Harry & Meghan 18: Faux Royals

[louisa05]

3 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

I think Harry would love the pampering and the feeling of importance and the love of the nation part of being a king but he'd hate having the press all up in his business and be bored to death by the stolid garden parties and all the patronage with the less glamorous community leaders.

And I can't see him getting excited about signing routine bills and documents.

He may be mad that his brother gets to be king instead of him, even if he wouldn't love the job.

I think you're right. He really loves being the center of attention. And Meghan loves that even more. Her problem was that when the whole family was together for the really big events, she was not the center of attention. 

Her dad's recollections in the Tom Bower book make it clear why she is that way. He basically did everything in his power to let her be at the center of everything for her entire childhood. He can feel bad about the situation now, but the man reaped what he sowed with her. 

[tabitha2]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again I feel very sad  for the two babies they produced cause These two adults are trifling, surface and very very self involved 

[just_ordinary]

On 8/20/2024 at 10:06 PM, FluffySnowball said:

As far as I’m aware, the younger sister of the Swedish crown princess splits her time between the US and Sweden. Something along those lines might have been a good fit for Harry and Meghan. 

Also, the current king of Thailand has apparently spent more time in Germany than in his home country during the last couple of years. If I’m not misremembering, it has even gotten to the point where the German government intervened and forbade him from conducting his royal administrative duties from Germany. 

Madeleine is not exactly without controversy and she got a TON of backlash for only showing up when it suited her. I think the discussion has died down since the grandchildren apart from Victoria‘s have lost their HRH equivalent and their parents have publicly welcomed that change. She has since moved back with her family but I doubt we will see much more from her. I think she is quite happy to be more on the outs though. She isn’t employed afaik and her husband refused a title upon marriage so he could still do his job. He would have had to stop otherwise. The Swedish spare CP also had to change some stuff regarding his design company. There are really no 50/50 royals that I am aware off that have a setup even similar to what I gathered from H&M statements.
H&Ms biggest problem was that they didn’t realise what a half in/half out actually meant. Paying for your own security. Not being automatically protected like a senior royal. Not using your title to trade on in a very obvious way (looking at your Peter Philips). Not picking whatever job you like. Being called upon when the RF wants it and not when you want it. No HRH. And of course: not talking bad about the organisation your work for, even if it’s part time. 

I am of firm believe, that, if they had stuck it out, they would be dominating the headlines in a positive way for a good two years now. With Kate and Charles being less visible they would be the face and no one could stop it. I don’t blame them for deciding to rather not be part of the circus. But their reasons are questionable at best and their actions were as stupid as harsh.

Edited August 27 by just_ordinary

[louisa05]

17 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

 

I am of firm believe, that, if they had stuck it out, they would be dominating the headlines in a positive way for a good two years now. With Kate and Charles being less visible they would be the face and no one could stop it. I don’t blame them for deciding to rather not be part of the circus. But their reasons are questionable at best and their actions were as stupid as harsh.

The thing is--and it's what makes them off-putting to a lot of people--is that if they sincerely wanted to dedicate themselves to charity and service, that's what their job was as working royals. But that's not what they want. They want to be celebrities with all the perks of being royal and they want to do charity their way--not through a legitimate royal foundation with legitimate parameters (hard to use the money for travel and Hermes throw blankets), and not doing "boring" visits and events where they are supposed to put the attention on the people doing the work. They want it to be about sitting on a stage going on about themselves (did you know that Meghan wrote a letter to Procter & Gamble when she was 11???) and sharing their shallow platitudes wisdom or some such thing. 

[TN-peach]

From some of the sources on the internet, apparently the letter to Procter & Gamble was a class project.  It was her father's contacts in Hollywood that got her the interview.  But apparently her letter was one of hundreds. 

I have not looked at it.  I don't know for sure but it sounds like something I could see being a class extra credit project. 

[SoSoNosy]

On 8/26/2024 at 6:06 PM, VGL said:

Do they know that there is more than one royal family in the world? 😊

But the USA doesn’t have one, so if H&M can just squeeze in there they can go on the royal tours and eventually the “honored” countries will give them gifts.  And there isn’t a rule that the US royal family can’t keep the gifts, so now we’ll just sit back and wait on those diamond necklaces and and other luxurious things.  Notice I didn’t capitalize royal.

Edit:  I forgot to mention that these dreams live only in the fantasy worlds of H&M.

Edited August 28 by SoSoNosy
Addition

[nelliebelle1197]

On 8/20/2024 at 12:33 AM, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

I still feel like Meghan is getting all the blame/hate. It's entirely possible if they stuck it out she would have settled into doing all those less glamorous  photo ops and done a fine job. It doesn't seem very reasonable to me that a west coast LA type woman would really know anything at all about English country life. There is not really anything similar in the USA so if you're not familiar with the non-London parts of England you may not realize the importance and relevance of those types of things.

