Royalty Thread #7: Do They Get Frequent Flier Miles?

[Winnipeg]

Really...........are you referring to race? If you are, IMO that is horrid.

Why? It is just a simple statement of fact. It does not say anything about whether that should be the case or not.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Why? It is just a simple statement of fact. It does not say anything about whether that should be the case or not.

And you think that is what will make her children stand out among the royals? It is, of course a fact, but IMO, it should not be a factor when people look at their kids.

 

[PDilemma]

Meghan is 5'7 - which is not tiny. She should be wonderful to dress.

I am kind of baffled by the constant going on elsewhere on the web about Meghan being so very tiny. She's about the size I was until the last four years (thanks stomach meds!). I was quite thin but no one called me tiny.

Tiny is my 5' 1 1/2" tall mother who weighs 96 lbs fully dressed.

 

[Skittl1321]

No, I do not think he will die before his mother. I just thought maybe he would get passed by?

Yes, I think the interest would increase when William becomes king.

Is there any historical precedent to skipping someone in the line of succession? I don't think it works that way, unless he would abdicate, and I don't see that he would do that either.

I too think there will be more interest in William as King than Charles as King. And I also doubt Charles will be King for very long. But if William's kids are grown when he becomes King, I assume what Harry does will get little attention.

 

[MsZem]

Is there any historical precedent to skipping someone in the line of succession? I don't think it works that way, unless he would abdicate, and I don't see that he would do that either.

Queen Anne, and then of course George I.

The British royals do not have a tradition of abdication like in the Netherlands. I can't see it happening.

 

[Lorac]

Queen Anne, and then of course George I.

The British royals do not have a tradition of abdication like in the Netherlands. I can't see it happening.

Who did Queen Anne skip? She was the next in line and once her brother-in-law William died she succeeded to the throne. And George I was also the next in line - he skipped no-one either.

 

[PDilemma]

Is there any historical precedent to skipping someone in the line of succession? I don't think it works that way, unless he would abdicate, and I don't see that he would do that either.

I too think there will be more interest in William as King than Charles as King. And I also doubt Charles will be King for very long. But if William's kids are grown when he becomes King, I assume what Harry does will get little attention.

There are a series of laws collectively called the Acts of Succession. Changing the line of succession to "skip" a rightful heir would require an Act of Parliament and the agreement of every Commonwealth nation.

When the Queen passes, Charles will automatically be King. That will be formalized fairly quickly (in the past this has been the day following the Monarch's death) by an Accession Council making a declaration as such. The only way for William to follow is for Charles to not survive his mother. If Charles wished to pass the crown to William immediately, he would have to abdicate, but still would have been King for the time it took him between his mother's death and formally abdicating.

 

[MsZem]

Who did Queen Anne skip? She was the next in line and once her brother-in-law William died she succeeded to the throne. And George I was also the next in line - he skipped no-one either.

Her Roman-Catholic brother. But it's true that the Glorious Revolution brought all that about well before her father died.

You may recall that some in Scotland were displeased that a Hanoverian monarch was later installed rather than James Stewart.

 

[Lorac]

Her Roman-Catholic brother. But it's true that the Glorious Revolution brought all that about well before her father died.

You may recall that some in Scotland were displeased that a Hanoverian monarch was later installed rather than James Stewart.

The Act of Settlement in 1701 excluded Catholics from the line of succession - so Anne was the next legitimate heir once William died. To be honest he was never in line once his Father had left Great Britain and was seen to have abdicated his throne. I suppose that was the first instance of a British Monarch giving up the throne - though it wasn't really from choice. But James was all for trying to emulate his father Charles I and the British people weren't going down that pathway again. It's for that reason George I was the next in line once Anne died without issue - he was not a Catholic.

 

[Skittl1321]

That's what I thought. Charles can't just be skipped. Kings don't have to be popular, just next.

 

[Vagabond]

Is there any historical precedent to skipping someone in the line of succession?

Queen Anne, and then of course George I.

