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

MLIS said:
Of course, William and Kate gave George the middle name Louis and then used it as a first name for their next son. 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...

Maybe they really liked the name and wanted to use it while they could, in case they didn't have any more sons?
 
MsZem said:
Princess Sofia of Sweden gave birth to baby #4 last month, and after three boys she and CP have a little girl - Princess Ines Marie Lilian Silvia.
people.com

Princess Sofia of Sweden Shares First Photo of 3 Sons with Baby Princess Ines: 'Perfect Little Quartet'

Princess Sofia and Prince Carl Philip of Sweden shared the first photo of all four of their children together after welcoming their first daughter, Princess Ines.
people.com people.com
Click to expand...
What beautiful children! I rarely think a newborn is pretty but the little princess is gorgeous.
 
No matter what has happened in the past & whether Harry deserves it or not, if Charles doesn't meet with Harry & his grandchildren before he dies then he's cold as ice.
 
taf2002 said:
No matter what has happened in the past & whether Harry deserves it or not, if Charles doesn't meet with Harry & his grandchildren before he dies then he's cold as ice.
Click to expand...
Is anyone stopping the Sussexes from entering the UK? :confused:
 
I thought Harry and Charles have had pleasant interactions since the split.

That it's siblings issue. In the days of zoom and FaceTime there could be lots of interactions - we don't know.
 
I didn't realize that individuals who testify have control over court calendars. You learn something new every day.
 
taf2002 said:
Other than the death threats?
Click to expand...
The Sussexes death threats are public knowledge but I find it difficult to believe that they're the only royals receiving death threats. I'm sure they all get them, not just the BRF but other royal families, too. I also think that other public figures get death threats.

It's possible that Harry's handling them differently than others due to what he went through as a child (in which case it wouldn't be the death threats per se that are keeping him out of the UK). It's also possible there are other reasons that are keeping him from visiting. I think only he and his family know the truth and I don't think any of what we're reading is it. As I believe someone said in connection with the Sussex departure a while ago, there are always three sides to the story: either side and the truth.
 
ballettmaus said:
The Sussexes death threats are public knowledge but I find it difficult to believe that they're the only royals receiving death threats. I'm sure they all get them, not just the BRF but other royal families, too. I also think that other public figures get death threats.

It's possible that Harry's handling them differently than others due to what he went through as a child (in which case it wouldn't be the death threats per se that are keeping him out of the UK). It's also possible there are other reasons that are keeping him from visiting. I think only he and his family know the truth and I don't think any of what we're reading is it. As I believe someone said in connection with the Sussex departure a while ago, there are always three sides to the story: either side and the truth.
Click to expand...
I imagine all or many of the royals receive death threats esp Charles & William. The difference is that they get better protection than the Sussexes can get. British law prevents Harry from hiring security who carry guns even though he's willing to pay. The royals' protection do carry guns. Big difference. Huge!
 
It is my understanding that the only royals with around the clock armed protection are the working royals. Prince Harry and family do qualify for that protection when they visit the UK on official business (eg. his grandmother's funeral) and when they request it with 28 days notice. This is decided by the Home Office and it makes sense to me that this is now a large family with grandchildren working, in university, etc. and to provide that armed protection 24/7 for all of them would be very expensive and perhaps unnecessary. Unlike North America, only especially designated members of the police force even carry guns.
 
puglover said:
It is my understanding that the only royals with around the clock armed protection are the working royals. Prince Harry and family do qualify for that protection when they visit the UK on official business (eg. his grandmother's funeral) and when they request it with 28 days notice. This is decided by the Home Office and it makes sense to me that this is now a large family with grandchildren working, in university, etc. and to provide that armed protection 24/7 for all of them would be very expensive and perhaps unnecessary. Unlike North America, only especially designated members of the police force even carry guns.
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that Harry has been turned down every single time. I may be wrong. I don't think he got protection for QEII's funeral & that may have played into why he immediately left the UK. Or is that the time he left for Archie's birthday?
 
puglover said:
It is my understanding that the only royals with around the clock armed protection are the working royals. Prince Harry and family do qualify for that protection when they visit the UK on official business (eg. his grandmother's funeral) and when they request it with 28 days notice. This is decided by the Home Office and it makes sense to me that this is now a large family with grandchildren working, in university, etc. and to provide that armed protection 24/7 for all of them would be very expensive and perhaps unnecessary. Unlike North America, only especially designated members of the police force even carry guns.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. The only royals who get around the clock armed protection are the King & Queen and the Prince & Princess of Wales & their children. The King's siblings & their spouses, children & grandchildren do not get 24/7 armed protection.

