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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
kittyjake5 said:
Did not know PG was an alcoholic. Was she under the influence when she died in the automobile accident?
Click to expand...

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.
 
clairecloutier said:
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.
Click to expand...
taf2002 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
kittyjake5 said:
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
Click to expand...
It was the only place I saw the question. You did not reference to whom you are responding. I shall try to find it.
 
Vagabond said:
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.
Click to expand...
Different for men and women.......no matter how much people would have it otherwise.
 
kittyjake5 said:
Did not know PG was an alcoholic. Was she under the influence when she died in the automobile accident?[
Click to expand...

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

Stephanie revealed in an interview that Grace had been having a headache, and seemed to black out for a moment. Then the car started to swerve, before going full speed ahead over the cliff.
Days later, doctors would confirm that they had found evidence of Grace having a "cerebral vascular incident." Dr. Jean Chatelain, chief surgeon at the hospital where she was treated, described the condition to the Times. "It was an incident which, if it occurred at home—well, she might have sat down and perhaps felt better soon," he said. "It could have been relatively benign, but you can't say for sure. It's conjecture. In other circumstances, of course, things could have evolved in a different manner."
Click to expand...


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.
 
kittyjake5 said:
Did not know PG was an alcoholic. Was she under the influence when she died in the automobile accident?
Click to expand...
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:
www.theguardian.com

Stephanie: 'I was not at wheel when Grace was killed'

Star's daughter hits out at 'horrible' rumours.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
AxelAnnie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
And now for the current Monegasque royal family...

Princess Gabriella's outfit is much cuter than her mother's:
us.hola.com

Princess Charlene marks twins Jacques and Gabriella's return to school with a personal photo

It's back to school for Prince Albert and Princess Charlene's twins. Prince Jacques and Princess' mom marked their return to school with a personal photo on social media.
us.hola.com us.hola.com

Seriously, what is up with Princess Charlene's style?
www.dailymail.co.uk

First day of school! Princess Gabriella and Prince Jacques of Monaco

Princess Gabriella and Prince Jacques of Monaco, both four, dressed in matching preppy outfits as they arrived for the first day back after summer.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
(with bonus Spanish royals)
 
TBH I thought the Monaco twins were kind of plain but they're a lot cuter now, esp Gabriella.
 
mella said:
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,
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jenny said:
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,
Click to expand...
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.)

mella said:
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
Click to expand...
Neither of their greatest hour.


PDilemma said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
PDilemma said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
kwanfan1818 said:
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: ;)
Click to expand...

"The Queen wouldn't let him be with Camilla" is part of the mythology. It's everywhere.
 
AxelAnnie said:
1. Edward VII wanted to marry a

n American Divorce..............um.......he had to abdicate.
Click to expand...
mella said:
I think the world has moved on since the objections to Edward VII and Wallace Simpson.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Bunny Hop said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
There's another photo of Archie but it's in B&W so we STILL don't know if he has red hair.

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com www.instagram.com
 
Parsley Sage said:
I haven't been able to figure out what it does either.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PDilemma said:
There is so much mythology around the entire Charles-Diana-Camilla thing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
canbelto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

aftershocks
  • Locked
Royalty Thread#12 Tiaras, Palaces & Gilded Cages
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
86K
aftershocks
aftershocks
TAHbKA
Vaytsekhovskaya's interview with Nikolaev
Replies
2
Views
2K
kosjenka
kosjenka
quiqie
Anton Sikharulidze interview
2
Replies
54
Views
20K
Limonite
Limonite
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information