Who did Queen Anne skip? She was the next in line and once her brother-in-law William died she succeeded to the throne. And George I was also the next in line - he skipped no-one either.

Her Roman-Catholic brother. But it's true that the Glorious Revolution brought all that about well before her father died.

Anne was herself skipped over in favor her first cousin, William III, who shared the throne with Mary II and remained sole monarch when Mary died. When William died, Anne did become queen. Anne fully supported this arrangement.

There are some other examples -- the War of the Roses, Henry VII, Lady Jane Grey, and, above all, Empress Matilda, who was the sole surviving child of Henry I. While her right to succeed her father, Henry I, was not firmly established, she eventually agreed that her son, the future Henry II would succeed Stephen. (Matilda was still alive when Stephen died.)

I very much doubt that the Prince of Wales will relinquish his claim to the throne if he is still alive when his mother dies, but we shall see.

 

[JJH]

Why would he relinquish his claim to the throne? What possible motivation would he have to do so?

 

[SHARPIE]

Why would he relinquish his claim to the throne? What possible motivation would he have to do so?

To save the bees, obvs.

OMG what an amazing day at Royal Ascot!

Stick a fork in me for now though, I’m done. Tell you more tomorrow.

 

[Lorac]

To save the bees, obvs.

OMG what an amazing day at Royal Ascot!

Stick a fork in me for now though, I’m done. Tell you more tomorrow.

Can't wait to hear the glorious details

 

[Japanfan]

Why would he relinquish his claim to the throne? What possible motivation would he have to do so?

Because he doesn't want the responsibility, the added scrutiny on his private life, and the even busier schedule of public appearances?

Now this may be not true of Charles, especially given that he's probably been groomed to be king his whole life.

But I can imagine what some in his position wouldn't want to be the ruling monarch, despite the status and privilege that goes with it.

 

[Skittl1321]

Because he doesn't want the responsibility, the added scrutiny on his private life, and the even busier schedule of public appearances?

Now this may be not true of Charles, especially given that he's probably been groomed to be king his whole life.

But I can imagine what some in his position wouldn't want to be the ruling monarch, despite the status and privilege that goes with it.

I think the whole family would reject it for that reason... William and Harry have repeatedly said no one wants to be king. But it is duty.

 

[Lorac]

I think the whole family would reject it for that reason... William and Harry have repeatedly said no one wants to be king. But it is duty.

Exactly and the Queen has demonstrated exactly that. Thought nothing I have ever seen indicates Charles does not want to be King. However if QEII lives as long as her Mother then Charles is going to be closer to 80 before he can take on that mantle.

 

[aftershocks]

On to her dress for her trip to Cheshire with HM. This time she went the other way with the neckline by wearing the cape style. I didn't like that part of the dress as I felt it constrained her arms too much. I did however like the cut and colour of the body of the dress. I believe you felt it was too muted and possibly plain.

Nope I didn't say that about the Cheshire outfit. Like you, I'm not in love with the cape top, but I thought Meghan looked fine in Cheshire. It was a good choice, except for the cape top looking a bit too constricted and confining. It's been shown on some other sites, that the top is removeable. Meghan took it off at some point indoors – there are pictures showing that the top of the dress underneath is short-sleeved. Some people felt Meghan should have worn a hat, and there was a lot of whining about her hair blowing in the wind, but I have no complaints in that aspect. Meghan looked at ease and comfortable with the Queen.

To clarify: I remarked in general earlier about all three outfits Meghan has worn since ToC. I feel Meghan has been purposely covering up and going very conservative stylistically. I see these choices by Meghan (coming back-to-back-to-back) as a reaction to or a kind of statement against the OTT pearl-clutching mainly by the media regarding the gorgeous pink Carolina Herrera two-piece boatneck outfit at TofC. That outfit was very flattering on Meghan, nicely exposing a bit of her shoulder blades and neck area (her skin was glowing after obviously having briefly spent time away with Harry in a sunny locale). Her hair was down around her shoulders with the jaunty hat, and she looked quite stunning. We didn't get to see the hemline or what shoes she was wearing, so I really hope she wears that outfit again.

