Royalty Thread#12 Tiaras, Palaces & Gilded Cages

[Lorac]

Kate out shopping with the kids

Kate Middleton shops for children's clothes in Sainsbury's with 'very well behaved' George, Charlotte and Louis

The Duchess of Cambridge was spotted in Sainsbury's, King's Lynn, in March

ca.hellomagazine.com

Hopefully she wasn't doing a panic buy on TP

 

[aftershocks]

Fascinating read:

Meghan and Harry Overplayed Their Hand — The Atlantic

Megxit is the most complicated, self-involved, grandiose, shortsighted, letter of partial, fingers-crossed resignation in history.

apple.news

Before even reading this, I have to say if anyone 'overplayed their hand,' it certainly was not Meghan & Harry. But yep, they are the hot couple some people love to hate on, castigate, and blame. I'm surprised they haven't already been blamed for spreading the Coronavirus, even jokingly. Well, at least it hasn't happened yet!

As Harry said in January during the dinner for Sentebale supporters in London:
"...It brings me great sadness that it has come to this. The decision that I made for my wife and I to step back is not one I made lightly... I know I haven't always gotten it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option. What I want to make clear is, we're not walking away... The media is a powerful force. I hope one day that our collective support for each other can be more powerful, because this is so much bigger than just us..."

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[kittyjake5]

Fascinating read:

Meghan and Harry Overplayed Their Hand — The Atlantic

Megxit is the most complicated, self-involved, grandiose, shortsighted, letter of partial, fingers-crossed resignation in history.

apple.news

I read this article earlier today and just came here to post it but you beat me to it.
I agree with you, fascinating read.

 

[MacMadame]

It was fascinating but 75% of it was about cultural changes in Britain and how Princess Diana kind of started it. I think there were only two paragraphs at the end saying M&H overplayed their hand but didn't really elaborate enough to make a clear well-supported point.

 

[kwanfan1818]

Fascinating read:

Meghan and Harry Overplayed Their Hand — The Atlantic

Megxit is the most complicated, self-involved, grandiose, shortsighted, letter of partial, fingers-crossed resignation in history.

apple.news

If the Queen had the moral upper-hand, she wouldn't be coddling and protecting her criminal son Andrew still.

 

[Judy]

If the Queen had the moral upper-hand, she wouldn't be coddling and protecting her criminal son Andrew still.

At the end of the day she is a mother.

 

[kwanfan1818]

At the end of the day she is a mother.

Which makes her a mother, not a lily-pure moral authority.

 

[canbelto]

This isn't based on anything but conjecture, but my guess is Andrew isn't the first or last royal super-creep. But back in the Queen's day, these things simply weren't discussed. Maids were paid off, illegitimate children sent away, and that was that.

 

[mag]

If the Queen had the moral upper-hand, she wouldn't be coddling and protecting her criminal son Andrew still.

I don’t think the Queen has a moral upper hand and I agree with @MacMadame that the thesis that H&M overplayed their hand was not well enough explored or supported in the article. I think there is an argument for that, but the author either didn’t spend enough time on it or it was a victim of editing. I did find the look back fascinating though. One thing I do find annoying is the idea that Diana’s recollections are considered 100% accurate. They are subject to bias as are Charles, William, and Harry’s. Just because someone thinks something happened in a particular way does make it so. There were also so many points where things could have been different if someone had intervened. I have read a number of sources that say Kate played a huge role in getting Harry to deal with his issues. It is nice to see someone actually step in. I think the BFR tends to err on the side of letting people work things out for themselves.

Anyway, it really is all in the past. Hopefully Harry and Meghan will create happiness for themselves in their new life.

 

[canbelto]

One thing i don’t like about the article is that it’s very Rpyalist in that it gives these superhuman qualities to the power of the monarchy and their ability to maintain how Things Should Be. I don’t subscribe to that view. I think all the BRF are just ppl at the end of the day with their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Judy]

Which makes her a mother, not a lily-pure moral authority.

Honestly .. a mother I can’t judge.

 

[Judy]

One thing i don’t like about the article is that it’s very Rpyalist in that it gives these superhuman qualities to the power of the monarchy and their ability to maintain how Things Should Be. I don’t subscribe to that view. I think all the BRF are just ppl at the end of the day with their strengths and weaknesses.

Exactly.