Working royals are the following:
King & Queen
Prince & Princess of Wales
Princess Royal (occasionally accompanied by her spouse, Admiral Lawrence)
Duke & Duchess of Edinburgh
Duke & Duchess of Gloucester
Duke of Kent

Former working royals include:
Duke & Duchess of Sussex
Duke of York
Duchess of Kent
Princess Alexandra

Never been working royals include - though some of these will occasionally attend Garden Parties at Buckingham Palace & other events in support of the main core of Working Royals:
Peter Philips & family
Zara & Mike Tindall & family
Princess Beatrice & family
Princess Eugenie & family
Lady Louise & Earl of Wessex (both are still in school, though)
Prince & Princess Michael of Kent
taf2002 said:
It's my understanding that Harry has been turned down every single time. I may be wrong. I don't think he got protection for QEII's funeral & that may have played into why he immediately left the UK. Or is that the time he left for Archie's birthday?
Click to expand...
Harry & Meghan got protection for QEII's funeral - they were staying at Frogmore Cottage, which is within the protection corridor of Windsor Great Park & anytime they left their home they were with other royals and certainly equally protected.

He has not received protection when he has come to the UK recently because he is unwilling to stay at a royal residence - he wants to stay at a hotel in central London instead of at Clarence House, St James Palace or Windsor Palace. That is why he only stays as long as is necessary to continue his never-ending lawsuits against various entities.

He left immediately after the Coronation (within hours of the Westminster Abbey service) to return to California for Archie's birthday. But, again, he had protection during the Coronation & may have even had it while he was at his hotel for that trip because that was such a high profile event.
 
Karen-W said:
This is not correct. The only royals who get around the clock armed protection are the King & Queen and the Prince & Princess of Wales & their children. The King's siblings & their spouses, children & grandchildren do not get 24/7 armed protection.

Working royals are the following:
King & Queen
Prince & Princess of Wales
Princess Royal (occasionally accompanied by her spouse, Admiral Lawrence)
Duke & Duchess of Edinburgh
Duke & Duchess of Gloucester
Duke of Kent

Former working royals include:
Duke & Duchess of Sussex
Duke of York
Duchess of Kent
Princess Alexandra

Never been working royals include - though some of these will occasionally attend Garden Parties at Buckingham Palace & other events in support of the main core of Working Royals:
Peter Philips & family
Zara & Mike Tindall & family
Princess Beatrice & family
Princess Eugenie & family
Lady Louise & Earl of Wessex (both are still in school, though)
Prince & Princess Michael of Kent

Harry & Meghan got protection for QEII's funeral - they were staying at Frogmore Cottage, which is within the protection corridor of Windsor Great Park & anytime they left their home they were with other royals and certainly equally protected.

He has not received protection when he has come to the UK recently because he is unwilling to stay at a royal residence - he wants to stay at a hotel in central London instead of at Clarence House, St James Palace or Windsor Palace. That is why he only stays as long as is necessary to continue his never-ending lawsuits against various entities.

He left immediately after the Coronation (within hours of the Westminster Abbey service) to return to California for Archie's birthday. But, again, he had protection during the Coronation & may have even had it while he was at his hotel for that trip because that was such a high profile event.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction. I should have been more specific. I guess what I object to is the sense that Prince Harry and Meghan are singled out and deprived of protection as some kind of revenge rather than the natural consequence of choices they made which puts them more as peers with his cousins.
 
puglover said:
Thanks for the correction. I should have been more specific. I guess what I object to is the sense that Prince Harry and Meghan are singled out and deprived of protection as some kind of revenge rather than the natural consequence of choices they made which puts them more as peers with his cousins.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Harry & Meghan had armed protection 24/7 when they were working royals, despite none of Harry's first cousins having the same. It was very much due to his status as the son of the future King. They got financial support for at least a year, privately, from Charles, after they stepped back from being working royals.

Harry's problem is that he thinks he is entitled to government funding of his armed protection detail while living overseas and that he & his family need it whenever they are in the UK. He could solve the problem, quite easily, by staying at one of the royal palaces/residences. He doesn't WANT to do that. Furthermore, if he & Meghan were truly interested in their children having a relationship with Harry's family, especially Charles & the Wales' kids, there'd be no issue with armed protection since those people have it 24/7.
 
Random question…even after her divorce from Charles, Diana still retained the title Princess of Wales. So when William and Catherine were given the Prince/Princess of Wales title once Charles became king, would Diana have had to give up her title or would there have been two Princesses of Wales?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

MsZem
  • Locked
Royalty thread #15: A New Era
42 43 44
Replies
1K
Views
114K
PRlady
PRlady
VGThuy
94th Annual Academy Awards Thread
8 9 10
Replies
295
Views
19K
overedge
overedge
VGThuy
2021-2022 Film Award Season
2 3
Replies
72
Views
10K
VGThuy
VGThuy
TAHbKA
Vaytsekhovskaya's interview with Pluschenko
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
Amantide
Amantide
TAHbKA
Vaytsekhovskaya's interview with Vasiliev
Replies
11
Views
4K
skylark
S
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information