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
 
  #481  
Old 07-26-2020, 07:46 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 222
I think another issue William may have had with this relationship was Meghan's close connection to Canadian gossip blogger Lainey via the Mulroneys . She was the one who published a so called Blind Item on her page about somebody smiling , going shopping , not inviting the newcomer along only for the newcomer later finding out that they went to the same shopping place . This story seems to be in this book now . I'd be very wary too if my brother's girlfriend of a few months started leaking info to gossip bloggers .
I also think Lainey is a source for the book . In one of the published sections so far a friend is talking about viper courtiers . Viper courtiers is a pure Laineyism , she always wrote how House Sussex was fighting against viper courtiers .
__________________

  #482  
Old 07-26-2020, 07:57 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by akina21 View Post
I think another issue William may have had with this relationship was Meghan's close connection to Canadian gossip blogger Lainey via the Mulroneys . She was the one who published a so called Blind Item on her page about somebody smiling , going shopping , not inviting the newcomer along only for the newcomer later finding out that they went to the same shopping place . This story seems to be in this book now . I'd be very wary too if my brother's girlfriend of a few months started leaking info to gossip bloggers .
I also think Lainey is a source for the book . In one of the published sections so far a friend is talking about viper courtiers . Viper courtiers is a pure Laineyism , she always wrote how House Sussex was fighting against viper courtiers .
Really interesting stuff, food for thought there.
__________________

  #483  
Old 07-26-2020, 08:13 AM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,589
Lainey not friends with Meghan. She openly admitted she played it up during the whole Jessica scandal. They met once but she liked the attention that picture gave her.

But as for her being a source for Omid? Maybe. This book has been going on for 2 years. That scandal and her admission was very recent.
  #484  
Old 07-26-2020, 08:21 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post

The resounding answer to your question is three simple words. We don't know. Its not our business to know and they're not obliged in any way, shape or form to fill us in.

Most likely they have other sources of income too. Harry for example has the money he inherited from his mother, which must be invested somehow, and may have access to other trust funds set up for him by his family. He also has a pension as a retired Army officer.



I don't know much about the specifics of financial compensation in the entertainment industry, but Meghan's former show is now available on streaming platforms as far as I understand it, so I suppose she must still get paid somehow for the episodes she was in (I am sure others can explain how that works much better than I can).



Having said that, I am pretty sure that the Sussex family still gets frunding from Charles' "private" income, which is actually not so private since it is not money that he earned or inherited from his family, but rather an ex-officio income that is tied to his position as heir to the Crown. I am referring specifically to the Duchy of Cornwall income, which is a controversial topic that I do not want to reopen in this particular thread.
  #485  
Old 07-26-2020, 08:52 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,523
Roya Nikkhah, the times royal reporter, who seems to have read the whole book, or certainly more than has been released so far (not a surprise given The Times are serialising it) has put up the following article saying that royal aides tries to persuade H&M to meet with Thomas Markle before the engagement announcement as they knew it had to handled carefully and sensitively:

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”
***
Another aide said: “Thomas is troubled, but Harry and Meghan would not engage in the issue of going out to see him and for Harry to meet him. It was raised before their engagement and again constantly in the months afterwards, leading up to the wedding. Everyone knew it would be a huge issue that would explode if they didn’t address it and deal with it.”


***
The Sussexes declined to comment.



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...rkle-9ln70lf6j
  #486  
Old 07-26-2020, 08:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Well I
By saying that Harry doesn't understand his role, I mean that he hasn't grasped (or been sufficiently taught) that it's all about service to HMQ (as defined by her and her advisers), which isn't the same as gaining popularity. He calls her 'the boss' but rebels against being guided or curtailed by her advisers. He doesn't appear to realise that gaining celebrity doesn't alter his status within the BRF so no matter how popular he is, his power to make decisions remains the same. He also doesn't seem to understand that he should not eclipse his brother or father as that's not beneficial to their role. I could elaborate further but in essence what I mean is that although of course he knows his position and what the obvious implications are, it's the less obvious, unclear boundaries that are in question and have caused him the most problems. For that, I hold others largely responsible as they have allowed him too much freedom to define his own boundaries rather than laying them down very clearly a long time ago.
but the fact that he is the second son, that he's known from babyhood that Will would be king and not him etc etc.. surely should mean that he knows he is there as a support act to the more senior royals i.e. the queen, Charles and Will, and that even if he is very popular, it does not mean that he's more important than they are... I dont want to Argue, I just feel that unless he's really stupid (possible) or very willful (also possible) he IS aware of his place in the hierarchy and what it implies.... IMO he knows but doesn't want to abide by it.
Im not sure what Charles was supposed to do to lay down "boundaries"..
What should he have done do you think? IM not being aggressive, just asking.
I think that for example when H got into trouble over the naked party in Vegas, Charles probably said to him that he could not get away with "youthful high jinks" any more, that he was too old for this sort of mullarkey to be smiled at.. and that he had to pull up his socks. And I wouldn't be surprised if Ch added that if he HAD been the elder son, the press might have been more discreet about the story because he would be the heir but as he was second son, he was going to have to watch his step all the more...
  #487  
Old 07-26-2020, 08:56 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I think you are right.
H&M's window of opportunity is closing.

