Royalty thread #15: A New Era

[taf2002]

4 family members wore blue but there were a mix of colors from the others so them being color coordinated wasn't something I noticed when I looked at them.

 

[MacMadame]

4 family members wore blue but there were a mix of colors from the others so them being color coordinated wasn't something I noticed when I looked at them.

Yep. There are a couple of photos with only two people where they had similar colors but plenty more where they weren't matching at all. Some of the matching people seemed to be from the same household though. Or am I imagining that?

 

[ballettmaus]

4 family members wore blue but there were a mix of colors from the others so them being color coordinated wasn't something I noticed when I looked at them.

I meant within the families, as in, Mary, Isabelle and Josephine wore the same kind of blue (I thought it was interesting that Josephine wore pants. I don't know if it has to do with her age or if she simply preferred to wear pants and was allowed to. I hope it's the latter), Victoria and Estelle both wore a similar color as did Ingrid Alexandra and Mette-Marit. But maybe it was just obvious because the kids aren't usually at dinners and receptions.

Christian and four future queens. (I must say, he and Catharina-Amalia make a striking couple in this picture. I thought Catharina-Amalia looked pretty good overall anyway. The color suits her and the hairstyle works very well with the tiara). And Estella always looks like she has the best of times. https://people.com/prince-christian...re-monarchs-europe-gather-group-photo-8359341

 

[taf2002]

It seems that the Wales are raising another Andrew in the way they are favoring Louis & not discipling him. I hope I'm wrong but recent stories that they "don't want to break his spirit" are if true may not end well. Having a favored or golden child is never good for anyone. But we all know how the media twists & makes up things so I may have a wrong impression.

 

[MsZem]

It seems that the Wales are raising another Andrew in the way they are favoring Louis & not discipling him. I hope I'm wrong but recent stories that they "don't want to break his spirit" are if true may not end well. Having a favored or golden child is never good for anyone. But we all know how the media twists & makes up things so I may have a wrong impression.

You need to lay off the Sussex fan sites.

 

[Barbara Manatee]

It seems that the Wales are raising another Andrew in the way they are favoring Louis & not discipling him. I hope I'm wrong but recent stories that they "don't want to break his spirit" are if true may not end well. Having a favored or golden child is never good for anyone. But we all know how the media twists & makes up things so I may have a wrong impression.

Louis may or may not be spoiled, but it's definitely twisted to equate a 5 year old with a sexual abuser.

 

[airgelaal]

It seems that the Wales are raising another Andrew in the way they are favoring Louis & not discipling him. I hope I'm wrong but recent stories that they "don't want to break his spirit" are if true may not end well. Having a favored or golden child is never good for anyone. But we all know how the media twists & makes up things so I may have a wrong impression.

And why not another Harry?

 

[canbelto]

It seems that the Wales are raising another Andrew in the way they are favoring Louis & not discipling him. I hope I'm wrong but recent stories that they "don't want to break his spirit" are if true may not end well. Having a favored or golden child is never good for anyone. But we all know how the media twists & makes up things so I may have a wrong impression.

I don;t know if you need to be told this, but being a spoiled 5 year old =/= being a sexual abuser. Also, what are you basing this on?

 

[ballettmaus]

It seems that the Wales are raising another Andrew in the way they are favoring Louis & not discipling him. I hope I'm wrong but recent stories that they "don't want to break his spirit" are if true may not end well. Having a favored or golden child is never good for anyone. But we all know how the media twists & makes up things so I may have a wrong impression.

I don't know about raising another Andrew; there are plenty of parents out there who think it's cute when their five-year-old does something and then find out the hard way that it's gotten quite tough to impose boundaries a couple of years later but not all of the kids turn out like Andrew.

With that said, who knows what this is truly about/what the context is (as you mentioned as well).

 

[once_upon]

The fact that the Queen favored Andrew, does not mean he was destined to be a sexual predator. He made choices that were of his own doing. Being a favorite/golden child does not by itself scream predator, predator. AFAIK none of us were present during the Queen's and Andrew's interactions as a teen or whenever those tendencies arose.

I dont read gossip stuff about how a family (royal or celebrity or even my neighbor) chooses to raise or discipline a child-unless it is physical abuse or other child abuse concerns. Then I would take the child out of immediate danger. Or if no immediate danger call CPS or police to investigate.

A child who is too strictly disciplined, just rightly disciplined (whatever that is), ot "spoiled" may turn out to be an "Andrew" or be the "Best Citizen the World has ever aeen". Parenting is at best a crap shoot.

 

[taf2002]

Anyone who really thinks that I am equating a sexual abuser to a child is being ridiculous. Way to go off the deep end. As you actually know I was pointing out the unequal favoring. Andrew's problematic behavior isn't just his sexual misdeeds. He seems to have an inflated idea of his own importance which he demonstrated when he made it clear he deserves to live in a huge mansion & have his brother bankroll his lifestyle.

 

[airgelaal]

I can remind you again that Harry was also spoiled more than others. And by the way, I’m also sure that it didn’t do him any good. And no, I don’t think either of them drew any conclusions. They both remained spoiled princes.

 

[canbelto]

Anyone who really thinks that I am equating a sexual abuser to a child is being ridiculous. Way to go off the deep end. As you actually know I was pointing out the unequal favoring. Andrew's problematic behavior isn't just his sexual misdeeds. He seems to have an inflated idea of his own importance which he demonstrated when he made it clear he deserves to live in a huge mansion & have his brother bankroll his lifestyle.

How would you know Louis is necessarily "favored" though? It could be he's just more rambunctious.

 

[Barbara Manatee]

Anyone who really thinks that I am equating a sexual abuser to a child is being ridiculous. Way to go off the deep end. As you actually know I was pointing out the unequal favoring. Andrew's problematic behavior isn't just his sexual misdeeds. He seems to have an inflated idea of his own importance which he demonstrated when he made it clear he deserves to live in a huge mansion & have his brother bankroll his lifestyle.

You're being disingenuous. You can't make a comparison to someone widely known as an abuser and then be surprised that people think you're insinuating something ugly. There's a boatload of entitled people in the royal family but you chose to compare a child to the one documented pervert, and we're the ones who are off the deep end? Come on.

 

[once_upon]

When Andrew is specifically named, the association most recent in people's recollection is the Queen favored him and refused to implement punishment or condemnation of any sort, it is reasonable to think people will make an association.

As I said parenting is a crap shoot at best.

 

[taf2002]

How would you know Louis is necessarily "favored" though? It could be he's just more rambunctious.

Because his own mother said so.

 

[Vagabond]

Because his own mother said so.

Source?

 

[Winnipeg]

His own mother said that??? That seems odd IMO.

 

[MacMadame]

His own mother said that??? That seems odd IMO.

Louis is the heir to the throne and will be King one day (most likely). Of course, he's going to be treated differently. (I doubt his mom said he was the favorite though. But something that shows he is favored because he's the heir.)

 

[skategal]

Louis is the heir to the throne and will be King one day (most likely). Of course, he's going to be treated differently. (I doubt his mom said he was the favorite though. But something that shows he is favored because he's the heir.)

Louis is the baby. George is the heir.

Lots of mothers favour their baby.

Doesn’t mean that they grow up into monsters though.

 

[MacMadame]

Louis is the baby. George is the heir.

 

[ballettmaus]

Lots of mothers favour their baby.

I don't think they necessarily favor the "baby". It's just that because they're the youngest, they are able to get away with things the others couldn't and can't get away with and there can be comments like "you have to understand, s/he's still young". It can come across as favorism and I think it certainly comes across as a favorism to the older siblings. But I'm not sure all parents have to be aware of it and do it consciously.

 

[Kruss]

King Charles opened Parliament for the first time since he ascended the throne. He wore the Imperial State Crown, of course, and Camilla wore her coronation gown and the George IV State Diadem.

 

[taf2002]

For a few days now I've been seeing stories about how Harry is snubbing his father by not coming to his birthday bash & how "gutted" King Charles is. Now I see stories about how Harry was not invited. Impossible to know who's lying. Both stories come from either palace employees or Sussex spokesperson. Blech.

 

[puglover]

If there is a member of the royal family that I find quite fascinating it is Queen Camilla and i wish she was free to write a memoir. At 76 years old, here she is front and centre, very likely not very comfortable but doing it all for the love and support of her husband. The journalists that travel with them say she has a wicked sense of humour and is very fun. And no, I don't like adultery, but maybe young Charles did know what qualities in a companion he needed.

 

[ballettmaus]

For a few days now I've been seeing stories about how Harry is snubbing his father by not coming to his birthday bash & how "gutted" King Charles is. Now I see stories about how Harry was not invited. Impossible to know who's lying. Both stories come from either palace employees or Sussex spokesperson. Blech.

What I find sad is that the situation is sad enough and yet, there are people who are trying to exploit it by feeding stories and/or potentially lies to the press. What do these "anonymous sources" have to gain?

With that said, I think both things could be true - it is possible that Harry hasn't gotten a formal invitation but he could still have been invited and declined to come.

Because I find it all so sad, I kind of hope that the family communicates about these things and it's really not as big of a deal as the press makes it out to be.

 

[taf2002]

What I find sad is that the situation is sad enough and yet, there are people who are trying to exploit it by feeding stories and/or potentially lies to the press. What do these "anonymous sources" have to gain?

With that said, I think both things could be true - it is possible that Harry hasn't gotten a formal invitation but he could still have been invited and declined to come.

Because I find it all so sad, I kind of hope that the family communicates about these things and it's really not as big of a deal as the press makes it out to be.

I too wish the quotes came from the principals involved & not from their "respected sources". And I also wonder what these people are gaining from their trolling.

 

[ballettmaus]

I too wish the quotes came from the principals involved & not from their "respected sources".

This. I don't think the palace especially is doing itself any favors by not addressing it at all. It feels like an policy from a time when one was ashamed of troubles within a family and pretended they don't exist to be silent about basically everything.

I'm not expecting them to air their dirty laundry and it is a private matter. But they all are public figures and I think if they put out a statement along the lines of "in agreement with Harry, he will not be attending the birthday celebration" every now and then, it would all seem less ugly because the yellow press would have less to write about and those "anonymous sources" would have less to be a source about.

 

[airgelaal]

This. I don't think the palace especially is doing itself any favors by not addressing it at all. It feels like an policy from a time when one was ashamed of troubles within a family and pretended they don't exist to be silent about basically everything.

I'm not expecting them to air their dirty laundry and it is a private matter. But they all are public figures and I think if they put out a statement along the lines of "in agreement with Harry, he will not be attending the birthday celebration" every now and then, it would all seem less ugly because the yellow press would have less to write about and those "anonymous sources" would have less to be a source about.

Oh no, on the contrary. Oh no, on the contrary. The world of the tabloids works on the same principles: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you

 

[Kruss]

If there is a member of the royal family that I find quite fascinating it is Queen Camilla and i wish she was free to write a memoir. At 76 years old, here she is front and centre, very likely not very comfortable but doing it all for the love and support of her husband. The journalists that travel with them say she has a wicked sense of humour and is very fun. And no, I don't like adultery, but maybe young Charles did know what qualities in a companion he needed.

I actually changed my view of Camilla (for the better) after watching the documentary described here. I recommend it if you can find it online somewhere.