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

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
23,030
I'm not sure not wanting to be tied down is the more accurate wording. It was more that she went a little wild after the divorce. This is not uncommon after a divorce.
I phrased it the way I did because the friends who went a little wild after a divorce were not doing what was in the best interests of their children. They wanted to go out lots of nights so after not seeing their kids all day they left them with babysitters 3 to 4 or more times a week. I also went a little wild after my divorce but my dog forgave me.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,855
I think her action after the divorce was not a result of not wanting to be tied down. It was her reaction to being truly upset over the infidelity of her husband (ex) and his deceit to her right from day one when he asked her to marry him knowing he loved someone else. She probably felt a bit duped or used? Notwithstanding, she loved her sons and would not take that back for the world.

In many ways, if she did not want to be tied down then the infidelity of Charles would be no biggie because then she could be "free" to pursue her own interests. Right?
I think she really wanted to be tied down. She looked to me to be on a mad search for a husband. I think as far as infidelity went, Diana had, I believe, at least two affairs, one of which she involved her children in by taking them along on the weekends away. So that is a wash. As my grandmother used to say, “they weren’t ruining two families,” except of course they were.

I suspect that Charles also felt a bit duped. He though he was marrying a country life, hunting fishing sort of “fun” woman, and then it turned out she didn’t really want to spend lots of time in country walking, fishing, hunting, riding, but preferred rock concerts, the theatre, lunch with friends in London.

Charles should have known better for the same reason Diana should have. The families were well know to each other, Diana grew up with Andrew and Edward (they used to swim in her family’s pool) and her sister dated Charles for a while. Finally, no one could have predicted the Di mania that was the 1980’s. For someone young, impressionable, and struggling with post partum depression it would have been difficult while also seeming confidence boosting. For Charles, used to being the centre of attention, it would have been dismaying.

Neither appeared to have great interpersonal communication skills - really a recipe for disaster.

It really was what is was. Lots of blame to go around yet really, no one’s fault. Hopefully the next generation of royals will have a smoother time of it. William and Kate seem solid. Harry and Meghan are just starting out but are older so hopefully their world experience serves them well. Odd to think that Meghan is two years older than Diana was when she died.
 

antmanb

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,979
I phrased it the way I did because the friends who went a little wild after a divorce were not doing what was in the best interests of their children. They wanted to go out lots of nights so after not seeing their kids all day they left them with babysitters 3 to 4 or more times a week. I also went a little wild after my divorce but my dog forgave me.
In Diana and Charles' world it was the permanent babysitting world of boarding school, where the boys were, so neither parent was looking after them anyway so 🤷
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,410
I read a report today that Archie has "tufts of red hair". So the thread title was eerily accurate. :)
Maybe this unsubstantiated report?

The thread title by Sharpie is a tongue-in-cheek reference to my insistence in the previous Royalty thread that I thought I detected faint red hairs around Archie's cap during his two-day-old photo shoot. In fact, Archie likely did have faint red down-like hairs on his face and around his hairline at that stage. Harry even mentioned during the photo shoot that Archie already had 'facial hair.' :D

So the title is not 'eerily accurate.' It was intentionally tongue-in-cheek. My perception is what may prove to be accurate, if in fact little Archie has red or reddish-brown hair ;) Physical characteristics of babies and young children can change over time as they grow. But Archie apparently having red hair is unsurprising with a ginger Dad, and red-haired genes in Meghan's paternal family.

As was previously discussed, Meghan's half-brother has red hair, and it was very red when he was younger:

Meghan herself has her mother's small bone structure, temperament, eye color and strong personality. As well, Meghan's natural hair is curly which she gets from her Mom's side. But Meghan also has a lot of physical characteristics from her Dad, including deep-set eyes, nose tip, similar shaped face, as can be seen in a view of Markle Sr's high school grad pic against a middle school grad photo of Meghan:
 
Last edited:

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,410
I suspect that Charles also felt a bit duped.
Neither of them knew each other. Their marriage was a disaster waiting to happen. Diana was 19 going on 20 when their maternal grandmothers plotted to get them engaged and married to each other, because Diana was seen as the 'virtuous virgin' which somehow was thought necessary for Prince Charles to marry, while Camilla was decidedly not a virtuous virgin, and therefore unacceptable.

Charles did not have the spine to go against his elders and proclaim that he would only marry for love. Because Charles showed no signs of ever proposing to Camilla, she eventually decided to marry her lover, Andrew Parker-Bowles, who 'got around' with plenty of other women in those 'swinging' days. Parker-Bowles had even dated Princess Anne, who was said to be infatuated with him (but Parker-Bowles was out of the question for Anne to marry because he was Catholic). Once Parker-Bowles married Camilla, Princess Anne on the rebound decided to marry her horsey world friend, Mark Phillips, despite the fact Phillips was known to be somewhat 'thick and wet,' i.e., not very bright generally, despite being gifted as a horseman.

