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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Welllll, unless you count where you went to prep school as prestigious, not so much. Harry went to Eton, true enough; it's known for imparting a good grounding in the Classics and invaluable social connections. (His A-levels were a B in Art and a D in Geography; he was a much better achiever on the athletic field than in the classroom.)

He then took a gap year, which was primarly spent doing rather basic construction tasks, such as mending fences and repairing roof tiles. He spent about 3 months each working on a cattle ranch in Australia and at an orphanage in Lesotho, and traveled mostly in the 3rd world for the rest of the time. After that he went to Sandhurst, the UK Officers' Training College, which unlike West Point, is not actually a fully-accredited university; it's not set up for everyone to come out with a minimum of a Bachelor's degree. The training course is 44 months long before commissioning as a second Lieutenant. Harry started out in the military as a Tanker, but quickly switched fields. He was a fire controller for about a year, then went back for helicopter flight training, the more advanced part of which he actually did in Southern California. He's a qualified Apache helicopter pilot, and by all accounts, that's where his natural talents lie; his instructors and COs all said he had a real gift for flying.

Unfortunately, he did not seem to have much of a gift for command. The normal time period for promotion from 2d Lieutenant to Captain in the UK Army, as in the US, is 3 years. It took Harry nearly 6 to reach that rank. (Granted, part of the reason for that may have been the reduced deployment time he had because it was thought that his presence might make his unit a target in a Middle-East war zone.) He left the Army with 10 years in, normally the point at which, having served 6 years as a Captain, you either make Major or leave. Harry left; he retired as a Captain.

Most former military pilots do one of two things with their skills; they either fly for an airline, freight service or corporation as a pilot, or they work for an aircraft manufacturer's R&D division. (Helicopter pilots also may work for private security, news, construction or firefighting companies as well.) In the US the R&D jobs go to folks who also have engineering degrees (which most US service academy graduate pilots do.)

So, would Airbus or Bell or Sikorsky hire Harry as a test pilot? On his qualifications, no. On his connections? Quite possibly, if they thought that getting him on the staff might influence a UK military aircraft contract in their direction. (FWIW, the major US R&D facilities for helicopter development happen to be in Texas, mostly near Dallas, so probably not somewhere his wife would be thrilled to live. She might go for Sikorsky, though; their shop is in Connecticut.)

Actually, one of the best things that I think Harry could do for himself and his future right now is to earn himself a US college degree, preferably in some facet of business. American universities have much more liberal admissions processes than in the UK and are more comfortable for adult learners.
The point was, he had the opportunities. He was sent to the best schools, had a ton of support and goodwill. The fact that he wasn't bright and/or hardworking enough to make much of those opportunities is his issue.
 
Last edited:
This is a good point and I’m surprised people are so accepting of it in this day and age.

I also think more thought should be given to points that have been brought up throughout this thread. “You can leave the royal family but you can never really leave the royal family.” That Harry will need to find a way to pay for a multimillion dollar security detail now that he’s on his own every year for the rest of his life. That his mother’s death wouldn’t have happened if she had still been under royal protection. That her death is evidence of what happens when someone tries to leave.

I try to imagine if someone had come to me prior to my children’s births and told me I could choose which careers they would have in adulthood — would I do it? Would I make that choice for someone else? Someone I had not yet even met and whose interests and personalities I didn’t even know? No, of course I wouldn’t. You could argue that I could set my children up to be successful doctors or lawyers, financially stable and highly respected. Yeah, but what if they weren’t happy? What if the job I chose for them made them miserable and they’d be stuck with it for 30 years, unable to pursue what they really wanted to do, not free to make their own decisions regarding what they wanted to do with their lives? (This could make for an interesting spinoff thread: Would you choose your unborn child’s future career? I don’t think many people would be in favor of that idea.) Frankly, I would pass harsh judgment on any parent who would make that choice for their children.

Yet, here we have a situation with the royal family where not just the career is at stake, every facet of a child’s life is being predetermined for them. They are known to the entire world from the first moments of their life. They will have global fame from birth until death whether they wish for it or not. Their schooling, their jobs, their volunteer activities, their personal pursuits, even their romantic partners will be determined, or at least will need to be approved, by the monarchy. They will not have ultimate control over their own lives; that control will lie with someone generations-detached from them. Everything they do will be open to scrutiny from the general public — the same general public that is simultaneously a threat to these people’s lives requiring them to live in a highly protected bubble and making it dangerous for them to leave. The fact that one child will be raised as the chosen golden child while the others fulfill the role of “backup plan” adds another twisted layer to an already dysfunctional situation. Why are we, as a society, still allowing children to be put into these circumstances in the 21st century?

Stories occasionally make the news about these golden calf situations where a child is born with some unique feature or rare disability and suddenly the child has deity status and people are traveling from faraway villages to catch a glimpse of them. I think those of us in “developed” countries tend to look down on these practices as silly or even harmful to the child in question, but how is the royal family anything but a premier example of this kind of thing still taking place in the western world? This child was born special because, well, he just is. Let’s put him up on a pedestal for the rest of his life. :confused:

Strangely, most people are critical of the couple who want to break their children out of this cycle instead of being critical of the couple who are eyes-wide-open choosing to offer up their children’s lives to perpetuate this cycle.

Time will tell. Harry and Meghan may very well choose to put themselves in front of the cameras at every opportunity, they may happily ride the wave of Hollywood fame. Maybe because they have some very expensive security bills to pay ;) or maybe because they just like the attention. Either way, their children will have a better chance of living relatively normal lives now that they’re out of the royal family. George Clooney, Denzel Washington, Hugh Jackman all have uber-celebrity status — do any of you really know much about their kids? Heck, even the younger Kardashian kids probably wouldn’t be recognizable to most and they grew up on a reality show. Hollywood fame doesn’t seem quite as oppressive and all-consuming as royal family fame, it would seem. And, the kids will be able to navigate their own course in life, at least, instead of having it chosen for them.
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Harry & Meghan namens their charity after their son (or maybe the other way around)? Does that put pressure on the boy, and what will this mean for his future sibling?

Thinking about it, it makes me wonder If there will be a second charity with the same name as the second child. 🤔

We already know that the couple doesnt shy away from using their child for marketing purposes. Putting Archie in their first podcast was all their fans and critics could talk about. The boy wishing the world Happy New Year got talked more about than the celebrities featured on the podcast.
 
I also think more thought should be given to points that have been brought up throughout this thread. “You can leave the royal family but you can never really leave the royal family.” That Harry will need to find a way to pay for a multimillion dollar security detail now that he’s on his own every year for the rest of his life. That his mother’s death wouldn’t have happened if she had still been under royal protection. That her death is evidence of what happens when someone tries to leave.

Her death is evidence of what happens when you leave having toyed on and off with the press, knowingly, and wind up engaging in reckless behavior. No, the chase and the high speed weren't her choice, but her choices played a part in putting her on that path. Tragic, but true.

It's possible to be the King, decide not to be the King and not wind up in a deadly cat and mouse game with the press. Harry's cousins, including the ones with Princess attached to their names manage to live, work, date, marry and go about their lives by and large not under an absolute press spotlights and microscope existence. There's some attention, but not tremendous.

Choices Diana made courted risk. It's hideous and awful that she should have lost her life, but oversimplifying what happened as simply paparazzi being solely to blame doesn't tell the whole story. Not telling the whole story creates the possibility history could repeat itself. Harry is repeating those same patterns, courting that same danger. Catering to the narrative they're peddling of being attacked by the press, all the while courting favorable coverage they approve of is reckless. I don't think Diana would hesitate a moment to tell her son how foolish she was and own her part in the tragedy if she could.
 

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Harry & Meghan namens their charity after their son (or maybe the other way around)? Does that put pressure on the boy, and what will this mean for his future sibling?

Thinking about it, it makes me wonder If there will be a second charity with the same name as the second child. 🤔

We already know that the couple doesnt shy away from using their child for marketing purposes. Putting Archie in their first podcast was all their fans and critics could talk about. The boy wishing the world Happy New Year got talked more about than the celebrities featured on the podcast.
I think it’s a great example of why you don’t name things after your kids unless you’re absolutely sure you’re done having kids. :laughing: I don’t see how it would put extra pressure on him unless there was some expectation for him to become the face of the organization at some point. I imagine future siblings won’t have any problem understanding the Archi-whatever-it’s-called foundation was named prior to their existence.
Her death is evidence of what happens when you leave having toyed on and off with the press, knowingly, and wind up engaging in reckless behavior. No, the chase and the high speed weren't her choice, but her choices played a part in putting her on that path. Tragic, but true.

It's possible to be the King, decide not to be the King and not wind up in a deadly cat and mouse game with the press. Harry's cousins, including the ones with Princess attached to their names manage to live, work, date, marry and go about their lives by and large not under an absolute press spotlights and microscope existence. There's some attention, but not tremendous.

