Royalty Thread #16: the best of times, the worst of times

[Barbara Manatee]

Why would that have been bad?

It would be bad because it would blur the line between private business and state business and that invites if not actual corruption and conflict of interest, than definitely the appearance of it. If the Sussexes ask a corporation to work with them when they're out, is the company going to feel pressured to agree because the couple could influence the royals/govt to reward or retaliate when they're back in? Are foreign actors going ply the private Sussexes with favors and attention to get access to government officials or business later? Will charities or companies who don't work with the Sussexes be less likely to get royal support?

Just look at all the problems Andrew has caused by using his royal connections for personal profit.

 

[puglover]

It is no secret that Harry is a member of the royal family and at least some of their attention will always be because of that. But if Meghan wants to release a video of her twerking while pregnant or sell jam or endorse products for money, she is a private citizen and I don't personally see any problem with it. I like the idea of "with love Meghan" and drop the duchess and HRH. She is clearly well enough known that to everyone "Meghan" is her. I just don't see nearly as easy and fulfilling a future for her husband.

 

[MacMadame]

As mattiecat said above, the Queen remembered the huge scandal and controversey when Edward VIII abdicated and her father unexpectedly ended up as King with no real training for the role. Given that, there was always zero chance she would abdicate. In some other European countries abdication is routine, but in Britain the events of 1936 remained influential.

That was almost 90 years ago. There would not have been a huge scandal if she had abdicated to her son once he was at least 50 and in fact many were calling for it. It's not remotely the same either because the Edward VIII abdication was not speeding up the natural succession as her abdication would have been but throwing a wrench into it.

 

[Karen-W]

That was almost 90 years ago. There would not have been a huge scandal if she had abdicated to her son once he was at least 50 and in fact many were calling for it. It's not remotely the same either because the Edward VIII abdication was not speeding up the natural succession as her abdication would have been but throwing a wrench into it.

In theory, all of this is true, but in reality, abdication was NEVER going to be an option for QEII. Her uncle's selfishness directly impacted her life in countless ways - not the least of which was her ascension to the throne, but also, perhaps more significantly, her father's relatively young death and the impact it on everyone in the family.

Even in her later years, once Charles was more than old enough, well... think about it - he would have been recently divorced at age 50, his grandmother, the Queen Mother, was still alive, his sons were still in school or just heading off to university. Charles didn't even marry Camilla until he was 56 and he was still blamed by MANY in the UK for Diana's death. It took another good 10-15 years for Charles to reach the point where British subjects didn't want to actively bypass him as monarch in favor of William. And by then, QEII was well into her 80s, so what was the point of abdication, especially since she was still fairly active and mobile.

It wasn't really until the pandemic, when she wss in her 90s, that she began to slow down and no one was going to actively campaign for her to abdicate when she was already 90 & counting - why not set the record for the longest reign, celebrate her platinum jubilee, etc.

There are lots of valid reasons why QEII chose not to abdicate - and I don't expect that we're going to see Charles abdicate either. Given his cancer diagnosis, it's going to be a short reign regardless - probably 10 years at most, maybe much less if some of the reporting I've seen is to be believed.

Now, do I think William may choose to abdicate to George if he serves as monarch for 25-30 years? Sure, I could definitely see William doing that, but there may be good reasons why he doesn't if that's the choice he makes.

 

[MLIS]

The brand has value, and as such those who own it are (usually!) very careful about where and how that brand is applied. Harry and let's be real it was surely Meghan's brainchild made the mistake of assuming that the Sussex brand was theirs to do with whatever they wanted.

I have wondered if part of the reaction from the royals was to them (her) trying to monetize the Sussex title, when Harry is the current Duke of Sussex, but it is not his title alone. It belongs to the crown, there have been Dukes of Sussex before him, there will be others after him (Archie, presumably, and then the title will carry on in that line or will revert to the crown and be bestowed on someone else in due course). It's kind of trite, but I think of it like the Earl of Grantham talks about Downtown Abbey, that he is not the owner of the estate but the caretaker. Harry is not the owner of the Sussex title, he is its current caretaker, if that makes sense. It's a different way of thinking.

There would not have been a huge scandal if she had abdicated to her son once he was at least 50 and in fact many were calling for it. It's not remotely the same either because the Edward VIII abdication was not speeding up the natural succession as her abdication would have been but throwing a wrench into it.

There may not have been a huge scandal, but she would never have considered it. She saw her duty as being to the day she died, for better or for worse, she swore oaths to that effect and reaffirmed them repeatedly throughout her reign, and she always blamed her uncle for her father's early death (brought on by the stress of being forced into being king). She might have considered some kind of regency, if her health failed to the point where she couldn't carry out her duties, but she would never have abdicated. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just it would never have been on the table.

 

[puglover]

The Queen rather fancied a country life of dogs and breeding horses had her uncle not abdicated. Her sense of duty was beyond admirable.

 

[canbelto]

I feel like Meghan is doing exactly what she was always meant to do: she has her social media, her lifestyle brand, and she's dabbling with Netflix shows and being a content creator. She does some charity work too. This is clearly her thing, and she looks happy and content doing it.

This is clearly NOT Harry's thing at all, and that's why other than polo and Invictus Games he appears lost.

 

[MacMadame]

There are lots of valid reasons why QEII chose not to abdicate -

And some invalid ones.