Royalty thread #15: A New Era

Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel like a huge reason Will and Harry don't see eye to eye has to do with their childhood. Often when kids grow up in unhappy homes when they're adults with their own families they want to distance themselves from the unhappy upbringing. Not saying there weren't other factors but it's definitely something i observed.
 
One of the opinions I have heard repeated many times by those positioned to know both William and Harry is that they went through so much together that their bond was deeper than just brothers and they predicted an end to this "rift". I listen a lot to "Palace Confidential". They seem to be very well placed and not just a gossip site nor with their own axe to grind. They claim those in the know are no longer predicting a reconciliation at all.
 
One of the opinions I have heard repeated many times by those positioned to know both William and Harry is that they went through so much together that their bond was deeper than just brothers and they predicted an end to this "rift". I listen a lot to "Palace Confidential". They seem to be very well placed and not just a gossip site nor with their own axe to grind. They claim those in the know are no longer predicting a reconciliation at all.
I have to say I don't see it any other way. William is just never going to trust Harry again. I wouldn't in his shoes. That bridge is burned.

I know, I know. What came first in the game of betrayal .... People have gone back and forth over this for as long as those two left England. But the bottom line is that Harry (and Meghan) have said a lot of things in interviews, Netflix deals and books that I just can't see William ever getting past that and feeling safe enough to have a real relationship again with his brother.
 
Funny that the topic of Charles marriage to Diana comes up just as I have come across a stash of old magazines that I had bought but never looked through. So, now, I’ve had a chance to look through them and one is an August 1967 Chatelaine magazine with an article of Charles (almost 19) and Anne (just turned 17) whom will they marry? The rumoured list for Charles is: Arabella Churchill, Princess Caroline of Monaco, Annabel Rhodes, Angela Nevill, Lady Rose Nevill, Juliana Noel, Princess Nora of Liechtenstein.
Princess Caroline was 10 at the time :). I supposed Prince Charles was meant to have a decade-long Rumspringa before he married her.

But she's Catholic, and I thought that made her unsuitable in itself. Although by the time she was 16, she was a bit of a wild girl, even by sophisticated Rude Euro standards, and that would have made her unsuitable if religion didn't.


Charles and Diana were mismatched and unhappy together. Adultery is a terrible answer but I am not sure either of them had the option to declare "let's call the whole thing off". I agree, there was a lot of hurt, especially for their children.
The story goes that Diana Spencer was the last to know that Prince Charles was still in a relationship with Camilla, but that she finally did know before her marriage. She supposedly ran to her older sister, who had dated Prince Charles at one point, and her sister allegedly told her, "But Diana, the tea towels have already been printed."

When she got his name wrong in the marriage vows, at the time I thought it was the generic nerves of a young women whose wedding billions were watching, but now i wonder if it was one big Freudian slip.
 
Princess Caroline was 10 at the time :). I supposed Prince Charles was meant to have a decade-long Rumspringa before he married her.

But she's Catholic, and I thought that made her unsuitable in itself.
:rofl: at the idea of Amish Charles and the Decade-Long Rumspringa, which would be a good title for a book.

I imagine that the people in question expected that Caroline would convert in order to satisfy the Act of Settlement. In the end, she didn't convert but married a Protestant prince and raised their daughter as a Protestant. ?‍♂️

I don't think that Charles or either of his wives was a villain. They all had their good points and their bad ones, just like most people.
 
I kind of feel like the "villains" (if anyone can be called that, because people are complicated) were Eliz and Philip. Not that they were bad people, but they were distant parents who were overly rigid in their thinking about who was a "suitable bride" and from all accounts did not provide support during the struggling marriage either.

Eliz was a great monarch, but probably not a great mother.
 
Compared to the other European monarchies, the British one seems the most uptight and the one that is the slowest in loosening rules and rethinking antiquated traditions and Charles would have grown up when they were still set in their ways.
Speaking of set in their ways, Princess Anne isn't thrilled with the idea of a slimmed down monarchy


Hmmmm... So, you aren't aware of all of the charity work Charles has done through The Prince's Trust, then? And his longstanding activism about the environment and climate change?
The quackery overrides pretty much all of that. I find some of it to be downright dangerous, in fact.
 
I would have liked to know why she thinks fewer people whose bills are footed by tax-payers are a bad idea.
I think she thinks there won't be enough people to do the work.

But my opinion is that the work is "fungible" in that the work grows to fit the number of people to do it and also, lots of it can be moved around because it's not that specific.
 
I think the ‘problem’ (if there is one) is that most of the current working royals are older now… and sadly won’t be able to go on forever. In the last few years TQ & PP died, and Andrew and Harry both stopped being working royals, leaving a lot of patronages and duties to be reassigned.

The current working royals do a lot of events, but if more retire or have to cut down or stop due to health issues etc, there isn’t anyone else to step up until the Wales children are adults.

Andrew pushed for his daughters to be working royals many years ago, but it was thought to be unnecessary as it wasn’t foreseen that both he and Harry wouldn’t be working.

I can’t see it being cut further, but maybe The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and the Duke & Duchess of Gloucester will retire at some stage, and then either the number of events will have to be cut or maybe some of the King’s nephews and nieces will attend events on his behalf without being full time working royals.

Other than them it’s just Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, Anne, Edward and Sophie left which isn’t that many considering the amount of events and patronages currently covered.
 
I kind of feel like the "villains" (if anyone can be called that, because people are complicated) were Eliz and Philip. Not that they were bad people, but they were distant parents who were overly rigid in their thinking about who was a "suitable bride" and from all accounts did not provide support during the struggling marriage either.