Of all the looks Meghan has worn since her wedding, I like the Herrera TofC look the best, then the garden party look next. The Cheshire cream outfit, and the Royal Ascot look (both by Waight Keller for Givenchy) are fine but not my faves. I like the cream Cheshire outfit best without the cape top. For me, the Royal Ascot look was too covered up and with so much overall white, I feel Meghan was washed out a bit. However, the dress had nice stylistic elements, and Meghan looks good as she's seen moving around in the videos. I think that Meghan's collaboration with Clare Waight Keller is still a work-in-progress.

… the Queen nearly always wears bold colours to a) stand out...

Of course it's well known that the Queen wears bright colors to stand out and to be seen by crowds. It's certainly an unwritten rule that no one should overshadow the Queen. Diana PofW was criticized in the past for seeming to do so. But I don't think that was her fault. When I mention wanting a pop of color for Meghan, I don't mean going brighter than the Queen or overshadowing the Queen at public gatherings. It is early yet, and we shall see what transpires on M&H's joint upcoming events and the Down Under tour in October. These days, the royals have learned from the past and they are guiding new members to the family on issues of royal protocol. I may have not noted it here recently, but I have said before that it's quite clear the royal ladies consult on color palette when many of them are going to be seen publicly at the same events, especially with the Queen. Obviously, the royal ladies in deference to the Queen, stuck to a general 'pale shades' color palette (some with black accents) for Royal Ascot.

As a result, Meghan went with white and minimal black accents for Royal Ascot. Her fashion choices are obviously undergoing transition as a newly married addition to the royal family. That goes without saying. Even in the months leading up to her wedding, Meghan largely played it low key and understated, wearing a lot of black and a bit of navy, with practically no bright colors, aside from the cream coat at Brixton, and the lovely dark green and cream ensemble she wore on the trip to Ireland with Prince Harry in March.

Now into the dress she wore yesterday. I think it was the best outfit yet since her wedding day. I give it 9.5 out of 10. My only change would have been to take the collar off and have a simple V neckline with similar embroidery to the body of the dress. But still it was gorgeous and suited her so well. And again the colour was probably more in reflection to not overshadow the Queen

I don't rate the Royal Ascot dress as the best outfit since Meghan's wedding, but to each their own. I agree with you that there was something off about the collar that didn't quite go with the hat. I love the hat more than the dress. I don't care for the long sleeves or the collar on the dress. But I liked the white-on-white embroidery, the black belt, and the unusual hemline, and the way the dress flowed when Meghan walked.

 

[aftershocks]

Now I fully expect to see more colour when Meghan is on royal trips alone or with Harry as then she will be focus.

Right. I too said earlier that I'm looking forward to seeing what Meghan will wear on her upcoming events with Prince Harry. It should be fun watching, and it's going to be a busy time. I'm not sure if I'll be able to keep up with it all. Here's the latest M&H event coming up in London on July 5th. She and Harry seem way too busy to worry about Markle family fallout. They are moving forward at a remarkable pace. https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1010193155172569088


I respect the fact that you are British @Lorac, and that I can learn a lot from you about your country. I've always enjoyed reading about British history and the British monarchy. I followed Diana PofW back in the day, and I've been moderately interested in Duchess Kate. And I've enjoyed reading a bit about William and Harry over the years, as they are Diana's sons. Both their parents wished to ensure they had as happy a childhood as possible (since neither Diana nor Charles have the fondest memories of their own growing up years). I've been very interested in Meghan since I heard she was dating Prince Harry. My interest deepened the more I learned about her. She has a fascinating background and personality. She's definitely a remarkable person in her own right. On a number of levels, it is unprecedented to see her marry into the British royal family.

I find Kate and William to be wonderful, down-to-earth royals and excellent parents. It's been a boost to the British monarchy with them on the scene raising their cute and sweet children. Prince George is surely going to break some ladies' hearts when he grows up. He is already strikingly handsome with his thick blond hair and dark brown eyes. I think young Princess Charlotte has a knock-out personality. She is already such a fun royal to watch at only three years of age.