Choices Diana made courted risk. It's hideous and awful that she should have lost her life, but oversimplifying what happened as simply paparazzi being solely to blame doesn't tell the whole story. Not telling the whole story creates the possibility history could repeat itself. Harry is repeating those same patterns, courting that same danger. Catering to the narrative they're peddling of being attacked by the press, all the while courting favorable coverage they approve of is reckless. I don't think Diana would hesitate a moment to tell her son how foolish she was and own her part in the tragedy if she could.
Earlier, someone mentioned Diana wouldn’t have died that night had she still been under royal protection because she would’ve never been in the car with a drunk driver, which is probably very true.
 
The point was, he had the opportunities, though. He was sent to the best schools, had a ton of support and goodwill. The fact that he wasn't bright and/or hardworking enough to make much of those opportunities is his issue.
But in the end he married someone who wants to be his mother. They are getting rich off Diana's memory, Harry's Royal birth and dragging his family through the mud. Tacky, tacky, tacky...
 
I don't understand why Meghan being a fan of Diana is so wrong, but it was okay that Kate had a poster of William when she was young?
She tries to mimic her make up, mannerisms and such. It's creepy.
 
Also like others have said he didn't choose this life, but he decided he can choose who he spends his life with. These people may not be good people. His grandfather, father, mother, brother all cheated on their spouses. Maybe he wants to continue his charity work and to continue with that it is best to be in the spotlight still.
 
Also like others have said he didn't choose this life, but he decided he can choose who he spends his life with. These people may not be good people. His grandfather, father, mother, brother all cheated on their spouses. Maybe he wants to continue his charity work and to continue with that it is best to be in the spotlight still.
Harry may not be able choose who he wants to spend the rest of his life with. MM may cut him out when she's done. It's her MO. His wife allegedly cheated on her husband and significant other. Does this make Markle any better than the others?
 
His grandfather, father, mother, brother all cheated on their spouses.
No, actually there is only credible evidence (tons and tons of it) that his mother and father cheated. His grandfather and brother have had rumors whispered about them, but those were not backed up by evidence or even the other party claiming the affair happened.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why Meghan being a fan of Diana is so wrong, but it was okay that Kate had a poster of William when she was young?
It is not wrong. It both displays what was on their minds. Kate's mother definitely wanted her daughter to marry well, which probably didn't help (or it did, depending on how you look at it)
The difference is timing and subject.

Kate had a poster of William. Her future husband was worth it to hang a poster over her bed. Was her aim to become queen, or just to become William's wife? Was it the person, was it the prince, maybe both? That is something to be discussed.
For Meghan it was her future husband's mother. That's a bit Freudian creepy in my books. Especially now that Harry / the couple is taking all kinds of steps that mimic Diana's actions.
And I think the difference is that Meghan's dream was very specific: you can want to become a princess, but becoming princess Diana is a very specific type of princess. I think the drama, living fast, and the larger than life has its appeals. Becoming William's wife is also specific but not as much filled in already. Meghan is mimicking Diana, I don't think Kate is mimicking anyone. She has done what is expected, but in her own way.

And for timing. William & Kate are now together for twenty years, Harry & Meghan five. Meghan still has to prove that she is not in it for the glamour or the adoration, for which Megxit didn't help. If in fifteen years she and Harry are still together and doing their own thing focussing on their charities, not the publicity, by then her fascination with princess Diana becomes less relevant. Like it did with Kate.
 
Earlier, someone mentioned Diana wouldn’t have died that night had she still been under royal protection because she would’ve never been in the car with a drunk driver, which is probably very true.
Diana indeed declined the protection of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Squad.

Rather like a billionaire saying: "I won't need to arrange any bodyguards for when I go to Las Vegas; I'll just figure something when I get there."
 
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Harry & Meghan namens their charity after their son (or maybe the other way around)? Does that put pressure on the boy, and what will this mean for his future sibling?

Thinking about it, it makes me wonder If there will be a second charity with the same name as the second child. 🤔

We already know that the couple doesnt shy away from using their child for marketing purposes. Putting Archie in their first podcast was all their fans and critics could talk about. The boy wishing the world Happy New Year got talked more about than the celebrities featured on the podcast.

I've wondered about the same thing. I've been trying to rack my brains to come up with a name that has "well" in it so that would be both kids covered!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top