The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Current Events Archive (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/)
-   -   The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-and-family-news-and-events-3-march-april-2021-a-48372.html)

US Royal Watcher 03-25-2021 09:57 AM

Thank you to everyone who has been contributing to the interesting discussion. A few of my reactions, for what they are worth.
  • Although it is frustrating that some people cannot defend Harry and Meghan without trying to disparage other family members (which in my opinion, demonstrates the weakness of their arguments), a college degree isn’t everything. Harry is more than an ex-army officer and I think he has things to offer any company: he is charismatic, empathetic, and has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to connect with others. Despite his flaws (and we all have them), he can help others. In our society, public perception is reality.
  • That said, having Harry (or anyone) involved in an anti-free speech organization is more than a little scary. Anyone who is associated with a phrase like “their truth,” has no standing to evaluate “misinformation.”
  • There are reports that there are another 90 minutes of unaired footage of the interview, so in fairness, this footage could contain a lot of information on their new life and charitable projects. Since the broadcasted footage probably included most of the “explosive” allegations, the unaired footage is not likely to generate as much interest.
  • Although the interview garnered high ratings, 50 million people around the world is a small percentage of people who could have watched it. The public polls are based on how the media has been reporting the interview. The U.S. media has been very sympathetic to the couple and has not highlighted the inconsistencies, which is why people in the U.S. are more sympathetic to the couple than people in the U.K.
  • Even though Harry has often encouraged people to think of him as an "average guy," he obviously believes that titles are very, very important, which is why they are fighting to ensure their children retain their titles when Charles ascends. I am conflicted: on one hand, if Charles issues patents removing the titles, he will be accused of racism, which will be dredged up over and over. On the other hand, reducing the number of people with royal titles makes sense – and Meghan and Harry have now confirmed that Charles is planning to slim down the monarchy. Moreover, I think the British public will support a decision to remove royal titles from children who are being raised outside of their country. There will be no benefit to the British public for the children to have titles because they will not be working members of the family. The only reason Harry and Meghan want the titles is to enable the kids to cash in if they choose.

Osipi 03-25-2021 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC (Post 2384859)
Is there something about having to reside/be born in the UK - for Harryís children? Similar to Madelineís? If they stay in the States I cannot imagine anyone thinking it appropriate for British taxpayers to support them no matter what their titles and styles may be.

If they stay in the States, I can't see any reason that anyone would think that they should have any kind of perks whatsoever because they were born royal. Why? They turned their backs on the royal life they could have had and made it clear that they wanted "independence". Sure they can keep their titles and styles as peers but where they choose to live, it doesn't mean anything much. Anyone can be a Queen or a Prince or a King in the US. King, itself, is a common surname. Larry King for example. :biggrin:

I don't think they'll be very warmly received back in the UK either. We don't know what their plans are for living part time at Frogmore because Covid pretty much put the kibosh on that for the time being. I think the British taxpayers would really be displeased if any kind of public funding were afforded to the Sussexes from here on out. They just don't represent the people at all anymore so why should they pay for them?

IMO, should Charles make any kind of changes when he's the monarch, the Sussexes would be the last people to have any kind of say in any of it. They chose to turn their backs on the monarchy and the family and sail off to the sunny climes of California. They've burnt their bridges in so many ways that they have no choice now but to be independent and on their own to sink or swim. When they chose "out", I don't think they realized how far "out" really would be.

Fem 03-25-2021 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2384753)
Beatrice and Eugenie having HRHs has nothing to do with Harry or his children at all. I donít think either has been exactly hurt by having them, though itís been said that Eugenie wasnít keen on being addressed as a Princess when she was out with friends. They werenít in the direct line when either was born and Iíd say it had more to do with Andrew wanting his daughters to be Ďprincesses of the bloodí than anything else.

I disagree. Beatrice and Eugenie having HRHs has everything to do with Harry's children. Harry is the second son of a future monarch, so he'll be in the same position as their father was. Harry's children will never (barring some catastrophe) be in the direct line of succession - that's for William and his children.

Beatrice and Eugenie got HRHs because their father had fought for it, he wanted them to be working royals, he wanted them to have titles, he wanted them to have security, he wanted them to be treated as William and Harry. Sounds familiar?

Times changed, the monarchy has to change too. There is a reason no other grandchildren of HMQ have the HRHs/use them (it's still not clear about the Wessexes' children, though with the current climate I don't think they'll ever use it, even if they have the right) - because yes, slimming down the monarchy is needed. This has happened with many Europeans monarchies in the last 25-30 years and it'll happen to British monarchy too. Harry and Meghan fighting for their children to have the HRHs, to have the Prince/Princess titles - especially since they left the UK - is simply sad.