And I don't blame her for not sticking it out. It seems pretty clear that Harry was looking for ways out and thought he could choose his own adventure (which is odd since he never had been able to before). Although, I do think it's also possible/likely that getting married and having a child brought to the surface some deep trauma about security/paparazzi/his mom/celebrity life. My take is that this trauma sort of made him act in a very sped up manner and not try to rationally work through things. Maybe if they had just waited 6-9 months a lot of stuff would have quieted down - but it's like he panicked. And Covid-19 just ramped up everybody's paranoia.

For me the parallel with David and Wallis is pretty shallow. Everything I've read is that Wallis wanted to stay a hidden mistress and even just have her time with him and expected to do other things when he got tired of her and moved on. 

I think Meghan had good intentions to do volunteer work. She never got past the growing pains start to her royal life so who knows what she would have actually done. She was doing volunteer and advocacy work prior to meeting Harry so it seems reasonable to me that she planned to continue doing that.  As far as I can tell Wallis' big thing was dinner parties. I've not read a whole lot about David's life but I seem to recall that he was a big play boy type himself and wasn't interested in leadership/governing/public service.  Whereas Harry does seem to take that stuff seriously.

So who knows what they might have done.

What they're doing now though is sad and sketchy. I don't know what their long term plan is. I feel like they should get Harry into being the public face of 1 legitimate charitable organization and just focus on that. It would get them some good PR. He could come out and do the handshakes and pictures 4-6 times a year and stop looking like Andrew (with respect to the money chasing). Let people see a reason to be like "ohhhh  good old Harry. His family didn't appreciate him" 

Instead of everybody seeing him and saying "they're well rid of him"

 

 

 

Welp. QEII offered Sophie as a mentor and Meghan refused so I think it is more along the lines of she refused to adjust. If the family did not intend to accept her, Charles would have never offered to walk her down the aisle. He was quite delighted to it.

[louisa05]

17 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Welp. QEII offered Sophie as a mentor and Meghan refused so I think it is more along the lines of she refused to adjust. If the family did not intend to accept her, Charles would have never offered to walk her down the aisle. He was quite delighted to it.

The late Queen also reassigned one of her own staff members to help Meghan learn and adjust. She didn't want to learn. She wanted to do it her way which disregarded not just royal tradition but the culture of the country. 

[viii]

17 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Welp. QEII offered Sophie as a mentor and Meghan refused so I think it is more along the lines of she refused to adjust. If the family did not intend to accept her, Charles would have never offered to walk her down the aisle. He was quite delighted to it.

I feel like the BRF bent over backwards to accommodate her in the beginning. I mean, QEII even let Meghan come to Balmoral for Christmas (2017) even though they weren't married yet, which is something that was normally never done. Kate wasn't invited for Christmas 2010 and wasn't allowed to come until Christmas 2011 when they were almost married. The BRF made multiple attempts to include Meghan and make her a part of the family. 

[tabitha2]

They were her rooting for her to succeed and giving her all the resources they could to adapt but she in turn had to learn to live by their rules, traditions and pecking order and be second place and eventually lower the rest of her life. Then She learned they could not change for her vision? Goals? Ambitions? and she quit the pretense of trying  PDQ

Edited August 29 by tabitha2

[Coconut Flan]

44 minutes ago, viii said:

I feel like the BRF bent over backwards to accommodate her in the beginning. I mean, QEII even let Meghan come to Balmoral for Christmas (2017) even though they weren't married yet,

Yes, they did everything they could think of to welcome Meghan and help her adjust.  That would have been Sandringham at Christmas.  I think the reports were that they even stayed with William and Catherine.. 

[SoSoNosy]

GgI just saw a clip on YouTube.  The entire audience was apparently giving the orchestra a standing ovation, but H&M got the impression the standing ovation for them, so they were standing there beaming.  A man close to them was giving them a death stare.

[viii]

3 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Yes, they did everything they could think of to welcome Meghan and help her adjust.  That would have been Sandringham at Christmas.  I think the reports were that they even stayed with William and Catherine.. 

Yes, Sandringham, my bad. I was typing in a hurry, which is why I also said in 2011 Kate and William were almost married, when I meant already married, haha. 

I feel like the BRF tried really hard overall with Meghan, from accepting her into family traditions to Charles walking her down the aisle when everything was imploding with her dad. 

1 hour ago, SoSoNosy said:

A man close to them was giving them a death stare.

I never pay these sort of things any mind because so many people look like they're glaring or unhappy just by existing when they're unaware a camera is on them. RBF is real for a lot of people lol. 

[klein_roeschen]

11 hours ago, viii said:

I feel like the BRF bent over backwards to accommodate her in the beginning. I mean, QEII even let Meghan come to Balmoral for Christmas (2017) even though they weren't married yet, which is something that was normally never done. Kate wasn't invited for Christmas 2010 and wasn't allowed to come until Christmas 2011 when they were almost married. The BRF made multiple attempts to include Meghan and make her a part of the family. 

