The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

[marbri]

BTW, the thing about the birthday.............I find that really quite rubbish and very immature (sorry) ..........his birthday will always be special to Archie and his family. What about kids who are born on December 25 or 31..........or any other such day and heaven forbid getting born on February 29th!!!

My daughter was born the day my grandmother died. I chose to spin that into a positive for myself. It also falls on a holiday weekend where everyone goes out to the country so we always held her party later in the month. The second is a Christmas baby which I always assumed sucked but she said she loved it, just made the month of December all the more exciting. And we always held her birthday party a week earlier just to mark it separately.

At first I thought it's a joke but it looks like it's true that Harry lived with Ikea furniture and that he was jelaous of William.

Then again, couldn't he buy himself more expensive and stylish furniture? Ask for some precious paintings from the family heritage? What held him back? Why did he use Meghan's credit card to order at a discounter? He must have had a certain budget every month, right? And even if he had no budget, he had inherited part of his mother's fortune. Something is deeply wrong here.

The cottage they originally lived in was very compact so IKEA furniture would have been the perfect choice.

Interesting that they keep focus on the tiny cottage he couldn't stand up straight in and not the 10 bedroom Frogmore Cottage with the renovated kitchen the Queen let them move into.

 

[airgelaal]

At first I thought it's a joke but it looks like it's true that Harry lived with Ikea furniture and that he was jelaous of William.

Then again, couldn't he buy himself more expensive and stylish furniture? Ask for some precious paintings from the family heritage? What held him back? Why did he use Meghan's credit card to order at a discounter? He must have had a certain budget every month, right? And even if he had no budget, he had inherited part of his mother's fortune. Something is deeply wrong here.

It all started from here

Harry said one of the many bedrooms at Balmoral was split into two rooms — known as the children’s room — for the boys to have.
He said that Wills had the biggest half with a double bed, large sink and mirrored wardrobe.
His brother also had a big window with wonderful views.
By comparison, he says he had a much smaller and less luxurious room.
However, he claims that he did not care.

Yes, of course I believe

 

[MsZem]

One would think that between the two of them, Meghan and Harry would have enough money for proper furniture. But perhaps English carpentry is unusually expensive.

 

[Husky]

There are also families who do everything they can think of to show love, empathy, and understanding to a child but they still grow into troubled, resentful people. I do not know where Harry's demons come from

But it is typical for dysfunctional families that they split their children in the so called "golden child" and the "scapegoat" child. And this makes it difficult for the kids to find a real friend in each other. Right now, I am into psychology to understand the problems in my own family better and I can relate to the difficulties between the brothers. BTW these roles can switch over time. The gold child can become the scapegoat and vice versa.

On a sidenote: I wished I would be paid for spilling the beans over my family! I had so much more to tell than Harry and I LOVE Ikea.

 

[antmanb]

I think where Harry is going to struggle on the sympathy side is that he might well be from as dysfunctional family as the rest of us, but unlike the rest of us he has millions to burn.

The fights, the numerous references to his knob….just reads like such a public school twat whining about playing wank the biscuit all while cashing in.

If anything I have even more sympathy for meghan (sp?).

 

[marbri]

One would think that between the two of them, Meghan and Harry would have enough money for proper furniture. But perhaps English carpentry is unusually expensive.

IKEA furniture is the best solution for small tight spaces.

 

[Lacey]

Harry's mother was the Princess of Wales who died in a car crash, supposedly being chased by the press. I have always thought there was more to the story, but dead is dead.

His father was the very distant Prince of Wales, Charles.

Harry was very young, not even a teenager, when Diana died, & someone had the absolutely un-brilliant idea for him, at age 12 or any age, & his brother, father & uncle to walk behind the casket. She was dead, he was her baby. That must have been the single most bone rattling & unhelpful task for this young man to try to manage his grief publicly. What were they thinking?

We will never know if Harry knew as a child that his father was having a years' long affair with his teenage lover, Camilla, whom he was prevented from marrying because she was not a virgin and who was married to someone else when he resumed a relationship with her. Even the queen relented & permitted Charles & Camilla to marry after all, after Diana died as Elizabeth had not done with her own sister, Margaret. So, she caved, but was she thinking of Harry? Did Harry know that Diana also had an outside of the marriage relationship after she discovered that Charles was doing so? He was a child who did not know good marital relationships.