I'm anticipating hearing who will be named godparents for Prince Louis.

ETA:
LOL re the whole discussion of Meghan's size. If we met, she and I would probably be about the same height as I am about 5'7". I'm not sure Meghan is 5'7" exactly on the nose. We don't all tend to be an exact even number height, and we tend to lose height with bone loss as we age (especially females). As far as references to Meghan being 'petite,' what I take that to mean is that she has a 'small frame,' which she inherits from her mother obviously. Her father has a large frame. And reference to size of frame has to do with bone structure, not necessarily height. Meghan has small bones, long legs, a long neck, broad shoulders, moderate-length arms, a short torso, a lovely oval-shaped face with a long chin and deep-set dark brown eyes. For a female, 5'7" tall is average height, but Meghan has petite body structure and skinny legs. She apparently wears stilettos mostly on official engagements, because she enjoys them and it also brings her height up a bit closer past Prince Harry's shoulders.

 

[Frida80]

Meghan last two outfits for for official events were custom made designed months in advance for both occasions. I doubt the reaction to TofC has anything to do with the design.

I think Meghan is in a sticky spot. She wants to move on from her glamorous past and be taken seriously in her new role. At the same time she wants to show respect for the Royal Family traditions, avoid copying Kate while staying true to herself. It’s not easy and I think after a few months she’ll find a new style that suits her.

She has much bigger fish to fry now. Trump is visiting the Queen on 7/13. I expect her to be on hand to welcome him and his family. It’s something she has to do well. She’s going to meeting lots of heads of state, some that she may disagree with. It’s her job now.

 

[JJH]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are scheduled for Dublin on July 10th an 11th.

 

[Vagabond]

the Cheshire outfit.

tells me that the Cheshire outfit has vanished.

 

[JJH]

@Vagabond, I quite liked the Cheshire outfit.

Did it vanish like the Cheshire Cat leaving only a grin behind?

 

[aftershocks]

She has much bigger fish to fry now. Trump is visiting the Queen on 7/13. I expect her to be on hand to welcome him and his family.

What makes you think that? Simply because Meghan is an American does not mean she has to be on hand to 'welcome Trump.' There's absolutely nothing in the royal rule book which requires that happening. In any case, M&H will have just returned from their Dublin trip on the day that's planned for Trump's apparent U.K. visit. There's absolutely no need for M&H to be present when the Queen supposedly will be meeting with Trump. It's reported that his visit was downgraded from a state visit to a working visit. In addition, Theresa May has been pressured to condemn the Trump practice of pulling children from their parents at the border and confining them to cages. The British people have signed petitions objecting to Trump's U.K. visit.

The Queen will always do her duty. If that requires meeting with Trump, it will surely be kept brief and professional. It will not require Trump necessarily meeting with any other members of the royal family. If anything, Prince Charles and then Prince William are next in line to the throne, in terms of official meetings with heads of state. And Trump's visit is not a state visit. I don't see the royals rolling out the red carpet for Trump in the same ways they did for President Obama and Mrs. Obama, or indeed other former U.S. presidents.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a12836819/donald-trump-uk-visit-2018/

All the nonsense generated before the royal wedding about Trump not going to be invited was stupid. It's never been a huge issue before about a U.S. president being invited or not being invited to a royal wedding. Typically they aren't. The U.S. is not part of the British commonwealth. Nancy Reagan attended the Diana/Charles wedding. President Obama and Michelle Obama were not invited to Prince William's wedding and no fuss was made about it. The Queen invited the Obamas for a state visit to London in May 2011, a month after W&K's royal wedding.

 

[aftershocks]

It’s something she has to do well. She’s going to meeting lots of heads of state, some that she may disagree with. It’s her job now.

