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
 
  #1281  
Old 08-08-2020, 04:43 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Thats the issue, just speaking out on current trends and issues so widely as they do makes it seem its just getting your face out there that is what they want so looks more about being seen than caring about the issue. I’m not saying they don’t, but that its how it is starting to come across because if the way their PR works.

I wonder if Sunshine Sachs had anything to do with the book? That would certainly be a way to say H&M haven’t contributed to the book but maybe have allowed their PR firm to and to help organise friends and insiders to contribute.
__________________

  #1282  
Old 08-08-2020, 04:54 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Thats the issue, just speaking out on current trends and issues so widely as they do makes it seem its just getting your face out there that is what they want so looks more about being seen than caring about the issue. Iím not saying they donít, but that its how it is starting to come across because if the way their PR works.

I wonder if Sunshine Sachs had anything to do with the book? That would certainly be a way to say H&M havenít contributed to the book but maybe have allowed their PR firm to and to help organise friends and insiders to contribute.
Im sure Omid and the other writer managed to get their info via staff and friends, and M and H (who had been in contact with him quite a bit in the past) were able to preserve a high minded "we didn't have anything to do with the book" attitude..
I dont know how much they care about these issues.. I think that Harry is genuinely into veterans issues and so on, and in spite of many faults I still feel a bit sorry for him and believe that he means well.. but with Meg while Im sure she also has some genuine interest I think it is well and truly secondary to making money and getting exposure...
I honestly can't decide how sincere she is as a person.. whether her abrupt departure was due to depression and a growng dislike of the UK and the RF or if it was all planned for a long time and was always a back up plan in her mind...
Can't help feeling that she may have entered the RF with the idea that she was delighted to be there and was willing to do the job.. but her attitude was that if it DIDNT work out well, there was nothing wrong with getting out, or getting out part time, earning a living, doing more "edgy" charity work, and doing a bit of Royal work in the times when she was back in the UK.
I tink that she'd regard it as ludicrous, the idea that "if you sign up for royal life, then you ARE signed up for life and that walking out is deserting your duty."
I suspect that on some level she saw it as being in a TV series, and that its possible to be signed up for a TV show and have breaks when they are not filming when you can go off and do a movie...
__________________

  #1283  
Old 08-08-2020, 06:59 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
No, I thnk he accepted back then that Camilla wasn't likely to be considered suitable as his wife, and also she was in love with Andrew...and while he did in the end put up a fight to be able to marry her it was only after a long wait and a lot of difficulty.. He stuck his job out, he put up with his family probably being cool on the idea of his marrying Camilla after her divorce. I dont see that he's all that like Harry... Harry has been able to sow his wild oats, to live with girlfriends who were serious, which C could not do, and to marry a divorced woman..
Youíre taking the comparison too literally. The point of the article wasnít to suggest that father and son have lived the same lives, but that Charles can identify with Harry because he couldnít be with Camilla, for many reasons. Perhaps at times he even wished he could just up and leave with her, or even by himself, just so he could do what he wanted. Obviously Iím speculating here, but overall, itís a good thing for their relationship if Charles can empathize with Harry, even if he is hurt at some of the things in the book.
  #1284  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:09 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Youíre taking the comparison too literally. The point of the article wasnít to suggest that father and son have lived the same lives, but that Charles can identify with Harry because he couldnít be with Camilla, for many reasons. Perhaps at times he even wished he could just up and leave with her, or even by himself, just so he could do what he wanted. Obviously Iím speculating here, but overall, itís a good thing for their relationship if Charles can empathize with Harry, even if he is hurt at some of the things in the book.
I don't know if he does. I think that he's not as dutiful as his mother, but he's still bound by duty.. in a way that seems alien to Harry
Of course he still loves Harry but I am sure he's annoyed at the way he's behaved. William is probably more annoyed and shows it more but I doubt if Charles is Ok with H's walk out or the manner of it.. or this book if he ahs anything to do with it.
  #1285  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:16 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Youíre taking the comparison too literally. The point of the article wasnít to suggest that father and son have lived the same lives, but that Charles can identify with Harry because he couldnít be with Camilla, for many reasons. Perhaps at times he even wished he could just up and leave with her, or even by himself, just so he could do what he wanted. Obviously Iím speculating here, but overall, itís a good thing for their relationship if Charles can empathize with Harry, even if he is hurt at some of the things in the book.
I truly donít understand how that would be a thing...
No one stopped Harry from being with Meghan, quite the opposite, the family embraced her in ways they never did with other married in, despite what appears to be less than nicely behavior on her part.
  #1286  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:20 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I'm not sure that Charles marrying Camilla, even in the '70s, was really on the cards. Camilla at that point didn't really want to be Princess of Wales, and she chose Andrew Parker Bowles whom she'd been seeing before she and Charles got to know each other. It's not as if Charles asked for permission to marry her and was told no, as far as anyone knows. But, yes, in the '90s he made it clear that he wasn't going to finish with Camilla.