I do not for one minute blame Harry for anything he did or is doing wrong from then on up to the present. Can any one of us say we know why he did what he did??? NO, for we have never ever lived what he did!!! We are not Royals, our father didn't fly off into a secret relationship instead of learning how to father us, our mother didn't die young violently.

I am glad Harry found Meghan. I am glad he got out. If he or they need to do a television interview or a series or write a book in order to support themselves, then so be it--they are on their own and are owning it.

 

[starrynight]

I’ve read all the excerpts that have been released so far.

Probably the one that attracts my attention most is Harry’s behaviour when Meghan was delivering Archie.

So she goes into the hospital to be induced. Harry needs to calm himself down, so he gets his bodyguard to bring him takeaway Nandos chicken to the hospital room. He then sees a canister of nitrous oxide and starts huffing it while Meghan is sitting on an exercise ball trying to move the baby along. Later when Meghan needs pain relief, the nurses realise Harry has emptied the whole canister. A new one has to be fetched for her. Because he’s a prince he just seems to get away with this.

So we have Harry eating fried chicken and getting high while Meghan is giving birth. And he’s admitting to this like it’s funny? You can tell he’s never really had to deal with any consequences to his behaviour in his life.

For all the talk of the palace not protecting him, they did a pretty good job of crafting a favourable image of him. Especially when it seems he’s actually a dead beat.

 

[Husky]

And my two cents is that Meghan walking in and seeing how different things were for the heir to the throne versus her husband reignited Harry's jealousies and insecurities about his position to the point he started seeing things through her eyes and was "you're right, this shit is insane".

I agree. It explains so much.

Somehow this whole story reminds me of the novel "Never let me go" by Ishiguro. I know it's an extreme comparison but I can't help it. Has someone read it? There is a movie with Keira Knightley but it doesn't come close to the original. The name "spare", Harry's lack of awareness during his childhood, how shallow his pre-determined role is, then one day he wakes up ... I don't compare the events but the feeling of the main characters when they realise what the true purpose of their existence is and how they capitulate and accept their fate. Funny enough the book was written by a Briton (born in Japan) who also wrote "The remains of the day" about a servant in an aristocratic household.

 

[airgelaal]

I am glad Harry found Meghan. I am glad he got out. If he or they need to do a television interview or a series or write a book in order to support themselves, then so be it--they are on their own and are owning it.

Even if it hurts his loved ones? I'm sorry, but I don't understand how you can be happy by making others unhappy.

The quote that shocked me the most

"Then my father called again", Harry wrote. "He told me I was welcome at Balmoral, but… without her [Meghan]."
"He started to explain his reasons, but they didn't make any sense at all, and it was disrespectful as well. I did not tolerate it from him [...] don't even think about talking about my wife like that", Harry is quoted as saying.
"[Charles] said, stammering, that he simply didn't want the place to be full of people. Nobody's wife was going to go, not even Kate, he told me, so Meg shouldn't either".

This is how you should talk to a person whose mother is dying. No empathy, no tact
Of all the grandchildren (and the Queen had 8), there were only William (without a wife) and Harry. But for Harry, everything "didn't make any sense at all" His wife should be accepted everywhere and always.
It's wonderful that he loves his wife so much. But everything has its limits. Harry doesn't seem to see them.

 

[Husky]

He then sees a canister of nitrous oxide and starts huffing it while Meghan is sitting on an exercise ball trying to move the baby along. Later when Meghan needs pain relief, the nurses realise Harry has emptied the whole canister. ...
And he’s admitting to this like it’s funny?

I think it is.

 

[kwanfan1818]

But what did Diana do besides be rich and show up for events?

She was a hands-on mother, for one thing.

Part of the quote was being happy being rich and showing up for events. She wasn't terribly happy being rich and showing up for events, as it turns out, at least for very long, and kids who are close to their parents glom onto how unhappy they are. Prince Harry had seen much more of the world, however distorted the lens might have been as a royal, and he wasn't raised on the gender-based fairytale of marrying the Prince and eventually becoming Queen.

