Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[VandVsmama]

you don’t have an antenna that can catch the station? I don’t have cable either, I catch stations with an antenna On the top of the TV. Disney + is the only streaming service I subscribe to.

Nope. It doesn't really matter, though.

 

[snappy]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have today insisted that their Oprah interview would be the 'last word' on their rift with the Royal Family. The couple, who will have their second child later this year, said they felt they 'needed to have their say' but now want to 'move on'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ead-backlash-against-Prince-Harry-Meghan.html

You mean there won’t be a sequel?

 

[Karin1984]

I had not heard they turned down the earl title. Does holding out for a different title happen often?

Those titles are distributed by the Queen, like Harry & Meghan got their titles of Duke & Duchess when they got married (UK people, please correct me if I am wrong ) .
The lineage is in the hand of the government, removing Harry from the line up is their decision. And I do not entirely remember who has the decision on HRH, but I believe also the Queen.

The titles and the security are, I think, the only things the palace could react on neutrally. I saw one newspaper remark that Eugenie and Beatrice also do not have security. But I am not sure if they had it when they were kids?

 

[mousefan73]

They dubbed it? Oh wow, I thought that for these things they would just subtitle. They did work fast. A 2 hour interview already done. But that's German efficiency, I guess ;-)
I saw the list of requirements for tv networks to be allowed to air the interview, there were no edits allowed. I wonder if they thought about this. As intonation and tone of voice are incredibly important in an interview like this.

Germans are faster at dubbing then giving vaccine shots out. The only thing I have yet to see in German that has not been dubbed was recently one of the most popular interviewers interviewed Barack Obama and he actually said at the beginning of the interview we are making an exception and we’re going to use under titles because we feel that people should be able to actually hear him speak. I was kind of surprised I had thought they might do the same for this

 

[Princessclab]

The therapy thing... I don't believe she was denied help. Even Charles got help for Diana way back in the 80's when such things were far more "taboo." Granted, it didn't seem to help, but if Charles could get help for Diana way back then, then Harry surely could have gotten Me-again help now.

Agree! Even if she told 'the firm' what did she want them to do?
She could have asked her OB physician for help, any credible physician would have helped her. I am pretty sure 'the firm' was not in the room during her appointments. Weak argument.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I had not heard they turned down the earl title. Does holding out for a different title happen often?

It's confusing. They don't care about titles but are upset he's not a prince. Doesn't make sense. IMO

 

[mom2rtk]

It just sounded like in your post that you were suggesting that she didn’t need a driver’s license to drive herself to the hospital. I also think that the license and passport story was more to symbolize the level of control they had over them rather than to focus on the minutia of it. It sounds like the “Firm” had way more over control over them than most of us would expect/be comfortable with.

As far as Harry goes, of course he doesn’t get a pass but neither does the “Firm” or family who allegedly did nothing to help. I don’t think we can just assume that Harry could’ve just called a car and taken her the hospital or a therapist. Based on the interview, it seemed clear that he felt like he needed to work within the system. From Harry’s perspective, when she needed help, he asked the system for help and the system repeatedly denied his request. At that point, if they couldn’t get help within the system, he began figuring out how to exit the system to protect his wife. With that in mind, I think my bigger question becomes why didn’t the system do anything or offer any assistance. Certainly they had the money and connections to get her the very best care. Like I said, do they get a pass? And who are we to question if she was even having those thoughts in the first place, as some here have done?

I understand some folks really don’t like, and that’s fine, but when it comes to an issue like this one in particular, it would be nice if people could put their personal feelings aside and say “everyone deserves to be heard and helped, and they should’ve done more to help her.” Not even for MM but for all those who may find themselves in situations where their families aren’t helping/accepting of their mental health problems.

Nope. Just commenting on the 2 issues independently. I wouldn't expect anyone who's suicidal to drive themselves to the hospital.

 

[cabanafrau]

Dubbing would be easier than subtitling. It's not uncommon for court cases to involve interpreters. Closed captioning for news happens live all the time, which is very similar to subtitling.

 

[EMom]

Supposedly the comment regarding Archie's skin tone came from the wife who was moved out of KP to make room for H&M? This person had no say in Archie's title. And neither does the Queen. It would be up to Charles if and when he becomes king. H&M turned down the title of earl so don't know why they are carrying on about Archie not being a prince.

Because instead of being honest and admitting the rules/laws dictated that none of their children would be a prince/princess (at least until Charles is king) it suits their narrative to imply it was a racist action to deprive Archie of the title. Never mind that he wasn’t getting that title, no matter what. It’s all about being the victim, which is what sells these days.

And I take suicide seriously, having lost friends to it, but I do not believe she was suicidal. I think she was not above using “I’m suicidal “ to manipulate others. I knew a supreme narcissist who used “I’m going o kill myself” to control others, and it worked like a charm, The only thing is, he was NEVER going to kill himself. Not for a minute. But he got people to make all kinds of concessions, and keep quiet about his actions by declaring he was suicidal. Narcissists will do that sort of thing.

