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

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,041
We forget Princess Grace lived so happily ever after that she was estranged from all her children at the time of her death, estranged from her husband, and an alcoholic. So ... yeah, she's not the best model of how to live the royal life.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,041
Did not know PG was an alcoholic. Was she under the influence when she died in the automobile accident?
AFAIK no she wasn't. But she was spending most of her time in Paris, and was on bad terms with her three kids, all of whom disappointed her. Prince Rainier did not respect the fact that Grace remained close with many of her old Hollywood friends and he also was a womanizer. Grace Kelly drank heavily. It wasn't a good situation.
 

AxelAnnie

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,290
I was just reading online about the alleged rift between Prince Harry and Prince William. Supposedly before the wedding, William and Kate expressed doubt about Meghan to Harry, objecting because 1) she and Harry hadn't been dating very long and 2) Meghan had previously been married & divorced.

I hadn't heard reason #2 before. If true, it's rather interesting and suggests some naivete and conservatism on the part of the Cambridges, imo.
I've heard this before but I'm not sure I believe it. Surely by the time the Cambridges were in their 30's they knew better than to criticize Harry's beloved. After all Harry had been super supportive of Kate. If true I imagine it would cut Harry to the quick.
Oh - I believe it 100%. Look at it from a different POV.
1. Edward VII wanted to marry a

n American Divorce..............um.......he had to abdicate.
2. Charles wanted to be with Camilla - a divorce. He Married Diana, but kept his affair with Camilla..........we know how that turned out. It is ok (kind of ) now, but it was not for many, many years.

So, I think it is safe to say that marrying a divorce has not worked out well for The Firm so far.

And then there is that Princess Margaret thing.
Princess Anne seemed to comport herself quite well. Although she sidestepped the Church of England’s restriction of divorcées remarrying by marrying in Scotland.

So, yeah, I would say divorce is a "thing". A bunch of people looked the other way to allow Meghan and Harry to be married at Westminster Abbey.
 

kittyjake5

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,496
AA I don’t have any links since I am not the poster who said she was an alcoholic. I was asking a question so I don’t know why you quoted my post
 

AxelAnnie

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,290
AA I don’t have any links since I am not the poster who said she was an alcoholic. I was asking a question so I don’t know why you quoted my post
It was the only place I saw the question. You did not reference to whom you are responding. I shall try to find it.
 

AxelAnnie

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,290
Come on, people! Would anyone be criticizing Harry if he had gone to New York for a few days without his wife and child?

And, while the circumstances are very different, I would also note that the Queen (then the Duchess of Edinburgh) and her husband left their infant son Prince Charles back in England for two years while they were living in Malta. Somehow, the mother-son bond managed to survive intact.
Different for men and women.......no matter how much people would have it otherwise.
 

AxelAnnie

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,290
Did not know PG was an alcoholic. Was she under the influence when she died in the automobile accident?[
I must have the poster you were responding to on block.

The cause of Princess Grace's car accident was a ceberal hemmorage. Evidently she had an incident at home before she left, but "shook it off" (something that is not abnormal).
Town & Country



In looking through the information.......by goodness she was beautiful. Alfred Hitchcock offered her the part in Marnie....but she turned it down, even though it was always her plan to return to her career. Part of her turn down had to do with the press and popular opinion that it was unseemly for Royal Princess of Monaco to play a psycho character. Also there was a problem about her salary.....who would get paid? Where would the money go....she offered to use it to set up a trust. But it was all eventually vetoed by TPTB.

And, good grief.....she was so goreous.
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,417
Did not know PG was an alcoholic. Was she under the influence when she died in the automobile accident?
I'm sure she was human and had her challenges, but I've found no references to PG being an alcoholic or feuding with all her children when she died. She may have been arguing with Princess Stephanie before the accident, but every reputable source I've seen states that PG had a stroke while driving and lost control of the car. Stephanie tried to stop it but couldn't; I can't imagine how traumatic that must have been for her.

Here's what Stephanie had to say about it years later:
 

mella

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,447
Oh - I believe it 100%. Look at it from a different POV.
1. Edward VII wanted to marry a

n American Divorce..............um.......he had to abdicate.
2. Charles wanted to be with Camilla - a divorce. He Married Diana, but kept his affair with Camilla..........we know how that turned out. It is ok (kind of ) now, but it was not for many, many years.

So, I think it is safe to say that marrying a divorce has not worked out well for The Firm so far.

And then there is that Princess Margaret thing.
Princess Anne seemed to comport herself quite well. Although she sidestepped the Church of England’s restriction of divorcées remarrying by marrying in Scotland.

