The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

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

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 10-28-2020, 08:39 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,736
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?
I personally don’t think H and M’s departure has hurt the monarchy/BRF at all. They’ve all done brilliantly during this crisis...and, frankly, moved on, doing their duties and not moping about the absence of the Sussexes.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 10-28-2020, 08:43 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 578
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?
Currently the 3rd, 4th and 5th in-line to the throne are not over 18 (or 21) yet. Harry at one point is considered to be the Charles' version of the slimmed down monarchy, as he will be the future King's son. He was expected to continue as Senior working royal in his lifetime, especially after The Duke of Edinburgh retired in 2017. The Queen, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Duke and Duchess of Kent and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy are not getting any younger. Naturally, Harry would have to pick up more engagements or even patronages in the future if any of them does go into semi- or full retirement (I am not hoping or wishing retirement BTW).

There is also uncertainty about the Counsellors of State in the Privy Council, because Harry and Archie are still relatively high up in the line of succession and thus could be eligible to become a Counsellor, unless they are not included for not "domiciled" in the UK.
"Councillors of State must be at least 21 years old (except the heir apparent or presumptive, who need only be 18 years old), they must be domiciled in the United Kingdom, and they must be a British subject."
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (9 October 1956 – 26 August 1965), Princess Alexandra of Kent (25 December 1957 – 18 December 1962) and Prince Richard of Gloucester (26 August 1965 – 14 November 1966) were Councillor of state once they reached 21. Of course during this time, the Queen's children were still under 21. Prince Charles actually replaced Prince Richard of Gloucester on 14 November 1966.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 10-28-2020, 08:46 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
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.
Lacey apparently thinks very little of Charles, so much so that he’s saying in interviews that William and Kate are the “golden couple” and no one really cares about Charles and Camilla. So, aside from the fact that Lacey seems to think W is responsible for everything that H has ever done, it seems he wants to W to take on all the responsibility that his father now has (Charles, who?). It’s just one more reason for me to hate this book.

I do think we have to be careful in assuming every “non-heir” is going to wind up just like Harry...
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 10-28-2020, 10:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
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.



I don't think Edward or Anne are or have ever been unhappy with the assignments they are/ were given. I think they are pretty comfortable with their positions in the Royal Family. Maybe Andrew wanted more (after all, he was second in line for quite some time), but I don't think he ever had the kind of overblown expectations that Harry and Meghan have/had for example. Furthermore, by the time Andrew became an adult (in his 20s), Charles had already married and had two sons, so Andrew's position in the family was already naturally fading.


I can't comment on Margaret because most of what I know about her is from books or films (the latter normally fictional to a large extent). For a long time, she was, however, the most senior female adult in the RF after the Queen and the Queen Mother, so, relatively to her position, I think she was "underused" probably because the courtiers and the Queen thought she was not reliable, but that is only my superficial impression.
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 10-28-2020, 12:10 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,329
Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

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?


They were relevant imo. They were supposed to be a support to William (and Charles really) as the only working royals of their generation besides William and Catherine. It will be a long time before W/K’s kids are able to help. The RF can and will adapt, but their loss plus Andrew’s obviously hurts imo.

In terms of the succession, barring an utter tragedy, no, it’s not a big issue imo.
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 10-28-2020, 12:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,329
Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I do think we have to be careful in assuming every “non-heir” is going to wind up just like Harry...

THIS. Charlotte and Louis may be just fine. (Things may change by the time they’re adults regarding how the BRF operates, but no need to assume the worst either.)

They also might marry people suited to the job. Clearly Meghan was not. It was a professional fail.
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 10-28-2020, 12:30 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,588
And Charlotte and Louis will both immediately go into fulltime royal duties in their late twenties without either of them considering a career on the way? I consider that extremely unlikely myself, considering the royal Houses of Europe.
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 10-28-2020, 12:46 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,251
if they dont go into royal duties, it wont really matter...I think that the odds are that only George will be required for royal work, and so his siblings will be left to lead a fairly normal life...
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 10-28-2020, 01:15 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
They were relevant imo. They were supposed to be a support to William (and Charles really) as the only working royals of their generation besides William and Catherine. It will be a long time before W/K’s kids are able to help. The RF can and will adapt, but their loss plus Andrew’s obviously hurts imo.

