Royalty Thread #9. Welcome Archie, the red headed heir, don’t care!

Status
Not open for further replies.

AxelAnnie

Graceful men lift lovely girls in white!
Messages
12,144
There are already photos circulating with him and some girls at Epstein's parties. While the photos themselves are not explicit ... oy. No bueno on any level.
Oh man......that is going to be UGLY.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,162
I realize that there is a lot more global interest in the British Royal Family (even in this thread, the title and the vast majority of posts focus on them), but the Swedish royal family is a good example of combining royal life and family life successfully - I believe it's come up in this thread before. They release pictures of the kids on occasion, but not too often; the kids have some official appearances (especially Princess Estelle) but also plenty of time to be kids. For each child, there was a Te Deum service and the announcement of the name within days, and a public christening a few months later, with official photos and information released; here's the most recent example, and note that the father is an untitled private citizen.
This is where my impression that Kate and William lead a life as private as possible without saying so comes from. I feel that we get about as much or as little information/pictures about their kids as from Estelle and Oscar, for example. Since there's a lot less media attention on them, as you said, I think, Kate and William must be completely in control over what the media gets and what they don't get.

I don't know who is the driving force behind announcing the desire for privacy comes from. I get that Harry may want to do things differently but shouldn't he be at an age where he can differentiate between wanting to do things differently and looking at things that work and picking up ideas? Would anyone really compare how the brothers do things if Harry and Meghan did what Kate and William do and just live their lives?

I think it's interesting how much they "cry" about privacy and leading a normal life, but was there ever any speculation that Harry could give up his claim to the throne? I'm not aware of any.

Generally, I like to believe that they're just a bit overprotective about their life/son and that they will settle into how to deal with the media attention.
 

Winnipeg

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,866
Kate and William seem so mature and always in control, confident, the list goes on.

Megan and Harry not so much. I think the poster who said he/she screams for privacy but secretly wants to outshine other royals is more likely closer to the truth. Sorry but just IMHO.


WRT Andrew, I had heard he had a sordid background related to this issue some time ago but honestly cannot remember details at all. The fact that he was a t a party with a lot of under age girls reflects on his judgement at the very least. If more, well, yes, it could get ugly and rightly so.
 

IceSlider

Well-Known Member
Messages
524
think it's interesting how much they "cry" about privacy and leading a normal life, but was there ever any speculation that Harry could give up his claim to the throne? I'm not aware of any.
Just to add, Harry's claim to the throne is relatively distant and getting more so with ever new child his brother and sister in law have. Once 3rd in line (unlikely ever to make King), he's now 6th in line. So maybe the speculation wasn't needed?

So long as the Cambridges have been busy making babies (and they have been very busy) his "claim", if there ever was a realistic prospect of King Harry, has been slip, slip, slipping away. That particular parade, as they say, has passed him by.

That said, what profile he does have he seems to be trying to use to help people who'd often be marginalised. Young men at risk of suicide, ex-service people with life changing injuries to name but a few.

Does that mean he gets to lose control of setting boundaries of privacy around his family? I don't think it should.

It's interesting the different attitudes to privacy in different countries. The response by many Germans to Angela Merkle's shaking seemed to be pretty united, "it's her business not ours". I kinda like that attitude...
 

IceSlider

Well-Known Member
Messages
524
I think the poster who said he/she screams for privacy but secretly wants to outshine other royals is more likely closer to the truth.
We're unlikely to know and rightly so. It's like speculating on someone in another town who made it into the local paper but who we don't know and are never going to meet. in any meaningful sense, let alone frequently enough and in different situations to make that kind of judgement...:sheep:
 

skatesindreams

Well-Known Member
Messages
30,277
When he is the son of the Sovereign, rather than the Grandson; Harry's responsibilities/position within "the Firm" are likely to change, to some degree.
No, he won't be "equal" to William.

However, I suspect that his father will give him something "substantial" to do; so, that he will never feel like "the spare".
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,997
This is where my impression that Kate and William lead a life as private as possible without saying so comes from. I feel that we get about as much or as little information/pictures about their kids as from Estelle and Oscar, for example. Since there's a lot less media attention on them, as you said, I think, Kate and William must be completely in control over what the media gets and what they don't get.
The media stuff about the Cambridge kids seems very well-curated.

I looked at the Swedish christening post again and realized that Princess Leonore went into hiding in the official picture :lol: that's right up there with this classic from Prince Alexander's christening.
 

attyfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,560
IMO, Harry and Meghan might be uncomfortable with things "up in the air" concerning Archie. Absent abolition of the monarchy, William's kids are on a known track -- they will all be full time working royals. Anne's kids were also on a known track (at least known to then-husband Mark Phillips) - they would not be full time working royals. Baby Archie is different. Charles has said that he wants to reduce the number of working royals, such that Archie won't be one -- but when HRH and her generation are no longer able to handle the workload, the number of working royals will drop in half (if not more) -- so Archie may have to be one. Since the public feels more entitled to information about future full time working royals, the uncertainty makes it difficult to see how much public access should be allowed to information about Archie.
 