So, yeah, I would say divorce is a "thing". A bunch of people looked the other way to allow Meghan and Harry to be married at Westminster Abbey.
Except for the bit where Charles and Camilla were not prevented from marrying because of her being divorced. They knew each other and were supposedly a couple but did not marry BEFORE Camilla married her first husband. Charles/Camilla made that choice. He didn't marry Diana because he was prevented from marrying a divorcee he married her because he was being pressured to the the knot and Camilla had chosen to marry someone else... iirc whilst Charles dithered/didn't stand up for what he wanted, when Camilla (though single) was met with disapproval. The issues around Charles as a divorced man marrying a divorced woman were I believe far more about the specific optics of that relationship and the Diana dynamic than they were about Charles marrying a divorcee.

Also Harry did not marry Meghan at Westminster Abbey.

I think the world has moved on since the objections to Edward VIII and Wallace Simpson. And even since Princess Anne/ Charles and Camilla. Like Princess Anne, Harry is not the immediate heir. He is also clearly not the king so comparisons to Edward VIII and Charles aren't particularly relevant. If people "looked the other way" for Harry, so they did for Anne in the manner that was relevant at the time. Taken in context with all the others though I think the fact that Harry married in the church where Charles's second marriage was blessed by the archibishop of Canterbury (2005, in the presence of the queen) shows a consistent though gradual modernisation in approach since E VIII's abdication. Divorce is a "thing" - for you, for sure. The royal family appear to me to be moving forward and modernising their approach.

If things don't work out for Harry and Meghan at least it won't be because Harry was too spineless to go after what he wanted and stand by the woman he loves.
 
Last edited:

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,417
And now for the current Monegasque royal family...

Princess Gabriella's outfit is much cuter than her mother's:

Seriously, what is up with Princess Charlene's style?
(with bonus Spanish royals)
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,635
Except for the bit where Charles and Camilla were not prevented from marrying because of her being divorced. They knew each other and were supposedly a couple but did not marry BEFORE Camilla married her first husband. Charles/Camilla made that choice. He didn't marry Diana because he was prevented from marrying a divorcee he married her because he was being pressured to the the knot and Camilla had chosen to marry someone else... iirc whilst Charles dithered/didn't stand up for what he wanted,
Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles on July 4, 1973. When she became engaged, Charles was away in the military for a long assignment and had not even bothered to write to her. She assumed the relationship was over. Fair assumption on her part. She had been seeing Andrew Parker Bowles on and off before he left, anyway, as the relationship had cooled and had not been very serious for awhile.

Additionally, Charles had been quite clear that he wasn't ready to marry anyone at that time. Note the year of her wedding--he waited another 8 years to marry at all. By the time he married, she had two children. They were born in 1974 (Tom) and 1978 (Laura). He was never told he couldn't marry Camilla because he never said he wanted to. He also wasn't told, by his parents, that she was not appropriate. He was told by Louis Mountbatten, however, that he should marry a younger girl, preferably a virgin, from a titled family. Mountbatten wasn't speaking royal protocol. Mountbatten just wanted his granddaughter to be Queen. And Charles proposed to her in 1980; everyone suspects to honor his uncle's wishes. She said no.

There is so much mythology around the entire Charles-Diana-Camilla thing. And when you unpack that, it is far less interesting. Particularly this part.
 

kwanfan1818

I <3 Kozuka
Messages
31,618
Of course Charles' wedding was a big deal because he's the next king and Diana was so photogenic and relatable with her youth and shyness,
It was a big deal because Kiri Te Kanawa sang "Let the Bright Seraphim" :). (I watched it through a second time to hear it again.)

He didn't marry Diana because he was prevented from marrying a divorcee he married her because he was being pressured to the the knot
Neither of their greatest hour.


He also wasn't told, by his parents, that she was not appropriate. He was told by Louis Mountbatten, however, that he should marry a younger girl, preferably a virgin, from a titled family.
The assertion was that he didn't stand up to pressure. That the pressure was from a royal to whom he was very close and was giving him selfish advice because of vested interest, and not his parents or the Archbishop of Canterbury, doesn't mean he didn't succumb to pressure. Or that she thought he went dark because of it and went on with her life.

He ended up succumbing to pressure: he just ended up marrying v2 of Mountbatten's formula when he was older, after v1, with self-awareness, declined. I remember reading accounts in the US that he needed to find a virgin, or at least someone without a "troublesome past," which was a lot tougher in the '80's without finding someone very young, and eliminated many women with whom he had something to talk about.