They had the months after the break with the BRF to reinvent themselves in USA, while they were still fresh news there. And to exploit that for them to benefit from that.
Corona put an end to that.
And as the Corona epidemic still has a firm hold in USA that's not going to change soon.
And in two months all that is on the Americans minds will be the presidential election and the repercussions of that, no matter who wins.
I see little role for ex-royals in that.
Next year USA will focus on recovering from Corona and while H&M might have a role to play in a Commonwealth country, what role can they play in USA?

It's my impression they are yesterday's news in USA.

And while a book like this will cause a stir in Britain, will it amount to more than a ripple in USA, where there are so many other things on people's minds?

I agree, while Harry and Meghan might be a big deal in the UK simply because they are royals, they are basically a small fish in a big pond in the US, a country that rejects the concept of monarchy and prefers the glamour of celebrity rather than royalty.
  #488  
Old 07-26-2020, 08:59 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
I agree, while Harry and Meghan might be a big deal in the UK simply because they are royals, they are basically a small fish in a big pond in the US, a country that rejects the concept of monarchy and prefers the glamour of celebrity rather than royalty.
Then they picked a bad place to move to. However I think that they have enough draw to still get stories in the paper, to get photographers trying to snap them.. but I dont think that big companies are going to pay them a lot of money for anything now...
  #489  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:01 AM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Roya Nikkhah, the times royal reporter, who seems to have read the whole book, or certainly more than has been released so far (not a surprise given The Times are serialising it) has put up the following article saying that royal aides tries to persuade H&M to meet with Thomas Markle before the engagement announcement as they knew it had to handled carefully and sensitively:

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”
***
Another aide said: “Thomas is troubled, but Harry and Meghan would not engage in the issue of going out to see him and for Harry to meet him. It was raised before their engagement and again constantly in the months afterwards, leading up to the wedding. Everyone knew it would be a huge issue that would explode if they didn’t address it and deal with it.”


***
The Sussexes declined to comment.



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...rkle-9ln70lf6j
Meghan vs Mail on Sunday have submitted documents stating the opposite. Heck Thomas has spoken plenty about how he ignored palace aids trying to assist him. So this article full off “allegedly” “it is suggested” “sources claim” is fascinating when we can just look at her very open court files where texts exist that were printed in that very paper.
  #490  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:11 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
but the fact that he is the second son, that he's known from babyhood that Will would be king and not him etc etc.. surely should mean that he knows he is there as a support act to the more senior royals ie the queen, Charles and Will, and that even if he is very popular, it does not mean that he's more important than they are... I dotnt want to Argue, I just feel that unless he's really stupid (possible) or very willful (also possible) he IS aware of his place in the hierarchy.. IMO he knows but doesn't want to abide by it.
Im not sure what Charles was supposed to do to lay down "boundaries"..
What should he have done do you think? IM not being aggressive, just asking.
I think that for example when H got into trouble over the naked party in Vegas, Charles probably said to him that he could not get away wiht "youthful high jinks" any more, that he was too old for this sort of mullarkey to be smiled at.. and that he had to pull up his socks. And I wouldn't be surprised if Ch added that if he HAD been the elder son, the press might have been more discreet about the story because he would be the heir but as he was second son, he was going to have to watch his step all the more...

Well, Charles' natural way to "discipline" him, as it is case for all wealthy fathers with a rogue son, would be to cut him off or at least curb his funding. But Charles apparently never did that and, again, I don't think he will do it now when there is also a little child involved (his grandson).



I am still baffled by claims that Harry resented the Palace staff for allegedly putting the brakes on his projects not to conflict with his father's or his brother's tours or initiatives. Again, I think it would be natural for Meghan to take that badly as, being an American, she is not used to the concepts of primogeniture or a pecking order based on birthright, but Harry should have a better grasp of how the system works.