IceSlider

Well-Known Member
Messages
524
Baby Archie is different. Charles has said that he wants to reduce the number of working royals, such that Archie won't be one -- but when HRH and her generation are no longer able to handle the workload,
Baby Archie is only months old! At the moment, I wouldn't take bets on what might happen in the next week in this turbulent world, let alone what might hapoen in 20 years! It's different threads on this forum, but between crazy polititians and crazy weather, anything's possible!!!
 

AxelAnnie

Graceful men lift lovely girls in white!
Messages
12,144
Cautionary Tale - Queen Elizabeth II - no one saw that coming!

If I were Meghan I would just follow Kate's path. She is, IMO doing a wonderful job of all of it.....including access to and privacy with her kids.

On another note. The Queen evidently has a wicked sense of humor: Funny Moments. There are several of these video clips on YouTube.
 
Last edited:

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,595
Baby Archie is only months old! At the moment, I wouldn't take bets on what might happen in the next week in this turbulent world, let alone what might hapoen in 20 years! It's different threads on this forum, but between crazy polititians and crazy weather, anything's possible!!!
Word. It seems as if Harry and Meghan want to map out the rest of his life and he's two months old. Think about this: when the Queen was coronated in 1953, did she ever think that her role would have evolved to what it is today? There was a time when Queen Victoria after Albert's death holed herself in her room, only occasionally going to the opera, and allowing very few people to even see her, her children included. Back then that was acceptable. That was already not acceptable by the time Elizabeth became queen. After WW2 the Brits looked to the Queen for confidence, stability, and the ability to reunite the country.

When HM gave birth to her four children she wanted what she thought was the best for them -- the finest boarding schools, a strict disciplined education to prepare them for the royal life. We saw how life happened to this children nonetheless. Charles and Andrew both went through messy and very public divorces, and if that stuff with Jeffrey Epstein continues to go down and Andrew is involved ... Princess Anne's first marriage also failed. To someone like Queen Elizabeth who put duty first in marriage that must have been shocking. Yet she got on with it.

The definition of "working royal" I'm sure will evolve even more in the 21st century. I guess what I'm saying is I think Harry and Meghan should just step back, enjoy their new family, and not worry so much about little things like christening photos.
 

IceSlider

Well-Known Member
Messages
524
I guess what I'm saying is I think Harry and Meghan should just step back, enjoy their new family, and not worry so much about little things like christening photos.
Amen to that! Wise advice for all of us, don't sweat the small stuff and focus on what's really important, the people you love. I liked the whole of your post, it really put this bit in context. Thanks :cheer2::)
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,162
It's interesting the different attitudes to privacy in different countries. The response by many Germans to Angela Merkle's shaking seemed to be pretty united, "it's her business not ours". I kinda like that attitude...
Germans are obsessed with privacy, so I'm not surprised.
 

Josh78

Well-Known Member
Messages
626
The British Royal family is German, innit?
Going back through Queen Victoria and Prince Albert they are, since both Victoria and Albert had German ancestry -- Victoria's mother was Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield, and Albert was Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
 

attyfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,560
Going back through Queen Victoria and Prince Albert they are, since both Victoria and Albert had German ancestry -- Victoria's mother was Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield, and Albert was Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
Goes back even further ... Queen Victoria was the grand-daughter of George III -- first British born monarch in the House of Hanover which came from Germany. The royal family kept German names and titles until 1917, when George V changed the royal's family name to "Windsor" and anglicized the names of the German relatives then living in Britain (for example, Battenbergs became Mountbattens)
 

cygnus

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,978
Goes back even further ... Queen Victoria was the grand-daughter of George III -- first British born monarch in the House of Hanover which came from Germany. The royal family kept German names and titles until 1917, when George V changed the royal's family name to "Windsor" and anglicized the names of the German relatives then living in Britain (for example, Battenbergs became Mountbattens)
And going back even further, through George 1's mother Sophia we get back to HER mother who was a Stuart princess born in Scotland. Yes there is a lot of German ancestry in the royals (although less in this and the past century, as consorts have been Danish, Anglo-Scottish, Greek (of Danish origin), and German/English/Hungarian (Mary of Teck)), so it's getting more dilute all the time.

The last monarch of England born in Germany was in 1683 (George ll). Since then, every one of them has been born in Britain. The last consort born in Germany was Prince Albert in 1819. Surely after all this time, they can be considered British? In the 20th century only one monarch (Edward Vll) spoke German fluently, and even he spoke better French than German. How long does a family have to live somewhere before they can be considered part of a place? If 300 years isn't enough, then most North Americans aren't really American/Canadian/whatever.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,730
The last monarch of England born in Germany In the 20th century only one monarch (Edward Vll) spoke German fluently, and even he spoke better French than German.
You should check your browser's settings. It appears to be filtering out facetiousness. :unsure:

But, FWIW, the senior male member of the royal family grew up speaking German at home and was educated in Germany as well as France and the U.K. :COP:
 

liv

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,997
I like how the Cambridge family does it. They release photos at birthdays, first days of school, special royal events like balcony appearances, more casually out with their parents at things like polo matches.... I feel we see the children just enough... and I don't feel as if we are intruding on their privacy either. I like to see them since we've watched generations of royals grow up before them. The public cares for them and there's an interest, but not an obsessive interest (that will come when they're older and dating and finding wives/husbands etc).

I hope the Sussex family provides a bit more access to Archie over the years too. It's the controlling attitude that puts people off... like the battle of wills with teenagers... don't battle over a hair cut when there are far more important things to battle about. Here it's like, why keep a lid on where he was born and who his godparents are... such silly little details in the grand scheme of things.

The occasional photo release on special dates etc., would be appropriate and well received. Prince Harry is liked by a lot of people, many of whom watched him grow up amid the most trying of circumstances and have a real soft spot for him...and like it or not, but many are sentimental and would like to see Diana's grandson. By announcing that Archie's going to be raised privately etc., just seems like they're disrespecting the public. No one is entitled to see him, but royal life (esp a senior royal like Harry is) is a balancing act between privacy and publicity and I think releasing timely photos would be appropriate and courteous to a public that only wishes them well.
 

cygnus

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,978
You should check your browser's settings. It appears to be filtering out facetiousness. :unsure:

But, FWIW, the senior male member of the royal family grew up speaking German at home and was educated in Germany as well as France and the U.K. :COP:
I know that the "German" thing is thrown out as a joke all the time- it's just a bit tiresome after a couple of hundred years of it.;)

Prince Philip does speak German, but his family spoke mainly English and French as well. (not much Greek, though!) His sisters all married Germans. He did attend school in Germany for less than a year, but was mostly educated in England (and a bit in Paris as a very young child). I have heard that his answer to the question of what language he spoke at home was "What do you mean "at home?" i.e.- his family life was a mess, and he went from relative to relative after his parents' marriage broke up.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
Here is the article about Meghan’s “staff” asking people to not take photos of her while she was at Wimbledon. I do understand that royalty, like celebrities, are allowed to have a private life. I think the line needs to be drawn based on how the royalty or celebrity got access to where they are. In this case, if Meghan and her friends purchased their tickets like any other member of the public, then yes, she can claim privacy and ask that photos not be taken (I think in her case it is a stupid and argumentative thing to do, but I will agree that she has the absolute right to do so.) If, however, they got the tickets because she is a royal, and all those empty seats around her were kept empty, because she is a royal, then she is not there in a private capacity and should suck it up when it comes to photos. She doesn’t need to do anything special, but people are going to take photos. Her security can keep them at a reasonable distance, but they are going to take photos. That is the cost of the privilege. Don’t want photos taken, don’t use your royal privilege to get good seats and keep seats around you empty.

Many members of the royal family enjoy Wimbledon every year. Many photos are taken. Meghan is not that special. Time to get over yourself.


ETA: Another take on the situation. I also wondered about the jeans. As discussed way back when, there is a learning curve to being a royal. Meghan is clearly still learning.

 
Last edited:

IceSlider

Well-Known Member
Messages
524
Here is the article about Meghan’s “staff” asking people to not take photos of her while she was at Wimbledon.
What a carefully written article. It is careful in its opening paragraphs not to actually state that this happened just that it was claimed that it did. I guess it's learned to tread carefully...a brief credibility check will show why... I guess the point is to make money, not to lose it in settlements...
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,595
The "no pictures" rule is actually really standard for the BRF. I know this because a friend of mine is a pianist who once performed at a venue accompanying a singer who was singing for William and Kate. (Keeping this all anonymous.) Let's just say this singer is world-renowned. Everyone in attendance had to abide by the "no pictures" rule ... including said world-famous singer. A few people tried to sneak their phone in for a quick shot as W&K were leaving but they were immediately tracked down and told to delete the pictures from their phone. This was a REALLY pricey event, with the patrons paying thousands of dollars.
 

IceSlider

Well-Known Member
Messages
524
The "no pictures" rule is actually really standard for the BRF. I know this because a friend of mine is a pianist who once performed at a venue accompanying a singer who was singing for William and Kate...
If only someone would tell the paparazzi there's a rule!!!... ;)
 

quartz

almost, but not quite
Messages
13,789
"No pictures" rule seems rather ridiculous when there are hundreds of cameras recording the event to broadcast it around the world. Everybody there is likely to be on camera somewhere at some point.
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,667
The "no pictures" rule is actually really standard for the BRF. I know this because a friend of mine is a pianist who once performed at a venue accompanying a singer who was singing for William and Kate. (Keeping this all anonymous.) Let's just say this singer is world-renowned. Everyone in attendance had to abide by the "no pictures" rule ... including said world-famous singer. A few people tried to sneak their phone in for a quick shot as W&K were leaving but they were immediately tracked down and told to delete the pictures from their phone. This was a REALLY pricey event, with the patrons paying thousands of dollars.
From your description, it sounds like that was actually a private event.

Pretending that Wimbledon is a private event is more than a stretch. And never mind that several of the people bothered by security about taking photos were not taking photos of Meghan. People were taking photos of the tennis match. Imagine that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information