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
 
  #121  
Old 10-05-2020, 01:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I completely disagree with the notion that William has been more “resolute” and determined than Charles in protecting the monarchy. Charles is the one who often takes his mother’s place at engagements, Charles is the one who HM speaks with often about “crises” (like with Andrew and Megxit). Yes, William is involved, but to a much lesser degree than his father. It was Charles who insisted to his mother that Andrew had to go, Charles who worked with HM to try and find a workable solution to Megxit, Charles who agreed with HM that Harry should not have his own office at Windsor. William has a fairly significant role in protecting the monarchy but he’s not more effective or active than his father.
I think that Charles has been too soft with Harry and possibly William was more willing to say something that Harry disliked, ie that perhaps H was moving too fast in his relationship with Meghan.. I'm sure they were equally determined Charles and William to insist that Andrew had to be retired.. though Honestly the queen would have had no choice when charities were refusing to work with him...
__________________

  #122  
Old 10-05-2020, 03:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
I actually feel a book about Christopher Geidt's sacking would be more interesting and actually was a bigger risk to the monarchy and the Crown than Harry and Meghan leaving the monarchy. I do believe he would have handled it better and would have been more willing to stand up to some of those concerned and got the compromise that upset no one.
The problem with trying to analyse a rift between two brothers is there is always going to be strong opinions one way or the other about slights - real of imaginary. The reason there is a rift is because both fail to understand the other and that means there will always be strong opinions around the matter, but they are just that - opinions.
__________________

  #123  
Old 10-05-2020, 04:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Perhaps Lacey should quit being so judgmental. Harry is an adult - must everyone hold his hand?

Everything you say makes sense...and if it’s true, I have to ask what Lacey’s real goal was in writing this book: to bring facts to light or to speculate and interpret?

That's the thing though . For so many of these people he isn't a 36 year old adult with a child of his own . He's Diana's baby , forever walking behind her coffin. So people were always making excuses for him and his behaviour and when people then started to say "no" Harry didn't know how to handle that .
  #124  
Old 10-05-2020, 05:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I think that Charles has been too soft with Harry and possibly William was more willing to say something that Harry disliked, ie that perhaps H was moving too fast in his relationship with Meghan.. I'm sure they were equally determined Charles and William to insist that Andrew had to be retired.. though Honestly the queen would have had no choice when charities were refusing to work with him...
I’m not willing to judge Charles. IMO, he did the best he could under very difficult circumstances, and gave his sons not just love, but freedom - as he never had with his own father. Whatever mistakes William and Harry have made are their own. The fact that W said that to H is fine, and I think H overreacted, but that doesn’t mean W was speaking for Charles or that Charles even felt the same way. William was speaking only for himself re: Harry and Meghan. I have never read anything that suggested that Charles felt the same way - and that doesn’t mean he’s soft on H, it means he has a different opinion than W.
  #125  
Old 10-05-2020, 05:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I actually feel a book about Christopher Geidt's sacking would be more interesting and actually was a bigger risk to the monarchy and the Crown than Harry and Meghan leaving the monarchy. I do believe he would have handled it better and would have been more willing to stand up to some of those concerned and got the compromise that upset no one.
The problem with trying to analyse a rift between two brothers is there is always going to be strong opinions one way or the other about slights - real of imaginary. The reason there is a rift is because both fail to understand the other and that means there will always be strong opinions around the matter, but they are just that - opinions.
Of course, that kind of book wouldn’t sell nearly as much as this overheated tome will...

IMO, there was really no reason to write this book other than that Lacey wanted to insert his opinions about everyone’s relationships. If he honestly believes that a personal rift between W and H is as bad as the Abdication, I have to seriously wonder about him. At one point, HM and Philip didn’t think Charles would be a good King, right? They were worried about his activism as PoW ? That seems a far bigger concern than a personal rift between two brothers.

Akina:

Quote:
That's the thing though . For so many of these people he isn't a 36 year old adult with a child of his own . He's Diana's baby , forever walking behind her coffin. So people were always making excuses for him and his behaviour and when people then started to say "no" Harry didn't know how to handle that .
I agree...it feels like Harry has never quite grown up
  #126  
Old 10-05-2020, 05:50 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,379
That view that Harry has never grown up has been largely perpetrated by the British media, with journalists banging on for the last twenty three years about the 'boys walking behind their mother's coffin'. It was even repeated as recently as August. We don't know that is the view of the Queen, Charles or William at all. Harry would hardly have been given a senior role with the Queen's beloved Commonwealth if she had felt that her grandson had never matured.
  #127  
Old 10-05-2020, 06:13 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,733
Another problem that is affecting all this other than its a whole lot of outsiders trying to piece together what happen within a tight inner circle is the context they see it all in. Internal family squabbles and disagreements are seen as impacting the monarchy itself. They forget that there is really a sort of separation of "church and state" which actually is "family and monarchy". How they all react to something that can and does affect the future of the monarchy may be entirely different than how it affects familial relationships and vice versa.

William, Charles and The Queen may adamantly disagree with something relating to Harry when it comes to how it affects the monarchy but are able to leave it in that context where in the long run, it doesn't affect their relationships at all as a family.

What is seen to be public doesn't always reflect how things are seen in private.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #128  
Old 10-05-2020, 06:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
I don’t know who you are responding to Curry, but my comment about Harry not growing up is my POV only - I never suggested that Charles, HM or anyone else felt the same way.
  #129  
Old 10-05-2020, 06:53 PM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,937
Part three of the serialisation -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-reveals.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ok-claims.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ok-claims.html
  #130  
Old 10-05-2020, 06:55 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Another problem that is affecting all this other than its a whole lot of outsiders trying to piece together what happen within a tight inner circle is the context they see it all in. Internal family squabbles and disagreements are seen as impacting the monarchy itself. They forget that there is really a sort of separation of "church and state" which actually is "family and monarchy". How they all react to something that can and does affect the future of the monarchy may be entirely different than how it affects familial relationships and vice versa.

William, Charles and The Queen may adamantly disagree with something relating to Harry when it comes to how it affects the monarchy but are able to leave it in that context where in the long run, it doesn't affect their relationships at all as a family.

What is seen to be public doesn't always reflect how things are seen in private.
I think this is a very good point - and vice versa, they can all disagree about Harry personally but be completely on the same page “professionally”. I think Lacey has forgotten this.

I’ll be interested in the reviews, especially from the usual media/go-tos. We already know what Dickie thinks and the columnist who’s column he tweeted; will others follow suit? Will they all assume Lacey’s opinions are the truth because of his reputation ?
  #131  
Old 10-05-2020, 08:06 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635

Why is Lacey taking pot shots at Charles and William. I'll leave the parenting stuff aside, but what's with the snide "blue-eyed glamour boy" comment about William? And the comment about both moving forward towards their destinies as if they didn't care about Harry ? I just find it awfully judgmental.


Quote:
It was William who was the blue-eyed glamour boy at the centre of the so-called 'Glossy Posse' that surrounded the young princes, pouring out the drinks and inspiring all the revels that would coax his younger brother — a full two years and three months younger and still a child — into errant and self-destructive ways.

In short, it was William who'd been the Lord of Misrule and the driving spirit behind the entire seductive fantasy of Club H.

Yet William — and also his father — moved seamlessly on from 'Harry's Drugs Shame' towards the grand and glittering roles that the royal dynasty and public opinion required of them.

Nothing seriously discreditable was ever written about the future William V — the 'King of the Castle'. It was Harry who was cast as the 'dirty rascal'.
This next part bothers me.

That's right, blame a guest - don't blame Harry. I don't understand how Robert Lacey can chide the public for being outraged and claim that missed the point. They didn't, Lacey did. Harry was 20 years old, he should have known better, and he didn't need his brother telling him it was wrong. Harry may have red hair, but he's clearly Lacey's fair-haired boy.


Quote:
A sneaky fellow guest used their mobile phone to snap a photograph, and a few days later, there was Harry parading on the front page of a newspaper under the headline 'Harry the Nazi'.

