To wonder why Prince Harry got annoyed with Sky News reporter?

[elprup]

It seems very out of character for Harry? I wonder if he misinterpreted and thought she was asking about the lawsuit...

twitter.com/TheRoyalExpert/status/1179155649898467329

Marrying commoners has made their offspring a lot more attractive.

Or just more common?

@RueCambon I wouldn't put it past him

Whilst they probably thought they were 'modernising the royalty' by marrying 'commoners', I actually think this trend has been a factor in their declining popularity. Why? Because it somehow underscores how ridiculous it all is. Admittedly Kate has rarely put a foot wrong and often seems more dignified than some of the 'proper' royals, but it still seems a bit ridiculous for ordinary people to be bowing and curtseying and waving flags at women simply because they happen to have married a royal

This completely.

Yes I agree too.

"Whilst they probably thought they were 'modernising the royalty' by marrying 'commoners',"

Who is "they"?

All of HM's "kids" married commoners, didn't they?

it still seems a bit ridiculous for ordinary people to be bowing and curtseying and waving flags at women simply because they happen to have married a royal

To be honest, it's ridiculous to do it even when they are royal. Theresa May curtsying to Prince William for chrissakes! The woman had her faults but she was the Prime Minister and she had to defer to a man who's only in his position because he was born into the right family??

I think they need to be attractive in today's internet age. They need that more than they need to be blue blooded! As the criticism of Margaret for taking up the whole of first class shows, they will always be criticed against the backdrop of the modern sensitivities.

Beatrice was slagged mercilessly for decades for the crime of being not conventionally pretty. She is still very attractive but that wasnt enough. She has grown in to her looks now and she is no longer condemned for being not extremely pretty 😑

I think bowing and scraping because someone came out of a particular vagina Is weird full stop.

There’s nothing particularly remarkable about them.

All of HM's "kids" married commoners, didn't they?

Charles didn’t. Edward did.

Is Fergie an aristo? Not sure.

Also not sure about Anne’s two.

Fergie is fairly aristo, yes

Diana Spencer was technically a commoner. (Just not common)
There weren’t enough foreign princessses left.
Anyway, all the intermarriage was not healthy; hence all the haemophilia in Queen Victoria’s descendants, and prior to that; the Hapsburg jaw.

I think Charles is the only one who married blue blood. The others are all on the posh end of middle - some “older” than others. Kate is first generation middle. And so is Meghan, I suppose.

Lady Diana Spencer and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon ( the Queen Mother) were aristocrats as their father’s were earls. ( See Downtown Abbey)

Fergie at best was gentry, although not sure how much land her father had.

Diana was the daughter of an Earl. That’s proper aristo.

Just looked up Anne's two - Mark Phillips and Tim Lawrence

It seems the closest Mark got to royalty was through his maternal grandfather who was an aide to George VI, and while Tim was an equerry to the Queen when he met Anne, there doesn't seem to be anyone terribly siginficant in his background

So no doubt both families were wealthy and well-connceted, but aristocratic - no

Diana was the only real aristocrat and probably the last to marry into the RF.

Better to increase the gene pool imo.

There weren’t enough foreign princessses left

True, I've just checked and there's a notable dearth of eligible European princesses. However, do we mean European princesses or all foreign princesses? If we cast more widely there's more to, er, 'choose' from, politics not withstanding.

I think they need to be attractive in today's internet age. They need that more than they need to be blue blooded

Lady Amelia Windsor is a model so blue blood doesn't necessarily negate conventional beauty, and the Queen was reasonably pretty (again by conventional standards) and Margaret was considered a beauty in her day no?

Lady Diana Spencer and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon ( the Queen Mother) were aristocrats as their father’s were earls. ( See Downtown Abbey)

Camilla is fairly well connected. I just googled her, and she is the daughter of a Major and granddaughter of a Baronet, as well as being a great granddaughter of a former mistress of King Edward VII. So aristocratic without being titled.

Although that means nothing as some people are great grandsons of baronets and have grandfathers who went to Eton but aren't in the least bit posh now. OK that's my husband.

So it can go either way.

Diana was from a more aristocratic background than the royals technically, because the Spencers are a far older English family than the current RF and were instrumental in putting the current royals on the throne to avoid Catholicism taking over with the Stewarts who were actually in line (I think, someone can correct me if I've got this wrong).

When I lived in The Netherlands, a Dutch person told me that the Dutch (Queen Beartrix in particular, and the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish) royal families looked down upon the British RF for being a bit nouveau riche because of this and that they wouldn't want any of their children marrying into the British RF as they had a reputation for being crazy and not treating people who married into them well. Whether that's true or not, I couldn't say.

they had a reputation for being crazy and not treating people who married into them well

Well the second bit rings true anyway.

" Diana was the daughter of an Earl. That’s proper aristo."

But still a commoner?

How so?

Is the definition of a "commoner" anyone who isn't a member of the royal family? So Diana was an aristocrat but still a commoner, as was the queen mum?

I thought that anyone not Royalty or a peer was a commoner.

I thought it was anyone of non peerage/gentry families

Though the definition of gentry is awfully loose.