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
 
  #61  
Old 10-03-2020, 09:00 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
It seems that's exactly why he interprets it as he does. A major happening within the family that year was 'the birth of her 8th great-grandchild'; yet, Archie was completely missing from the desk. Unlike the previous year where the major family events, i.e., the weddings of Harry & Meghan and Eugenie & Jack and Charles' 70th birthday, were highlighted.
I though that the queen mentioned Archie's birth in her broadcast
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-03-2020, 09:22 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,259
Indeed she did, she said "Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our 8th great grandchild into our family" during which the photo of Archie with H&M, Philip and HM and Doria was shown. So no photo on the desk but a photo and mention during the broadcast.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-03-2020, 09:56 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Indeed she did, she said "Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our 8th great grandchild into our family" during which the photo of Archie with H&M, Philip and HM and Doria was shown. So no photo on the desk but a photo and mention during the broadcast.
What is the beef then? The photographs were about teh continuity of the monarchy, and Archie was mentioned
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-03-2020, 10:09 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,122
Lacey is entitled to his opinion but IMO he is over-egging the "diss" of Archie not being pictured on the desk.

He minimizes that as The Queen verbally mentions birth of Archie, the photo taken a few days after Archie's birth featuring The Queen, Prince Philip, Meghan's mother Doria, Harry, Meghan and Archie flashed on the screen.

He states:
"It was unheard of for the royal Christmas desk not to feature a cosy image of the latest royal [emphasis mine] grandchild or great-grandchild. "

This is an incorrect statement as Archie is not a royal great-grandchild. Now if there were pictures of the all of Peter and Zara's children on the Christmas desk the years of their births then he would have a point. The thing is that he states that it is "unheard of" but there is not really a precedent to match Archie's circumstances, which is a great-grandchild who was born non-royal and may become royal at a later time.

Lacey goes on to itemize some actions by the Sussexes that were relevant but he couches it as the Sussexes were "non-personed" due to The Queen's "displeasure" with them. And while it would be naive to think that she was not displeased with the Sussexes in December 2019, IMO it is not an unreasonable course of action to not include a photo of a non-royal grandchild whose birth was shrouded in misinformation, whose parents refused to give out the names of his godparents and whose parents reportedly want to raise as a private citizen. But it should be again noted that Archie's arrival was mentioned during the broadcast accopanied by a picture.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-03-2020, 10:10 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I though that the queen mentioned Archie's birth in her broadcast
Yes, she did. However, we were discussing how the pictures in her speech represent the important family events: and Archie was not featured on one of the pictures. She 'only' mentioned the birth of an 8th great-grandchild (without using his name but that might be her common practice? Haven't checked it).

I wouldn't say the pictures represented the 'continuity', I'd say they mainly focused on the 'core of the royal family'. If it was all about showing the continuity (which I'd say was the picture of the 4 of them that was released later), a more logical way to do so, would be to present either pictures of the heirs only; OR present them all with their spouses. Now we had: King George (on his own), queen - not pictured but her husband in the back on his own, Charles with his wife, William with his wife and his three children (not just George). And the picture behind Philip included the queen's other children if I'm not mistaken?!

So yes, I could see why Harry would be somewhat disappointed with this set-up - but as someone rightly claimed they got a full 'picture flash' during the speech.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-03-2020, 10:17 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Yes, she did. However, we were discussing how the pictures in her speech represent the important family events: and Archie was not featured on one of the pictures. She 'only' mentioned the birth of an 8th great-grandchild (without using his name but that might be her common practice? Haven't checked it).
Common practice and the children's pictures to not always appear and never the Tindell or Phillip's girls and I don't really think G, C or L either to be honest.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-03-2020, 10:18 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 799
Lena Tindall wasn't featured on the desk, and she was a much longed for addition to Zara and Mike's family. Neither she nor Louis were mentioned by name in 2018.

Charlotte and Louis are never in the photos designed to show the continuity of the succession.

Also this couple said they wanted Archie to be as normal and "non public" as possible, attempting to tightly control everything surrounding his birth and photographs of him, apparently going so far as to refuse an Australian firefighting plane to be named after him all of which is their prerogative.

However they're making it seem like the fact that he wasn't being used as a public prop was one of the big straws that broke the camel's back - via first FF and now this is coming up again with Lacey. As well as it was such a big snub to them personally when they were already wanting out of the whole thing anyway. It's strange.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-03-2020, 10:34 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Lena Tindall wasn't featured on the desk, and she was a much longed for addition to Zara and Mike's family. Neither she nor Louis were mentioned by name in 2018.

Charlotte and Louis are never in the photos designed to show the continuity of the succession.