He apologised, but there was public outrage. Many observers, however, missed the point: obviously the 20-year-old Harry wasn't really a neo-Nazi, as one Labour MP alleged. The lad was naughty, not a Nazi. Most clearly of all, we know that Harry chose his costume in conjunction with his elder brother — the future King William V, then 22, who had laughed all the way back to Highgrove with the younger sibling he was supposed to be mentoring — and then onwards to the party together.

But did a single commentator remark on Prince William's role in the debacle?
About Charles and William.. At the time of the 2017 anniversary of Diana's death, I remember being upset that William wouldn't mention his father at all. Looking back, with them now having a much closer relationship, it's easier for me to analyze the situation. When one parent dies, the children will often blame the surviving parent for anything....and Charles was not a normal father. He was a King to be. It's clear he tried to be a much better father than his own was to him, (and I'm not basing this on this book), and he obviously adored his sons, but he kind of repeated his mother's patterns even if he didn't meant to (although with far more affection).

So, William probably resented his father for not being there more often, but I feel like (having read several articles on them in recent months) he probably has a better understanding now of Charles than he's ever had.

I'm glad that Lacey did reference father and son's much improved, closer relationship

Quote:
William simply wasn't prepared to pretend that the workaholic, ever-worrying Charles had made good on all the hands-on parenting that he'd promised.

It should be stressed that in recent times — and particularly since the adjustments that the Royal Family had to make in 2019 and 2020 in the wake of their disagreements and the departure of Harry — father and elder son have grown much closer together.

Prince Charles and Prince William now clearly appreciate the need to work closely together for the future of the monarchy — whether that proves to be a brotherly reconciliation next year or some regulated and agreed form of effectively permanent division.

Their father-son spats are said to be episodes in the past.
  #132  
Old 10-05-2020, 08:55 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Below is a YouTube link to an interesting televised discussion on U.K. newsnight in January surrounding the Sussexit crisis, which included a panel with Robert Lacey, among others. Of course, a lot has happened since this discussion took place in January, but it's interesting to hear what Lacey's views were at the time, in light of his new book. Apparently, some of his views may have changed or deepened in different ways. Everyone has an opinion, and the debates will continue, obviously. So much is being written and discussed. It pays to filter it all:
https://youtu.be/Y6wmfu8kQDs

To me, Robert Lacey is clearly a royalist/ monarchist with a somewhat openminded view of how things sometimes must change, based on his knowledge of British history. He and one of the other panelists in general seemed to feel that 'Sussexit' could work, and they seemed to expect the palace at the time to be more lenient in negotiating a way for H&M to play somewhat of a part-time royal role, while possibly living in Canada. The living in Canada possibility went out the window when the pandemic hit. Neither M nor H could remain there during the pandemic, so moving to Meghan's hometown across the border was the best option.

As it turns out, with all of the life-changing developments going on in various cultures around the world, and particularly in Britain and the U.S., and in view of H&M wishing to become financially independent, stepping completely down from royal duties was probably the best outcome. But that doesn't rule out Charles maybe enlisting Harry's help at the least in some capacity in the future, during a King Charles reign.

It's fascinating to me if true, that the Queen was involved in working on a plan for H&M to live and work in South Africa. I remember Harry mentioning to Tom Bradby during the SA documentary that the possibility of living in SA full time was not feasible for a number of logistical and political unrest reasons.

Meanwhile, H&M are moving forward with passion and conviction to carve out a life that preserves the health and happiness of their son, their marriage, and their working lives. Giving back to others seems to be their core concern as part of their efforts to help make the world a better place.
  #133  
Old 10-05-2020, 09:45 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
I notice that a few posters have made comments about William and Harry and their personalities and emotions. It's always been clear that the brothers have different personalities, and that they've had a sibling rivalry since childhood. Lacey appears to be saying that the seeds of their current conflict began in childhood. There have been indications that the knee jerk emphasis on the brothers 'being very close' is mostly a p.r. construction that has been perpetuated in the media ever since the death of their 'People's Princess' mother. From the many documentaries I've seen and biographies I've read about the brothers over the years, it's not news that they've had their differences, which is normal between siblings, especially with having lost their mother so young, and having no escape from living a fishbowl existence. Harry was able to escape somewhat during his 10 years in military service, which he loved. Harry's on record as saying, "my family don't understand how much I was able to experience living a normal life in the military."

