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.

 

[mattiecat13]

My question is why were Harry and Meghan so fixated on making money? Harry’s cousins appear to be doing well financially and, as far as I know, none of them have “jobs” except for Eugenie and Beatrice (and I wonder if they actually “work” full-time). They all also seem to have nice homes and dress well for formal events.

Harry and Meghan could have done so much more good and had more influence had they been happy in their role with the Royal Family.

 

[Karen-W]

My question is why were Harry and Meghan so fixated on making money? Harry’s cousins appear to be doing well financially and, as far as I know, none of them have “jobs” except for Eugenie and Beatrice (and I wonder if they actually “work” full-time). They all also seem to have nice homes and dress well for formal events.

Harry and Meghan could have done so much more good and had more influence had they been happy in their role with the Royal Family.

Well, I think it's twofold...

1) Meghan has really expensive taste and while Charles certainly indulges in his own Savile Row-tailored suits, he wasn't willing to fund Meghan getting new haute couture wardrobe pieces while he was still POW and paying for not just himself & Camilla but also William & Kate & their family - all those expenses were coming out of the Duchy of Cornwall and he's known to be a pretty savvy businessman & steward of the properties that provide that income.

2) Meghan and Harry both wanted to be the star of the "show" instead of supporting players. Harry & his wife, whomever she wound up being, were always destined to play a supporting role to the monarch & the direct heirs. It wasn't enough for them to be given the responsibility of serving as roving ambassadors to the Commonwealth, they didn't want to play second fiddle. They wanted to set their own schedule, run their own household, and basically be accountable to no one above them - not even the monarch. For Harry, I think he was fine with the status quo of being the third wheel on joint engagements with the Cambridges while he was still single, but after he married Meghan, he really seems to have thought he & his wife would be on equal footing - which was never going to be the case. Trace that attitude & mentality back to his childhood when Diana insisted that the boys be treated equally - sure, in a normal family, that's reasonable, but probably didn't create a good framework for Harry to understand, in adulthood, that he was not and never would be equal to William. Hence, a lot of the resentments he wrote about in Spare, and a wife who accepted the marriage proposal with a far different understanding of what her role would be than what turned out to be the reality.

 

[puglover]

I believe Harry was unhappy long before his marriage and although I am sure some of it was caused by his feelings about being the second born, I have read a number of early interviews where it seems obvious he craved a "normal life" as he understood it. He probably envisioned one of wealth and privilege, like many of his friends, and without the press being critical. No negative judgement on his choices or behaviour from the public. He was always quite obsessed with the press and resented what was written about him. I doubt he foresaw mortgages and the constant stress of bills that are normal life. Meghan was just the right combination to act as the catalyst to convince him he could flee.

He is very good at identifying need and relating to people and has some of his mother's ability to connect. His current life does not seem to offer the same opportunities that his royal life did. Both of his African charities are now in trouble. IMHO had he not burned the bridge behind him and not thrown his family under the bus, he might have eventually got close to what he wanted.

 

[MacMadame]

it seems obvious he craved a "normal life" as he understood it. He probably envisioned one of wealth and privilege, like many of his friends, and without the press being critical.

Like Eugenie and Beatrice

 

[Bunny Hop]

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.

I personally agree that there wouldn't have been a scandal, and that it wasn't the same, but I don't think that's how she would have seen it, having personally been there and directly impacted (per Karen-W's post). I can also see things being different if/when William gets to that point.

 

[Hindernisse]

Queen Mathilde of Belgium on a multi-day working visit to Armenia: https://www.newmyroyals.com/2025/10/working-visit-of-queen-mathilde-to.html

Speaking of expensive tastes, while she and the Crown Princess Elisabeth are mostly dressed by Natan Couture (Belgian Couture brand) for the official functions. I've seen myself Queen Mathilde shop at Zara and on another occassion Kind Philippe with his two sons doing Christmas shopping in pretty high-street shops.

 

[canbelto]

I tend to think William and Harry are equally responsible for the breakdown of their relationship. The dysfunction of their childhood seems to have damaged both of them, and both were too rich and too powerful to want to change or heal.

 

[Jenny]

For clarity, I did a little memory jogging and it wasn't the Sussex brand that was at issue, it was use of the word Royal. Can't believe this is still live, but here's the website they put up in 2020 that appears to have ignited a lot of this, including a full official and detailed description of how they were to move forward - https://sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/

They had an Instagram account for less than a year as well before shifting their lives and businesses outside the Royal Family and the UK.

 

[Coco]

From memory, prior to the split, it wasn't so much commercial opportunities they wanted as it was the ability to engage in whatever venture they wanted without waiting for approvals of the venture (one approval) and of scheduling (daily/weekly for the rest of their lives).

 

[taf2002]

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.

@taf2002 This goes back to what I said. Why do you consider her uncle to be selfish by marrying the woman he loved? Do you think the Powers That Be should be able to dictate an unhappy life for him when there was George VI & others to take the crown? Surmising that led to his early death is mere speculation (by @MLIS, not you). (I'm imagining a scenerio where the crown gets bumped down the line: you take it, no you take it, no you take it. lol)

@Karen-W: Meghan and Harry both wanted to be the star of the "show" instead of supporting players.

Of course you went inside their heads & know exactly what they wanted. Maybe they (esp Meghan) didn't want to be hounded & vilified.

 

[mattiecat13]

I’m sure stress played a part in the early death of QEII’s father but he also smoked like a fiend, hence his eventual death from lung cancer.

Harry never struck me as the alpha type but Meghan does. I was happy for Harry when they married and wish they would have slowed down to give Meg a chance to get acclimated. It had to be a huge adjustment for her plus there was their desire to have a child right away given Meg’s age. It seems they were so determined to make a difference immediately they didn’t give themselves a chance to adjust to the changes to both of their lives.

 

[Jenny]

While there might not ever be enough time to adjust to being part of the Royal Family, it's not like it was overnight. They met in 2016, got married in 2018 - seems to me there was time to learn more, meet everyone, get a feel for it. Even if things were slower at the start, the engagement was announced six months earlier, during which time there surely was a lot of preparation beyond the wedding itself.

Then, while certainly the wheels were in motion, it wasn't until about a year and half after the wedding that things started to fall apart - and yet it didn't start with "we want to do more of our own thing and less of the RF thing" - it started with them going out on their own and announcing to the world what they planned to do - apparently before there was any substantive discussion with the Queen or Charles.

I was also among those who were happy that Harry was finding love and wished them all the best. But by early 2020, it certainly looked to me like she was his ticket out of a life he didn't want, and he was her ticket to the kind of fame and fortune she really did want. A partnership that hopefully has also been based in love, but I think was also based in mutual benefit. By every action of theirs since, it only confirms to me that this was the case.

The only thing is that Harry got what he thought he wanted - out - but since then doesn't seem to have any real plan, where has Meghan has many, many plans, and here we are.

 

[Sparks]

How does one 'acclimate' to racism?