Harry and Meghan court dramas (not Suits)

[ARoseInHarlem]

Starting this thread while I digest the last few posts on the previous thread. I think the H&M saga could be as unsettling for the RF as the Charles & Diana bad publicity in the 1990s, if not worse.

I thought the advert by Peter was tacky with BP, butlers and taglines saying he was a member of the RF. But obviously you all think there was nothing wrong with that

Not quiote all of us, Roussette - I thought it was ghastly and said so at the time

However I thought trousering a fortune from the (untendered) Patron's Lunch was worse, not least because it was an event for charity fundraisers and if ever there was a time to treat them that was surely it. Instead they got hammered for £150 a throw, though at least the weatrther wasn't Peter's fault

Whenever anyone makes a comment on here, it should never be assumed that poster means everyone. But it's hard sometimes to just pick out individual posters and I know you said that Puzzled

Can I just pause the tiara conversation for a second and say. Imagine being given a choice of tiaras, like, proper ones, with real jewels.
Not claires accessories choice, but proper real tiaras from the queens collection, worn by generations of actual princesses, with big fuck off gem stones that are worth a fortune on their own.

I mean that’s bloody bonkers, that’s not real life stuff is it.

Sorry, as you were!!!

You did say "you all" Roussette. I'm another one who said it was dreadful at the time. I'm sure you didn't mean to insult everyone but sometimes when you use blanket terms it can come across that way 🙂

@EvilPea

Can I just pause the tiara conversation for a second and say. Imagine being given a choice of tiaras, like, proper ones, with real jewels. Not claires accessories choice, but proper real tiaras from the queens collection, worn by generations of actual princesses, with big fuck off gem stones that are worth a fortune on their own.

I mean that’s bloody bonkers, that’s not real life stuff is it.

Sorry, as you were!!!

Mind you I bet they are uncomfortable. The weight of them! I'm a terrible fidget with jewellery, so I rarely wear any. I would be a terrible royal.😂

@Roussette

I think the reason H&M get such a hard time compared to others over using titles, logos etc as non-working royals is because they chose to leave. Not just as working royals but the country as well. They didn't want to do it anymore. Fair enough, no way would I want to be a member of the RF

Totally agree

I agree with this as well. I’d also question whether Meghan has ever even been to Sussex. Certainly at one point, before they’d even quit, there was A petition by the people who lived in Sussex to remove the titles.

It just feels a bit of a sham to me to be the Duke and Duchess of somewhere that doesn’t want you and you have no link to. The same would go for York, Cambridge, Wessex, Edinburgh etc although at least perhaps by default of living in England for so long they have all been pictured visiting the relevant areas at some point or another.

Further to this, Meghan is not a U.K. citizen and I doubt she ever will be whilst Harry is showing every indication of no longer ever residing in the U.K. So they are actively using titles intended for senior working members of the RF whilst having no links to Sussex and no longer living in the same country that the county is in.

@EvilPea it's mind boggling isn't it? I saw an exhibition of some of Queen Victoria's jewellery at KP and I was taken back at just how sparkly and glittery it is!

@EvilPea it's mind boggling isn't it? I saw an exhibition of some of Queen Victoria's jewellery at KP and I was taken back at just how sparkly and glittery it is!

@LaMarschallin

Oldbutstillgotit

Had they not accepted the Sussex titles , MM wound have been Princess Henry which I doubt she would have liked.

I'm sure she wouldn't.
But everybody forgot that the late princess of Wales should have been called "princess Charles" not "princess Diana" - as she wasn't born a princess.

The tabloid articles asking if Camilla or Catherine have/will have "Diana's title" (ie princess of Wales) are just silly.
Camilla is POW by virtue of marriage. She just doesn't use the title.

As will Kate be if William becomes prince of Wales.
Diana fleetingly had the title by virtue of who she married.

Just a by-the-by.
But don't people wonder why princess Michael isn't princess Marie-Christine?*

If we can't get it right about the royal family of our own country, goodness knows what other nationals think and expect.

*Not sure of her first name and too idle to Google.
Sorry.

Diana was only ever formally known as Diana, Princess of Wales. Calling her Princess Di/ana was just lazy journalism.