To be fair, whereas American culture is basically meritocratic, so is also contemporary British middle-class culture, I mean, outside hereditary institutions like the Royal Family and the peerage. Maybe Harry, having been in the military and belonging to a younger British generation, is also influenced by meritocratic and equal opportunity values (or "republican" values as the French like to say) and that is why he clashed with the Court.
  #491  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:16 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Well, Charles' natural way to "discipline" him, as it is case for all wealthy fathers with a rogue son, would be to cut him off or at least curb his funding. But Charles apparently never did that and, again, I don't think he will do it now that there is also a little child involved (his grandson).


influenced by meritocratic and equal opportunity values (or "republican" values as the French like to say) and that is why he clashed with the Court.
I agree that Charles wont cut off funding.. but he may impose conditions on what he gives and how much.. but it is difficult to see what else he could do to "discipline" Harry after a certain stage in his life. I think that he was rather too soft on both boys as teenagers because they had lost their mother, and didn't do much to pull them up over bad behavior in their late teens and early 20s..
  #492  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:21 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
The 'snub' claim about the photos on HMQ's desk for her Christmas speech is interesting (although a less volatile grandson wouldn't have been bothered). Objectively, it's obvious this was about continuity as the photos included her father, son, grandson & great-grandson but looking at it in hindsight, I think the execution of it was clumsy. For example, the Queen Mother is missing whereas other spouses are included. George's siblings are there but Charles's and William's aren't. If the aim was about succession, then perhaps just having photos of her father, Charles, William and George would have been more effective. As it is, it's a mix of heirs and family, which is a bit messy and given the emotional state of Harry, likely to upset him despite his family's inclusion in the accompanying film.
I don't think the family should have to tip-toe around all kinds of feelings that people might feel underrepresented because they are not the main line. While I thought the pictures facing the camera looked rather clumsy (as normally you wouldn't have pictures facing away from you); the pictures chosen made sense - both Charles and William were depicted with their immediate families (as Harry is a grown-up and started his own family Charles' immediate family in daily life is his wife not his children). It seems the queen generally picks a picture of her father without her mother for these purposes; so nothing strange there either.

In the back we also see a picture of her husband and another one that I'm not sure about...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Meghan vs Mail on Sunday have submitted documents stating the opposite. Heck Thomas has spoken plenty about how he ignored palace aids trying to assist him. So this article full off “allegedly” “it is suggested” “sources claim” is fascinating when we can just look at her very open court files where texts exist that were printed in that very paper.
What I've seen was mainly about the week(s) leading up to the wedding. Not about Harry and Meghan wanting to visit him before the engagement announcement?! What evidence in the court papers are you referring to that indicated that Harry did try to meet Thomas well before the wedding took place? What I've seen points to palace aides arranging transport and a hotel for Thomas while arriving a few days before the wedding - all so he could walk his daughter down the aisle and meeting his son-in-law for the first time in his life only days prior. It's not too hard to imagine how that did not make him feel welcome and unfortunately, it turned out really badly (for all parties involved) with him talking to the media instead of with his daughter.
  #493  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:29 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I agree that Charles wont cut off funding.. but he may impose conditions on what he gives and how much.. but it is difficult to see what else he could do to "discipline" Harry after a certain stage in his life. I think that he was rather too soft on both boys as teenagers because they had lost their mother, and didn't do much to pull them up over bad behavior in their late teens and early 20s..
Charles did intervene (reportedly) when Harry had some minor drug issues in his late teens.
I do think it's a bit riche to blame (again) Charles to whatever remotely wrong is happening with Harry. I mean he's a grown man now and responsible for his own decisions, right or wrong.
Charles's role is to be, at certain point, supportive. As far i can see it's still the case.
  #494  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:39 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightsky View Post
To be honest, I’m not reading what the Cambridge’s did that was so bad. Okay, so Kate May have snubbed the Sussex’s. She’s human. William was only showing concern for Harry by telling him to slow down. I do agree with you on the men in grey, but they’ve always been awful!
She didn’t do anything that was that bad. I’m fine with her snub, because she’s human...and she and her husband had been treated badly by the Sussexes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I've had it up to here with all this. We are in the middle of the biggest international crisis for 75 years. I do not need to hear Harry and Meghan's whingeing all over the news. I'm so sorry for the Queen and Prince Philip, who really don't need this, and for Archie, who's probably going to grow up not knowing any of his relatives apart from Doria. I'm quite sorry for Doria too: she's behaved with complete dignity throughout all this.
You left out Charles, who has to watch one son leave and a devastating rift between his sons widen, with no hope for reconciliation on the horizon

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
The Duke of Windsor left the RF and the RF didn't welcome him back, so why should they welcome Harry back, especially after all the things that he had said?