 

[aftershocks]

Meghan and Harry Overplayed Their Hand

Megxit is the most complicated, self-involved, grandiose, shortsighted, letter of partial, fingers-crossed resignation in history.

www.theatlantic.com

Anyone who wants to look back at the Queen's early life should read the recent biography, Young Elizabeth. Fascinating and enlightening. Neither the Queen nor Margaret received formal educations due to quaint, old-fashioned notions of their parents. Government officials were appalled when they discovered at the age of 13 that Princess Elizabeth had no formal education. They busily set about trying to instruct her in British history and knowledge of how the government worked which she would need to understand as a future Queen of Great Britain. Margaret was not so lucky -- she was not included in any of the lessons taught to her older sister.

As far as the Atlantic writer's viewpoints, she definitely seems like a royalist who is all put out at Meghan & Harry for scuttling her romantic fantasies and her overly aggrandized fairy tale notions of this couple living life happily ever after in the royal bosom post a beautiful royal wedding with all the drama. The uniformed prince, the lovely bride, the stained glass grandeur of St. George's Chapel's high ceilings, and the fabulous horse drawn carriage winding its way through quaint historical Windsor, down the long walk and into the gates of grand Windsor Castle

Equating the hardships of war torn England during WWII with the present day marriage of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry is ridiculous and laughable. Meghan is most certainly correct that stifling and repressing one's emotions can have a deleterious effect on one's life and well being. Just take a look at what happened to Princess Margaret and to Prince William of Gloucester after they were both denied the possibility of marrying their true loves.

There is no equivalence between the 38-year-old Duchess of Sussex being continually slammed and racially abused by the British media during her first pregnancy and the 14-year-old Princess Elizabeth bucking up her courage to provide inspiration to other British youngsters and to adults who faced far more grievous hardships and frightening times during the war than Elizabeth and Margaret had to endure.

The writer (Caitlin Flanagan) furthermore has not experienced what M&H have dealt with in their royal gilded cage, so it's easy for her to be blindly and viciously judgmental. Flanagan has no personal investment, no involvement, no knowledge of behind-the-scenes royal relationships, and nothing riding on whether or not her bitter assessment comes anywhere near containing even a modicum of truth.

Unsurprisingly, Flanagan is also completely wrong about the South Africa documentary. It chiefly covers the Sussexes' visit to a number of countries in southern Africa, during which they met with leaders, young people, community activists and regular people. M&H helped highlight serious issues of gender violence, poverty, oppression, and the ongoing need to eradicate land mines, etc. The filmmaker Tom Bradby used about ten minutes or less of the film to ask M&H individually about the stress they were under in England. They had received death threats in addition to being the object of intense media scrutiny, with Meghan in particular having to endure palace leaks that fueled continual harassment and heinous targeting by the British tabloids, all while carrying her first child. Meanwhile, none of her husband's family members could be bothered to speak out on her behalf against this unforgivable abuse.

Flanagan's over-romanticism about Diana is OTT too. It reveals more about Flanagan than it does about flesh-and-blood Diana. And her assessment of Meghan/Harry's personalities and their relationship is also inaccurate. Suggesting that Meghan should have known the tabloid campaign would continue unrelentingly after her marriage is harsh and baseless. We can see from their engagement interview that M&H were eager and hopeful, and that they felt together they would be able to weather any difficulties. In addition, how could they have known they would receive little support and no public protection by any senior royals against the unfair and unrelenting media onslaught?

There is so much to counter in this opinion piece, it's mind-boggling. How does Flanagan know that Meghan Markle wanted to be a princess? In my view, and from what I know about Meghan, she already had a wonderful, highly successful life prior to meeting Prince Harry. Sure, she's someone who enjoys the good things in life, but Meghan didn't need Prince Harry in order to live a good life or to feel like a princess.

Meghan has admitted to being naive about her expectations of royal life, but Flanagan is off base accusing Meghan of wanting to be a princess. She simply happened to fall in love with a prince, but her head was not turned by his royal status or by his titles. Neither Meghan nor Harry appear to be caught up in those kinds of status perks. That's surely one reason why they weren't interested in their son bearing a title. Meghan is definitely ambitious and she's not shy about asserting herself. But she's ambitious about living her truth, achieving great things, encouraging others, and giving back to those less fortunate. As Meghan has said, "I never wanted to be a lady who lunches. I always wanted to be a woman who works." Certainly it's better to be strong and to know who you are and what you want in life, rather than being a wilting wallflower pushover or a hapless, malleable nonenity.

All this and I still haven't gotten to the part about M&H, in Flanagan's words, 'overplaying their hand.'

 

[Vagabond]

So I wonder when the British media will realize that Vancouver Island is not Vancouver?

Most likely never.

Here's an oldie but goodie about Charles and Harry:

BBC News | UK | Harry's no Eddie the Eagle

news.bbc.co.uk

Harry plumped for a fashionable all-black ski-suit, over a bright red fleece, and wore a black baseball-style hat bought during his skiing holiday last year at Whistler, in the Canadian Rocky Mountains.

I do think that the British media have just about worked out that British Columbia is not that part of Colombia that used to be (still is?) British, but beyond that....

 

[aftershocks]

I have read a number of sources that say Kate played a huge role in getting Harry to deal with his issues

Kate's or KP's sources? Harry is a gentleman and he got along well with Kate, and he spoke up for her against the maligning in the press that she received in the lead-up to her marriage. Harry even had to remind William (caught on camera during the 2012 Jubilee ceremonies) that he'd walked forward off the boat with the umbrella, while leaving his wife Kate behind, looking forlorn. Another very telling 'umbrella-related' photograph with a back story.

I've no doubt that Kate was supportive of her brother-in-law. She probably was having a blast attending royal events and engagements with both brothers as her companions. How sweet is that? Still, she had to know it wasn't going to last forever. But little did anyone know Harry would eventually meet the love of his life: a strong, accomplished, multi-ethnic, divorced American actress. It is what it is.

Meghan has played a far greater role than Kate can ever claim to have played in encouraging Harry to come fully into his own as the strong, caring leader and remarkable, confident young man that he's always been, but he had trouble discovering and owning in the aftermath of his grieving, difficult teens and twenties.

 

[MacMadame]

I think there is an argument for that, but the author either didn’t spend enough time on it or it was a victim of editing.

I suspect the original article was about Princess Di and her sons and then updated to slap the bits about Megixt on top.

But the earlier stuff was very interesting. Also, how the author sees the past as the "good old days" when people were better rather than seeing the new royals as more mentally healthy. I don't really know what I think about that.

 

[aftershocks]

... how the author sees the past as the "good old days" when people were better rather than seeing the new royals as more mentally healthy

Over-sentimentalization of the past does no one any good. It's just looking back with rose-colored glasses. Realistic views and clear-eyed examination of the past is the only way to obtain useful, meaningful understanding that can enhance how we situate the present and chart the future.

 

[mag]

But the earlier stuff was very interesting. Also, how the author sees the past as the "good old days" when people were better rather than seeing the new royals as more mentally healthy. I don't really know what I think about that.

I think the author didn’t capture the grey areas very well. There are pros and cons to the way the Queen has handled her life and to the way H&M are handling this situation. It would be great if there was one correct way, but life just isn’t like that.

I keep coming back to Meghan talking about “thriving not just surviving” (where she is actually quoting someone - I forget who - and it irks me that she didn’t acknowledge that, but anyway.) On the face of it, like so many other inspirational sayings, it sounds good, but reality is not that cut and dried. The Queen I expect feels she has not had that option. Most people in the world do not have that option. Heck, most people in the US don’t have that option. Could the Queen thrived more? Yes, I think she could have because she has the resources to that. Could she have encouraged her children to do a bit more “thriving,” yes I think she could have and that would have helped all their mental health, not to mention their marriages! At the same time, I think H&M gave up too early. Most things that are worthwhile take hard work and perseverance. You often also have to weather quite a few storms. There is a balance in their somewhere. A lot of space between the life the Queen has lead and the one H&M are hoping to lead. It is not an all or nothing proposition.

 

[canbelto]

Over-sentimentalization of the past does no one any good. It's just looking back with rose-colored glasses. Realistic views and clear-eyed examination of the past is the only way to obtain useful, meaningful understanding that can enhance how we situate the present and chart the future.

That's really rich coming from you. you're the one who thinks Meghan is the most perfect goddess to grace the universe and that she and Harry have the greatest, most perfect ever love.

 

[clairecloutier]

Fascinating read:

Meghan and Harry Overplayed Their Hand — The Atlantic

Megxit is the most complicated, self-involved, grandiose, shortsighted, letter of partial, fingers-crossed resignation in history.

apple.news

I see Caitlin Flanagan is the author on this one (for those not familiar, she is a frequent apologist for the traditional societal order and notable for internalized misogyny).

Let me guess: This was all Meghan's fault and she has led a good man astray with unreasonable demands?

 

[Winnipeg]

Someone mentioned that the Queen is demonstrating less than optimum "royal comes first" in relation to Andrew. Maybe she is doing just that by trying to keep him secluded and out of the spotlight - to protect the adverse effects his actions could have on the monarchy? She is protecting the monarchy?

 

[mag]

I see Caitlin Flanagan is the author on this one (for those not familiar, she is a frequent apologist for the traditional societal order and notable for internalized misogyny).

Let me guess: This was all Meghan's fault and she has led a good man astray with unreasonable demands?