It's not like there's much of a British Empire to drain and to be hugely proud of anymore. The family business doesn't even have to work to become famous or have a place: they are, and they can continue to do the same-old, even if it's social media instead of through newspapers. He might be deluded into thinking that he can do or represent something more important than the family business by showing up for events that are meaningful to him, but at least he has the ambition to do so.

I realize we've moved on from his security concerns, but I can't help think of Jacqueline Kennedy saying that she was going to marry Onassis because he could ensure the safety of her children. It's not like she was short of offers.

 

[starrynight]

This is how you should talk to a person whose mother is dying. No empathy, no tact

Honestly the story about him getting high while his wife was, for the first time, going through the quite scary and traumatic process of giving birth tells me everything. It’s all about him with no consideration of anyone else’s needs.

There would have been a point where the nurses reached for the gas to relieve Meghan’s pain and the canister was empty. She would have been left in pain until more gas could be sourced. Just because Harry seems to be so drug focused and selfish that he couldn’t leave the nitrous oxide alone on this one crucial day for his wife.

 

[airgelaal]

One more thing

Prince Harry has confirmed that he and Meghan did announce the Duchess' first pregnancy at Princess Eugenie's wedding

This couple decided to play the main roles everywhere. Even at other people's weddings

 

[marbri]

I agree. It explains so much.

Somehow this whole story reminds me of the novel "Never let me go" by Ishiguro. I know it's an extreme comparison but I can't help it. Has someone read it? There is a movie with Keira Knightley but it doesn't come close to the original. The name "spare", Harry's lack of awareness during his childhood, how shallow his pre-determined role is, then one day he wakes up ... I don't compare the events but the feeling of the main characters when they realise what the true purpose of their existence is and how they capitulate and accept their fate. Funny enough the book was written by a Briton (born in Japan) who also wrote "The remains of the day" about a servant in an aristocratic household.

Loved it. I don't make the same connection but I can stretch my mind to see why you do.

But on a side note Green/Parsons FD from last year always made me think of that book

 

[Prancer]

She was a hands-on mother, for one thing.

Relatively speaking, perhaps, but her kids had nannies and went to boarding school, no? What does "hands-on" mean in this context?

Part of the quote was being happy being rich and showing up for events. She wasn't terribly happy being rich and showing up for events, as it turns out, at least for very long

Wasn't she? What else did she do, exactly? She didn't live very long after her divorce, but there was a period there where she was free to do as she liked. What did she do that was significantly different that made her happy?

 

[kwanfan1818]

Relatively speaking, perhaps, but her kids had nannies and went to boarding school, no? What does "hands-on" mean in this context?

Wasn't she? What else did she do, exactly? She didn't live very long after her divorce, but there was a period there where she was free to do as she liked. What did she do that was significantly different that made her happy?

Hands on, in that she insisted they be physically close to her, and that made it a point to spend time with them voluntarily, when she could have left it all to the staff, like her mother-in-law.

People who know that their presence means money, prestige, and attention to an organization show up at events. There's a difference between being given a list of things to show up for and showing up because the cause is important to them. In the five years between her divorce and her death, she chose to participate in the HALO campaign, opened and visited various cancer hospitals and research programs in the US, UK, Pakistan -- her close friend was married to Imram Khan -- and Africa and to continue working with several mental health organizations. We're not talking about Paris Hilton who charged tens or hundreds of thousands to show up a party for 20 minutes.

When his mother died Prince Harry was at a transitional age, in theory the time when he should have been starting to figure out who he was as a person and what his relationship to his family was, but after his mother's death, it seemed to be important to much of the UK public that he and his brother were besties in comforting each other, and it also seemed to be a relief that they were able to reconcile with their father at a time of great grief and mourning, etc. Maybe it was important for him, too, but he was wasn't at a great age to work it all out for himself and admit ambivalence.

I know too many people who tell me family stories that they insist shows how their mother/father/sibling/spouse/partner/child loves them so much and has their best interests at heart, and I just shake my head, because, to me, they show the opposite. I suspect that Meghan Markle/Princess of Sussex heard an earful of those.