Diana and Charles had only been awkwardly seeing each other for a few months before Charles was pressured into asking Diana to marry him. There are plenty of books and documentaries that detail their sad, doomed relationship. I truly doubt that Chalres felt 'duped.' He actually didn't want to go through with the wedding. Diana had some doubts too before the big day because she was becoming suspicious of why married Camilla was always hanging around as a 'close' friend of Charles. But Diana's sisters famously told her she couldn't back out because her face was already on the tea towels. :p The other thing that goes against your 'duped' scenario is that Charles and Camilla both probably expected since Diana seemed shy and innocent, that she was going to be malleable and accommodating regarding their affair, not rebellious and defiant. But if you wish to characterize that as Charles being 'duped,' then he duped himself out of his own misperceptions and faulty expectations. That would NOT be Diana's fault.

In the early days of their marriage, Charles and Diana both made a huge effort to get along and to make things work. Obviously, they shared caring feelings for each other, but it wasn't based on true love. Unfortunately, their ages, personalities, and interests were very different, which shouldn't have been a surprise. If anyone is going to be described as 'duped' though, it should be Diana, not Charles. He was certainly old enough and worldly enough to know better than she how ill-suited they were for each other. The real issue that began to get under Charles' skin was Diana's magical connection with the public. The crowds wanted her, not him.
 
Last edited:

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,410
The families were well know to each other, Diana grew up with Andrew and Edward (they used to swim in her family’s pool) and her sister dated Charles for a while.
Diana's family is a very well connected and historic English aristocratic family descended from English monarchs, noblemen and noble ladies. Diana was more English than Charles ancestrally. Diana's father, 8th Earl Spencer, served as equerry to both George VI and QE-II in the 1950s. The families of course knew each other, which does not mean they knew each other extremely well in terms of intimate knowledge.

Aristocracy associate with, socialize with and sometimes especially in the recent past, serve royalty. When you serve royalty, the relationship is usually kept on a professional basis, not a 'good old chum' basis. Diana's maternal grandmother was lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. It is chiefly those two ladies who hatched the plot to mistakenly bring Diana and Charles together. In the long run, at least, William and Harry being born of the union is the relationship's important and lasting legacy.

Sarah briefly dated Charles, but he dated quite a few ladies in his time, in addition to his affairs with married women. Reportedly Sarah said something to the prying media at one point which didn't go over well, and led to Charles ending the relationship. I'm not sure how well it was known that Diana's mother suffered domestic violence meted out by her husband, 8th Earl Spencer. Subsequently and notoriously, it was Diana's mother who was blamed for fleeing her husband for another man.

Neither appeared to have great interpersonal communication skills... It really was what is was. Lots of blame to go around yet really, no one’s fault.
I think Charles and Diana are/were both decent communicators, especially with the public. They may not have communicated well with each other, but that doesn't mean they don't/ didn't have interpersonal communication skills. Clearly the biggest drawbacks and warning signs are that they had very different personalities and they were from different generations, and had uniquely different interests.

The fact they didn't connect on an intellectual or emotional level, had needs neither could fill, and barely knew each other when they married can most certainly be blamed on particular individuals for not recognizing they were a poor match. Indeed there's lots of blame to go around in that respect. Everyone has faults, but there's no point in assessing blame or fault at this stage of history. Ultimately, what happened was a lesson for the monarchy, and painfully for the Windsors. But lessons learned lead to growth.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
23,030
OMG! I made a joking reference to a news article on Archie's hair & we get treated to a dissertation on genetics. Funny how some people can't stand anyone to "scoop" her. FYI, everyone in this thread isn't stupid. We knew SHARPIE was making a tongue-in-cheek reference. BTW the 2 posts following the one about hair contained information that has been posted before....by the same poster. More than once. Maybe she thinks all of us are stupid & need repeating. idk
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,410
^^ It's actually the thread title that's humorous... Sorry I didn't get your joke. :p

I'm not into 'scooping.' I'm not a royal reporter. I just have a passion for British royal history and British culture. I always like to share my knowledge, which don't mean my views about what I've read are the only valid ones. But I do try to do my homework. Still, there's always something new to learn. :D

As far as me writing a lot, what else is new(s)? :p :shuffle:

William and Kate seem solid.
William and Kate know each other well and they've been through a lot with each other. Reportedly, they began as friends first before they began dating. From all accounts, William could always rely on Kate for encouragement and emotional support, and he grew to love her close-knit family. Still, William broke up with Kate twice during their long courtship because they were so young when they met. Moreover, the first break-up happened circa 2003-2004, because William became completely infatuated with leggy, blond English aristocrat, Isabella Calthorpe (a half-sister of Cressida Bonas, Harry's ex-girlfriend).