In terms of the succession, barring an utter tragedy, no, it’s not a big issue imo.
Yup...Only Harry and Meghan thought they were irrelevant because they - really, especially he - were jealous of William’s position. They actually would have been quite important in the scheme of things, but they couldn’t get past HM and Charles refusing to give them a separate office at Windsor. They wanted more than their positions warranted...and since they didn’t get it, they split.

Quote:
THIS. Charlotte and Louis may be just fine. (Things may change by the time they’re adults regarding how the BRF operates, but no need to assume the worst either.)

They also might marry people suited to the job. Clearly Meghan was not. It was a professional fail
Again, I agree. Also, if those two decide they’d like to take different paths in life, I’m sure they would discuss it with their parents...and something would be worked out. The Queen and Charles were willing to do that with Harry, but his impatience led him to make a rash and hasty decision. Megxit is on he and Meghan; it is not up to us, IMO, to assume that every other “non-heir” will feel as H did and behave as H did.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 10-28-2020, 01:32 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,251
by the time Will is King the odds are that it will not be expected that younger children do any royal duties and they'll be told from an early age that they are not going to be working Princes/esses and that they should find themselves something to do. so the present rather awkward situation where the children are all expected/intended to do a spell in the military's and then eventually go into royal duties to some extent, wont arise.
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 10-28-2020, 01:34 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
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.

I hate how some people like Lacey tries to infantilise Harry to the point that all of his shortcomings were never his fault and should be blamed on someone else.


For God's sake, he is 36 years old, he isn't that little boy who walked behind his mother coffin with his brother anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 10-29-2020, 02:38 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Silicon Valley, United States
Posts: 666
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.
Oh yes, the "male monarchy." In the last 183 years, the UK has had a king for only 51 of them. Victoria and Elizabeth II have a combined total of 132 years - and counting!
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 10-29-2020, 04:38 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
I hate how some people like Lacey tries to infantilise Harry to the point that all of his shortcomings were never his fault and should be blamed on someone else.


For God's sake, he is 36 years old, he isn't that little boy who walked behind his mother coffin with his brother anymore.
it does seem odd. I can't remember laceys' books that I read years ago.. but I thought that he was capable of being objective.. I haven't read this one, but from a lot of the quotes, the tendency seems to be blaming other people for all Harry's decisions.. ie it was Diana's fault for being a messed up person, and Charles' fault for not being a good husband... and Mostly it appears to be Williams fault for leading Harry into bad ways when he was all of 2 year older. Truth is, if its anyone's fault, I suspect it is down to Charles, because at the age where Harry was getting out of hand, Charles was the sole parent. And instead of being firm with him, I get the feeling that Charles was busy iwht his work, away a good deal, and probably uneasy about disciplining his son (and Will too) because he felt guilty about the marital problems and he did not want to be too hard on 2 boys who had lost their mother very tragically. I think WIll should have had a firm hand too, but Charles didn't apply it.. But I think its ridiculous to blame a boy like Will who is all of 2 years older than Harry, for not being able/willing to control his brother
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 10-29-2020, 01:24 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
it does seem odd. I can't remember laceys' books that I read years ago.. but I thought that he was capable of being objective.. I haven't read this one, but from a lot of the quotes, the tendency seems to be blaming other people for all Harry's decisions.. ie it was Diana's fault for being a messed up person, and Charles' fault for not being a good husband... and Mostly it appears to be Williams fault for leading Harry into bad ways when he was all of 2 year older. Truth is, if its anyone's fault, I suspect it is down to Charles, because at the age where Harry was getting out of hand, Charles was the sole parent. And instead of being firm with him, I get the feeling that Charles was busy iwht his work, away a good deal, and probably uneasy about disciplining his son (and Will too) because he felt guilty about the marital problems and he did not want to be too hard on 2 boys who had lost their mother very tragically. I think WIll should have had a firm hand too, but Charles didn't apply it.. But I think its ridiculous to blame a boy like Will who is all of 2 years older than Harry, for not being able/willing to control his brother
Harry and Harry alone is responsible for his decisions. No matter how poor a father you think Charles is or was, H was an adult when he chose to dress up as a Nazi, go to Vegas and get plastered, etc... That’s on him.
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 11-01-2020, 08:02 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,736
Well, this is interesting...

