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

[marbri]

@marbri, yes I'm referring to the Levy interview.

@Karen-W, that was 3 or 4 years ago so I'm not going to search for it. Believe it or don't, I don't care.

I think that sentence would sound awfully strange had he said "Harry and me" ?

 

[taf2002]

It turned out to be an easy google so I'm posting Kate's shudder here:

Kate Middleton 'shudders' when she hears Meghan Markle's name, book claims

According to a new serialisation of bombshell royal book Endgame by Omid Scobie, Kate Middleton reportedly 'shudders and giggles' whenever she hears the name of her sister-in-law Meghan Markle

www.mirror.co.uk

BTW this wasn't the only reference I found.

 

[Karen-W]

It turned out to be an easy google so I'm posting Kate's shudder here:

Kate Middleton 'shudders' when she hears Meghan Markle's name, book claims

According to a new serialisation of bombshell royal book Endgame by Omid Scobie, Kate Middleton reportedly 'shudders and giggles' whenever she hears the name of her sister-in-law Meghan Markle

www.mirror.co.uk

BTW this wasn't the only reference I found.

LMAO. Soooooo, you're basing your belief that Kate "shudders" when she hears Meghan's name on Omid Scobie, known Sussex sychophant with an obvious bias to all of his "reporting"? LMAO. Try again, dear heart.

 

[Coco]

I very much doubt it. Charles and his advisors are intelligent enough to know, as does William, that any attempt to bring down another member of the family, particularly a working royal, weakens the institution as a whole.

Bless your heart. Would that it were true

 

[taf2002]

LMAO. Soooooo, you're basing your belief that Kate "shudders" when she hears Meghan's name on Omid Scobie, known Sussex sychophant with an obvious bias to all of his "reporting"? LMAO. Try again, dear heart.

And you're basing your belief that Kate doesn't shudder on ...., nothing? btw that wasn't the only article saying the same thing.

 

[MacMadame]

The article is dumb. She shuddered and giggled? Those two things do not go together. The whole tone was very breathless, "I'm going to give you serious tea," and that was it?

Anyway, that was two years ago. Old news.

 

[canbelto]

This is dumb. I read all of Spare and there's really not much evidence Kate and Meghan had much friction. They weren't close, but that's typical of in-laws.

What is clear is that Will and Harry had a deeply troubled relationship that probably would have soured eventually with or without their wives.

 

[Karen-W]

This is dumb. I read all of Spare and there's really not much evidence Kate and Meghan had much friction. They weren't close, but that's typical of in-laws.

What is clear is that Will and Harry had a deeply troubled relationship that probably would have soured eventually with or without their wives.

I read Spare too and I agree with your assessment of Kate & Meghan's relationship for the most part. I wouldn't say there wasn't friction, but, yes, it just seemed to be your garden-variety sisters-in-law not becoming BFFs despite being married to brothers.

 

[canbelto]

I read Spare too and I agree with your assessment of Kate & Meghan's relationship for the most part. I wouldn't say there wasn't friction, but, yes, it just seemed to be your garden-variety sisters-in-law not becoming BFFs despite being married to brothers.

I don't think they were besties and they probably didn't really get on, but again, it seemed like your garden-variety "my SIL isn't really my type of person" thing. It also appears they were mostly able to talk through their disagreements.

It was Will and Harry who both seem stubborn, inflexible, spiteful, and deeply damaged. And (let's face it) recreating the dysfunction of their childhood.

And I don't know this, but I'll put money that if Will and Harry wanted to reconcile, neither Kate or Meghan would have any issues with it.

 

[Karen-W]

I don't think they were besties and they probably didn't really get on, but again, it seemed like your garden-variety "my SIL isn't really my type of person" thing. It also appears they were mostly able to talk through their disagreements.

It was Will and Harry who both seem stubborn, inflexible, spiteful, and deeply damaged. And (let's face it) recreating the dysfunction of their childhood.

And I don't know this, but I'll put money that if Will and Harry wanted to reconcile, neither Kate or Meghan would have any issues with it.

I don't know that I believe Meghan wants Harry to reconcile with his family. She's very much cut a lot of people, including immediate family, out of her own life systematically over the years. She's shown enough narcissistic traits for me to believe she & Harry are two peas in a pod.

I used to think that Sussexit was all her but the more we've seen & heard from Harry over the years, the less I believe that now. He wanted out and she happily convinced him they could set up their own royal court in California & make boatloads of money, and he wasn't savvy enough to recognize all the potential pitfalls. And, yes, like William, more than stubborn enough to never admit he was wrong about how successful he & Meghan would be on their own, and not bright enough to be a successful creative entrepreneur, so it's left him floundering about five years later under increasing pressure & stress to raise the income necessary to support his very privileged lifestyle and his wife's very expensive tastes.