Also this couple said they wanted Archie to be as normal and "non public" as possible, attempting to tightly control everything surrounding his birth and photographs of him, apparently going so far as to refuse an Australian firefighting plane to be named after him all of which is their prerogative.

However they're making it seem like the fact that he wasn't being used as a public prop was one of the big straws that broke the camel's back - via first FF and now this is coming up again with Lacey. As well as it was such a big snub to them personally when they were already wanting out of the whole thing anyway. It's strange.
I may be speculating here. For next year's broadcast (2021), the Queen would highly likely said "absolute joy in welcoming the birth of our 9th great-grandchildren", but not mentioning the name of Baby Brooksbank, like the way Lena and Louis did. There could be a picture of Baby Brooksbank with his/her family appear on the screen (but not on the Queen's desk) like Archie's if luck would have it.

I wonder if the picture of "Baby Brooksbank with his/her family" is place on the Queen's desk, what would the media/royal reporter interpreted as? Or even actually mentioned by name? I know this is highly unlikely, but if it actually happens, there will be "accusation" of "favouritism" or "soft spots", given that Baby Brooksbank will not be in the direct line of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-03-2020, 10:54 AM
Claire's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
Lacey is entitled to his opinion but IMO he is over-egging the "diss" of Archie not being pictured on the desk.

He minimizes that as The Queen verbally mentions birth of Archie, the photo taken a few days after Archie's birth featuring The Queen, Prince Philip, Meghan's mother Doria, Harry, Meghan and Archie flashed on the screen.

He states:
"It was unheard of for the royal Christmas desk not to feature a cosy image of the latest royal [emphasis mine] grandchild or great-grandchild. "

This is an incorrect statement as Archie is not a royal great-grandchild. Now if there were pictures of the all of Peter and Zara's children on the Christmas desk the years of their births then he would have a point. The thing is that he states that it is "unheard of" but there is not really a precedent to match Archie's circumstances, which is a great-grandchild who was born non-royal and may become royal at a later time.

Lacey goes on to itemize some actions by the Sussexes that were relevant but he couches it as the Sussexes were "non-personed" due to The Queen's "displeasure" with them. And while it would be naive to think that she was not displeased with the Sussexes in December 2019, IMO it is not an unreasonable course of action to not include a photo of a non-royal grandchild whose birth was shrouded in misinformation, whose parents refused to give out the names of his godparents and whose parents reportedly want to raise as a private citizen. But it should be again noted that Archie's arrival was mentioned during the broadcast accompanied by a picture.
I really don't think that is true - as if you look at previous Christmas messages - she rarely sits at a desk . Several of them were voice overs, some she sits at a chair with no desk for photo collections. So the desk with photos is a recent addition. I scanned many online this morning. The Princess Royal appears once - wedding pic in background. (might have misidentified) Edward and Sophie appear no where , not in 1999 when they got married and none of their children are mentioned or appear in pics in Christmas speeches. Louise only appears at 1 in the accompanying video. Various grandchidren scattering appear, Andrew occasionally and always Charles, William and Harry.
So if there was any truth in this I would say the Queen hates Edward and Anne the most.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-03-2020, 11:54 AM
moby's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I really don't think that is true - as if you look at previous Christmas messages - she rarely sits at a desk . Several of them were voice overs, some she sits at a chair with no desk for photo collections. So the desk with photos is a recent addition. I scanned many online this morning. The Princess Royal appears once - wedding pic in background. (might have misidentified) Edward and Sophie appear no where , not in 1999 when they got married and none of their children are mentioned or appear in pics in Christmas speeches. Louise only appears at 1 in the accompanying video. Various grandchidren scattering appear, Andrew occasionally and always Charles, William and Harry.
So if there was any truth in this I would say the Queen hates Edward and Anne the most.
So if I were Harry, the first time I'm out of the picture (literally) is the year I started going rogue and being disobedient with my newish wife... I probably would start wondering too.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-03-2020, 12:59 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
But nothing I have read suggest he says the royal dealt badly but rather the staff.
We must be seeing different things then as I’ve definitely read those about the Royals. Aside from Lacey’s criticisms, he’s making snide comments like the one about how Charles finally made time to speak to Harry, even though it’s Charles has literally just returned from an engagement overseas. That bothers me.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-03-2020, 01:02 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Indeed she did, she said "Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our 8th great grandchild into our family" during which the photo of Archie with H&M, Philip and HM and Doria was shown. So no photo on the desk but a photo and mention during the broadcast.
And Lacey decided to get his knickers in a twist by saying that because HM didn’t mention Archie by name, just as her “eighth great grandchild”, that she was sending a message. He’s allowed his opinions, but I don’t expect them or his judgments to be all over a book of non-fiction.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-03-2020, 02:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,259
I would ask this though, is it Lacey or if he truly has been speaking to those inside the RF and Household - was it them 'getting their knickers in a twist'? Certainly this is the second time we are hearing the set up at the Christmas message was seen as a diss towards H&M - apparently even by H&M themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-03-2020, 02:18 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,525
To me, so far, it sounds like this book is an interpretation of events of an inner circle from someone not even close to that inner circle. I'll give it a miss.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-03-2020, 02:58 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I would ask this though, is it Lacey or if he truly has been speaking to those inside the RF and Household - was it them 'getting their knickers in a twist'? Certainly this is the second time we are hearing the set up at the Christmas message was seen as a diss towards H&M - apparently even by H&M themselves.
He’s very reputable, and I have no doubt he spoke to insiders...which is why I said in a previous post :