I think it's funny how some people think that anything negative about the Sussex is just gossip and hearsay, but anything negative about other members of the RF MUST be true.
That’s not the same thing at all. David, Edward VIII, created a devastating constitutional crisis by abdicating. He put himself before the people and forced an ill-prepared a Duke of York to take the throne. Fortunately Bertie, George VI, was an eminently decent man and became a great king, but it’s likely that his being King led to his early death.

Harry is a spoiled, whiny, entitled, demanding, immature brat - or, I should say, that’s how he’s ACTED recently. While this is a crisis technically, it’s really only so within the family - at least IMO, because the BRF is doing fine. Of course Megxit is problematic because it leaves the BRF short handed, but it’s workable. It’s completely different from the abdication crisis.

I DO completely agree with your last comment, and it’s the case especially with William and Kate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
I agree. What, please, is nasty about "this girl"?! William obviously didn´t say something like "are you serious..?!" or "are you mad? She will ruin you!" etc.
He just gave a brotherly and very proper (!) advice not to be rushed into things.
Harry expected William the same support he has given him when it was about Catherine? Well, you cannot possibly compare the 2 women... The Dss o Cambridge is a hands-on, down-to-earth person, despite her wealthy background who knows and understands what he job is. She comes out of a stable family. Markle is, like that notorious courtier (if that is true at all) correctly said, a "showgirl".
I was very sceptic when the couple got engaged and talked with my sister about it who was equally sceptic. I had the impression of a starlet with her lover or a fellow actor appearing on the red carpet for a premier or an award show rather than a soon royal-bride-to-be posing for a royal engagement photoshoot.

Although my first impression about a person never fails me, I soon got lulled in I must admit and thought, well, she could be a great breath of fresh air for the RF.
Nowadays I see I was right at the beginning. I don´t claim she is a bad person, but she is not made for Royalty; she has neither the motivation to achieve things for Britain or the Commonwealth nor the endurance to try hard enough. Perhaps if she had married in a deposed royal family, where she could do her own agenda, doing her pet charity, but without real responsibilities, things might have worked out better.
Some here suggest they might return at some point. I can only say, beware! Both Harry and Meghan are a bit like loose canons - but H is especially frail. The next strong wind or any critical remarks would put them off once more and they have not the strength nor the endurance needed to do the job. Unstable people cannot give the monarchy what it needs most: stabiity!
Right, there’s nothing nasty about it. This isn’t even about what Meghan was like, since a William hadn’t met her. It wasn’t personal - what sibling wouldn’t advise another to go slowly when it seems that perhaps the other is rushing into a serious relationship ? I’m sure William only had Harry’s best interests at heart; H had already had two long term relationships end because the women didn’t want to deal with a future as a Royal, so no doubt W hoped his brother would proceed more slowly to be sure Meghan was the “right one”. The situation with Kate was completely different, as you say, though again, this isn’t about the people K and M are. Kate and Harry had met, Kate being British understood far more about Royal life than Meghan would have, and Kate had dated William for years.
  #495  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:53 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Charles did intervene (reportedly) when Harry had some minor drug issues in his late teens.
I do think it's a bit riche to blame (again) Charles to whatever remotely wrong is happening with Harry. I mean he's a grown man now and responsible for his own decisions, right or wrong.
Charles's role is to be, at certain point, supportive. As far i can see it's still the case.
I dont blame Charles. Im not sure how well he handled Harrys drug issues as a kid, and his drinking - I get the feeling he was too soft...
but there is a point where H is a grown man and his Father isn't responsible for his actions and faults.. and for a grown man of H's age, to be saying he wants financial independence yet still taking money from his father and blaming his family for all sorts.. is a bit much...
  #496  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:55 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
Has anyone seen more of the Thomas Markle sections? I can't get the Times link. I ran across a YouTube channel that is claiming Dad and Sam got paid for Pap gate. The papparazzo who took those staged photos alleged got 100000.00 and Dad and Sam got 30% of the take. If true Meghan's dad is looking like a total creep and his credibility is damaged in terms of the lawsuit.
  #497  
Old 07-26-2020, 10:01 AM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
I think it's funny how some people think that anything negative about the Sussex is just gossip and hearsay, but anything negative about other members of the RF MUST be true.
I mean sure but that’s the case the other way too. Everything negative written about Harry but especially Meghan is seen as truth around these parts. If people bring up the others is typically smacked down. So really just the different sides of the same coin.
  #498  
Old 07-26-2020, 10:10 AM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Right, there’s nothing nasty about it. This isn’t even about what Meghan was like, since a William hadn’t met her. It wasn’t personal - what sibling wouldn’t advise another to go slowly when it seems that perhaps the other is rushing into a serious relationship ? I’m sure William only had Harry’s best interests at heart; H had already had two long term relationships end because the women didn’t want to deal with a future as a Royal, so no doubt W hoped his brother would proceed more slowly to be sure Meghan was the “right one”. The situation with Kate was completely different, as you say, though again, this isn’t about the people K and M are. Kate and Harry had met, Kate being British understood far more about Royal life than Meghan would have, and Kate had dated William for years.
Sometimes it’s not what you say but how you say it. I’m sure everyone here has been in situation where the words might not be bad but what’s implied is offensive. I know I have.

