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

[TLSnell1981]

Diana annoyed a lot of influential people when she got involved with her anti-landmines campaign.

If she had still been HRH, there would have been official explanation of "what the Princess really meant".

In other words, between her divorce in 1996 and the fateful day in August 1997, she was a loose cannon, having declined official security at a time when vested interests worldwide were intensely annoyed with her. This is not to say that there is any firm evidence of her death not having been an accident, but in the circumstances she as an ex-HRH had been both constructively cut adrift (having, in brutal state terms, 'served her purpose' in any case) and she reciprocally declined official security but accepted it from the Ritz.

I strongly suspect that Diana did not truly understand the situation she was in. I strongly suspect also that others did.

I hate seeing Harry follow in her footsteps...putting himself and his family in danger. Hopefully his family helped with their security detail. I doubt H&M have a clue.

 

[person]

I hate seeing Harry follow in her footsteps...putting himself and his family in danger. Hopefully his family helped with their security detail. I doubt H&M have a clue.

I also strongly suspsect that H&M don't truly understand the situation they are in.

 

[person]

Again not automatic. It is a title gifted, at the discretion of the Monarch, to the eldest daughter. If you upset the Monarch, you may not get a title.

By extension, if someone with an already royally conferred title annoys the monarch (=the state) too much, the limits to official patience with the title continuing to be held may be proportionate to the level of annoyance suffered.

 

[Cheburashka]

Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive. Where is the logical consistency in that? HRH could not marry if his former wife was still alive but with her deceased he can go ahead and marry a divorced woman while her former husband still lives?

Because the monarch is the head of the Church of England. The monarch's spouse is not.

 

[person]

Because the monarch is the head of the Church of England. The monarch's spouse is not.

Hence Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Lang's view in 1936 that Mrs. Simpson was altogether too racy for the Church of England.

(Not that he would have known about the security reports that the Government was also receiving.)

 

[Karin1984]

Did anyone else have an issue with the way they described their plans last January as "working towards financial independence"? Hello? "Working towards"? With a combined net worth of over $20 million (conservative estimate) before they even left?

I do not agree with you on this. Even if they had chosen a true private life, like they said, then still they would have needed security. Harry and Archie will always be part of the royal family by blood and there are enough crazy people who would hurt them to get to the royal family.
And with a security being $5 million a year (I believe that was the last I saw), they need a steady stream of millions coming in. Even if they had chosen a nice house with a white picket fence, in a quiet neighbourhood in Winsconsin.

 

[person]

I do not agree with you on this. Even if they had chosen a true private life, like they said, then still they would have needed security. Harry and Archie will always be part of the royal family by blood and there are enough crazy people who would hurt them to get to the royal family.
And with a security being $5 million a year (I believe that was the last I saw), they need a steady stream of millions coming in. Even if they had chosen a nice house with a white picket fence, in a quiet neighbourhood in Winsconsin.

In a sense, being in the Royal Family is somewhat like Hotel California: "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave".

I don't think H&M understood this. And I don't think M understood what it meant to marry into the RF.

 

[mamamia2005]

@person it made me laugh when your reply a few posts back said about Milton Keynes! I used to live in Milton Keynes lol

Back on topic, I do think Meghan knew exactly what she was getting into when she joined the royal family. She knew charity work was a given, that she would be expected to attend state dinners with folks she may not find desirable, that she would have to meet and greet with the great unwashed of Great Britain and beyond, all in the name of the Royal family, and that the Queen would be her boss etc. Maybe she is so far up her own a**e that she thought she could change things, do things her way, bend the rules slightly? I certainly wouldn't put it past her based on the past few months.

 

[person]

Legally Camilla is the princess of Wales, but is styled as Duchess of Cornwall.

PS: Just as legally the wife of the Duke of Windsor was the Duchess of Windsor...except that for this to come about the Duke had (ostensibly) had to renounce the Throne.

 

[person]

@person it made me laugh when your reply a few posts back said about Milton Keynes! I used to live in Milton Keynes lol

Back on topic, I do think Meghan knew exactly what she was getting into when she joined the royal family. She knew charity work was a given, that she would be expected to attend state dinners with folks she may not find desirable, that she would have to meet and greet with the great unwashed of Great Britain and beyond, all in the name of the Royal family, and that the Queen would be her boss etc. Maybe she is so far up her own a**e that she thought she could change things, do things her way, bend the rules slightly? I certainly wouldn't put it past her based on the past few months.

If, as you suggest, M may have had such a strategy in mind all along, at the beginning Diana certainly did not, although by 1995 she certainly had.....

Diana's strategy - whatever exactly it was - was more or less reactive to the strategy imposed on her, which she did not (at first) seem to foresee...

 

[mamamia2005]

Yes and of course, Meghan had so much more life experience than Diana, being 15 years or so older. Diana was only just into adulthood when she and Charles started dating / courting.