Mbruno 03-25-2021 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fem (Post 2384866)
I disagree. Beatrice and Eugenie having HRHs has everything to do with Harry's children. Harry is the second son of a future monarch, so he'll be in the same position as their father was. Harry's children will never (barring some catastrophe) be in the direct line of succession - that's for William and his children.

Beatrice and Eugenie got HRHs because their father had fought for it, he wanted them to be working royals, he wanted them to have titles, he wanted them to have security, he wanted them to be treated as William and Harry. Sounds familiar?


I don't quite agree. Beatrice and Eugenie got HRHs because they are granddaughters in paternal line of a British Sovereign and all children of a Sovereign's son are HRHs in the UK. It has nothing to do with being a "working royal" and it is a rule that has been in place for a long time, actuallv before 1917, since the Hanoverian period. Andrew didn't have to fight for it as there are no indications AFAIK that the Queen planned to change that rule during her reign.


Similarly, Edward's children, who are in the same position that Archie will be when Charles is King and in the same position as Beatrice and Eugenie now, could (actually should) be HRHs too. But, in their case, conversely, their parents "fought", or rather asked the Queen (which is a more accurate description) to have them styled only as children of a peer, which she agreed to without, however, making any formal changes to current rules by issuing new LPs.


I interpret the way James and Louise's case was handled as a signal that the Queen saw it as an exception that applied to Edward's children only by special dispensation of her will and pleasure, and not as a rule of general application, such as e.g. all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales becoming HRHs, which was effected by means of new LPs in 2012.




Prinsara 03-25-2021 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2384760)
I wrote two posts about the proposed movie upthread. This was your reply to my second post.

Yes, and I still can't see what a supposedly factual interview and audience has to do with an admittedly fictional movie that is claiming to reveal "what really happened", other than the tenuous "Harry and Meghan" connection. Equating them seems a bit strange, but that's me.

_Heather_ 03-25-2021 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2384867)
I don't quite agree. Beatrice and Eugenie got HRHs because they are granddaughters in paternal line of a British Sovereign and all children of a Sovereign's son are HRHs in the UK. It has nothing to do with being a "working royal" and it is a rule that has been in place for a long time, actuallv before 1917, since the Hanoverian period. Andrew didn't have to fight for it as there are no indications AFAIK that the Queen planned to change that rule during her reign.


Similarly, Edward's children, who are in the same position that Archie will be when Charles is King and in the same position as Beatrice and Eugenie now, could (actually should) be HRHs too. But, in their case, conversely, their parents "fought", or rather asked the Queen (which is a more accurate description) to have them styled only as children of a peer, which she agreed to without, however, making any formal changes to current rules by issuing new LPs.


I interpret the way James and Louise's case was handled as a signal that the Queen saw it as an exception that applied to Edward's children only by special dispensation of her will and pleasure, and not as a rule of general application, such as e.g. all children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales becoming HRHs, which was effected by means of new LPs in 2012.

I agree entirely and I think we should also add that, in the case of Louise and James, I believe HM saw, understood, and agreed that it might make it easier for them in the long run to not use the title/style which they automatically had at birth and so she agreed given that they would, more than likely, need to make their own way in the world just as Beatrice and Eugenie have. That said, I also believe that she deliberately chose to do it this way as a one-off rather than by issuing new LPs in order to allow them the flexibility and freedom to resume the use of the titles/styles as adults should they choose to do so or in the event, however unlikely, that they’ll need to be working royals who will represent the monarch of the day. It’s not inconceivable that, especially now with a bit of an upcoming manpower shortage, Louise and James (Beatrice and Eugenie, too) may find themselves in a position much like that of HM’s cousins in which they have careers but are occasionally asked to represent the monarch and may choose to take on some patronages as such.

Prinsara 03-25-2021 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Heather_ (Post 2384871)
Itís not inconceivable that, especially now with a bit of an upcoming manpower shortage, Louise and James (Beatrice and Eugenie, too) may find themselves in a position much like that of HMís cousins in which they have careers but are occasionally asked to represent the monarch and may choose to take on some patronages as such.

The cousins who represent her (George, Alexandra, and Richard/Birgitte) don't have careers, though. Prince and Princess Michael (and Bea and Eugenie) have careers because they've never worked for her.

