Royalty Thread #9. Welcome Archie, the red headed heir, don’t care!

[mag]

Oh come on - the poor thing is barely 2 months old and as we can see has a little light reddish fluff on his noggin - how on earth can you determine early pattern baldness from that.

I was basing that on the photo of Meghan’s brother. It is an inherited trait. Obviously you can’t look at Archie now and see it!! Then it occurred to me that Meghan’s brother has a different mom.

 

[Husky]

Meghan's father is moaning that he got no invitation: DailyMail

This is all very weird. It looks to me, as if Meghan's family started the feud, when the media waved some dollar bills at her father and her siblings. Before that, this family had no problem with Meghan. Not even her sister. And that the British media just didn't want her to marry into the royal family, so they were searching for some dirt to throw at her. Without that they would be a normal family that is just not very close to each other, maybe a bit estranged which is not unusual after a divorce and with the kids being adult. But maybe I am wrong?

 

[becca]

I can see why the public would be a bit annoyed. I don’t think the Zara comparisons work. Zara isn’t a working royal doesn’t take royal funds.

So I do feel they cannot have both ways. Not sure what the point was about not announcing godparents? Although the christening of the Cambridge kids should be more public. I think the names of the godparents and the photos would have been enough. Not sure why the videos showing the entrance matter?

I think the words private all the time may be more of the anger. When your taking public funds. In reality I think the Cambridge’s are doing a really good job of being very selective of their kids photos. And the few photos seem to be enough.

In reality Archie’s childhood isn’t going to be completely normal. But I really think the media is going to be way more interested in his cousins than him and he can easily have a Peter Phillips and Zara existence. Or like Edwards kids.

 

[mag]

I don’t think receiving public money should be seen in anyway as pay for access to children. I also don’t think that all the criticism is based on Meghan being American and a woman of colour (there certainly are people out there who are simply racist, but not everyone.) The problem here was not substance, it was process. I think you are right, @becca, IMHO many of the people complaining are simply tired of wealthy, privileged people whining. That may be unfair, but I can understand how it could be annoying.


ETA: in other news, apparently Harry and Meghan may be adding another dog to the family.

Royal gift: Meghan Markle desperate to give Archie present

MEGHAN MARKLE is planning to buy her son Archie Harrison Mountbatten Windsor a special present following his private christening at the weekend.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Winnipeg]

They will likely have to endure scrutiny given the backgrounds.

 

[taf2002]

I don’t think receiving public money should be seen in anyway as pay for access to children.​

This x 1000!​

 

[IceSlider]

I can see why the public would be a bit annoyed. I don’t think the Zara comparisons work. Zara isn’t a working royal doesn’t take royal funds.

So I do feel they cannot have both ways. Not sure what the point was about not announcing godparents? Although the christening of the Cambridge kids should be more public. I think the names of the godparents and the photos would have been enough. Not sure why the videos showing the entrance matter?

I think the words private all the time may be more of the anger. When your taking public funds. In reality I think the Cambridge’s are doing a really good job of being very selective of their kids photos. And the few photos seem to be enough.

In reality Archie’s childhood isn’t going to be completely normal. But I really think the media is going to be way more interested in his cousins than him and he can easily have a Peter Phillips and Zara existence. Or like Edwards kids.

It's a tricky one... "taking public funds" suggests that the role the Royals play is naught and so they'd better give us something for our money e.g. access to their private lives and that of their newborn children, who don't yet have a say.

There might be a debate to be had about the work they do, their funding, the vfm for the tax payer but I'm pretty sure, though no monarchist myself, that they don't do nothing.

So if we.look at it in terms of other highly paid people, do we and should we, demand to have unfettered access to their private lives and that of their families? Especially their children?

In the age of Sharenting many may answer yes...personally, I think there's too much sharing and when minors are concerned using what is barely 30 year old technologies, the consequences of that are yet to be understood.

I think it's a good example they're setting...my kid doesn't yet have a say, so as parents we're going to err on the safe side...well done them

 

[Vagabond]

I don't believe that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are actually "taking public funds" as such. The Prince of Wales pays them for their "activities" with funds from the Duchy of Cornwall. If someone can show me contrary evidence rather than make up stories as she goes along, please do.

It is quite true that British taxpayers cover the cost of the couple's security, but I find the idea that anyone other than security personnel should have access to the baby when necessary and appropriate by dint of these taxpayer expenses extremely disturbing.

 

[AxelAnnie]

So if we.look at it in terms of other highly paid people, do we and should we, demand to have unfettered access to their private lives and that of their families? Especially their children?

I will agree that no one has a "right" so see the children. However they are Royals, and some are in line for the throne. So showing a few pictures is certainly in line expectations.

The Sussex's are making things so much more difficult on themselves than it needs to be. Their continued "we are going to handle things privately" just rubs people noses in it.
If you want privacy at the Christening, for example....then do it privately! Don't need a notice that you are doing it, and no one can know about it. That is Jr. High.

After the Christening, have the Palace announce that you had it, and add a picture, if you want. Kate can take the dang picture if you want!

As a cautionary tale....I would Never put an infant's face in social media. Take a note from Sandra Bullock.

 

[IceSlider]

"However they are Royals. Some are line line for the throne." Well quite a lot of the family are "in line for the throne"! . I think the argument is the same... "because they're __ then we're entitled to__ ..." and there are many variants that we can use to fill in those blanks.

Personally I don't think it makes a difference, I think they're entitled to set boundaries and I can just imagine the headlines and the narrative if they'd kept it secret...damned if they do, damned if they don't. And isn't that the point? We're encouraged in that expectation by the media, who profit from access and making a story out of it no matter what they do.

Now if we wanted to know about those very powerful media families we find a very different story, privacy becomes closely guarded... besides haven't we got better things to do with the people who really matter to us? Our families our friends?...

 

[IceSlider]

ps bold not intended there! I think its the blanks I used did something to fornat it!!! Lol technology (or user error)

 

[canbelto]

Uh, royal news might take a much darker turn with the Jeffrey Epstein case. If Prince Andrew is involved in any way with any of this ...

 

[becca]

No one is saying that they should give unfettered access! I don’t think the public has unfettered access to the Cambridge children. But I do think given the announcement of the christening being different than other christenings well.

I think Axel Annie is correct they could have stopped quite a lot of anger if they just did it privately and gave pictures. Here it is folks.

And while public funds don’t mean unfettered access they do equal certain obligations and in the public did fund their house renovations as for well Williams was more William and Kate aren’t going around talking about privacy. They accept that the public is going to care about certain events like christenings and so give the public limited but more access.

 

[ballettmaus]

I'm a bit confused by Harry and Meghan. I'm under the impression that William and Kate get quite a lot of privacy especially with regards to their children. It seems that they are in complete control of what gets released to the media/public and when they get to see the children and they do so without making big announcements about privacy. So, why are Harry and Meghan making such a public issue out of wanting privacy when they should be able to see that it works without that?

 

[canbelto]

I'm a bit confused by Harry and Meghan. I'm under the impression that William and Kate get quite a lot of privacy especially with regards to their children. It seems that they are in complete control of what gets released to the media/public and when they get to see the children and they do so without making big announcements about privacy. So, why are Harry and Meghan making such a public issue out of wanting privacy when they should be able to see that it works without that?

There's a lot of blame on Meghan but I think Harry is very much like Diana, and that's what's driving their behavior. Meghan might feed into it, but Diana was big on announcing that she wanted privacy ... and then inviting paparazzi to her events where she'd show up dressed to the nines and get big headlines. People were her "rocks" ... until they weren't, and then she ghosted them. Diana was very savvy that way, knowing the biggest way to get attention is to make announcements about privacy. Harry IMO takes after his mother in that way.

On the good side, Harry also has Diana's charm, empathy, and ability to relate to people. So you often take after your parents in ways both good and bad, and I think Harry is an example of that.

 

[mag]

I'm a bit confused by Harry and Meghan. I'm under the impression that William and Kate get quite a lot of privacy especially with regards to their children. It seems that they are in complete control of what gets released to the media/public and when they get to see the children and they do so without making big announcements about privacy. So, why are Harry and Meghan making such a public issue out of wanting privacy when they should be able to see that it works without that?

The only reasons I can think of are unflattering ones.

That they are making some kind of point that they are in control (well, duh, of course you are) and the media will just have to take what they are given. I find it hard to imagine it could be that because it is so rude and disrespectful.

That what they really want is more attention and they are on the “any press is good press” bandwagon. While that is something that is seen quite a bit in Hollywood, I don’t remember Meghan being that way. Harry hasn’t shown that tendency before either.

Finally, that they are either getting poor advice, or not listening to good advice. If I had to choose, I would go with the latter. Meghan and/ or Harry may feel like they know best what to do. If that is the case, I don’t think they do because it seems to not be working out so well.

ETA
Just thought of another reason. Harry may be determined to do things differently than William, just to be different. That is not uncommon among siblings. Given the praise William and Kate get for their parenting, Harry may be determined not to be compared so he will just be different.

 

[once_upon]

I have no inside information, just my opinion. I think that Meghan is the scape goat for the privacy thing.

I believe it is more likely that Prince Harry is the driving force behind the privacy
He saw what the media circus did to his mother and is wanting to avoid it for his offspring.

As long as they fulfill their duties, I have zero problem with their desire to keep Archie away from the frenzy media circus

 

[mag]

@once_upon I agree. It also makes sense because I think Meghan is better equipped, with more experience, to deal with keeping Archie out of the public eye, but I suspect she is deferring to Harry. Harry is just making a mess of the situation which is unfortunate. (I also think Harry really wants to differentiate himself from William.)

 

[canbelto]

@once_upon I agree. It also makes sense because I think Meghan is better equipped, with more experience, to deal with keeping Archie out of the public eye, but I suspect she is deferring to Harry. Harry is just making a mess of the situation which is unfortunate. (I also think Harry really wants to differentiate himself from William.)

I also think it's very possible that Meghan and Harry despite their love for each other and desire for a happy family don;t have much in their toolbox to actually have the fairy tale life they want, and part of that is dealing with the inevitable media firestorm. This doesn't make them bad people, but both of them come from broken homes and have a history of failed relationships. It might just be a steep learning curve.

 

[becca]

This doesn’t compare to other highly paid jobs Harry didn’t earn his position. And part of the whole royal family is key words royal family. Archie is getting tons more opportunities other children will never have.

I think it’s Harry not Meghan but I think they would do well to follow his brother’s example. I don’t think we have unfettered access to the Cambridge kids. The Cambridge’s clearly control the when and where they give a few photos and then the kids are absolutely kids. William said recently George does not yet know he will be king.

Now I do think the media can be much no those boys shouldn’t have had to walk behind the coffin when their mother died.

 

[RoseRed]

I've been wondering if wanting to be different that Will and Kate was part of it. Everyone keeps saying that they should look at how Will and Kate do it and follow their lead, but if they want to do it differently, having that example won't help at all. There are a few reasons I can imagine for wanting to be different.

First of all, as a lot of people have pointed out, Archie is not in the same position as the Windsor kids, so they could just think that it doesn't make sense to do the same thing as W&K are doing (and not have a good sense of what the best alternatives might be).

Second of all, there is the sibling relationship between Harry and Will that people have pointed out. That would be a very common thing.

Thirdly, even apart from the sibling relationship, I imagine that as first-time parents there can be some insecurity as to your skills as parents (which I think would be normal), which could drive a desire to make decisions yourself and maybe not listen to advice from some others to prove you are capable of doing it yourself (and this one could come from both Harry and Megan). If I was a first time mom, I probably wouldn't really want to hear everyone saying I should just do things exactly like my sister-in-law, even if I liked her a lot.

 

[IceSlider]

"I do think it would have stopped a lot of anger if" I guess I'm just confused as to why anyone would be angry at all... I wish them both and their child all the best

 

[AxelAnnie]

@once_upon I agree. It also makes sense because I think Meghan is better equipped, with more experience, to deal with keeping Archie out of the public eye, but I suspect she is deferring to Harry. Harry is just making a mess of the situation which is unfortunate. (I also think Harry really wants to differentiate himself from William.)

I might agree with the Harry thing except given his relationship with Granny...i say This is not Harry in the lead here.

And if you are driven by wanting to be Not like someone...first their actions control you (if they go right you have to go left). Second their actions define you...who would want that.

Harry William and Kate have always been terribly close. And Harry did his stuff...William did his...and then they ordered in Pizza.

I can't see Harry leading this silliness.

 

[mella]

Apologies in advance for the long post.

I've been think a lot about this and started out somewhat agreeing that they live at public expense to a degree and the publicity is something that goes with that but I've been swayed over the weekend. I agree with the post above that no one paying for anything for anyone should presume access to someone else's child. And why should private individuals be forced into the public eye simply because they are friends of someone else close enough to be asked to be their child's god parents? If those individuals asked to remain private it's right that be respected and if Harry and Meghan wish that then that's fine too.

Why are people hung up on who the god parents are? I feel like for the press the only reason that matters is to be able to pester them in the future or to sulk because that's the "bone" that was thrown to them in the past in terms of details of a private family occasion. For avid royal watchers I think it's the natural curiosity/nosiness that comes with something you're deeply interested in - but I don't think that over-rides someone else's right to privacy. Given the situation with Meghan's father and half siblings I think they/their friends are not unreasonable in being wary.

There seems to be a view in this thread that Harry and Meghan are making unsolicited announcements. First about the birth, now about the christening. Given the level of interest and speculation in this thread, let alone "out there" I think that's unlikely. I think the most likely scenario is that the palace(s) receive questions from the press via whatever formal channel they have in place. At an appropriate time a suitable announcement is made by the relevant palace effectively responding to the question for all parties. That's how they ensure no section of the press gets any unfair exclusives. If those questions were simply ignored and then Harry and Meghan just did their thing after the event that would be valid cause for calling them rude. Calling them rude etc just because it didn't turn out how the press/fans hoped doesn't make much sense to me.

I agree that its likely Harry driving this. He seems very protective of Meghan, not without reason on the basis of how both she and he have been treated/spoken about since their relationship was confirmed, and before as I understand (that's without the added layer of how he perceives the issues around the treatment of his mother). Some of that treatment has had racial undertones. Some of has been blatantly racist. Some of of it has involved credible and direct threats against both of them - threats that go beyond wackjobs on the internet to real extremists making threats that have been investigated. Some of it has been normal speculation and criticism that involves none of the above. Just because most/lots of it has been of the nature of item 4 on that list doesn't remove the first three. If I were a parent in Harry's shoes I think I'd be thinking about how to protect my family especially a child from those conversations and threats. Way more imoortant than making nice with the press or the "fans". Personally I'm perturbed by the amount of information some of my friends put out on SM about their children for the whole world and think a private approach is more sensible for everyone in the world we live in.

I think this is unchartered waters for the palaces as well as Harry and Megan and everyone is figuring it out as they go along. If the palace thought they were doing the wrong thing the issue would get to the right people to get the answer the courtiers thought was right especially since I believe Buckingham Palace is currently dealing with their formal comms.

 

[MsZem]

I realize that there is a lot more global interest in the British Royal Family (even in this thread, the title and the vast majority of posts focus on them), but the Swedish royal family is a good example of combining royal life and family life successfully - I believe it's come up in this thread before. They release pictures of the kids on occasion, but not too often; the kids have some official appearances (especially Princess Estelle) but also plenty of time to be kids. For each child, there was a Te Deum service and the announcement of the name within days, and a public christening a few months later, with official photos and information released; here's the most recent example, and note that the father is an untitled private citizen.

Looking at the British royals, obviously it was a different era, but people forget how much interest there was in Princess Anne back in the day. Her wedding was a big deal. Peter and Zara were born 5th and 6th, respectively, in line for the throne. Instead of announcing how they were going to give their kids a normal life, didn't Anne and Mark Phillips just kind of... do that?

 

[becca]

I've been wondering if wanting to be different that Will and Kate was part of it. Everyone keeps saying that they should look at how Will and Kate do it and follow their lead, but if they want to do it differently, having that example won't help at all. There are a few reasons I can imagine for wanting to be different.

First of all, as a lot of people have pointed out, Archie is not in the same position as the Windsor kids, so they could just think that it doesn't make sense to do the same thing as W&K are doing (and not have a good sense of what the best alternatives might be).

Second of all, there is the sibling relationship between Harry and Will that people have pointed out. That would be a very common thing.

Thirdly, even apart from the sibling relationship, I imagine that as first-time parents there can be some insecurity as to your skills as parents (which I think would be normal), which could drive a desire to make decisions yourself and maybe not listen to advice from some others to prove you are capable of doing it yourself (and this one could come from both Harry and Megan). If I was a first time mom, I probably wouldn't really want to hear everyone saying I should just do things exactly like my sister-in-law, even if I liked her a lot.