No one except William and Harry knows how that conversation truly went down. William saying “that girl” could have been interpreted as “that [kind of] girl.” And what did that mean? Is that the situation? We have no idea but people go on about how close these brothers supposedly were. Therefore they know each other and the tones they take.

I, like many, think it’s odd that such a simple question would cause such conflict between brothers but again none of use know the whole story. Harry very well could have overreacted. Or William could have been very snobby. Or a combination of both.

They human.
  #499  
Old 07-26-2020, 10:11 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,403
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Roya Nikkhah, the times royal reporter, who seems to have read the whole book, or certainly more than has been released so far (not a surprise given The Times are serialising it) has put up the following article saying that royal aides tries to persuade H&M to meet with Thomas Markle before the engagement announcement as they knew it had to handled carefully and sensitively:

At the time of the Sussexes’ wedding, a senior royal source told this newspaper: “We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled. We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him. There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”
***
Another aide said: “Thomas is troubled, but Harry and Meghan would not engage in the issue of going out to see him and for Harry to meet him. It was raised before their engagement and again constantly in the months afterwards, leading up to the wedding. Everyone knew it would be a huge issue that would explode if they didn’t address it and deal with it.”


***
The Sussexes declined to comment.



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...rkle-9ln70lf6j
Meghan cut her father out of her life and that was IT, like it has been for other people. This account is really sad, and it makes Meghan look like a hypocrite because there are many reports that she encouraged Harry to bond with his father. It also makes Harry look terrible for not encouraging Meghan to bend a little, to try with her father. He didn’t even want to meet him. Sigh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
but the fact that he is the second son, that he's known from babyhood that Will would be king and not him etc etc.. surely should mean that he knows he is there as a support act to the more senior royals i.e. the queen, Charles and Will, and that even if he is very popular, it does not mean that he's more important than they are... I dont want to Argue, I just feel that unless he's really stupid (possible) or very willful (also possible) he IS aware of his place in the hierarchy and what it implies.... IMO he knows but doesn't want to abide by it.
Im not sure what Charles was supposed to do to lay down "boundaries"..
What should he have done do you think? IM not being aggressive, just asking.
I think that for example when H got into trouble over the naked party in Vegas, Charles probably said to him that he could not get away with "youthful high jinks" any more, that he was too old for this sort of mullarkey to be smiled at.. and that he had to pull up his socks. And I wouldn't be surprised if Ch added that if he HAD been the elder son, the press might have been more discreet about the story because he would be the heir but as he was second son, he was going to have to watch his step all the more...
I agree with this. I refuse to blame Charles for the behavior of his 30 something son.
  #500  
Old 07-26-2020, 10:13 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Charles did intervene (reportedly) when Harry had some minor drug issues in his late teens.
I do think it's a bit riche to blame (again) Charles to whatever remotely wrong is happening with Harry. I mean he's a grown man now and responsible for his own decisions, right or wrong.
Charles's role is to be, at certain point, supportive. As far i can see it's still the case.
And he was, as well as other members of the RF.

The Sussex loves to play the victim so much that they have forgotten that Meghan basically got a special treatment from the RF.

- Meghan is the first girlfriend that wasn't dumped after she gave an interview to Vanity Fair.
- Meghan is the first girlfriend to attend Christmas with the RF, normally you don’t get invited unless you’ve already married into the family.
- Meghan got her first official joint engagement with the queen less than a month after the royal wedding, while Kate had to wait a year and Camilla had to wait two years, and they both are future Queens while Meghan is simply wife of the 6th in line to the throne.

But then, acknowledging these stuff won't fit their narrative of being snubbed and victimised by the evil RF wouldn't it?
__________________

Closed Thread


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





Popular Tags
america american history ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography britain british british royal family brownbitcoinqueen camilla china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy doge of venice doll dubai duke of sussex family life family tree fashion and style george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! highgrove house of windsor imperial household italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery king edward vii king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mary: crown princess of denmark meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince constantijn prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen mathilde queen maxima royal ancestry royal jewels serbian royal family solomon j solomon speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition uae customs united states of america welsh wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:34 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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