I really love how everybody and their brother (not to mention their Cheshire cat) are such experts at knowing and admonishing Meghan, Duchess of Sussex about what she must do and what 'her job is now.' I've said it before and I'll say it again, Meghan is on the inside of the royal firm, while all of us observers, critics and prognosticators are on the outside looking in, and our views are a bit blocked to boot. She knows a hella lot more intimate details than we ever will about the inner workings of today's British monarchy. Plus Meghan has been meeting VIPs for a long time, including diplomats and politicians when she served as a college intern at the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, and later via her work with U.N. Women and World Vision Canada.

Obviously, Meghan Markle experienced a very successful life well lived before she met Prince Harry. It's because she's a remarkable person who worked so hard for her success while making it a priority to give back to others, that she and Prince Harry bonded so quickly in the first place.

 

[centerstage01]

If anyone other than the Queen, Prince Charles, and maybe Prince William show up to see Trump, I'll eat one someone's Ascot derby hat. I'm doubting William would even want to shake the hand of the man that said such foul things about his mother, but as a future King, he knows how to rise above. And the Queen has more class in her pinky finger than Trump's whole family combined. (I might give Barron a pass...he's still a kid that has time to learn how to be a decent human being.)

 

[aftershocks]

I think Meghan is in a sticky spot. She wants to move on from her glamorous past and be taken seriously in her new role.

Oh boy. Sticky spot??? Meghan taking on new royal duties is surely challenging and stressful at times, but I think the experience is also much more sweet, exciting and fulfilling than it is 'sticky.' Sure there's a learning curve, and lots of royal protocol and new in-laws, and a new culture and country. However, Meghan has previously learned how to survive the Markle family and parental divorce, how to ace Northwestern University, and how to navigate a first marriage that was falling apart, as well as learning how to conquer the unpredictable shoals of Hollywood, which surely involved figuring out how to smoothly get along with more than a few people she may not have liked. She worked long, hard overnight hours on the set of Suits for years, and she always hit her marks and knew her lines. I do not think many people realize just how 'unglamorous' the life of a working actor actually is, much less that of a struggling actor.

You need to read up on some of Meghan's past essays. She's said: "I've always wanted to be a woman who works, not a lady who lunches." After one of Meghan's trips to Rwanda with World Vision, she turned down a golden opportunity to attend a BAFTA ceremony, simply because her gut told her the quick turnaround from her charitable work in Rwanda to a glitzy red carpet movie-related event was not the right thing to do, despite her youthful dream of being invited to be part of that glamorous event.

It's fascinating how we all seem to know exactly how Meghan feels, me included btw. However, I can take a step back and realize what I don't know. What I do know, I base on lots of reading, research, and watching substantive Meghan interviews, etc. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are not living a fairy tale (as I've said many times). Sure it's rather heady to fall in love with a British royal prince, and become part of such an historic and prestigious family. I don't think some people realize though what a strong personality Meghan has, nor how smart, determined and ambitious she is. She's freely admitted to being 'endlessly ambitious and eager to exceed expectations.' And she said that way before there was any inkling she'd meet Prince Harry and take on the adventure of melding who she is as a woman and a feminist with life as a member of the modern British royal family.

 

[Frida80]

What makes you think that? Simply because Meghan is an American does not mean she has to be on hand to 'welcome Trump.' There's absolutely nothing in the royal rule book which requires that happening. In any case, M&H will have just returned from their Dublin trip on the day that's planned for Trump's apparent U.K. visit. There's absolutely no need for M&H to be present when the Queen supposedly will be meeting with Trump. It's reported that his visit was downgraded from a state visit to a working visit. In addition, Theresa May has been pressured to condemn the Trump practice of pulling children from their parents at the border and confining them to cages. The British people have signed petitions objecting to Trump's U.K. visit.