There have been plenty of recent references in published reports to Prince William being 'incandescent with rage,' plus Lacey mentions in one of the excerpts I read, that William is known to have a temper. I've also seen that mentioned about William in an article by Robert Jobson in the Daily Fail in 2017. So both brothers are not without their fragile psyches and emotional outbursts.

There are plenty of references in books and documentaries to William having struggled in his teens and twenties with being destined for the throne. Again that's normal angst at not being able to choose the course of one's life. Charles struggled with it too. Even Prince Albert was very emotionally challenged over having to step in and become King George VI when his brother abdicated.

In more recent years, apparently William has accepted his destiny. I wonder and worry for how Prince George will handle the full burden of knowledge when it hits him. Hopefully, his character and his extended Middleton family will help him shoulder the burden. I get 'Princess Diana personality vibes' a bit from George's bit of shyness, his love of dance, and his lighthearted playfulness. Diana was also strong and rebellious when it came to trying to find a way to lead a happier life when she felt smothered within the gilded cage. All of the younger royal children, even George, should be allowed to pursue personal passions and interests in their teens and twenties instead of being overwhelmed by the claustrophobic needs and duties of old-fashioned monarchy.
  #134  
Old 10-05-2020, 11:01 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
... it's a shame about the rift between two brothers who used to be so close. Whatever happens, their relationship will never be what it once was.
It's a shame about the rift. But in any rift, there are two sides and therefore both sides bear responsibility. The continued portrayal of the brothers as being 'so close,' is contradicted by a number of sources, including Lacey. The public can never get out of our minds the sad image of the young Wales brothers walking behind their mother's coffin. Their mother's death drew them closer together, but their different personalities and interests, different roles in the institution, and differences in the way they were treated growing up, ultimately have played a role in their behind-the-scenes arguments and conflicts over the years.

On the lighter side, Harry & William have always been known to mercilessly tease each other in a jocular way, which doesn't negate deeply caring about each other. Still, as Lacey reveals in his book, they were never as close as the public sentimentally believes and the royal p.r. machine has constantly hyped.


Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
... Lacey has been spending too much time in the Netflix/entertainment sector. And it seems very colored by his personal projections and musings.
Everyone's observations are colored by personal perceptions, experiences and interests, and various musings and projections.
  #135  
Old 10-06-2020, 05:17 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I’m not willing to judge Charles. IMO, he did the best he could under very difficult circumstances, and gave his sons not just love, but freedom - as he never had with his own father. Whatever mistakes William and Harry have made are their own. The fact that W said that to H is fine, and I think H overreacted, but that doesn’t mean W was speaking for Charles or that Charles even felt the same way. William was speaking only for himself re: Harry and Meghan. I have never read anything that suggested that Charles felt the same way - and that doesn’t mean he’s soft on H, it means he has a different opinion than W.
but they can't have freedom... really. At least one of them has to become a full time royal...and I doubt if Charles could have ever felt a few years ago that harry could have "freedom" in the sense of being able to choose his own job and where he'd live and so on. It was expected that he would do a stint in the army, he could have I think stayed in hte army longer if he had wanted.. but in the end he had to start doing royal duties. OK in the end, Harry didn't want to do that, and they let him go.. but only probably after a lot of stress and argument.. because it is leaving the RF short of a vital worker... and its opened up a lot of areas of concern now that Harry has gone to the US, is married to a woman who wants to lead a "Hollywood star" kind of life and has vaguely political ambitions to boot. It is bound to provoke contorversy...Its possible IMO that Harry was rather spoiled, and though that the fact that Charles was an indulgent father meant that he could basically do what he wanted, take on a royal role, then decide he only wanted to do it part time then decide to jettison it completely...
I think that Charles was too soft with both of them and they were both rather Hooray Henryish brats as young men.. but William got involved with Kate and had the steadying influence of being in a long term relationship with a woman who had a stable family and who welcomed him into it.. and that helped him to gradually come to terms with the fact that he might have a few years of doing what he liked but eventually he would have to settle down to working as a royal...
  #136  
Old 10-06-2020, 05:51 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,733
Whether it be a royal family or a pauper's family, there is never an obligation for a child to grow up and fit into the mold that the parents want him to fit into. Both William and Harry very possibly could have walked away from their royal roles and there would be nothing to stop them. Legally that is. There's *no* law states that a child *must* fall into their royal roles for the rest of their lives. David abdicated because that is what he wanted to do. The monarchy continued. Harry has walked away. The monarchy will continue.

