Does anyone want a thread for people who are happy for Harry and Meghan? Thread 2

[DaveCoaches]

I wimped out of the other thread title I planned as I thought it might look goady.

But please let’s keep it as the reality-and-let's-avoid-idle-speculation-and-reliance-on-dodgy-sources thread (thanks Seneca!).

CallmeAngelina Wed 26-Feb-20 08:35:46
Samcro, Yes, possibly you could argue it's a bit mean to hijack a thread, but that's exactly what one of the "rainbows and unicorns" posters did on the "other" thread, leading to its deletion.
I have no idea what happened as wasn't there. but is this now revenge?
surely there can be one place on mn that is not bullying them?

Isn't it good to hear different opinions and have a debate? I'm sure MN will moderate anything they find unacceptable.

This is from The Telegraph in 2012, the year when the Queen made some adjustments to the Order of Precedence.The Telegraph, as I hope everyone here is aware, is not a tabloid...
Telegraph (“The Queen tells the Duchess of Cambridge to curtsy to the ‘blood princesses’“):

The Duchess of Cambridge may be the future queen, but she has discovered that there are several women in the Royal family to whom she must show reverence. Mandrake hears that the Queen has updated the Order of Precedence in the Royal Household to take into account the Duke of Cambridge’s wife.

The new rules of Court make it clear that the former Kate Middleton, when she is not accompanied by Prince William, must curtsy to the “blood princesses”, the Princess Royal, Princess Alexandra, and the daughters of the Duke of York, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

When William is with her, Kate does not need to bend the knee to either of them, but she must curtsy to the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Despite being married to the Queen’s son, the Countess of Wessex will, however, have to curtsy to Kate, even when William is not present.

“Updating the Order of Precedence has been a simple matter of following the precedent set when the Prince of Wales married Camilla Parker Bowles,” a courtier tells me.

A document is said to have been circulated privately in the Royal Household, clarifying Kate’s status. When the Order was last updated, after Prince Charles’s second marriage, in 2005, the Countess of Wessex was reported to be upset that she now had to curtsy to Camilla. “She didn’t like it one bit,” a senior courtier was quoted as saying.
The Earl of Wessex’s wife had previously been the second-highest ranking woman in the Royal family because neither of the Queen’s other sons, Charles and Prince Andrew, were married.

However, after Charles remarried, the Queen changed the Order of Precedence “on blood principles” so that neither Princess Anne nor Princess Alexandra, the granddaughter of George V, would have to curtsy to Camilla when her husband was not present.

Although the etiquette may seem arcane, it is taken very seriously by the Royal family, whose members bow and curtsy to each other in public and in private. A vivid illustration came after the Trooping the Colour ceremony last weekend, when Kate could be seen curtsying to Prince Philip on the balcony of Buckingham Palace.

Roussette: This is a positive thread. Threads meander though unfortunately, especially on a public forum. Sometimes it's good to have something pointed out to you that you might not have thought about.

The prince’s wife does not have the right to deviate from what, no matter what she wants to do. What she wants is of no consequence.

Corrected:

The prince’s wife does not have the right to deviate from that, no matter what she wants to do. What she wants is of no consequence.

Jesus, everything that’s wrong with this institution summed up in that Telegraph excerpt.

And while yes we’re all aware The Telegraph isn’t a tabloid, on shit like this it does a reasonable impression of one.

wow all that bowing/curtsying, imaging breakfast time....

Oh dear. It makes perfect sense to me but clearly not to you. No matter.

That's bonkers! Imagine trying to keep all that straight in your head.

All of that needs to go.

Despite your blustering and scoffing about the “blood princesses”, it appears the monarch does believe they are pretty important.

All of that needs to go.

Come the Revolution, I presume?

No way could a genuine feminist marry into that. Feminist my arse!

LaurieMarlow: And when did she break ‘protocol’ pray?

I think the protocol stuff was M going ahead of H while on duties. It's minor although did annoy some people I suppose are royalists and want to stick rigidly to the pecking order. They felt it rude of her. I did see some clips. I did think a couple of times she was under pressure and jumped ahead or cut her arm across him to shake hands with someone but this doesn't really bother me, per se.

It's just ridiculous. The bowing and scraping part.

It's minor although did annoy some people I suppose are royalists and want to stick rigidly to the pecking order. They felt it rude of her.

Jeez I don’t know why they wouldn’t have given her the benefit of the doubt and assumed she faltered/made a mistake.

Some people.

PerfPower

No way could a genuine feminist marry into that. Feminist my arse!

Lol

Laurie: Also sources for your points on hierarchy. Your own head doesn’t count btw.

I agree. I've just asked Seneca for her source on her statement that M only has to curtsy to the queen and not what all the other sources on the internet say - tabloid and broadsheet papers. There's nothing supporting what Seneca says that I can find so the source on that would be good. It'll take away some of the myths about hierarchy hopefully then.

*I said you suggested it.

Why else go into all the semantics about whether the Queen knew or not?*

So it's acceptable to put words into a person's mouth as long as you say they 'suggested it'

Laurie: You’ll find that opinion more scrutinised here than on ‘other’ threads. Great! I'm all for that.

Yes, who cares about leg crossing and tights and walking in the wrong place. But, yes, I'm sure I'd be considered a poor advert for feminism but I wouldn't have married Harry. (Actually, being age appropriate it would have had to have been Andrew or Edward .

Samcro: but surely its a bit mean to hijack a thread, rather than start one

Yes, I agree. More than mean. And to keep doing it too is terrible behaviour.

Katie: What H says and what H does don't match up. Again. What a surprise

Well, H is nailing his flag to the mask with this one so we'll have to wait and see. I agree he hasn't always so far. Eyes will be on him from now on in this respect so that's good but it would have been better if eyes didn't need to be on him and that he could have self-moderated.

Meghan can't go uncriticised!

How dare she marry into that family? She's not a real feminist. Or...

How dare she try and change our Royal Family? Respect our institutions.

I'm glad she's confident to make her own decisions, in this respect she's a great role model and it would be pointless to pander to people who will always find fault.

Threads meander though unfortunately, especially on a public forum

I'm glad you agree with me! I said this on our last thread and by gum, I had endless posts insisting there was no meandering

As for the breaking of protocol, what a nothing burger. I doubt the general public would even notice. What does it matter when warmly greeting people who have stood outside for hours waiting to see you?