The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Library (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/)
-   -   Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of A Modern Royal Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/finding-freedom-harry-and-meghan-and-the-making-of-a-modern-royal-family-47438.html)

Denville 07-31-2020 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2331037)
T

I also find this significant.....but not surprising. IMO, H and M went Hollywood because they wanted to be celebrities more than they cared about doing good work. These Hollywood "yes" spin doctors and publicists have, ironically - but again, not surprisingly - hurt them far more than they've helped them.





I don't know. Maybe Harry, because of course Charles is his father.....with time, because trust has been lost. I don't think Meghan - and I don't think she'd want to be a working Royal, that much is clear. The book doesn't have to be as vicious and damning as the Diana book for it to have an impact, though.....and I don't think anyone in the BRF is naive enough to believe that H and M didn't even tacitly cooperate in some way.

The impact on the BRF will be personal. They've all moved on professionally as it were, doing their things and not letting H and M's absence affect them.

I think that the very fact that their departure happened and that it sparked off this rash of books where M and Harry came across as very critical of just about everyone in the RF, the press, the royal circle, the Royal staff, is a good enough reason for the RF to say "no more" and to be very reluctant to have them back as working royals.
Their walk out proved they were not reliable and the books even if only half true have given a picture of people who were NOT on the same page as the RF and their way of doing things.. and who again, could not be relied upon. Possibly they did not collaborate, but I think its very possible that they did.. and that in any case the picture painted is of 2 people who seemed alienated from the RF and determined to go their own way..
Charles is likely to be both hurt and angry, the queen also.. but I think they will both always keep the door open on a personal level. However I don't think they'll really expect the sort of commitment and pulling together that they need in long term royal workers. However I suspect that Charles DOES hope that maybe something can be salvaged as he has lost 3 of his helpers in the past few months.. pretty much at the same time.

He wants to keep the RF slim but he lost 2 key workers, in H and Meg and maybe he will hope "if I can get them on side again, I could use the help"... But how can he really trust them? if they come back, I think it will be on M's part for financial reasons, and that's not good.

Harry may begin to miss England and be more willing to return but he wont want to come without his wife.. and I think he has shown himself to be very unreliable and mitght come back but walk out again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 2331051)
Charles' relationship with his parents was always rocky - not just after the Dimbleby book but for decades before that.

It is better but it is still the weakest of all of the Queen's children and their parents.

However Charles' relationship with his parents was never as fractured as William's and Harry's appears to be - I am not sure it can be repaired and certainly not in the short term.

I also suspect that Harry has major bridges to now mend with both his father and grandmother and it is possible that those relationships will also never be mended.

This book is, like the Morton book, a real eye-opener to Harry's true thoughts about his family and just as Diana learnt that there was no way back I wouldn't be surprised if Harry is never really welcomed back into the family. They will put on a show for the 10-15 minutes they appear together in public but otherwise they will be totally separate.

I dont know if it is that Harry's relationship with his father is fractured so much as that Harry has revealed a very odd mindset.. He doesn't seem to be happy with anyone in his family...(or i suspect anyone in his past life)
and not sure that Will's relationship with Charles is bad.. I think that in the past they did have problems, due to the Diana issue and I think also both boys saw C as an old fuddy duddy. But I think that Will has long since matured past that.
I agree that if this whole book is even half true, it is going to make difficulties between H and the rest of the family, esp his father..but he is blood, unlike Diana, so I dont think the rift will be complete as hers was...

poppy7 07-31-2020 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2331092)
So Wootten didn't get a leak from someone in the Royal Households in order to get details for this article he was going to publish in the Sun ?

And what jewellery 'personally owned' by the Queen did we see Meghan wearing on that extensive Australasia/Occeania tour, for example, during which the couple was representing HM?

Well he and his team are not mind readers.

I don't think we saw any but we never do except for tiaras. And I don't believe Meghan had been leant any for her use. Not yet anyway. But they are only worn on State occasions and she was on maternity at the only one she could have gone to. Trumps visit. They are never really leant anything else except maybe the maple leaf brooch whileno Canada. That type of thing.

Queen Claude 07-31-2020 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2331092)
So Wootten didn't get a leak from someone in the Royal Households in order to get details for this article he was going to publish in the Sun ?