Denville 03-25-2021 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2384851)
The only way I can interpret it is that Harry and Meghan, the supposed progressive, egalitarian and "new kind of" royals, surprisingly care greatly about their children being HRH Prince/Princesss (unlike for example Edward & Sophie), and are using the race card to blackmail Charles into not making any changes in the future.

The excuse that they needed Archie to be an HRH to have security doesn't hold either considering that Beatrice and Eugenie are HRHs and don't have public security.

of course not. But clearly they have a bitter anger against the RF, I think largely they are angry at the fact that Charles cut off funding, and they're trying to blacken them by calling them racists. I think that behind the scenes, during the first year or 2 of the marriage, the RF HAS Been trying to help them, since they were clearly not happy.. It seems that the queen was ready to consider them moving to Africa for a time.. to give them a break, but whatever they got it was never enough.
I do feel that if Charles does decide not to give the HRH to Archie, which he may have considered as part of "slimming down", he may now feel compelled to do it or he'll be branded a racist.. which I think is grossly unfair...

_Heather_ 03-25-2021 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prinsara (Post 2384874)
The cousins who represent her (George, Alexandra, and Richard/Birgitte) don't have careers, though. Prince and Princess Michael (and Bea and Eugenie) have careers because they've never worked for her.

Actually, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, I believe Richard is an architect. And, though Prince Michael is not an official working member of the family, he has on occasion taken on the job here and there of representing HM or working with a patronage or organization on behalf of the RF.

Denville 03-25-2021 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Heather_ (Post 2384876)
Actually, and Iím sure someone will correct me if Iím wrong, I believe Richard is an architect. And, though Prince Michael is not an official working member of the family, he has on occasion taken on the job here and there of representing HM or working with a patronage or organization on behalf of the RF.

yes but he gave it up when he became the sole suriviving son of the D of Gloucester and took on royal duties. But that was a long time ago...

SLV 03-25-2021 10:56 AM

Richard indeed studied to be an architect, since at that tome he had an older brother (William of Gloucester), and therefor hadn't expected to be called upon by the Queen to represent her. Don't know if he actually got to do anything with his education after he became heir.
Quote:

Originally Posted by _Heather_ (Post 2384876)
Actually, and Iím sure someone will correct me if Iím wrong, I believe Richard is an architect. And, though Prince Michael is not an official working member of the family, he has on occasion taken on the job here and there of representing HM or working with a patronage or organization on behalf of the RF.


_Heather_ 03-25-2021 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2384877)
yes but he gave it up when he became the sole suriviving son of the D of Gloucester and took on royal duties. But that was a long time ago...

That is true. However, my point really still stands because I wouldnít be overly surprised to find that Louise, James, Beatrice, and Eugenie might be asked to, on rare occasions, represent the monarch, much like Prince Michael occasionally does. Though I do believe that on those rare occasions when heís asked to step in it is for events outside the commonwealth.

Denville 03-25-2021 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Heather_ (Post 2384880)
That is true. However, my point really still stands because I wouldnít be overly surprised to find that Louise, James, Beatrice, and Eugenie might be asked to, on rare occasions, represent the monarch, much like Prince Michael occasionally does. Though I do believe that on those rare occasions when heís asked to step in it is for events outside the commonwealth.

Yes there's no conflict between doing some occasional things for the queen or for having a charity patronage like Bea and Eugenie do, but not as a representative of the queen.. AND having a career of one's own.

_Heather_ 03-25-2021 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2384884)
Yes there's no conflict between doing some occasional things for the queen or for having a charity patronage like Bea and Eugenie do, but not as a representative of the queen.. AND having a career of one's own.

Precisely. And Iím reference to my original point about leaving the option there for Louise and James to use their official titles/styles, I suspect that this exact thing might be why that option was left open. Just in the off chance that they may need or wish to use them if they are asked to do the occasional engagement or maybe even with a charity patronage. Iím not 100% positive but I do think I might have seen the RFís social media pages very occasionally share some things from Beatrice and Eugenieís, very worthwhile in my opinion, charitable patronages and I think we can probably expect the same going forward in the case of Louise and James.

Denville 03-25-2021 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Heather_ (Post 2384871)
I agree entirely and I think we should also add that, in the case of Louise and James, I believe HM saw, understood, and agreed that it might make it easier for them in the long run to not use the title/style which they automatically had at birth and so she agreed given that they would, more than likely, need to make their own way in the world just as Beatrice and Eugenie have. That said, I also believe that she deliberately chose to do it this way as a one-off rather than by issuing new LPs in order to allow them the flexibility and freedom to resume the use of the titles/styles as adults should they choose to do so or in the event, however unlikely, that theyíll need to be working royals who will represent the monarch of the day. It.