Actually no, that is not what it said. There is a lot of history starting back during WWII and the author also points out many great things about Meghan as well as the inconsistencies in Meghan’s interpretation of events. As I said before, not the best written article, but interesting and looking at this whole situation from a slightly different perspective.

 

[MacMadame]

Let me guess: This was all Meghan's fault and she has led a good man astray with unreasonable demands?

It was more in the order of: In my day we all kept a stiff upper lip. Today's youth are soft and selfish.

I go for a middle ground myself. There is something to be said for setting an example. Plus if you are a leader, you really do need to set an example and that might mean making some personal sacrifices. So that would be a Queen or King, a President, a Prime Minister, etc. And, in the case of a monarchy, probably anyone in direct line of succession.

But Harry & Meghan are basically out of it in terms of royal succession. They are more in the celebrity role model category. That is the category were some people are inspirational and worth listening to and others just are not. Keeping a stiff upper lip to the point of great personal sacrifice including one's mental health is just not necessary and probably not even wise.

Can you imagine if everyone in the world only cared about how things looked to others and didn't think about their own mental health at all? And for those of us lucky enough to find a passion and be able to pursue it, the idea that there is something wrong with that just doesn't fly with me.

 

[canbelto]

It's also actually not true that in the Queen's day people kept a stiff upper lip and went about business. Philip's mother suffered from mental illness. She was institutionalized and when released tried a bunch of projects but ultimately lived with her son Philip. Her sad story was told in The Crown.

 

[taf2002]

It's also actually not true that in the Queen's day people kept a stiff upper lip and went about business. Philip's mother suffered from mental illness. She was institutionalized and when released tried a bunch of projects but ultimately lived with her son Philip. Her sad story was told in The Crown.

One example that is an exception to the rule doesn't mean the original premise is incorrect.

 

[canbelto]

One example that is an exception to the rule doesn't mean the original premise is incorrect.

I'm just saying that the old idea that royals all kept a stiff upper lip doesn't hold that much water. They had problems just like the post-Diana royals and probably did not have the resources to deal with those problems.

I know Margaret had a drinking problem.

 

[MacMadame]

I'm just saying that the old idea that royals all kept a stiff upper lip doesn't hold that much water. They had problems just like the post-Diana royals and probably did not have the resources to deal with those problems.

I know Margaret had a drinking problem.

That's not what having a stiff upper lip means. It doesn't mean you don't have problems. It means you don't talk about them in public. In fact, the examples you give are examples of the downside of having a stiff upper lip

 

[aftershocks]

Another documentary. I guess M&H are still considered hot commodities. I haven't taken a look yet, just sharing:

YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I see Caitlin Flanagan is the author on this one (for those not familiar, she is a frequent apologist for the traditional societal order and notable for internalized misogyny).

Thanks for the heads-up. That explains a lot re Flanagan's OTT, off-base characterizations in the Atlantic article.

That's really rich coming from you. you're the one who thinks Meghan is the most perfect goddess to grace the universe and that she and Harry have the greatest, most perfect ever love.

Worry about yourself and your own views @canbelto and stop obsessing over and trying to label what I think about any member of the British royal family.

 

[aftershocks]

I keep coming back to Meghan talking about “thriving not just surviving” (where she is actually quoting someone - I forget who - and it irks me that she didn’t acknowledge that, but anyway.)

Maya Angelou. I formerly noted Angelou's inspiring quote which includes the sentiment, "my mission in life is not only to survive, but to thrive..." I doubt anyone would be referencing that what Meghan said is from a quote by someone else, had I not come across Angelou's words and pointed out the similarity. I think it's possible Meghan has read some of Angelou's writings, but there's no confirmation that Meghan arrived at this personal philosophy about the importance of 'thriving, not just surviving,' as a result of reading or hearing these words of Angelou's. Sure it's possible, but not confirmed. Maybe Meghan's mother, Doria, stressed that philosophy to her, again with or without knowing that Angelou once said something similar.

I don't think if Angelou was alive she would worry about Meghan giving her credit. In fact, I think if Angelou was still alive, she would probably empathize with Meghan and be supportive of her. Neither do I believe Angelou's estate would ever give a second thought to your suggestion that Meghan needed to somehow acknowledge Angelou when mentioning the concept of thriving and surviving. It was a small part of Meghan's response to several serious questions posed by Tom Bradby, in a three-minute or so segment of a South Africa-related documentary.

 

[taf2002]

I agree. I've heard "thriving not just surviving" for years & I've yet to hear anyone attribute it to Angelou. Some phrases enter the vernacular & many people don't even know where they come from. Suggesting Meghan is guilty of pliagerism is really reaching IMO. Haters gonna hate.