Yes and I don't rule out that the leak came from the Sussex Household. I recall reading that the Sussexes (understandably) shared their plans for stepping back with their own staff.

US Royal Watcher 07-31-2020 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2331092)
So Wootten didn't get a leak from someone in the Royal Households in order to get details for this article he was going to publish in the Sun ?

Possibly. It could also have been leaked by someone from Harry and Meghan's staff. Harry and Meghan's staff would seem to have more motivation because they were about to lose their positions and had less reason to be loyal.

Regardless, Wooten is alleging that Harry and Meghan knew for at least 10 days that the Sun had the story. If so, that is not consistent with their explanation of why they made the surprise public announcement without giving the Queen and Charles much notice.

I personally doubt Wooten's version because I do not believe that William cared that much about which tiara Meghan was loaned. I believe that William would leave that decision to the Queen. William is famously less likely to hide his true feelings in public. I can't remember anytime before the wedding that William behaved as if he was anything less than happy for Harry, even if he had a few private doubts.

Hallo girl 07-31-2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2331034)
Why should anyone believe Dan W's version of events, considering he hasn't had a good word to say about Meghan since she came on the scene and is one of the Sussexes most vociferous critics?

If that is true and William/Angela didn't want Meghan to wear any jewels, ie tiaras, petty, petty petty. And Angela is taking a bit on herself isn't she? She might be the Queen's dresser and a big note in the Palace but it's not up to her (or William) to make decisions about what a bride marrying into the RF wears or doesn't on her wedding day or afterwards.

I agree Curryong that Dan Wooten is not the most reliable, that is why I question everything he writes, and not just bits , for that reason I also question his comments 're Angela Kelly and William 're the tiaras.

Mirabel 07-31-2020 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2331037)

I don't know. Maybe Harry, because of course Charles is his father.....with time, because trust has been lost. I don't think Meghan - and I don't think she'd want to be a working Royal, that much is clear. The book doesn't have to be as vicious and damning as the Diana book for it to have an impact, though.....and I don't think anyone in the BRF is naive enough to believe that H and M didn't even tacitly cooperate in some way.

I agree.
Even if everyone reconciled, Harry will no longer be considered trustworthy, so I don't believe he'd be able to just slip back into the BRF and resume his patronages, even if he wished to.

But I think a familial relationship is still possible in time.

SLV 07-31-2020 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7 (Post 2330906)
She picks a few and thr bride chooses. But more likely Angela Kelly gets the dress pattern, the veil pattern and asks what the brides would like. Sorts out about 3 she thinks are suitable and okays that with the Queen. Then the bride comes to see them. Sent for cleaning, and they get it for a trial and the ceremony.

If that is the case, then the whole story about Meghan making a fuss about the tiara is nonsense. She wouldn't have even known about an obscure emerald tiara.

poppy7 07-31-2020 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLV (Post 2331137)
If that is the case, then the whole story about Meghan making a fuss about the tiara is nonsense. She wouldn't have even known about an obscure emerald tiara.

It always sounded like nonsense. I mean really. That and making Kate cry. Just meanness.

muriel 07-31-2020 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2331092)
And what jewellery 'personally owned' by the Queen did we see Meghan wearing on that extensive Australasia/Occeania tour, for example, during which the couple was representing HM?

None. Royal ladies very rarely do, as royal tours these days rarely involve state events that require major jewellery.

I will add that for the reception in Tonga, Meghan did wear a pair of diamond pendant earrings that were meant to be borrowed, source unknown. At the time, there was speculation that they may have been lent by Camilla, though this was never confirmed. When Meghan wore the same earrings again for Charles' 70th birthday party, that rumour gained more legs.

Also, it was reported at the time that the Cartier bracelet worn to her wedding to Harry and the earrings to the evening event were a git from Charles.

But given that Meghan's royal career was not exactly long, it could hardly be suggested that the BRF did not provide her with jewellery.

fabaunty 07-31-2020 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7 (Post 2331120)
Well he and his team are not mind readers.

I don't think we saw any but we never do except for tiaras. And I don't believe Meghan had been leant any for her use. Not yet anyway. But they are only worn on State occasions and she was on maternity at the only one she could have gone to. Trumps visit. They are never really leant anything else except maybe the maple leaf brooch whileno Canada. That type of thing.

HM has lent significant historic pieces on several occasions to the D of C , generally for state dinners , apart from her diamond wedding bracelet which the D of C has worn several times on "gala " occasions . IMO the D of S wedding tiara perfectly suited her pared back style , as well as being historically significant , [the personal tiara worn frequently by HM Queen Mary]. Very little else in the royal collections would seem to suit her style . I would have loved to see her at a state dinner , we might have seen some more unused gems

muriel 07-31-2020 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fabaunty (Post 2331144)
HM has lent significant historic pieces on several occasions to the D of C , generally for state dinners , apart from her diamond wedding bracelet which the D of C has worn several times on "gala " occasions . IMO the D of S wedding tiara perfectly suited her pared back style , as well as being historically significant , [the personal tiara worn frequently by HM Queen Mary]. Very little else in the royal collections would seem to suit her style . I would have loved to see her at a state dinner , we might have seen some more unused gems

I have no doubt that, in time, Meghan would have been provided enough jewellery so that she is suitably adorned for the role. However, these things take time, and the vaults are gradually opened up.

TLLK 07-31-2020 10:34 AM

:previous:I believe that Meghan would have worn her wedding tiara for future gala occasions. IMHO it was likely selected with the idea that it would be lifetime loan for State Dinners and any other tiara event. It was substantial and it suited her very well IMHO.


https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebr...wedding-tiara/

Denville 07-31-2020 10:49 AM

Or seh might have been offered a different tiara for different occasions?

poppy7 07-31-2020 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLLK (Post 2331149)
:previous:I believe that Meghan would have worn her wedding tiara for future gala occasions. IMHO it was likely selected with the idea that it would be lifetime loan for State Dinners and any other tiara event. It was substantial and it suited her very well IMHO.


https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebr...wedding-tiara/

None of the wedding tiaras have ever been worn by the ladies again. It was a gift on the day. She would have, in time, been long term been loaned some others. Kate has the Cambridge which was Diana's and the Lotus Flower one which was Margaret's and actually worn by Serena on her wedding day.

Mbruno 07-31-2020 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7 (Post 2331156)
None of the wedding tiaras have ever been worn by the ladies again. It was a gift on the day. She would have, in time, been long term been loaned some others. Kate has the Cambridge which was Diana's and the Lotus Flower one which was Margaret's and actually worn by Serena on her wedding day.

Sophie’s wedding tiara was worn again many times, wasn’t it ?

muriel 07-31-2020 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7 (Post 2331156)
None of the wedding tiaras have ever been worn by the ladies again. It was a gift on the day. She would have, in time, been long term been loaned some others. Kate has the Cambridge which was Diana's and the Lotus Flower one which was Margaret's and actually worn by Serena on her wedding day.


Elizabeth, Margaret, Diana, Sarah and Sophie all wore their wedding tiaras again on many occassions, whilst Anne and Catherine appear not to have so far.

Heavs 07-31-2020 11:29 AM

Yes Sophie's much made fun of wedding tiara has seen a lot of use at overseas royal weddings and other events and probably other occasions where no photographs are released.

I believe *something* went down about tiara choices, but goodness knows if any of the versions we've heard are the truth.

TLLK 07-31-2020 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7 (Post 2331156)
None of the wedding tiaras have ever been worn by the ladies again. It was a gift on the day. She would have, in time, been long term been loaned some others. Kate has the Cambridge which was Diana's and the Lotus Flower one which was Margaret's and actually worn by Serena on her wedding day.

Actually Sarah, Duchess of York wore her tiara that the Queen/DoE gifted to her throughout her marriage to Prince Andrew.

TLLK 07-31-2020 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2331158)
Sophie’s wedding tiara was worn again many times, wasn’t it ?

Yes it was worn for years after her wedding. The Wessexes attended most of the Continental royal weddings which typically featured at least one gala event. Sophie wore her wedding tiara many times.

poppy7 07-31-2020 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 2331165)
Elizabeth, Margaret, Diana, Sarah and Sophie all wore their wedding tiaras again on many occassions, whilst Anne and Catherine appear not to have so far.

Sarah's was a gift to her. Diana didn't I don't think. That was her families tiara. Margaret did she personally owned it. Sophie's was made for her and a gift and the Queens was a gift.

None of the loans ever reappeared.

Recently they have all been leant as gifts on the day.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises