I'd agree with that, but was it the titles or the parenting or the kids? Andrew has been the prince of entitlement and grift since forever. Anne became a rider at the Olympic level, and while I don't follow riding, I'm guessing it takes many, many hours to attain that. Zara followed in Anne and her father's footsteps.
Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)
- Thread starter mag
- Start date
- Status
MsZem
I see the sea
- Messages
- 19,250
At least based on their public personas, it seems like the York princesses turned out well despite everything.
But yes, Zara comes from a family of high-level athletes and had that model to follow. I think her cousin Lady Louise is also seriously into equestrian stuff, but probably not at that level.
The more I think about it and read, the more it seems to me that it’s less about the title and more about the family dynamics. Meghan said something about Archie being “like the other grandchildren.” There‘s a disconnect between “I love all my children/grandchildren equally” and “these grandchildren will be treated differently from those grandchildren because of their place in the line of succession.” Meghan has reportedly chafed at always having to walk behind William and Kate, at repeatedly having the things she wanted to do be sidelined for more senior members of the family and now she sees the same thing happening for her children, they will always have to walk behind their cousins, they will always come second. For her, an American who didn’t grow up in this system, a woman who has worked for progressive causes for a long time, someone who has worked her way up through various barriers, I can see where that would be difficult to separate out from the family “I love all my grandchildren” (which I’m sure is very true). Add to that the racial aspect, and now it is the first biracial member of the family who will be treated this way. Probably, no, the royals don’t see it as racism, they see it as protocol and tradition and just the way things are. It would be true for any child of Harry’s, and Harry is not the first “spare” to struggle with his place in the family vs the Firm. But I can understand how that would be hard for Meghan to reconcile with her lived experience as a black woman.
While I am not saying this isn’t hard one could point out that this scenario was very much what Meghan signed up for when she married into a royal family. It’s not like Harry’s position wasn’t clear and her children position versus their cousin want clear. Look how William and Harry are treated versus their cousins.
There is nothing fair about a monarchy to begin with and her husband position still came with a lot of privileges based on it.
Furthermore Meghan has not even been good about letting other people have their moments in the sun see announcing her pregnancy at her husbands cousins wedding. The cousin who always got overshadowed and it was her moment.
She doesn’t come across as a team player.
taf2002
Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
- Messages
- 29,801
I don't think it's contradictory at all. Let's say I'm Jane Doe & I grew up in a toxic family. As an adult I've decided that I'm going to distance myself from my family. I'm still a Doe. Harry has been a prince all his life. Even if his title is taken away, being prince is and always will be part of his identity.
MacMadame
Doing all the things
- Messages
- 65,283
The Middleton sibs are endurance athletes as well. I know they aren't royalty but they are related to royalty and anyway I find endurance athletes more interesting than royals.
(One of the reasons I stay in the other thread is to get updates on the royal family that puts on a family race for charity every year.)
Brenda_Bottems
Banned Member
- Messages
- 796
I find it rather perplexing Harry has relatively thick and full hair,yet brother William has the hairline of an elderly gentleman. It doesn't sit well with me.
-BB
-BB
Lemonade20
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
- Messages
- 2,379
He's actually starting to bald though :-D Must be all the stress from the last couple of decades.
AxelAnnie
Like a small boat on the ocean...
- Messages
- 14,463
I think he got his mother's thick hair.
jeffisjeff
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 16,858
I really hope the BRF isn't paying for the hair's security.
overedge
Mayor of Carrot City
- Messages
- 37,287
There's a story on Twitter that Jason Knauf, who filed one of the bullying complaints against Meghan, has been promoted into a high-level position at William and Kate's charitable foundation. Naturally the 
theorists are running wild with this....
theorists are running wild with this....
Karen-W
YMCA is such a catchy tune!
- Messages
- 51,736
Hasn't he been with their foundation for awhile?There's a story on Twitter that Jason Knauf, who filed one of the bullying complaints against Meghan, has been promoted into a high-level position at William and Kate's charitable foundation. Naturally the
overedge
Mayor of Carrot City
- Messages
- 37,287
MsZem
I see the sea
- Messages
- 19,250
Here is some quality journalism on the men of the BRF and their hair, or lack thereof.