Exactly. Most biographers and observers agree that Charles was neither forbidden from marrying Camilla nor forced to marry Diana. It was Charles' own indecision and Camilla's decision to marry Andrew Parker Bowles that set them apart.
  #1287  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:20 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvingdoors View Post
I truly donít understand how that would be a thing...
No one stopped Harry from being with Meghan, quite the opposite, the family embraced her in ways they never did with other married in, despite what appears to be less than nicely behavior on her part.
True If Charles DOES think of comparisons, I suspect he might feel a bit peeved that he was barred from marrying the woman he loved because of her sexual past and he was expected to marry a suitable girl whom he didn't have much in common with. Harry's marriage to Meghan was Ok'ed with the RF, her past marriage was hardly mentoned..
  #1288  
Old 08-08-2020, 08:02 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,187
Charles was not barred from marrying Camilla. While Charles was drawn to Camilla, which did not escape the notice of others, the relationship had not progressed far enough for Charles to propose. Two key factors, Charles was due to be posted overseas and was not in a marrying mindset. And the second factor, which has has already been pointed out, Camilla had set her cap for Andrew Parker Bowles.
  #1289  
Old 08-08-2020, 08:27 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
Charles was not barred from marrying Camilla. While Charles was drawn to Camilla, which did not escape the notice of others, the relationship had not progressed far enough for Charles to propose. Two key factors, Charles was due to be posted overseas and was not in a marrying mindset. And the second factor, which has has already been pointed out, Camilla had set her cap for Andrew Parker Bowles.
True. A better comparison for Camilla would be Cressida. Both had a blue-blood mother and middle class father. Both are friends of "that circle". Both had rebound relationships with Princes before marrying their dashing polo-playing exes who they were still carrying a torch for.

If they are comparing post-divorce Camila with Meghan, I don't really see a comparison there either. Charles and Camilla had a marathon 33 year on/off relationship before finally marrying. Where Harry and Meghan had a whirlwind relationship, barely over a year, and long distance, before getting engaged.

Harry and Meghan are more comparable to Andrew and Koo Stark. Both American actresses who had a long distance relationships with second son Princes.
  #1290  
Old 08-08-2020, 11:14 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
True If Charles DOES think of comparisons, I suspect he might feel a bit peeved that he was barred from marrying the woman he loved because of her sexual past and he was expected to marry a suitable girl whom he didn't have much in common with. Harry's marriage to Meghan was Ok'ed with the RF, her past marriage was hardly mentoned..
Her past marriage was hardly mentioned? It was literally referenced in every article about her. "Divorced Meg" was basically her name. They made sure we always knew she was an older, mixed raced, divorced actress from LA. I don't think a day went by without that being said.
  #1291  
Old 08-08-2020, 11:20 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Her past marriage was hardly mentioned? It was literally referenced in every article about her. "Divorced Meg" was basically her name. They made sure we always knew she was an older, mixed raced, divorced actress from LA. I don't think a day went by without that being said.
Nonetheless, these important life events (marriage & divorce) were excluded from her official biography on the royal.gov-website.
  #1292  
Old 08-08-2020, 11:27 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Nonetheless, these important life events (marriage & divorce) were excluded from her official biography on the royal.gov-website.
It probably would have not been in Camilla's either had she not had children with her ex. The same had Meghan and her ex had a child he would have been referenced.
  #1293  
Old 08-08-2020, 12:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Exactly. Most biographers and observers agree that Charles was neither forbidden from marrying Camilla nor forced to marry Diana. It was Charles' own indecision and Camilla's decision to marry Andrew Parker Bowles that set them apart.
I admit I'm not up on the C/C timeline, so then.......was it after Camilla and Andrew's divorce that Charles got tangled up with her again?

It's possible that part of the article was poorly worded. I mean, from everything I've read, Charles WAS under pressure to marry, and Diana had been almost picked for him. Maybe the alternative wasn't to marry Camilla , but maybe what the reporter was trying to point out was that Charles was pressured to marry a woman much younger than he was and whom he didn't really know (in which case, the part about not marrying Camilla could have been left out). Either way, marrying Diana caused he (and she) decades of pain.

Here's that part of the article again

Quote:
But while the Prince of Wales was forced by tradition to marry Diana in 1981 instead of his true love, Camilla, causing him two decades of pain and anguish, Harry was able to seize on changing times to break free and run off to America with Meghan.

It is that brutal shared experience ó and the death of the Princess of Wales ó which perhaps means Charles has more understanding than any member of the Royal Family of Harryís decision to walk away from Queen and country.
The reporter is deliberately pointing out that Harry did not have any such issues. Even so, Charles and Camilla were obviously in touch during the Wars of the Wales, and he did refuse to give her up when his mother wanted him to, so from that perspective, I can see why he would have a special empathy for his son. It's not that anyone insisted that Harry couldn't see Meghan, it just feels like both father and son felt restricted by the Institution at the time. That's a huge part of why Harry left. I don't think it's a perfect comparison, but I think the overall point of the article, about father and son, remains.
  #1294  
Old 08-08-2020, 01:06 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
This could go in the Relationships thread, but I think it's relevant here as we've been discussing Harry and Meghan's relationships with his family vis a vis the book.

I think this is a very good point..... Charles didn't walk away, of course, but he pretty much defied his mother as she wanted him to end things with Camilla.




So, ultimately, Charles's love for his son is more important to him than his anger or hurt over the book. There have been multiple reports saying that he and Harry have been in regular contact, so I tend to think this article is stating the facts. It doesn't come as any surprise that Charles always has an open door for H and M because he would never turn his son away. I've always thought that their relationship would be fine - the real problems are between H/M and William and Kate.



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/123462...-royal-return/
Charles can love his son all he wants and support him and Meghan with his bank account. The door for them to come back as senior royals is based on the British public's opinion- - Charles is not all that popular with the public and cannot risk alienating them further but playing forgiving father when it comes to royal duties and the public purse
  #1295  
Old 08-08-2020, 01:14 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I think H&M are having a bit of a "brand identity" crisis.

They need to work out which road to take:

A) the jump on most current issue mode, where the couple have a comment on most issues as they come about. This gives them good media coverage as you are effectively jumping on existing PR and media coverage to give them more coverage and profile. The problem with this is you aren't talking about issues close to you just issues that come about so your message and "brand" is devalued as over time people get bored by it. A bit like the Primark of brands - ride the wave of current trends but be seen as a "lesser" brand.

or

B) focus on a few (one each maybe) messages and seek out ways to focus on these. Do a lot of behind scenes work so your knowledge of it is strong and you have met many of the key players. Seek out limited but strong outlets for your message at key points in the year. Be consistent with your messaging and where possible live up to the message your are "promoting" e.g travel as greenly as possibly (if eco travel is your message) so people are inspired by your actions to change their way of living /thinking because you are in part showing them it is possible. This would get you less media coverage as you are not jumping on every "trend" and current issue so don't get the free PR that brings but your message is stronger as its not devalued by the high number of issues you are talking about or the frequency with what you are talking about.

The sad thing is by leaving the RF the couple could have done option B much more easily as they could have made sure all their work was focussed around their chosen issues much more than is possible when in the RF as the RF are expected to cover a wide range of social issues and undertake foreign tours etc. I don't know how much they are paying Sunshine Sachs, and I'm not saying I'm an expert at all, but I think whatever they are paying them its too much for this rather cheap, reality tv start style PR programme they have put in place for a royal couple.
That is the problem- they have made it clear as day that it is A. Just in the last couple of months they have tried to jump on the "cause du Jour" without much thought and research put into their involvement. Their public pronouncements have been nothing but buzzword salads intended to get them positive PR.