 

[cabanafrau]

Because instead of being honest and admitting the rules/laws dictated that none of their children would be a prince/princess (at least until Charles is king) it suits their narrative to imply it was a racist action to deprive Archie of the title. Never mind that he wasn’t getting that title, no matter what. It’s all about being the victim, which is what sells these days.

Is that genuinely how the rules work? If it is, it seems must have changed during the Queen's lifetime. As a child even before her uncle assumed the throne I believe Elizabeth and Margaret both were referred to as princesses. Although I guess that's technically equivalent to William, Harry, Andrew's daughters right now.

 

[EMom]

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure how much of a watcher I am. I have been interested in how historically Queen Elizabeth's reign came to be, and how that's affected her children and grandchildren.

As I understand it, she was born with the rank of Princess because she was basically in the same position Archie was born into. When she was born, Elizabeth's father was the "spare" in the family, just as Harry in this generation was. (Meghan and Harry indicated in the interview last night that were confused and hurt when, contrary to tradition, Archie would not be a prince or have the security that goest with that title, and they were not given an explanation as to why that would be. Coupled with family speculation about the skin color of Harry's future baby, it was reasonable for H&M to wonder if that decision has something to do with Meghan's race, and to feel unsupported.)

You missed the key element of GENERATIONS. Elizabeth was indeed the child of “the spare” but she was the GRANDCHILD of the reigning monarch, Archie is the GREAT-GRANDCHILD of the monarch. Different set of rules.

The reason William and Harry and Beatrice and Eugenia were princes and princesses is because their grandmother was the monarch. The only great-grandchildren who get that title are the children of William, as he is directly in line for the throne.
If William and Harry had six younger siblings, none of their children would be prince or princess either, and skin color has nothing to do with it. Now, once Charles becomes king, Archie is the grandchild of the monarch, and he can be called Prince, if that’s what Charles wants.

There was no racial slight involved in Archie not being a prince. It’s just the rules. Period. But H&M know most Americans won’t realize that, so they cry prejudice and racism.
[/QUOTE]

 

[nkereina]

I wouldn't expect anyone who's suicidal to drive themselves to the hospital.

Why not? She had the wherewithal to ask the "institution" for help. When that was a brick wall, why not take matters into your own hands and call up your driver, or a taxi, or even an ambulance? Or have your husband step in and do something? I'm also not sure she ever clarified what happened after they declined helping her. Did she just work through the depression herself? Did she actually get help on her own but only wants to speak ill of the institution and conveniently leaves that part out?

I don't want to make light of her mental state and I'm glad she's seemingly worked through those issues, but something about the scenario she described doesn't hold water for me.

On a related note, didn't Harry say he never spoke to the family about Meghan's mental state? One would think they would approach that topic to the family as a united front if it was as serious as Meghan described. That was a bit contradictory to what Meghan had said, so either she's making a mountain out of a molehill or Harry is the least supportive husband on the planet.

 

[Judique]

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure how much of a watcher I am. I have been interested in how historically Queen Elizabeth's reign came to be, and how that's affected her children and grandchildren.

As I understand it, she was born with the rank of Princess because she was basically in the same position Archie was born into. When she was born, Elizabeth's father was the "spare" in the family, just as Harry in this generation was. (Meghan and Harry indicated in the interview last night that were confused and hurt when, contrary to tradition, Archie would not be a prince or have the security that goest with that title, and they were not given an explanation as to why that would be. Coupled with family speculation about the skin color of Harry's future baby, it was reasonable for H&M to wonder if that decision has something to do with Meghan's race, and to feel unsupported.)

David, was born to be King, but when he threw the country into a constitutional crisis by abdicating, Elizabeth's father had to take over. He was not at all suited to the role - he was the one who stuttered and did not have a lot of confidence, but he and his whole family stepped up. Despite being in incredible personal danger from an almost certain invasion by Germany in the early part of the war, they did not evacuate, or even send Elizabeth and Margaret to Canada for the young girls' safety. They stayed mostly in bombed out London, and with Winston Churchill, was instrumental in holding the morale of the country together in WWII. As a young woman, Princess Elizabeth apparently hoped to live her preferred life as a country horsewoman until her father died after a long life, and she finally became queen. But that was not to be. Her beloved father died of lung cancer when he was relatively young and she was only 25, something I understand the family always felt was partially the result of the stress he was under during the war.

When very young Elizabeth made a vow to her country that she would remain committed to their service for the whole of her life and she has kept that vow. I have a lot of respect for the the Queen for that. She has never wavered in what she has seen as putting duty first. But I can also see how, for any member of that family, being born primarily to fulfill a role, and not to simply to be loved for the individual you are, would be a really weird, and sometimes lonely position to be in. No matter how loving the people within that structure might want to be, who could live as a product of generations of those expectations and not become a little emotionally dysfunctional?

I don't see anyone as a "bad guy" in the British royal family. I see a group of people who live in a gilded cage, charged with the scary responsibility of making sure they are not the ones to end hundreds of years of a monarchy, doing the best they personally know how to do. Sometimes personal problems can best be understood within the context of a dysfunctional structure, rather than stemming from the screw-ups of the individuals themselves. The fact that Harry and Meghan report feeling hurt and unsupported doesn't surprise me. It's always true that we tend to compare our "insides" with everyone else's "outsides". No matter how glamorous their lives look from the outside, or how spoiled people may believe them to be given their advantages, I believe them when they say that they're doing the best they can with the only lives they've got. I also give their entire family that same benefit of the doubt.