 

[Prancer]

Hands on, in that she insisted they be physically close to her, and that made it a point to spend time with them voluntarily, when she could have left it all to the staff, like her mother-in-law.

I wouldn't define a hands-on mother that way at all, so thank you for clarifying.

People who know that their presence means money, prestige, and attention to an organization show up at events. There's a difference between being given a list of things to show up for and showing up because the cause is important to them. In the five years between her divorce and her death, she chose to participate in the HALO campaign, opened and visited various cancer hospitals and research programs in the US, UK, Pakistan -- her close friend was married to Imram Khan -- and Africa and to continue working with several mental health organizations. We're not talking about Paris Hilton who charged tens or hundreds of thousands to show up a party for 20 minutes.

But that wasn't my basis of comparison, as members of the BRF don't charge people to show up at parties like Paris Hilton. As a member of the BRF, she showed up at events and brought attention to causes that she considered important (or that the BRF did), just as the rest of the BRF did and still do. And what you are describing is no different from what she was doing as a royal, IMO; maybe she engaged with some different causes (although many of them were the same), but what else is different? When she had the opportunity to do something besides be rich and show up at events to bring attention to causes, which is what she did as a member of the BRF, she didn't do much to change that when she didn't have to do those things any more.

By all accounts, Princess Diana was an unhappy child who grew up to become an unhappy woman, for all kinds of reasons. But given her actions, I don't think you can reasonably say that she was unhappy just being rich and showing up for events.

I know too many people who tell me family stories that they insist shows how their mother/father/sibling/spouse/partner/child loves them so much and has their best interests at heart, and I just shake my head, because, to me, they show the opposite.

Yes, I've had the same experience, and I am sure most people have, but I doubt that we would all agree on what actions show what about a parent-child relationship. I was somewhat interested in Princess Diana for a long time, for example, because we were of age and because I had some empathy for different things she experienced, but her insistence on fighting with her husband in such a public way when they had children really turned me off both of them. I thought it was immensely self-centered and selfish (and still do).

 

[marbri]

Since the transitional age of 12 was brought up. One week after William turned 12 his father's interview was aired. The following year when he was 13 and at boarding school his mother gave hers. That must have been fun.

 

[kwanfan1818]

I wouldn't define a hands-on mother that way at all, so thank you for clarifying.

I think "hands on" is relative. A helicoptor parent or so-called Tiger Mom wouldn't have considered the 1950's stay-at-home mothers in my neighborhood terribly hands on. And boy did the monthers in my neighborhood rag on mothers who worked, because if you worked, you could not possibly be hands on, and we, as kids, were taught to pity the children who at lunch in the lunchroom instead of going home for lunch.

She said she wanted to raise her children differently than the way her husband was raised despite pushback that ceded it to nannies and people from the palace, who had other ideas about control. (And, if those people are still alive, they are probably looking at Prince Harry and thinking how right they were.) For her time and place, and that she made a choice and fought for it, I do consider her hands on.

Both Prince William and Prince Harry attended a boys day school in London until they were 8, and neither their first prep school nor Eton were far away. They weren't sent to Scotland, like their father.

And what you are describing is no different from what she was doing as a royal, IMO; maybe she engaged with some different causes (although many of them were the same), but what else is different?

The choice part: she chose her causes, and she chose to continue to be productiive: she could have simply dressed up and gone to society only parties and accomplished nothing for the rest of the world for the rest of her life. There were plenty of rich men in the world who would have enabled that.

Prince Harry sounds more ambitious, and he wasn't happy being given an agenda and told to smile, shake hands, and never make a fuss, with the bonus that, if he was actually interested in the cause, he could go the extra mile, like his father did regularly, and introduce a few people who would then be able to make something happen. When you're not handed something on a silver platter, like most non-heirs, you have to create yourself if you want anything more than your prescribed role. If you're in a straightjacket of protocol, it makes it difficult, and he left. Whether he's able to achieve what he's said he wants (eventually) is still to be seen.

 

[Karen-W]

She said she wanted to raise her children differently than the way her husband was raised despite pushback that ceded it to nannies and people from the palace, who had other ideas about control. (And, if those people are still alive, they are probably looking at Prince Harry and thinking how right they were.) For her time and place, and that she made a choice and fought for it, I do consider her hands on.

Both Prince William and Prince Harry attended a boys day school in London until they were 8, and neither their first prep school nor Eton were far away. They weren't sent to Scotland, like their father.

You do realize Diana was raised the exact same way as her husband, at least with regard to her education, right?

From Wikipedia's sourced bio on Diana's education and career...

Diana was initially home-schooled under the supervision of her governess, Gertrude Allen.[21] She began her formal education at Silfield Private School in King's Lynn, Norfolk, and moved to Riddlesworth Hall School, an all-girls boarding school near Thetford, when she was nine.[22] She joined her sisters at West Heath Girls' School in Sevenoaks, Kent, in 1973.[23] She did not perform well academically, failing her O-levels twice. Her outstanding community spirit was recognised with an award from West Heath.[24] She left West Heath when she was sixteen.[25] Her brother Charles recalls her as being quite shy up until that time.[26] She showed a talent for music as an accomplished pianist.[24] She also excelled in swimming and diving, and studied ballet and tap dance.[27]

In 1978, Diana worked for three months as a nanny for Philippa and Jeremy Whitaker in Hampshire.[28] After attending Institut Alpin Videmanette (a finishing school in Rougemont, Switzerland) for one term, and leaving after the Easter term of 1978,[29] Diana returned to London, where she shared her mother's flat with two school friends.[30] In London, she took an advanced cooking course, but seldom cooked for her roommates. She took a series of low-paying jobs; she worked as a dance instructor for youth until a skiing accident caused her to miss three months of work.[31] She then found employment as a playgroup pre-school assistant, did some cleaning work for her sister Sarah and several of her friends, and acted as a hostess at parties. She spent time working as a nanny for the Robertsons, an American family living in London,[32] and worked as a nursery teacher's assistant at the Young England School in Pimlico.[33] In July 1979, her mother bought her a flat at Coleherne Court in Earl's Court as an 18th birthday present.[34] She lived there with three flatmates until 25 February 1981.[35]

 

[Andora]

at the notion Harry (and Meghan) want nothing to do with the BRF, the institution or the perks that come with it. Seems to me they just wanted to negotiate a new way of doing things that rubbed others the wrong way. Change is good and all that but 3 years of H&M inside the firm is a nanosecond in a centuries old institution. Sometimes you need to sit back, bide your time and then make your move. This was all happening when the Queen was still alive, you'd have to wait until at least her death to really start pushing things.
[snip]

And my two cents is that Meghan walking in and seeing how different things were for the heir to the throne versus her husband reignited Harry's jealousies and insecurities about his position to the point he started seeing things through her eyes and was "you're right, this shit is insane".

At the end of the day, when you remove the crowns and tiaras, this is really just the story of another family business affected by family jealousies and insecurities and slights and grudges (both real and imagined). Each side might try to influence us by dangling gossip and innuendo to distract us from the real issue, or what I think is the real issue.

What I don't think is that one brother is worse than the other (eta well after this book I have to be honest and say this no longer holds). And I don't get how some people excuse everything Harry does or says based on his mothers death when that also happened to his brother. The only difference I see is that Harry still has a 12 year olds idealic image of his mother whereas at 15 William was probably a bit more aware both his parents were ****ed up.

I can't say I disagree with a ton of this. At the end of the day, H&M want to be celebrities, and wanted to be free to be as famous as they could be, even if it was more than his brother. It'd be wonderful if they'd admit this, but they've also put themselves in this awkward position where they can't just be "celebrities" because of his Royal upbringing.

But they can't keep that level of cache without being IN the Royal family. So we get all sorts of weird attempts at walking a middle road, and Harry basically published his own personal Burn Book. Eventually Harry will settle in as host of Discovery travel/adventure type programs, and Megs will land a talk show of sorts. Extra points to her if she actually goes back to acting.