Why no Prince deserves to go bald (and this is what Harry is doing about it)
Why no Prince deserves to go bald and this is what the Duke of Sussex is doing about it
skategal
Bunny mama
- Messages
- 13,795
Since we are talking about it.... 
My husband’s astute observation from the interview was that creative camera work and editing (including soft blurring) were used to avoid showing Harry’s bald spot.
He also thinks Harry is in the process of having hair transplants.
My husband’s astute observation from the interview was that creative camera work and editing (including soft blurring) were used to avoid showing Harry’s bald spot.
He also thinks Harry is in the process of having hair transplants.
skatfan
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 9,553
Makes me very glad to not have those kinds of restrictions on weddings in my tradition!
Catholicism has similar restrictions some of it is actually due to history. It use to be that men and women would marry privately and then someone often would deny the marriage due to no witness.
Thus rules came into place no secret weddings. Witnesses in place. Publicly announced beforehand.
Furthemore these rules are doubly important when involving any time of royal family! Part of what ended up with the young princes in the tower was Richard of York claimed his brother was secretly married before. And so then said boys were legitimate. This lead to violence. The idea is that it’s announced publicly so that if anyone has legitimate objections like someone’s already married it can be brought out.
Charles had a small civil wedding but it was publically announced beforehand. He cannot get married again in C of E.
In both C of E marriage is a sacrament and done once.
If Harry and Meghan wanted a smaller wedding they surely could have had it. But there are good reasons for C of E rules
Lemonade20
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
- Messages
- 2,379
I think Meghan just wanted to shock people and bring the drama to the table. Saying your vows in private doesn't make it official, especially without a witness.
taf2002
Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
- Messages
- 29,801
Well if anyone would know her motive it would be you.
You could call it a private commitment ceremony or something for just them. The public ceremony was show business. Maybe they wanted something that would actually be meaningful even if not legal. Which I'm sure they knew as well as you.
overedge
Mayor of Carrot City
- Messages
- 37,287
The minister in the story linked above has a point, though. Now there are probably going to be lots of people asking parish priests for private "weddings" before the church ceremony because "Meghan and Harry were allowed to do it".
Yes that is a huge part of the annoyance. Add into people who were denied C of E weddings because they were already married.
Meghan didn’t say we privately did a rehearsal of our vows. She said we got married and included the Archbishop in it.
So yeah one rule for Harry and Meghan and another for everyone Elses. not to mention the British tax payers and Charles sunk in millions on that spectacle if they hadn’t wanted a spectacle I am sure people would have obliged.
VALuvsMKwan
Codger level achieved
- Messages
- 9,227
Did you emigrate from the UK?
Karen-W
YMCA is such a catchy tune!
- Messages
- 51,736
What does that matter? People around here seem perfectly fine with commenting on US politics when they aren't US citizens and haven't emigrated here. People have a right to express their opinions, regardless of whether or not it was their tax dollars used to fund the lavish "public spectacle" that was the Sussex wedding.
skatfan
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 9,553
It's actually more a Henry the VIII thing to require public marriage because he wanted to control the peers and who they married.
In the medieval period, couples would go out in a field, handfast and declare they were married, and it was done. No priest needed.
In my tradition, we do not require a public announcement ahead of time, witnesses are required only because of civil requirements. We Protestants are smart not to get entangled into the rules for legal weddings and leave that to the State. I sign-off as the officiant that the marriage happened and witnesses sign, but there's no requirement for a public announcement by our church.
Frankly, I think the Roman Catholic and other traditions mess up families by insisting on separate religious marriage that can only be undone by their hierarchies. I have married a few Roman Catholics who could not get married in the sanctuary because they were divorced. God can judge who did the right thing, I'm all for letting love win. Including same-sex unions.
el henry
#WeAllWeGot #WeAllWeNeed
- Messages
- 1,565
OK folks, stop making up crap about my faith tradition because it suits your anti-Meghan agenda (Wills and Kate have more dignity than Harry and Meghan. Yeah right? But that's my opinion. Here are some facts)
1. Harry and Meghan could very well have been legally married in the garden, despite what Vicar Whoever he is said someone in the ABC's office told him at some unspecified time.
(nota bene: We Episcopalians, and by extension Anglicans, call the Archbishop of Canterbury the ABC. With love.