The Queen will always do her duty. If that requires meeting with Trump, it will surely be kept brief and professional. It will not require Trump necessarily meeting with any other members of the royal family. If anything, Prince Charles and then Prince William are next in line to the throne, in terms of official meetings with heads of state. And Trump's visit is not a state visit. I don't see the royals rolling out the red carpet for Trump in the same ways they did for President Obama and Mrs. Obama, or indeed other former U.S. presidents.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a12836819/donald-trump-uk-visit-2018/

All the nonsense generated before the royal wedding about Trump not going to be invited was stupid. It's never been a huge issue before about a U.S. president being invited or not being invited to a royal wedding. Typically they aren't. The U.S. is not part of the British commonwealth. Nancy Reagan attended the Diana/Charles wedding. President Obama and Michelle Obama were not invited to Prince William's wedding and no fuss was made about it. The Queen invited the Obamas for a state visit to London in May 2011, a month after W&K's royal wedding.

Calm down. I’m not psychic, but I am looking at logic. While there isn’t a requirement for Meghan to be there, it would be in poor taste for her not to be there. She’s still an American citizen and he’s the president of the United States. William and Kate met shortly with Obama’s after the wedding, so he could congratulate them. If she doesn’t go, the headlines will report she snubbed him. She can’t have political views, and not greeting him would be a political view in itself. So she’ll be there. Shake hands, get the photo op, and chat with Melania. All done in a few minutes.

The sticky spot I was referring to was her clothing, not her ability to deal with royal duties. I was saying how complicated it is for her to find a new sense of style with the new rules she has. For me it’s no different than starting a new job and switching your clothing to fit the new environment. Eventually we all fine that balance that fits the rules but stays true to hour personal sense of style.

Finally, I think Meghan has a ton of experience that makes her incredibly prepared for her new royal duties. She’s done everything fantastically so far. And I have read several of her essays from the Tig. She is an incredible woman. I can’t wait to see her in France.

Thanks for finally moving the topic away from clothing.

 

[taf2002]

@Frida80, I disagree that Meghan or any of the royal family other than the Queen are "required" to greet Trump. I don't know who invited him. If the Queen, then she would be (IMO) the only one required to greet him. Trump has done nothing to give the royal family the incentive to roll out the red carpet or for all members to show up. And Meghan is a very minor member, despite our fascination with her. You wouldn't expect Sophia or Beatrice to be there so why Meghan? Because she's American? That's not how protocol works.

If Teresa May invited him, then I don't see even the Queen obligated to see him at all. And if no one invited him then as many people who want to can snub him AFAIC.

 

[Frida80]

@Frida80, I disagree that Meghan or any of the royal family other than the Queen are "required" to greet Trump. I don't know who invited him. If the Queen, then she would be (IMO) the only one required to greet him. Trump has done nothing to give the royal family the incentive to roll out the red carpet or for all members to show up. And Meghan is a very minor member, despite our fascination with her. You wouldn't expect Sophia or Beatrice to be there so why Meghan? Because she's American? That's not how protocol works.

If Teresa May invited him, then I don't see even the Queen obligated to see him at all. And if no one invited him then as many people who want to can snub him AFAIC.

She’s not required. But if she doesn’t show, there will be a backlash. This isn’t about protocol. It’s about PR.

Meghan has been a vocal critic of Trump in the past. The press would eat her alive for not greeting him. To defuse this the best way to handle it is merely for Meghan to be present. A “no hard feelings” moment. If she does this, then most of the Meghan vs. Trump thing will fade away.

If she doesn’t show, article after article will say she publically snubbed Trump. “Experts” will criticize her for expressing her politics when she’s forbidden from doing so. This is a woman that just got raked over the coals for not wearing a name tag at the Royal Ascot! Everything she does is scrutinized to such an extreme degree. Especially since she just got married. Maybe if this was ten years in the future when the fever around her dies down. But now, she in a precarious spot. She wants to do a lot more with humanitarian efforts. So yes, showing that she can look a world leader she doesn’t agree with in the eye and be gracious towards him or her is required. Because she’s going to do it again and again in the future.

This visit will include the Queen. It’s been in the works for a long time. It won’t be a full state visit, but it will be long enough for him to meet the Queen. I’ve looked at Meghan’s schedule. She returns from Ireland on the 11th and Trump arrives on the 13th. That’s not a coincidence.