I don't excuse everything Harry does, apologies if I give that impression. I just have even less respect/appreciation for the Royal Family themselves, and get annoyed they're so lauded for... doing nothing. That said, I don't think William is a bad guy who's part of the machine. He's as much a victim of it as Harry. If he's as difficult as the book and other rumours indicate, it seems as much a reflection of his difficult childhood as his brother's. And the whole being born into a monarchy thing is a head-**** of its own.

But what did Diana do besides be rich and show up for events? What does Harry do besides be rich and show up for events?

And yes, I am aware that Diana brought awareness to different causes--but so does the royal family. That's part of the deal for them, isn't it--showing up at events to bring awareness to causes? Earning their keep by doing public good?

I don't think it's a good thing he's very much like his mother. I was unclear. I meant he's very emotional, different from his family, and struggled within that environment on and off through his life. I can't even fault the Royal Family for that.

Wasn't she? What else did she do, exactly? She didn't live very long after her divorce, but there was a period there where she was free to do as she liked. What did she do that was significantly different that made her happy?

Agreed. Diana falls into that "what did she do" camp, both as a working Royal and afterwards. I do wonder what kind of quasi-or-full-celebrity role she would have settled into had she lived. I wouldn't be surprised if she'd at times cause similar reaction here that her youngest son has.

Yes, there does seem to be a lot of projection going on in the responses people have to the whole soap opera. But that has always been true of celebrities.

Maybe that's part of my problem. I see the RF as glorified celebrities who see themselves so far above the stars that attended Harry & Meghan's wedding. I try to keep in mind many of those born into it have served in the military, but in the end, they're the ultimate nepobabies. So it's been easier to cheer for/project on the two rebels. I have no problem with the Royal Family being taken down a peg or 500. Harry is charitably taking himself down a bit alongside.

 

[kwanfan1818]

You do realize Diana was raised the exact same way as her husband, at least with regard to her education, right?

I didn't realize that any of those schools were in a different country from where her parents lived.

 

[Prancer]

I think "hands on" is relative.

As I said when I asked you how you defined this, perhaps it might be true relatively speaking.

But a mother who has nannies and sends kids in boarding school is still pretty removed from the hands-on aspects of parenting.

I do consider her hands on.

As I said, thank you for clarifying, as I wouldn't define it the way way.

The choice part: she chose her causes, and she chose to continue to be productiive: she could have simply dressed up and gone to parties and accomplished nothing for the rest of the world for the rest of her life. There were plenty of rich men in the world who would have enabled that.

Yes? She also chose causes to support when she was still a working Royal, and she showed up for their events to promote their causes while rich.

Which is exactly what she did after the divorce. The fact that she could have chosen to do even less does not negate the fact that she didn't choose to do anything different--which indicates to me that she was content to be rich and show up at events to support causes. The claim was that she wasn't happy JUST being rich and showing up at events, but I see no reason to think that she was unhappy with those aspects of being a Royal, given her later choices. I ask again, what else did she do?

Prince Harry sounds more ambitious, and he wasn't happy being given an agenda and told to smile, shake hands, and never make a fuss, with the bonus that, if he was actually interested in the cause, he could go the extra mile, like his father did regularly, and introduce a few people who would then be able to make something happen. When you're not handed something on a silver platter, like most non-heirs, you have to create yourself if you want anything more than your prescribed role. If you're in a straightjacket of protocol, it makes it difficult, and he left. Whether he's able to achieve what he's said he wants (eventually) is still to be seen.

Indeed, and what does his track record to date indicate that he is going to do with his platform?

I didn't realize that any of those schools were in a different country from where her parents lived.

Um, Scotland is part of the UK. And didn't Diana's mother hie off to Scotland and Australia when Diana was eight or nine, leaving her and her siblings in the England?

 

[starrynight]

Some of the excerpts seem surreal. Like this one described in the Daily Mail:

After a somewhat purple-prosed confession of how he used to fancy some of the younger matrons at the prep school, he recounts how he used to take great satisfaction out of tormenting another, Pat.

He explains how Pat did not ‘make us horny’ on account of being short and unattractive, ‘not much of a thing, always with a tired face and greasy hair’.

She had a deviated spine and her knees were so stiff she had to descend the stairs backwards.

You might have thought, given Harry’s self-declared sensitivity, that this difficulty would elicit some sympathy from him.

Far from it. Instead, he stands at the bottom of the stairs and does ‘mocking little dances’ and ‘makes faces’ at her discomfort.

In other words, he humiliates the poor woman – although that, he claims, was not his primary motive: he did it to make his classmates laugh.


Setting aside the sexism of dismissing a woman because she fails to make him ‘horny’, for a man who carps on about ‘being kind’ and standing up to bullies, it’s an odd recollection to make.

I get that kids do awful things and learn better as they get older, but what a bizarre thing to recount in your own biography at almost 40. To unprompted pen something like that.

Also a bit humiliating for that poor teacher if she is still alive. Particularly as it was likely she was forced to work through disability and pain in order to put a roof over her head. (Just so a prince with his life laid out on a silver platter can judge her by her appearance).

No wonder Harry clashed with his communications team and aides if this is what he wanted to do with his platform.

 

[Karen-W]

I didn't realize that any of those schools were in a different country from where her parents lived.

And yet his parents and grandmother both owned property less than two hours away and spent considerable time at those homes in said country.

Look, it's clear from Diana's own education and career that she wasn't academically inclined, but she did show an interest in young children and, had she not married Charles, she probably would have continued to work in early childhood education and perhaps even come to own her own nursery school in London. She did have a different perspective than Charles, because of her own personal interest and aptitude for that field, so I won't argue that she insisted on being a far more hands-on parent than her parents or Charles' parents were to their children. But, Charles was also more present too in the boys' lives, in no small part, I'm sure, due to Diana's desire to be a different type of parent than what either of them had known. As it is, ultimately, her boys were sent off to boarding school at approximately the same age she herself was sent off to boarding school, so the difference would have come not when they were that age but when they were younger - which is where her own interest in early childhood certainly made a difference.

 

[kwanfan1818]

Which is exactly what she did after the divorce. The fact that she could have chosen to do even less does not negate the fact that she didn't choose to do anything different--which indicates to me that she was content to be rich and show up at events to support causes. The claim was that she wasn't happy JUST being rich and showing up at events, but I see no reason to think that she was unhappy with those aspects of being a Royal, given her later choices. I ask again, what else did she do?

Um, plenty of people continue to do what they've always done until they find something else. It doesn't mean they're particularly happy doing it, even if they do it well, and they might even feel obligated to continue it until they find a way out. (For her, that could have been marriage to Fayed.) Alternately they can become more deeply involved, something we wouldn't see in the photo ops, because choice can impact commitment and because people have been known to grow. I have no idea whether that happened for her, because she didn't have a lot of time before she died.

Edited to add to avoid double-posting.

And yet his parents and grandmother both owned property less than two hours away and spent considerable time at those homes in said country.

His mother, at least, was the monarch of a country, his father didn't think that nurturing was good to create men, and his grandmother had her interests.

 

[marbri]

I didn't realize that any of those schools were in a different country from where her parents lived.

Has it not been established that Prince Phillip LOVED his time at that school and insisted Charles go there.
And that Charles HATED his time there.
I thought the talk for decades was that Charles was a more sensitive child who was more into art and gardening and the climate.
I can't imagine him putting up any fights if/when Diana was the one who suggested Eton.

 

[becca]

I don’t want to say having a nanny equals not hands on because I know stay at home moms with multiple kids who have them as an extra pair of hands and now working moms who have them rather than day care. I don’t know how day it day Diana was but she did love her boys.

As for the queen I hear she was more hands on with Andrew and Edward when she was settled into her career as Queen.

In some ways this is karma for Charles for the things he said about his parents.

 

[Prancer]

Um, plenty of people continue to do what they've always done until they find something else. It doesn't mean they're particularly happy doing it, even if they do it well, and they might even feel obligated to continue it until they find a way out.

Most people do not have the means to change their their lives without getting the education or training it would require to support that change, nor do they have plenty of leisure time to think about what they would rather be doing with their lives long before, say, a divorce finally frees them to do it.