Quote:
I wonder if the sources led Lacey to believe that HM was punishing Harry because she was angry at him; given that the sources themselves were probably angry at H and M, I could buy that. Of course that doesn’t mean he has to believe it - that has never been the Queen’s way.
That said, IF it’s true that the sources were giving their interpretation of events as an “antidote” (the book has been described as an “antidote” to FF), then Lacey needed to understand that. That said, I do believe it’s (also) his opinion because I’ve read articles from months ago where he criticized the BRF for how the handled H and M, etc..

Osipi:

Quote:
To me, so far, it sounds like this book is an interpretation of events of an inner circle from someone not even close to that inner circle. I'll give it a miss.
That’s what it sounds like to me.....as well as a Chicken Little type hyperbole about “OMG, what will the Monarchy do without H and M”. They’ll do just fine.

Can I also say how ludicrous it is that Lacey, at some point, uses Meghan’s Suits character’s relationship with her father as a template for how she handled real life?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-03-2020, 03:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
We must be seeing different things then as I’ve definitely read those about the Royals. Aside from Lacey’s criticisms, he’s making snide comments like the one about how Charles finally made time to speak to Harry, even though it’s Charles has literally just returned from an engagement overseas. That bothers me.
Happens all the time. We have no money...until.a disaster and then it appears. I am busy until the worst happens and then you have time. It isn't a criticism. Its life.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-03-2020, 03:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
He’s very reputable, and I have no doubt he spoke to insiders...which is why I said in a previous post :



That said, IF it’s true that the sources were giving their interpretation of events as an “antidote” (the book has been described as an “antidote” to FF), then Lacey needed to understand that. That said, I do believe it’s (also) his opinion because I’ve read articles from months ago where he criticized the BRF for how the handled H and M, etc..

Osipi:



That’s what it sounds like to me.....as well as a Chicken Little type hyperbole about “OMG, what will the Monarchy do without H and M”. They’ll do just fine.

Can I also say how ludicrous it is that Lacey, at some point, uses Meghan’s Suits character’s relationship with her father as a template for how she handled real life?
Why not she is an actress and they have identity issues, to show the least. She may well have taken hints.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-03-2020, 04:21 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
Happens all the time. We have no money...until.a disaster and then it appears. I am busy until the worst happens and then you have time. It isn't a criticism. Its life.
It is a criticism, and an unfair one given that Charles had just returned from overseas. Lacey is making it sound like Charles - and HM - avoided Harry on purpose to punish him, to put him in his place. I don’t believe that at all, especially of Charles. It’s one thing for him to be upset at his son’s behavior, another to act on that in a way that’s guaranteed to makes things difficult between them personally.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-03-2020, 04:23 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
Why not she is an actress and they have identity issues, to show the least. She may well have taken hints.
Actors have identity issues? Because they enjoy being other people? I’m not going that far, certainly not making a blanket statement to that effect. I think it’s a reach to suggest Meghan did that, and complete speculation.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-03-2020, 04:27 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Actors have identity issues? Because they enjoy being other people? I’m not going that far, certainly not making a blanket statement to that effect. I think it’s a reach to suggest Meghan did that, and complete speculation.
I think so too. I seem to recall another person that thoroughly reveled in being on stage and performing once upon a time in the past and to this day, still enjoys the performing arts immensely. That person would be The Prince of Wales.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
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
abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry british royal family british royals buckingham palace daisy diana princess of wales doge of venice duke of cambridge dutch dutch royals earl of snowdon family life family tree future games haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill history imperial household intro israel italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery kids movie king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mailing maxima mountbatten names nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince charles prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess eugenie princess laurentien princess ribha pronunciation queen louise random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding serbian royal family snowdon speech spencer family thailand thai royal family tracts unsubscribe videos wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:31 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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