I htink that the queen while she accepts that change happens, still holds to older ideas about titles and was probably not that happy with the idea of Louise and James not being HRH.. but she could see that times were changing and that the public wanted less royals doing what could be seen as "made up jobs" and having titles were no longer tied to doing royal duties. and so she agreed to let them be Vic and Lady but has probably siad privately if they DO want to be HRH when they are adults they can have the title. However I think that Charles DOES want to slim down...and is keener on the idea that only the direct heir's family will have HRH...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC (Post 2384859)
Is there something about having to reside/be born in the UK - for Harryís children? Similar to Madelineís? If they stay in the States I cannot imagine anyone thinking it appropriate for British taxpayers to support them no matter what their titles and styles may be.

That was never going to happen. Their taxpayers funded security has stopped adn Charles too has stopped supporting them...They are no longer workign royals and that would be the case regarldess of where they live...

ladongas 03-25-2021 11:37 AM

Thereís one thing being forgotten here
 
All families quarrel, some quite bitterly, from time to time. But the majority of them Ďmake upí and continue on... because they love each other and donít want to lose a loved family member due to a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion. Charles and William love Harry, and they are such a small family, they canít spare him for the sake of winning an argument.

They will have to forgive him his mistakes, just as he will forgive them theirs, and I donít need to spell those out. I believe the members of this forum are much more outraged than Charles. Like all parents he has had to put his mistakes behind him, and forgive himself, for whatever reasons.

He will undoubtedly work toward a reconciliation with his headstrong, emotional son, because he doesnít want to lose his son forever.

Almost all of us have felt anger toward family members, and almost all of us have been able to mend the rift. The Windsors will, too.

I am sorry for those who havenít been able to.

Denville 03-25-2021 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladongas (Post 2384894)
All families quarrel, some quite bitterly, from time to time. But the majority of them ‘make up’ and continue on... because they love each other and don’t want to lose a loved family member due to a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion. Charles and William love Harry, and they are such a small family, they can’t spare him for the sake of winning an argument.

They will have to forgive him his mistakes, just as he will forgive them theirs, and I don’t need to spell those out. I believe the members of this forum are much more outraged than Charles. Like all parents he has had to put his mistakes behind him, and forgive himself, for whatever reasons.

He will undoubtedly work toward a reconciliation with his headstrong, emotional son, because he doesn’t want to lose his son forever.

Almost all of us have felt anger toward family members, and almost all of us have been able to mend the rift. The Windsors will, too.

I am sorry for those who haven’t been able to.

I dont think so..not for a long time. Harry's admitted that his father stopped taking his calls a while ago. Considering that he has been very indulgent towards his son, I think that shows how angry and upset he is and how he feels that its not possible to talk sensibly to H. And now, Harry has humiliated him, insinuated that he or SOME member of his family, is a racist, that he wants to deprive his grandson of security... etc etc. I think it is very clear that the RF are furious and feel they can't trust H.. and they'll be very wary with him from now on.

amaryllus 03-25-2021 11:53 AM

I would add Meghan needs to be an integral part of any potential future reconciliation. If your spouse does not respect or trust or want to be around the family and the feeling is mutual nothing can happen because if Harry is asked to choose or take sides his wife and mother of
Children has to come first

Denville 03-25-2021 12:02 PM

I dont know. I think that Harry himself clelry has some serious issues... that he really has an anger towards his fahter and towards the RF as a whiole.

Lee-Z 03-25-2021 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2384833)
How about disloyal, incoherent, confusing in what they say? how about odd in that they continually criticize the RF yet still cling to the titles and expect the money?
and how can anyone see them as open about mental health issues when it seems that harry was embarrassed by his wife having them and did not know how to get her the help she needed?

Yes, as hard as it seems that people could have missed that, i think many have..

in the Netherlands we have a 'Royalty' TV show Blauw Bloed, and it struck me that when they reported about the interview, they mentioned none of the arguments that we have managed to fill 100+ pages with here on TRF, not about the facts that could be disproven, not about the money (and that for a *dutch* show, we always complain about money), not about Harry not helping Meghan..

Just the parts that i mentioned in my earlier post...

i was very surprised by that, and if a royalty friendly tv show only sees those parts, imagine people who are only interested in royalty for reasons like
- Diana's son is on tv
- we always thought The Crown was real, and now we know for sure

it's a shallow shallow world out there, but i think if H&M don't overbid their hand, they can make a good living out of this


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises