it seems that there was a suggestion that the 2 of them might go ot S Africa for a year or 2... and have that time as a private couple.. but it came to nothing.
  #435  
Old 10-28-2020, 05:17 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
hmm - dont know how to say this.
I think that wouldn't have played well into Meghan and Harry's hand. It does look like H& M spoke to the palace before the wedding about how they wanted their role in the family to look like. But it is not said who they spoke to - or how that role differs from what they eventually demanded. They are the ones who made a running start to their royal careers and essentially that was Meghan wanting to show the world that she was fully committed to her role. Of course we can look at it now and say that it also was a snub to the palace by pointing about a greater perceived work ethnic and popularity against the Cambridges and other royals. I also think they knew they needed to do more to get their name as well known as possible - so when they left the name recognition would carry forward.
  #436  
Old 10-28-2020, 05:17 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As the second in line, William had to consider not only Harry's personal happiness, but also how his marriage would impact the Royal House.

Harry's marriage to Meghan might or might not be successful in the long run (it is still early to tell), but I think it is fair to say that, even in such a short period of time, it has already proven to be negative for the Royal House at least in the UK and the major Commonwealth realms. In this sense, William's concerns were justified.
But, but...I keep reading how Harry and Meghan are irrelevant, 7th in the line for the throne, etc..

How come they are hurting monarchy that much?
  #437  
Old 10-28-2020, 05:28 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
In the short time - it is just negative press also they did accuse them of been insensitive and racist. But Diana and Sarah did the same - didnt really have a last impression

In the long run - wont make a difference at all.
  #438  
Old 10-28-2020, 06:08 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
hmm - dont know how to say this.
I think that wouldn't have played well into Meghan and Harry's hand. It does look like H& M spoke to the palace before the wedding about how they wanted their role in the family to look like. But it is not said who they spoke to - or how that role differs from what they eventually demanded. They are the ones who made a running start to their royal careers and essentially that was Meghan wanting to show the world that she was fully committed to her role. Of course we can look at it now and say that it also was a snub to the palace by pointing about a greater perceived work ethnic and popularity against the Cambridges and other royals. I also think they knew they needed to do more to get their name as well known as possible - so when they left the name recognition would carry forward.
I assume that you mean the idea that H and Meg might spend a year or 2 in Africa, rather than be working royals? I agree that I dont think that would have suited Meg at all, I increasingly feel that she never intended to be a full time royal in the usual sense and saw it as a job she could dip in and out of, but that yes she needed a year or so of royal work to give her the exposure to let her go back to the US and do some kind of business or acting work.
I dont know if Harry was aware of this idea of his wife's until a while after they married. But I think its possible that not too long after the marriage they approached the queen, claimed to be stressed out, not sure if they could do the job etc etc -. and the queen to try and placate them suggested that they take a year off and go to Africa where H had been happy and live a private life there.. but tehre may have been security concerns and it wasn't what Meghan had in mind at all and so the idea fell through..
  #439  
Old 10-28-2020, 06:09 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
The one thing that seems obvious in this book is that Lacey expects the monarchy, in this case - embodied by William to act it has never before acted before. Why is that and what did he want William to do?
It is almost like Lacey places the unhappiness of all lesser royals firmly at the doorstep of the crown and other sibling to inherit. Margaret's unhappiness was all the Queen. Andrew, Edward and Anne is all Charles and the Queen and Harry is all William, Charles and HM.
Is it the crown's job to make a role for the lesser royals - even if it not something they want or ill suited. They made a role for Andrew - trade envoy. Did they think while Anne little niche works, okay - edward can do the scraps that okay - move on.
William isn't even the King yet - what was he supposed to do for Harry. Offer a joint monarchy? I don't think William has any power to determine anything yet and Harry doesn't have the patient to wait around for what might be.
But unfortunately I very much agree with Lacey that the issue of lesser royal to the main branch will need to be sorted out - before we have the same thread going to Louis and Charlotte.
  #440  
Old 10-28-2020, 06:10 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by solinka View Post
But, but...I keep reading how Harry and Meghan are irrelevant, 7th in the line for the throne, etc..

How come they are hurting monarchy that much?
Because it is unprecedented for a working royal to decide to leave. ANd it came on top of hte scandal of Andrew having to be dropped.. It does not look good when 2 people take on a working royal's role whihc is usually for life unless illness intervenes, and within a year or so they not only leave but do so in a very dramatic way, hinting at tension and dispute within the family....
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
duke of cambridge, duke of sussex, family life


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
Inside Monaco: Playground of the Rich sophie25 The Electronic Domain 15 06-22-2020 06:03 PM
"The Windsors: Inside the Royal Dynasty" eya The Electronic Domain 10 02-19-2020 11:26 PM
"The Monarchy Inside" (2010) - DR Documentary on Working Lives of Danish Royal Family Paty The Electronic Domain 184 06-19-2015 03:36 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen louise royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida taiwan thai royal family united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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