I don’t think everyone is saying they should do everything exactly like the Cambridges. No one is perfect. But you should not be different just because and not learn from what are good examples.

I think the Cambridge’s do a good job of making sure their kids time in the public eye is limited. It seems like Prince Edward does as well. I think public interest in Archie is going to naturally die down and they are drawing more attention.

I honestly don’t get why folks care about the godparents but my understanding is Peter and Zara’s godparents were announced so there is a situation of pick your battles.

It’s foolish to do things differently just because and not learn from those who have to navigate these issues.

Apparently it’s just not there is an article with some one at Wimbledon stating that they were taking picture of Serena and someone came up to them and asked them not to take pictures thinking they were of Meghan. The person pointed out no one did so when Kate was at Wimbledon earlier.

 

[Jenny]

@once_upon I agree. It also makes sense because I think Meghan is better equipped, with more experience, to deal with keeping Archie out of the public eye, but I suspect she is deferring to Harry. Harry is just making a mess of the situation which is unfortunate. (I also think Harry really wants to differentiate himself from William.)

Is Meghan better equipped? As Hollywood goes, she's a minor celebrity at best, and not to mention the mess her family members continue to create, so I'm not sure why anyone thinks she's more media savvy than a man who has been in the spotlight - the global spotlight - since before he was born, and who has a ton of direct exposure plus the added experiences of his immediate family to drawn on.

Aside from everything his mother went through and the massive impact on him, his brother and his entire family when she died, he's also had every aspect of his life - schools, military career, girlfriends and maybe girlfriends, public missteps (Vegas anyone?) photographed, reported and dissected.

If he's making a mess of this, it's because I think he's trying to protect his wife and child from everything he's been through and continues to go through, and do it in the context of being one of the most famous people in the world.

Why are people hung up on who the god parents are?

I think it's the same as knowing members of the wedding party. It's a rare insight into their private relationships - their closest friends, mentors, others who matter to them. Sure it's private stuff, but when you choose who you want to give public labels to - bridesmaids, godparents etc - then you are making a statement and people are going to be interested in that.

Even us humble folk are asked on these occasions who will stand up for us and our children, no?

I agree that its likely Harry driving this. He seems very protective of Meghan, not without reason on the basis of how both she and he have been treated/spoken about since their relationship was confirmed, and before as I understand (that's without the added layer of how he perceives the issues around the treatment of his mother). Some of that treatment has had racial undertones. Some of has been blatantly racist. Some of of it has involved credible and direct threats against both of them - threats that go beyond wackjobs on the internet to real extremists making threats that have been investigated. Some of it has been normal speculation and criticism that involves none of the above. Just because most/lots of it has been of the nature of item 4 on that list doesn't remove the first three. If I were a parent in Harry's shoes I think I'd be thinking about how to protect my family especially a child from those conversations and threats. Way more imoortant than making nice with the press or the "fans". Personally I'm perturbed by the amount of information some of my friends put out on SM about their children for the whole world and think a private approach is more sensible for everyone in the world we live in.

Indeed.

 

[taf2002]

Before Meghan met Harry being private was probably the last thing she wanted. Her life wasn't a fishbowl but getting media attention was probably a desired thing. So I sincerely doubt this is all on her. When she went to Wimbledon with Kate last year there were lots of photos & neither of them made a fuss. They just smiled pretty for the cameras.

The negative attention she has gotten & the fact that she's now a mom has changed her attitude towards the press, I'm sure, but she made no attempt to be private when she went to New York for her shower or really any other occasion when she was not with Harry. It's only with him that we're asked to believe that it's she who wants privacy. I think it's all him.

 

[Wyliefan]

Uh, royal news might take a much darker turn with the Jeffrey Epstein case. If Prince Andrew is involved in any way with any of this ...

I feel for his daughters, if it's true. And for his parents. Lord knows they've seen their children pull some stunts, but this is on a WHOLE other level.

 

[canbelto]

I feel for his daughters, if it's true. And for his parents. Lord knows they've seen their children pull some stunts, but this is on a WHOLE other level.

There are already photos circulating with him and some girls at Epstein's parties. While the photos themselves are not explicit ... oy. No bueno on any level.