You did say "you all" Roussette

Ooops ! Slip of the typing fingers obviously! I better proof read my posts a bit better
I thought I did, but need to up my standards lol

As an aside, I have read the LCC book about the Queen Mother and in it she talks quite a lot about Lady Greville who left her jewellery to the QM. She was disliked enormously in 'society' circles apparently, and people only went to her soirees as she had the best house and hospitality. The Royal Family kept in with her, as they knew her intention was to leave the wonderful jewellery to QM.

@Blossom513

Why is there suddenly a flurry of books being released about them? Is there usually a restriction placed on books about the RF but now they have left anyone can write about them?

I think it’s because there is enough public interest and perhaps a concern that there won’t be enough interest shortly to warrant a publication, so they are all being rushed out now. I don’t know but I would also suspect lockdown boredom could have increased book sales in general.

Mind you I bet they are uncomfortable. The weight of them! I'm a terrible fidget with jewellery, so I rarely wear any. I would be a terrible royal.

I have heard that they can cause horrendous headaches. Still, it has to be said that it’s a very glamorous way of getting a headache.

Can someone more knowledgeable explain two things that have been mentioned up thread.

1. Someone mentioned the options were Sussex or Clarence and then someone else referred to Clarence having bad connotations. Who was the last duke/duchess of Clarence and what made it bad?

1. Can you explain the patrons lunch?

Here you go, cameocat
TBF there'd been plenty of Dukes of Clarence before this last one, but I guess they felt the title was a bit tainted afterwards?

www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/trouble-prince-eddy-albert-victor-lost-king-brother-george-v-jack-ripper/

And here's a piece about the Patron's Lunch:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39183622

@cameocat

Can someone more knowledgeable explain two things that have been mentioned up thread.

1. Someone mentioned the options were Sussex or Clarence and then someone else referred to Clarence having bad connotations. Who was the last duke/duchess of Clarence and what made it bad?

1. Can you explain the patrons lunch?

The Dukedom of Clarence has unpleasant connotations for a couple of reasons. Back in the 15C, King Edward IV’s brother George, was Duke of Clarence. He was a bit of a waster by all accounts and at one point was in league with Warwick the Kingmaker to overthrow his brother, King Edward and take the crown in his place. Edward eventually had him arrested for treason and executed. He was allowed to choose the method of his own execution and was drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine which was his favourite tipple. This may be just folklore though.

The other dodgy Duke of Clarence was Prince Albert Victor, grandson of Queen Victoria and known as Eddie. He was a bit wayward, involved in several sex scandals and was even at one point reputed to be Jack the Ripper. He died aged 28 of influenza.

Hmm, I see that posts commenting on the dubious credibility of what pro-Sussex posters post get deleted, while posts insulting other Sussex-groups of posters in general don't get treated as personal attacks. I am unimpressed with that approach to moderation. Expect this will be deleted too #peevish

@Puzzledandpissedoff I've never been so disappointed in the Queen as when she allowed that to happen.

[quote MissEliza]@Puzzledandpissedoff I've never been so disappointed in the Queen as when she allowed that to happen.[/quote]
I agree. She made a rare mistake.

I've never been so disappointed in the Queen as when she allowed that to happen

You mean the Patrons Lunch? If so, I agree disappointment's in order, but perhaps not surprise since I'd have thought it pretty obvious by now that most RF members, the Queen included, consider themselves a different breed who are entitled to help themselves to whatever they want, no questions asked

Unfortunately, despite the skilled accountants, lawyers and obsessive secrecy which all that money buys, the mask sometimes slips - and when it does the results aren't pretty

How they must long for the days when the biddable public could be silenced, and there was no internet to allow the plebs to research awkward questions and add yet more of their own

I asked for my post to be removed because it quoted a deleted post. Otherwise I would have found myself with a deleted post on my score card when I wasn't actually at fault. Again.

Well, my first deleted post 😮😮.

Interesting tweet from Jeremy Vine.

Thank you puzzled and Milly for enlightening me.

Despite the info on the history of the duke of Clarence, I like the sound of it and might have chosen that over Sussex.