Personally I’m glad Lacey changed his mind because it’s clear everytime he’s interviewed that he loathes Charles, but...I loathe this comment because it’s completely disrespectful to Charles. I understand what be means, but Morgan is essentially erasing everything that the PoW has done.

Quote:
The royal author had originally planned to write about Prince Charles and Prince Andrew, but he dropped that plan after talking to The Crown creator Peter Morgan, who advised: "They aren’t the princes that matter any more.”
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/cel...wn-consultant/
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 11-01-2020, 08:43 AM
Claire's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,285
That might explain why the research is so lacking, I was recently told that the saga of prince Andrew will be ongoing for another 10 years at least so any book at the moment would be shortsighted. William and Harry well, many more books can be coming out. That will be the gift that will keep giving.
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 11-01-2020, 09:59 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 104
I 100 % believe that William warned Harry to slow down and this is what started all of this. I do not see their relationship being repaired unless Harry divorces Meghan (And I do think this will happen one day).

I will always believe Meghan never had long hopes of staying in England. She wanted the title, the prince but not a life of doing Royal Duties.
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 11-01-2020, 10:03 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by moby View Post
I really don't see what the big deal is in being told by a sibling think twice or thrice about important life decisions. No matter the age, I would expect my own siblings to be extremely honest with me. Welcome or unwelcome, I expect them to tell me what they think and I would hope they know the advice will be taken well.

Maybe William overestimated their closeness...or his brother's maturity.
Because Harry is a hot head and yes he is somewhat immature. Look at him coming to America and pictures of him being naked with a random woman. We all know whatever concerns William shared went right back to Meghan.

Harry keeps implying about this bias he grew up with. I think that's shade at William maybe he thinks William was having an implicit bias about Meghan.
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 11-01-2020, 10:10 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
And Charlotte and Louis will both immediately go into fulltime royal duties in their late twenties without either of them considering a career on the way? I consider that extremely unlikely myself, considering the royal Houses of Europe.
Why wouldn't they? Charlotte will Princess Royal one day, it's likely her husband will be offered a title (Like Princess Anne's was). I think the future is King William, Queen Consort Kate, Prince George, Prince George's Wife, Princess Charlotte, Princess Charlotte husband, Prince Louis and Prince Louis wife.

I feel like the Wessex kids could be in the mix too. They will become automatic Prince and Princess when they turn 18 years old?

I would include Archie in this who will also become a Prince when Charles is King but this is only if Harry/Meghan divorce, Harry then may want him to bond with his family again.
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 11-01-2020, 10:23 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,251
not at all likely that the younger Cambridges will be expected to do royal duties, and certianly not their wives or husbands. Anne's husband was offered a title in the 1970s, there isn't the slightest possibility that Charlotte's husband will be offered one....
if the Harry mess has any relationship to other royals, it has probalby made teh RF think of the fate of younger children and has probalby made them decide that its best if only the heir and his wife/husband are expected to work as royals.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:03 PM
"The Windsors: Inside the Royal Dynasty" eya The Electronic Domain 10 02-20-2020 12:26 AM
"The Monarchy Inside" (2010) - DR Documentary on Working Lives of Danish Royal Family Paty The Electronic Domain 184 06-19-2015 04:36 PM




Popular Tags
abdication althorp anastasia baby names bridal gown british royal family buckingham palace chittagong clarence house diana princess of wales dna dubai duke of cambridge dutch dutch royals earl of snowdon facts future general news thread george vi gradenigo hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill historical drama history hochberg hypothetical monarchs intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepalese royal jewels northern ireland norway palestine pless prince dimitri princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen louise queen mathilde random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon spencer family thailand thai royal family tips tracts uae customs united states of america unsubscribe wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:27 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×