 

[puglover]

I am not sure how Meghan feels about a royal reconciliation but I just cannot see her wanting to go back to GB for any length of time. She has a life in California, friends, her businesses, and she seems to be happy. She and her children are still "royal", but she doesn't have to abide by any of the rules and constraints she so disliked in England.

Harry was really born and raised for a very different life and just does not seem to be suited or adaptable to much else. He still seems to think it possible that he will get the "half-in, half out" solution that his grandmother resoundlngly said no to and the security that his brother and family have when he and possibly his family choose to visit the UK.

 

[taf2002]

At the time (and still) I thought the worst thing about the RF was the fact that none of them were allowed to live their life as they wished. Why did QE2 have any input on Margaret's life or who she married? Why not allow the 1/2 in & 1/2 life H&M wanted? Did she think Meghan's nationality didn't matter at all & she would never want to live in her homeland? Obviously what she wanted didn't matter as long as the queen would be able to pull the strings. I know that QE2 made a lot of sacrifices in her own life to be queen but did everyone else have to be miserable if she was (or not-idk). I think the system is crazy.

 

[MacMadame]

At the time (and still) I thought the worst thing about the RF was the fact that none of them were allowed to live their life as they wished. Why did QE2 have any input on Margaret's life or who she married? Why not allow the 1/2 in & 1/2 life H&M wanted? Did she think Meghan's nationality didn't matter at all & she would never want to live in her homeland? Obviously what she wanted didn't matter as long as the queen would be able to pull the strings. I know that QE2 made a lot of sacrifices in her own life to be queen but did everyone else have to be miserable if she was (or not-idk). I think the system is crazy.

I look at other countries where the monarchy is much smaller and they all have regular lives as well and think that's a better model to follow.

I also think that it's horrible that QE2 didn't abdicate so that her son could rule while he was middle-aged and in better health and have more than a minimum reign. I was just reading about monarchs in another country where the dad just did that and I think it's definitely a model to follow. The days when monarchs died in middle-age and had a 30-something kid to take over are over. Staying in charge until in your 90s so your heir is a senior citizen before they take over makes no sense. It means giving up a regular life for decades and decades for a very short reign.

If I were King Charles, I'd abdicate when Prince William turned 50. Sure, he wouldn't get to be king for long after all those years of standing in the wings, but it would set a good precedent and be better for his son.

 

[Barbara Manatee]

Why not allow the 1/2 in & 1/2 life H&M wanted? Did she think Meghan's nationality didn't matter at all & she would never want to live in her homeland?

The problem wasn't living part time in the U.S. (though the logistics of that would have been very messy), the issue was using that time to pursue commercial ventures.

 

[Tesla]

I thought QEII was amenable to the Sussexes being 1/2 and 1/2 but Charles talked her out of it. I am probably misremembering.

I also think that it's horrible that QE2 didn't abdicate so that her son could rule while he was middle-aged and in better health and have more than a minimum reign.

I'm not sure she liked him very much. She may have been much loved, but she seems to have been a very controlling person (see her sister Margaret and not abdicating).

 

[Karen-W]

I thought QEII was amenable to the Sussexes being 1/2 and 1/2 but Charles talked her out of it. I am probably misremembering.

Nope, she was definitely against it. She saw what happened with Edward & Sophie when they tried that path - it didn't work what with the fake sheikh trying to get info about the British Royals through Sophie's PR firm and Edward's film production company filming up at St Andrews while William was a student there.

 

[Wyliefan]

I also think that it's horrible that QE2 didn't abdicate so that her son could rule while he was middle-aged and in better health and have more than a minimum reign.

That's nothing compared to what monarchs and heirs used to do to each other back in the day. Charles should count his blessings.

 

[Vagabond]

I look at other countries where the monarchy is much smaller and they all have regular lives as well and think that's a better model to follow.

This is an oversimplification. Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands, for example, had to go into seclusion and eventually exile because an organized crime syndicate threatened to kidnap her. (She is back home now.) More recently, she was the victim of a deepfake attack involving faked porn videos.

 

[kwanfan1818]

In the past dozen years, there have been seven, according to this article by Town & Country:

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g46267774/royal-abdication-21st-century-guide/

Another three abdicated in the 00’s, including the father of Grand Prince Henri of Luxembourg, who abdicated a few weeks ago.

Most were in their ‘70’s or 80’s.

Queen Margarethe of Denmark’s was controversial and unexpected.

 

[MacMadame]

This is an oversimplification. Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands, for example, had to go into seclusion and eventually exile because an organized crime syndicate threatened to kidnap her. (She is back home now.) More recently, she was the victim of a deepfake attack involving faked porn videos.

I don't see how that relates to what I said. These things happened because she's rich and a royal.

 

[Vagabond]

I don't see how that relates to what I said. These things happened because she's rich and a royal.

The Duchess of Sussex has received death threats and racist attacks in the press and social media. Regardless of what you or I may think of her or her husband, that has to be extremely difficult for them to bear.

Is that significantly different from what the Princess of Orange has experienced?

ETA: And you even agree that these things happened because she's a royal. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[kwanfan1818]

And Simon Rushdie had to go into hiding for multiple years. People, especially women with voices, get death and rape threats for what they post on the internet and are doxxed. This is not specific to royalty, who, for the most part, can go to school or work without incident, if their specific royal culture enables it.

 

[Coco]

The problem wasn't living part time in the U.S. (though the logistics of that would have been very messy), the issue was using that time to pursue commercial ventures.

As I have learned from Midsummer Murders and other countryside British shows, lol, this is a problem for a lot of landed gentry. The need to generate income without jeopardizing the image of being wealthy nobleman.

"The Gentleman" with Theo James on Netflix has an interesting take on this. They rent out the estate to an underground pot farm.

 

[kwanfan1818]

There just aren't enough American daughters of industry to go around for those estate-laden noblemen.

 

[MacMadame]

The Duchess of Sussex has received death threats and racist attacks in the press and social media. Regardless of what you or I may think of her or her husband, that has to be extremely difficult for them to bear.

Is that significantly different from what the Princess of Orange has experienced?

ETA: And you even agree that these things happened because she's a royal. You can’t have it both ways.

I don't think you understand my point. I think monarchies are bad. I think people having so much wealth for doing absolutely nothing but being born to the right family is bad. I think the monarchy should be abolished and these people should have to fend for themselves -- they have enough wealth -- they'll manage without sucking on the government teat. But, if people aren't willing to do that, turning it into an ornamental office with hardly any members who have lives is the next best thing.

No matter what you do besides abolishing it, there are going to be problems. The royals get death threats when they are in the system, too. You think Kate hasn't gotten death threats? Or Charles? That's part of being a royal and it's part of being a royal whether the royals are low-key and have regular lives on top of ceremonial duties or not.

 

[mattiecat13]

I also think that it's horrible that QE2 didn't abdicate so that her son could rule while he was middle-aged and in better health and have more than a minimum reign. I was just reading about monarchs in another country where the dad just did that and I think it's definitely a model to follow. The days when monarchs died in middle-age and had a 30-something kid to take over are over. Staying in charge until in your 90s so your heir is a senior citizen before they take over makes no sense. It means giving up a regular life for decades and decades for a very short reign.

I’ve read several books lately about QEII’s uncle, King Edward VIII, who abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson. I got the impression that, because of the shock and long-term consequences of his quitting, no member of the royal family will ever resign during their reign.

 

[Bunny Hop]

I also think that it's horrible that QE2 didn't abdicate so that her son could rule while he was middle-aged and in better health and have more than a minimum reign.

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.

 

[puglover]

Speaking of threats, the story of the almost successful kidnapping of Princess Anne as a newly married young woman is worth a read. Three men were shot in the attempt and while being pulled by the assailant and ordered out of the car, I love her response of "not bloody likely". She is the hardest working of the royals and does hundreds of engagements a year, in fact over 500 a few years ago, on behalf of the monarchy. Princess Sophie, also one of the less talked about, tackles some of the challenging topics of domestic violence and women's rights in countries where these feelings are sadly really lacking. I hope King Charles lives long enough for William to put these last years behind him and get his family raised.

 

[taf2002]

The problem wasn't living part time in the U.S. (though the logistics of that would have been very messy), the issue was using that time to pursue commercial ventures.

Why would that have been bad? Yes, the ventures would be vetted to make sure they weren't going to harm the RF but that goes back into what I said about living their own lives. I think by that time QEII was so used to controlling everything that she just didn't consider allowing it. As for abdicating, I really think she wanted to break Queen Victoria's record so that probably was never considered.

 

[Jenny]

Why would that have been bad? Yes, the ventures would be vetted to make sure they weren't going to harm the RF but that goes back into what I said about living their own lives.

I think that was the point - suddenly there was a website and all kinds of copyright applications using the Sussex name and various other royal symbols and titles. I recall everyone was surprised, including the Queen. There is such a long and careful history of what is "by appointment to the Queen" and royally endorsed, and while yes there are various little jams and things associated with certain properties, and souvenirs of all kinds, I'm assuming all that is very carefully considered.

It's like any brand. 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.

In some ways it appears Meghan was slow to learn the lesson - she soft launched her own brand as American Riviera Orchard complete with website, products labels and more without completing the necessary processes to ensure that she could in fact legally use that name, and thus she had to start over and relaunch the entire thing under yet another brand. Third time's a charm maybe?