ISB: Harry was likely more of a pain in the back for the royal family than what is publicly known. They likely thought that getting him married and settled down would help with that. So a woman dating him willing to marry him would be very welcome and made to feel welcomed. And a woman with some expertise in dealing with the public, even as an actress and known charity work, even better. Nobody could imagine what would later come, as often in life. 

On 8/28/2024 at 2:39 PM, louisa05 said:

The thing is--and it's what makes them off-putting to a lot of people--is that if they sincerely wanted to dedicate themselves to charity and service, that's what their job was as working royals. But that's not what they want. They want to be celebrities with all the perks of being royal and they want to do charity their way--not through a legitimate royal foundation with legitimate parameters (hard to use the money for travel and Hermes throw blankets), and not doing "boring" visits and events where they are supposed to put the attention on the people doing the work. They want it to be about sitting on a stage going on about themselves (did you know that Meghan wrote a letter to Procter & Gamble when she was 11???) and sharing their shallow platitudes wisdom or some such thing. 

I think they thought of Diana and her work after the separation and divorce. She was the Queen of the hearts, choose her causes to fight for and got a lot of public attention for it. There wheren't many boring garden parties and ribon cutting for her then, no more second line behind the more important members. That is what they want, but the times changed. Something like Diana is very likely not be possible anymore in times of the internet and social media. And another thing they lack, Diana had a charisma that got her attention, they don't.

[louisa05]

On 8/28/2024 at 8:24 AM, TN-peach said:

From some of the sources on the internet, apparently the letter to Procter & Gamble was a class project.  It was her father's contacts in Hollywood that got her the interview.  But apparently her letter was one of hundreds. 

I have not looked at it.  I don't know for sure but it sounds like something I could see being a class extra credit project. 

Her dad told Tom Bowers that he contacted the tv reporter who he knew and did the interview as a favor to him. And several of her classmates have said they were assigned to write a letter to a public official or company about an issue that concerned them. It was done with that grade level every single year. And topics were suggested. 

[AmazonGrace]

Says Harry's chief of staff left after only three months on the job. (Wait what, he has a chief of staff?) 

Also, if you are out of jam or yoga mats, you have options. But Meghan isn't one of them. 

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13798547/concern-Meghan-Markles-American-Riviera-Orchard.html

[marmalade]

At this point, what HAVEN'T they botched?

[QuiverFullofBooks]

12 hours ago, marmalade said:

At this point, what HAVEN'T they botched?

They seem to be good parents, which is the most important thing. 

[Coconut Flan]

Are they?  We haven't seen them parent, have we?  We've seen them take Archie out on a tour visit and we've had a couple staged clips and photos.  Ah and a couple birthday stills.  Anything else?

I don't know that they're good or bad.  I do know they leave the kids home quite a bit when they "tour" and go on vacation.  There is gossip, but that's not proof either.

Edited September 1 by Coconut Flan

[viii]

I think the fact we rarely see the children indicates they’re more on the “good” side of parenting than bad. Yes, we have no idea how hands on they are, but at least they aren’t exploiting their children.  That’s a small win, I guess. 

[Coconut Flan]

I can't give points on not seeing the children either way.  Exploiting the children would be a huge negative.  I think they are either hiding the children for some reason or showing one or both parents' paranoia.  

There's also the worst interpretation of it that they aren't rearing the children at all and that they are being brought up by Doria and/or the nannies.  Hiding the children can bring forth the worst kinds of thoughts and speculation.  

My position is probably the paranoia leading to over-protectiveness which is its own problem.

Edited September 1 by Coconut Flan

[LongTimeLurkerOG]

Just a few points and I'll come back to read more...

H wore a N*zi costume as if that was ok. 

The Crown has fictional elements of course ,but also grounded in historical fact. Watch the episode about the traitorous acts of D/W. She was with some of them, a he colluded; there's pictures w hit*er. Watch the end of that Crown episode, too for more historical fact. 

[viii]

I’d lean more on nannies than Doria. There’s too many pap photos of her living her best life in northern LA. 

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the children, and it shows how gross people are to assume something is just because we don’t see them. We don’t see Ryan Gosling’s children either and nobody is claiming something is wrong with them. Some celebrities prefer privacy. I think it’s more Harry’s paranoia than anything. 

[Coconut Flan]

I'm not sure why you think Doria lives in northern LA.  It's more southern being between Culver City and Inglewood.  Yes, Doria is frequently seen out and about on her own in LA.  

In other news, the latest story is American Riviera Orchard was rejected as a trademark.  

[viii]

I think that because an article reported it that way and I don’t know LA enough to know the difference. A bit BEC for you but I’m not surprised. 

And of course it was rejected. This whole project has been mismanaged and rushed from the beginning. She clearly launched before she was ready.