With or without their involvement Finding Freedom was touted as getting their point of view across and from the serialization so far it is nothing more than an attempt to portray them as victims of everyone and anyone who did not agree with what they wanted.

In simple words- everything they do seems hollow with the sole purpose being getting them the media attention that they claim they do not want
  #1296  
Old 08-08-2020, 01:15 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,763
Yes, I do believe that the BRF keep their fingers on the pulse of public opinion but the inner workings of the "Firm" are decided and implemented by the "Firm" itself. Should Charles feel that it serves in the best interest for Harry and Meghan to return to the "Firm" once again, that will be a decision that the "Firm" will have to agree on. Especially the very top CEO called Her Majesty, The Queen. The public or the public opinion does not dictate how the "Firm" works.

As for the "public purse", the only thing the public pays for directly out of their taxes is the security for the members of the working BRF. Other financing comes from either the Sovereign Grant, The Duchy of Lancaster (the Queen's Privy Purse) or the Duchy of Cornwall (Charles' private income). The civil list was abolished in 2011 and replaced with the Sovereign Grant.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1297  
Old 08-08-2020, 01:28 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Charles can love his son all he wants and support him and Meghan with his bank account. The door for them to come back as senior royals is based on the British public's opinion- - Charles is not all that popular with the public and cannot risk alienating them further but playing forgiving father when it comes to royal duties and the public purse
I wouldn’t trust Harry and Meghan either, but I have no problem with Charles saying this to his son. It doesn’t mean there would be no conditions on his return or that he could just waltz back in with no ramifications...

I would also add, since nothing Charles does is good enough for the public, and since he’s going to be unpopular no matter what good things he does, there’s no reason why he shouldn’t welcome Harry back.....and this isn’t even taking into account that HM has her arms open for a return as well.
  #1298  
Old 08-08-2020, 01:34 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Witter Springs, United States
Posts: 416
Harry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Charles can love his son all he wants and support him and Meghan with his bank account. The door for them to come back as senior royals is based on the British public's opinion- - Charles is not all that popular with the public and cannot risk alienating them further but playing forgiving father when it comes to royal duties and the public purse
I don't really care to hear their opinions, not interesting. I think it sad, the poor judgement, treatment of the family taking Archie from his family except her mother(which at least he has a Gma). The air in LA is toxic so much for good health.
I wouldn't trust those two ever again, forgive yes; forget no.
  #1299  
Old 08-08-2020, 02:36 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post

As for the "public purse", the only thing the public pays for directly out of their taxes is the security for the members of the working BRF. Other financing comes from either the Sovereign Grant, The Duchy of Lancaster (the Queen's Privy Purse) or the Duchy of Cornwall (Charles' private income). The civil list was abolished in 2011 and replaced with the Sovereign Grant.
You're right about taxes Osipi but all of the monarchy's income does derive from the state. All Crown Land (ie the Crown Estate & the two duchies) belongs to the state. If we were a republic those proceeds would go else where such as the NHS or whatever.
  #1300  
Old 08-08-2020, 03:01 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I admit I'm not up on the C/C timeline, so then.......was it after Camilla and Andrew's divorce that Charles got tangled up with her again?
No, it was long before that. Camilla and Andrew seem to've had old-style type upper-crust marriage. Rupert Campbell Black, the womanising showjumper in the Jilly Cooper books, was allegedly based on Andrew Parker Bowles . Camilla and Charles were seeing each other again in the late '70s, then it stopped when Charles married Diana, but started up again when that marriage crumbled fairly early on. Andrew, by all accounts, had affairs with umpteen different women, most of them within their own social circle - it really does sound like a Jilly Cooper book! - so wasn't too bothered about Camilla was getting up to with Charles. It would have worked fine in the 1880s, just not in the 1980s.
__________________

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 archie mountbatten-windsor asia britain british british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness crown jewels doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life fashion and style genetics gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! henry viii history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japanese imperial family japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:27 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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