According to the gossip grapevine, Isabella was not interested in dating William, to Kate's great relief. Reportedly, when William went back to Kate after Isabella nixed becoming involved partly because she wanted to pursue a professional career out of the limelight, Kate made William promise not to see Isabella again. Of course, Isabella was invited to Will & Kate's wedding though:

Eventually, Isabella met and married the perfect man for her: Richard Branson's son and heir, Sam:

Will & Kate's marriage is in no danger, but that doesn't mean everything is always peaches 'n cream behind palace walls. :p Kate has put up with a lot from William in both their courtship and their marriage, but they apparently understand each other, so from all appearances they are on a solid foundation in that respect. It goes without saying that Kate has no intention of not becoming Queen of England. :glamor:

Surely the royal family would have been pleased had Will or Harry married English aristocrats, but many modern young ladies are interested in pursuing independent careers. Plus, everyone knows what happened to Diana, and that knowledge was most likely a distinct drawback to the Wales brothers finding ladies from the English aristocracy who were eager to join the royal family. Both Isabella and Cressida were interested in developing careers that did not involve becoming royal wives (plus Cressy seemingly was not really over her former boyfriend whom she went back to after her split with Harry):

Harry and Meghan are just starting out but are older so hopefully their world experience serves them well. Odd to think that Meghan is two years older than Diana was when she died.
Harry is the youngest of the four. Meghan is older than Kate by five months, and Kate is older than William by about six months. William is two years and a few months older than Harry. Meghan is about three years older than Harry. Kate is about two years and nine months older than Harry. Bottom line: they are all currently in their 30s and they are of the same generation.

It's not odd that Meghan is two years older than Diana was when she died. It's simply that unlike Diana, Meghan did not die at age 36. As we know, Meghan married Harry at age 36, which was often commented on in the lead-up to the royal wedding. So the significant fact is that Meghan married Harry at the same age his mother was when he lost her. Meghan was 34 when she met Harry in 2016 -- she turned 35 about a month after they met.
 
Last edited:

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,855
I wasn’t going to respond, but OMG @aftershocks, take a chill pill! William and Kate SEEM solid in their relationship. None of us know for sure. We are all just speculating. It is no big deal.

Harry and Meghan were OLDER when they got married. Absolutely no one in this thread thinks that Harry is older than William or Kate.

Maybe “odd” isn’t exactly the best word, but noting the fact that Meghan, with a new born, is older now than Diana was when she died, leaving behind two adolescent kids, is just a commentary on how young Diana was and how different Meghan’s experience joining the royal family will be from Diana’s. (Yes, I am well aware, as is everyone else in this thread, that there are many other differences as well.)
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,410
^^ Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Obviously, Harry is not 'older,' but that is what you said. If you meant Harry and Meghan were older when they first met and when they married, I didn't get that from your wording.

And re Meghan vs Diana, again 'odd' is a very strange way of referencing that Meghan is now 38. 'Everyone in this thread' already knows how very young Diana was when she married Charles. We were just talking about it. Obviously, we all know that when Diana married, she was much younger than Kate too. So, all three ladies trajectories in the royal family are different. That aspect is a no-brainer. Again, I'm not sure what your emphasis is about exactly, so maybe it's me that's 'stupid,' contrary to taf's suggestion. :p Bottomline: Every marriage is different, royal or not.

Chillin' is always advisable, particularly in the lazy, hazy days of August. :summer:
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,410
Truer words have yet to be spoken :)
:rofl:


:lol:

Meanwhile, it was a so-called 'insider source' who reportedly told People mag:
"Archie has lovely, puffy little legs, and tufts of reddish hair. He's really adorable."

The above article also chimes in with other reports that the Sussexes took Archie with them on a five-day getaway in early August to Ibiza (a Spanish island off the eastern coast of Spain), to celebrate Meghan's birthday. The Sussexes and their RPOs have the undercover travel security down pat.
 
Last edited:

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,855
Elton John also flew them to Nice where they had a vacation at his home there.
 

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,692
He really is an idiot. I know we have family members and close friends who support him and I am just more and more dismayed by this.
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,410
A (very!) little more information about the new additions to Harry and Meghan’s household.

I guess The Sun has an actual photo of the latest nanny who is currently helping the Sussexes with Archie. TMZ also has a report with a photo of the new nanny disembarking the plane after the Sussexes trip to Nice (the plane was provided by Elton John whom they were privately visiting). The new nanny is British, with possibly African or West Indies heritage. Her name is not known, likely because her employment is a private matter.

The report from TMZ is hilarious in how they reference the new nanny, and then trip themselves up by trying to backtrack on the fact none of us have any idea of the heritage of any of the previous two nannies who reportedly have thus far worked for the Sussexes (one is suspected to have been a night nurse). TMZ also attempts to awkwardly compare the new nanny's background with the background of the Cambridges' nanny, all the while actually knowing nothing about this new nanny, except having captured an image of her. :p The first two nannies for all we know may have been contracted for temporary work, while the Sussexes searched for a more long-term nanny.

The sly suggestion by some media that the Sussexes are persnickety or that Meghan runs through staffers is presumptuous, when some of their staff were only supposed to be temporary in any case (including Samantha Cohen). Certain ones, such as Amy Pickerill decided to leave for personal and career reasons. Working in the royal spotlight can be stressful, plus royal employment does not pay well, although it might be a stepping stone to more lucrative employment.

Meanwhile, in other non-stop Sussex Watch media reports:

Bravo to Mulroney, Pink, Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John, et al, for speaking out. When the Cambridges flew to Mustique on holiday this summer, there wasn't this intense criticism. All the royals fly on private airplanes and have wealthy friends who share their yachts, jets and homes with the Windsors. Elton John's statement says it all...
 
Last edited:
Top