 

[person]

She knew charity work was a given, that she would be expected to attend state dinners with folks she may not find desirable...

....and the possibility that the feeling might be mutual...

 

[cabanafrau]

PS: Just as legally the wife of the Duke of Windsor was the Duchess of Windsor...except that for this to come about the Duke had (ostensibly) had to renounce the Throne.

Are you somehow suggesting that Edward did not renounce the throne in actuality? I believe there's possibly a bit of evidence to suggest that he did in fact renounce the throne. In doing so he assumed the title of Duke of Windsor.

Wallis would not become the Duchess until months later when her divorce was finalized and she and Edward could marry.

 

[person]

Karin1984: In the end the super-rich seem to write their own rules. If they are royal, the restraint of duty can seem to mitigate this apparent fact; if the purposefully ex-royal give this impression, then it's likely a different impression.

 

[person]

Are you somehow suggesting that Edward did not renounce the throne in actuality? I believe there's possibly a bit of evidence to suggest that he did in fact renounce the throne. In doing so he assumed the title of Duke of Windsor.

Wallis would not become the Duchess until months later when her divorce was finalized and she and Edward could marry.

Oh, Edward did indeed renounce the Throne; 'ostensibly': it was in order to marry Mrs. Simpson in due course.

The Establishment had already been wanting to get rid of Edward. Although Baldwin was disgusted with what he understood was Edward's overruling of Government intentions in countering the Rhineland crisis at the beginning of Edward VIII's reign, in 1927 Tommy Lascelles told Baldwin that the best thing for Edward to do would be to break his neck; and in response Baldwin already agreed with the courtier's view.

As John Julius Norwich indicated, Mrs. Simpson came along at exactly the right time to give the Establishment cover to perform their unfinished business.

 

[NotUrsula]

Oh, Edward did indeed renounce the Throne; 'ostensibly': it was in order to marry Mrs. Simpson in due course.

The Establishment had already been wanting to get rid of Edward. Although Baldwin was disgusted with what he understood was Edward's overruling of Government intentions in countering the Rhineland crisis at the beginning of Edward VIII's reign, in 1927 Tommy Lascelles told Baldwin that the best thing for Edward to do would be to break his neck; and in response Baldwin already agreed with the courtier's view.

As John Julius Norwich indicated, Mrs. Simpson came along at exactly the right time to give the Establishment cover to perform their unfinished business.

Edward VIII was so incredibly self-centered and oblivious to how badly he was overstepping that I'm not sure that he even realized that he'd been played until after the war began, when Whitehall told him in no uncertain terms why he & Wallis were going to spend the duration in the Bahamas. I do not believe for a minute that he ever actually believed that allying himself with the Nazis was a viable option, but he did not seem to understand that merely being willing to speak to them at all was enough to tar him with that brush.

Whenever this topic comes up, I tend to remind people that to the Queen, this isn't history: it's memory. As a girl of 12 who understood that her parents were unable to have any more children, she saw the comings and goings of the adults in her family while all this was hashed out, and knew herself to be the object of much discussion, because her personal future was at stake in the outcome. More than any other monarch since the accession of the Hanovers, she was a firsthand witness to what happens to a British Sovereign who fails to understand and accept the limits placed upon the Crown.

 

[BadPinkTink]

 

[Skywalker]

Yes and of course, Meghan had so much more life experience than Diana, being 15 years or so older. Diana was only just into adulthood when she and Charles started dating / courting.

Yes, there is no comparison between Diana and Meghan Markle. Diana was very young and innocent, whereas Meghan was quite a bit older, previously married, an actress by profession, someone who reportedly served marijuana at her wedding reception for goodness sake LOL. I'd say she'd been around the block a few times vs. Diana.

In fact, if anyone in the relationship could be compared to Diana, it's Harry. He seems a bit on the simple side, very sensitive and trusting. And throwing himself naively in with someone he loves and wants to marry, not realizing the other party is really only using the marriage as a means to an end.

(And for those on this thread who like to try and insult other posters, please understand that just because I think these things, it doesn't mean I hate them or wish any harm to them, in fact, I'd be happy to be wrong because I have always been a huge Prince Harry fan)

 

[ronandannette]

View attachment 559041

Question: was that some special show they put on for Diana’s funeral? I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that mourners walking in procession behind the funeral coach is quite customary in the UK.

 

[BadPinkTink]

Question: was that some special show they put on for Diana’s funeral? I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that mourners walking in procession behind the funeral coach is quite customary in the UK.

Mourners walking behind a coffin is usual in UK and Ireland. However children , even of the deceased don't usually take part. At the time, it was a huge talking point, as most people felt that it was wrong for William and Harry to take part. It was seen that it was the Royal Family putting duty and a media image over the grief of two young boys who had just lost their mother. Having children at a funeral is a big talking point and most families dont bring children to funerals in The UK.