You've summed it up pretty succinctly and you reflect my observations. The only thing I couldn't figure out was 'David' until I googled and found that Edward VIII had a string of names ending with David.

Hopefully the whole family can find peace and happiness.

 

[snappy]

You missed the key element of GENERATIONS. Elizabeth was indeed the child of “the spare” but she was the GRANDCHILD of the reigning monarch, Archie is the GREAT-GRANDCHILD of the monarch. Different set of rules.

The reason William and Harry and Beatrice and Eugenia were princes and princesses is because their grandmother was the monarch. The only great-grandchildren who get that title are the children of William, as he is directly in line for the throne.
If William and Harry had six younger siblings, none of their children would be prince or princess either, and skin color has nothing to do with it. Now, once Charles becomes king, Archie is the grandchild of the monarch, and he can be called Prince, if that’s what Charles wants.

There was no racial slight involved in Archie not being a prince. It’s just the rules. Period. But H&M know most Americans won’t realize that, so they cry prejudice and racism.

[/QUOTE]

I agree. H&M were playing to their audience. M knows how to do this (as does Oprah) and H is learning on the fly.

 

[mamamia2005]

I agree. H&M were playing to their audience. M knows how to do this (as does Oprah) and H is learning on the fly.
[/QUOTE]

Lets also not forget that Harry is Diana's son. Even though he was young when she died he may have picked up a few pointers.

 

[snappy]

I agree. H&M were playing to their audience. M knows how to do this (as does Oprah) and H is learning on the fly.

Lets also not forget that Harry is Diana's son. Even though he was young when she died he may have picked up a few pointers.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, and it also may be in his DNA

 

[TLSnell1981]

No, actually. I did the same thing, and in both cases, definitely a wedding. In our case, we did it for 2 reasons, one legal and one sentimental. We were traveling (domestically) to get married where most of my family live, but could not logistically manage to apply for and get a marriage license in that state due to mandated waiting periods. Also, my DH's grandparents were too old and disabled to travel. So, we got a marriage license in the state where we live, had a private civil ceremony here the following day with only his family present, and a religious ceremony in a different state 3 days later, using the same marriage license both times. The Church accepted the license for validation of the religious ceremony, and was able to only because a civil ceremony had already been performed in the state where the license was issued. In H&M's case, the first ceremony was performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury but may not have been validated by a license; in fact probably was not, or someone would have noticed the license being filed with an earlier date and let the cat out of the bag.

But the archbishop has some explaining to do if he performed marriage rites without witnesses and a second ceremony for show. He performs religious ceremonies not civil. Two different animals.

 

[Donald13]

Meghan can’t win. And when you say she’s an actress, she was in a few shows. She’s not an Oscar caliber level actress. I feel for her. The whole situation she was in was toxic and everyone questions everything she does.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Meghan can’t win. And when you say she’s an actress, she was in a few shows. She’s not an Oscar caliber level actress. I feel for her. The whole situation she was in was toxic and everyone questions everything she does.

I'm sure MM believes everything she says. I'm willing to bet she could even pass a lie detector test. Megs is always the victim. EVERYBODY else is the problem. Notice a pattern?

 

[NotUrsula]

Is that genuinely how the rules work? If it is, it seems must have changed during the Queen's lifetime. As a child even before her uncle assumed the throne I believe Elizabeth and Margaret both were referred to as princesses. Although I guess that's technically equivalent to William, Harry, Andrew's daughters right now.

It changed in 1917, 9 years prior to the present Queen's birth. Here is the text of the declaration of her grandfather George V by Letters Patent:

George the Fifth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith To all to whom these presents shall come Greeting: Whereas Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Her Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of January in the twenty seventh year of Her Reign declare her Royal Pleasure as to the style and title of the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family in the manner in the said Letters Patent particularly mentioned And whereas we deem it expedient that the said Letters Patent should be extended and amended and that the styles and titles to be borne by the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared. Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked it being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms Our Will and Pleasure further is that Our Earl Marshal of England or his deputy for the time being do cause these our Letters Patent or the enrolment thereof to be recorded in Our College of Arms to the end that Our officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof. In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the thirtieth day of November in the eighth year of Our reign.
By Warrant under the King's Sign Manual.
Schuster.(Original letters patent, National Archives, HO 125/15. See also College of Arms, ms. I78/25.)

As Emom pointed out, titles are not names, and they can change over a lifetime as one's elders pass away. Archie cannot now have the style of Prince, but it would become possible once his grandfather takes the throne. However, it is not automatic unless one becomes the son of the Prince of Wales, and that is never likely to happen to Archie (William and all of his children would have to die for that to happen.) Had the relationship remained a normal one for that family, Charles would almost certainly have granted Archie the style of Prince once he was able to do so, but thanks to the events of yesterday, I think that ship has now sailed.