)
Why? Because the ABC is the head of the Anglican Communion. And in England, he can grant a special license to be married. Anywhere. Anytime. Could you or I get it? Nope. But the ABC isn't performing our wedding ceremony.
And every single story I've seen says the ABC refused to comment. When he comments, that's news. Not the Vicar who wants his name in the paper.
2. Related to this, although it was some screens back, there is no universe in which it is classy or accepted to snigger during an Episcopal/Anglican wedding ceremony. Particularly during a sermon by the highest ranking clergyperson of the Episcopal Church (the Anglican Communion in the US of A) our Presiding Bishop. If the members of the BRF could not keep it together for a fifteen minute sermon, well, that speaks volumes to their "classiness" as well).
Any other questions about Anglicanism or the Episcopal Church, just holler. Otherwise, if I want to discuss MAGA talking points (like how classy the BRF are except for of course that hussy Meghan and poor confused Harry) I'll stick to PI
1. Harry and Meghan could very well have been legally married in the garden, despite what Vicar Whoever he is said someone in the ABC's office told him at some unspecified time.
(nota bene: We Episcopalians, and by extension Anglicans, call the Archbishop of Canterbury the ABC. With love.
)Why? Because the ABC is the head of the Anglican Communion. And in England, he can grant a special license to be married. Anywhere. Anytime. Could you or I get it? Nope. But the ABC isn't performing our wedding ceremony.
And every single story I've seen says the ABC refused to comment. When he comments, that's news. Not the Vicar who wants his name in the paper.
2. Related to this, although it was some screens back, there is no universe in which it is classy or accepted to snigger during an Episcopal/Anglican wedding ceremony. Particularly during a sermon by the highest ranking clergyperson of the Episcopal Church (the Anglican Communion in the US of A) our Presiding Bishop. If the members of the BRF could not keep it together for a fifteen minute sermon, well, that speaks volumes to their "classiness" as well).
Any other questions about Anglicanism or the Episcopal Church, just holler. Otherwise, if I want to discuss MAGA talking points (like how classy the BRF are except for of course that hussy Meghan and poor confused Harry
) I'll stick to PIi know a few people that have done it. The first one because she was italian but had to get married in order to live in the U.S. but she didn’t tell her parents because anything but a big italian wedding would have caused problems. So she had to do the big wedding at home in Canada.
2nd one was because the big wedding one on an island in the Caribbean would be not legal or something.
Whatever, to each their own. It’s not illegal.
VALuvsMKwan
Codger level achieved
- Messages
- 9,227
If I wanted any shit out of you, I'd squeeze your head (thanks Kris Kristofferson). Now piss off.
It's actually more a Henry the VIII thing to require public marriage because he wanted to control the peers and who they married.
In the medieval period, couples would go out in a field, handfast and declare they were married, and it was done. No priest needed.
In my tradition, we do not require a public announcement ahead of time, witnesses are required only because of civil requirements. We Protestants are smart not to get entangled into the rules for legal weddings and leave that to the State. I sign-off as the officiant that the marriage happened and witnesses sign, but there's no requirement for a public announcement by our church.
Frankly, I think the Roman Catholic and other traditions mess up families by insisting on separate religious marriage that can only be undone by their hierarchies. I have married a few Roman Catholics who could not get married in the sanctuary because they were divorced. God can judge who did the right thing, I'm all for letting love win. Including same-sex unions.
Did Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville marry for love?
Through his scandalous marriage to unlikely queen Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV defied the expectation that he should use such a union as a diplomatic tool and instead prioritised love – or perhaps lust. Amy Licence, late medieval and early Tudor historian, explores their 19-year relationship…
www.historyextra.com
Yes in the Middle Ages secret weddings did happen but all kinds of issues arose see Edward IV and his caddying ways.
It use to be that all couples had to do was say vows to each other and they were married Catholic doctrine is couple confers Sacrament on each other.
But due to the fact that you would have men saying vows sleeping with women and the leaving them high and dry....
It’s possible Henry VIII also wanted control but considering his own Uncles were declared illegitimate put in a tower than murdered all due to secret marriages he may have felt rules were needed.
As for Catholic annulments every religion has its rules. And it applies who people who married or want to get married in the Catholic Church.
I don’t think they are talking legalities but church weddings.... I know folks who want to get married in Vatican recommended to have civil wedding home country and some countries civil and religious weddings are seperate
- Status