Eliz was a great monarch, but probably not a great mother.
I know many identical stories. Unfortunately, many people are too dependent on the opinions of others. And not everyone is able to withstand this pressure. After all, Elizabeth and Philip were clearly not the only ones who considered Camila an unsuitable bride at that time. Were they ready to overcome it then? I think no. After all, Kate wasn't the most suitable bride either, and they weren't always together either.
In any case, I think the Charles and Diana case taught the royal family a lot.
 
There was talk a few years back about how William and Kate had a different vision for the kind of work they wanted to do ... take on fewer patronages and commitments, but do more in depth, hands on, ongoing work with the ones they did choose. Fewer ribbon cuttings, more substantial change behind the scenes. Which sounds great, probably more rewarding for them, but leaves a lot of charities that have come to depend on fundraising off the name and support of a royal patron out in the cold. Prince Philip was, according to the royal family’s website, associated with over 900 organizations. That model is unsustainable, but where does that leave the 800 organizations the royals no longer support. And the ribbon cuttings and walkabouts seem frivolous or not “real” work, but they are also bringing attention and media coverage to real organizations who are doing good work. Not to mention the work being done to maintain the royal family’s image and popularity. Every time William and Kate go a couple of weeks without appearing in public people are screaming about how they never work. Never mind if they’ve been taking non-stop meetings behind the scenes, it’s the optics. I agree that we don’t want taxpayer money to fund the lavish lifestyle of hangers on who are not contributing anything. On a related but different point this is why George V issued the letters patent a century ago defining who could call themselves HRH. Because all kinds of people with a tenuous link to the royal family and several generations removed from “working” royals were calling themselves HRH because of inherited titles.

Like any institution, if they want to “slim” things then that means they need to decide what they want to stop doing. Not just ask those remaining to do more with less (as anyone who has been through budget cuts and layoffs at work can tell you!). I think that’s Anne’s point. She works harder than any of them, has done so for her entire life, and deliberately made sure her children were set up to not have titles, not have royal duties, and not be supported by taxpayer funds. She’s just saying there already aren’t enough people to do the work that was being done, so if you want to reduce further, you have to reduce the work. Most of the current working royals are retirement age or older. The next generation is only William and Kate. All of QEII’s first cousins were working royals. None of William’s will be. They thought his brother would be, but he chose a different path.
 
All of QEII’s first cousins were working royals. None of William’s will be. They thought his brother would be, but he chose a different path.

Just a minor quibble, but not all of QEII's paternal first cousins were working royals. None of Princess Mary's kids had an HRH since they were the children of an earl, and they never worked for the BRF. Additionally, the Duke of Gloucester was originally going to live a private life and trained as an architect, but he, unexpectedly, took on the life of a working royal when his older brother tragically died in the early '70s (coincidentally, he, Prince William of Gloucester, was the main person that Charles named William in honor of). And then Prince Michael of Kent and his wife have never been working royals. He very much is the Beatrice/Eugenie of that generation.

Also, with regard to the amount of work William & Kate do... I think they were being given the same family time that Edward & Sophie had when Louise and James were younger, to be active, present parents for their children. Obviously, that's going to have to change now that QEII has passed and they're Prince & Princess of Wales, so we'll see how their engagements and activities increase or not.
 
True, I forgot about Princess Mary. But the work was still spread out amongst various members of QEII's generation. And none of Charles's cousins (thinking of Princess Margaret's children, as his cousins on his father's side are not British and do not live in the UK) have been working royals, but he had three siblings who all took it on (Edward and Sophie were not originally going to be working royals, if I recall correctly, but they have come to be among the most reliable and popular).

William and Kate have absolutely been given time while their family is young and I have no quibble with that. I wish every young family could have the same privilege and gift. And if by the time he becomes king he and Kate and their children are the only working royals, then that will be reality of the situation and things will have to change accordingly. But it will also take change on the part of the public and their expectations. Two people can not make the same number of public appearances and support the same number of charities as fifteen did.
 
Last edited:
Queen Elizabeth II became the monarch at the age of 25 with two very young children, had two more sons, and reigned for 70 years. Prince William is 40 and probably prays most fervently "long live the King". She really was a most extraordinary woman.
 
Posting in here so as not to rain on anyone’s parade, but this is very disturbing police behaviour in a democracy.


British police arrested Graham Smith, leader of an anti-monarchist group Republic, in advance of King Charles’ coronation on Saturday, a spokesperson for the group said.

London police chief Mark Rowley had warned on Friday that there would be a “very low tolerance for disruption” on the streets in central London where tens of thousands of people have gathered to watch the royal processions.

Police confirmed “a number of arrests“ on “suspicion of breaching the peace”. In addition, four people have been arrested “on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance” and three people “on suspicion of possessing articles to cause criminal damage”.
“Suspicion of breaching the peace”….. :yikes:
 
I'm not really watching but as a Canadian DH is watching every televised minute - I've seen parts as I'm passing by the TV. I'm about the same age as C&C & I'm not sure I could physically do what they are doing today. And I consider that I'm generally in good health. Those crowns look heavy.

I was surprised to see Andrew wearing a ceremonial robe. It's his Order of the Garter robe but I would have expected Charles to forbid him to wear it. It makes him look like he's part of the activities today.

I didn't see Anne today. Was she on the balcony?
 
I'm not really watching but as a Canadian DH is watching every televised minute - I've seen parts as I'm passing by the TV. I'm about the same age as C&C & I'm not sure I could physically do what they are doing today. And I consider that I'm generally in good health. Those crowns look heavy.

I was surprised to see Andrew wearing a ceremonial robe. It's his Order of the Garter robe but I would have expected Charles to forbid him to wear it. It makes him look like he's part of the activities today.

I didn't see Anne today. Was she on the balcony?
Yes but you couldn’t really see her. She was in the doorway next to her husband but was being blocked by a tall man. Can’t remember who.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information