A lot of people see Harry's defection from his royal life as a disappointment and a "let down" of the family and refusal to do his "duty". I see it as feeling strongly enough to want to cut the puppet strings and go and live how he felt would be best for his family. I don't think there's one person here that could honestly say they'd live their lives the way other people decided they should live it. I certainly wouldn't. That's for sure!
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #137  
Old 10-06-2020, 05:55 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Whether it be a royal family or a pauper's family, there is never an obligation for a child to grow up and fit into the mold that the parents want him to fit into. Both William and Harry very possibly could have walked away from their royal roles and there would be nothing to stop them. Legally that is. There's *no* law states that a child *must* fall into their royal roles for the rest of their lives. David abdicated because that is what he wanted to do. The monarchy continued. Harry has walked away. The monarchy will continue.

A lot of people see Harry's defection from his royal life as a disappointment and a "let down" of the family and refusal to do his "duty". I see it as feeling strongly enough to want to cut the puppet strings and go and live how he felt would be best for his family. I don't think there's one person here that could honestly say they'd live their lives the way other people decided they should live it. I certainly wouldn't. That's for sure!
Of course there is an obligation. hte Duke of Windsors abdication caused a major trauma, Harry has gotten out relatively easily because he is the second son....but even so the messy way that he left has caused many people even those who felt it was OK for him to go, to be disapproving. Ordinary people may nt have the same obligations but most people dont get to live their lives the way they want to.....
  #138  
Old 10-06-2020, 06:47 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I think that Charles was too soft with both of them and they were both rather Hooray Henryish brats as young men..
There's probably some truth in that but I think it's more that Charles didn't actually know what they were up to most of the time. They didn't spend much time under the same roof for many years, which afforded the boys plenty of opportunity to become quite wild teenagers and hard-drinking/partying young men.
  #139  
Old 10-06-2020, 07:05 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Where did I ever say Charles was perfect ? Or a perfect father? But he sure had done the best he can under difficult circumstances, and I admire that he didn’t take the same tack with his boys that his father took with him.
I agree that Charles tried his best.
At the very least, he didn't inflict the damage that Philip did, with his insistence that he knew best about his son's education, etc. Philip completely ignored Charles' feelings on Gordonstoun, and created a nightmare situation.

Surely he made some mistakes, but I believe he was sincerely concerned for his sons' happiness.
  #140  
Old 10-06-2020, 08:02 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
I would still like to read the whole book - but I am starting to see the problem for Harry and yes - I don't think he had a choice in the matter. I am not saying that he was asked to leave, just that for his marriage and life all round it might be better - suppose only time will tell.

It really does seem that he noticed that he was always getting the short end of the stick, always getting the negative press when him and William were both doing the same thing. He saw the way the Palace treated Princess Margaret, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward and even the Kent's and Gloucester's - and decide that was not the life he wanted to lead. Edward tried to do the same, it didn't work. So he will pretty much will have to live by Charles and William's convenience, which might be a problem later for Edward and Andrew. So cant blame Harry for wanting to make money - however how much money does he need? And is there something else he can do that will allow him to make money or is the lifestyle needed for the security - it is a lot a variables.
__________________

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
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baptism british british royal family british royals camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of sussex elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers luxembourg monarchist movements monarchists mongolia pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan speech st edward suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:01 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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