If only his parents had been nurturing, Lord Mountbatten might not have been such an influence :drama: ;)
 
Last edited:

mella

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,447
Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles on July 4, 1973. When she became engaged, Charles was away in the military for a long assignment and had not even bothered to write to her. She assumed the relationship was over. Fair assumption on her part. She had been seeing Andrew Parker Bowles on and off before he left, anyway, as the relationship had cooled and had not been very serious for awhile.

Additionally, Charles had been quite clear that he wasn't ready to marry anyone at that time. Note the year of her wedding--he waited another 8 years to marry at all. By the time he married, she had two children. They were born in 1974 (Tom) and 1978 (Laura). He was never told he couldn't marry Camilla because he never said he wanted to. He also wasn't told, by his parents, that she was not appropriate. He was told by Louis Mountbatten, however, that he should marry a younger girl, preferably a virgin, from a titled family. Mountbatten wasn't speaking royal protocol. Mountbatten just wanted his granddaughter to be Queen. And Charles proposed to her in 1980; everyone suspects to honor his uncle's wishes. She said no.

There is so much mythology around the entire Charles-Diana-Camilla thing. And when you unpack that, it is far less interesting. Particularly this part.
I must admit I had always understood Lord Mountabatten's advice to have been somewhat official/party line, rather than personal.

And yes. Charles's silence whilst away on assignment rather spoke for itself and Camilla's actions in turn seem reasonable although I remember reading some time ago that Charles supposedly wrote to her when he heard about the engagement/approaching wedding and asked her not to go through with it. Can't recall where I read that though so not sure of its veracity. Something is telling me it was claimed in a Charles or Camilla biography a year or so ago and there was some press reporting on it then. That's why I said both Charles and Camilla made the choice not to marry despite their history.

ETA this is apparently covered in the Camilla biography "The Duchess" released last year so I guess I read some article back then.
 
Last edited:

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,635
The assertion was that he didn't stand up to pressure. That the pressure was from a royal to whom he was very close and was giving him selfish advice because of vested interest, and not his parents or the Archbishop of Canterbury, doesn't mean he didn't succumb to pressure. Or that she thought he went dark because of it and went on with her life.

He ended up succumbing to pressure: he just ended up marrying v2 of Mountbatten's formula when he was older, after v1, with self-awareness, declined. I remember reading accounts in the US that he needed to find a virgin, or at least someone without a "troublesome past," which was a lot tougher in the '80's without finding someone very young, and eliminated many women with whom he had something to talk about.

If only his parents had been nurturing, Lord Mountbatten might not have been such an influence :drama: ;)
"The Queen wouldn't let him be with Camilla" is part of the mythology. It's everywhere.
 

mella

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,447
Sorry to be a pedant but it was Edward VIII who married Wallis Simpson, not Edward VII (son of Queen Victoria, married to Princess Alexandra of Denmark).
Not pedantic at all! Thanks for flagging.

:shuffle: - closest i can find to embarrassed since I do actually know that but incorrectly quoted that bit whilst being all snarky about the other mistakes... awkward! That will teach me :lol: Will correct prev post.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,041
There's another photo of Archie but it's in B&W so we STILL don't know if he has red hair.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,041
I haven't been able to figure out what it does either.
Well tbh I find a lot of the royal foundations quite vague in what they do. For instance I remember the roll-out of Heads Together. It even had a big fancy conference. Since then I haven't heard much about them and what work that foundation has done.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,840
There is so much mythology around the entire Charles-Diana-Camilla thing.
There is also a lot of revisionist history. Much but Diana herself. I have listened to those “secret” tapes she made and wow, there was a lot of spite there. It seems to be forgotten that she actively pursued Charles and when she was younger she had a photo of Andrew up by her bed in her dorm room. This was not someone who was coerced into marrying. Yes, Charles made mistakes, as did Diana. Lots of blame to go around on both side. Diana was just willing to be more public with their spite than Charles was. She was also a much more sympathetic victim.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,709
Well tbh I find a lot of the royal foundations quite vague in what they do. For instance I remember the roll-out of Heads Together. It even had a big fancy conference. Since then I haven't heard much about them and what work that foundation has done.
Heads Together is the umbrella charity that covers several grass roots charities connected with Mental Health issues here in the UK and has been very active since it was launched. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are very active with their respective interests - Wills addresses metal health in the work place as well as using sport - especially football (soccer to you Yanks) to get men to discuss their issues. Kate is very involved with schools addressing mental health issues in kids. Harry uses the Invictus Games to address mental health issues in the armed forces. The webpage gives more details and these are addressed by the press here in the UK. The most recent one being William using the Community Shield charity football match in August to again utilise football to get men especially to talk about their issues. You may not hear much about it over in the US for whatever reason but we certainly do here in the UK.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 8, Guests: 3)

Top