My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

The royal family

Sit tight, she’s on...

988 replies

HeathIns · 08/03/2021 21:06

Oprah is annoying me already.

OP posts:
Report
Malahaha · 10/03/2021 10:20

I like MM, but I don’t think she’s perfect: she doesn’t seem to’ve had a clue what she was letting herself in for, doesn’t seem to’ve listened to any advice, not realised how different the UK and the US are, not appreciated how extreme ends of a scale the RF is compared to celebrity-California.

This. Except replace like with liked!
She has this brash "can-do" attitude which just doesn't mesh with the RF. If she couldn't adapt she needed to stay out, or get out early but completely, and not think you're going to walk in and change everything that's so Hollywood!

Report
WaggishDancer · 10/03/2021 13:25

@BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs

Yet it's convenient that he allowed George, Charlotte and Louis a title, and never acted on slimming down the RF....until now. He didn't with George. Nor Charlotte's birth. Nor Louis' birth.

I've already posted this on this thread but, there was a reason they did it for William's children. Setting aside all personal issues with the various personalities, William's first born son would have been titled 'Prince' anyway under the LP which stated that 'the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales' would be HRH Prince RoyalBaby.

The same didn't apply if they had a girl. Because of the revisions to the succession rules which meant a female baby would not be skipped in favour of her brothers, they could have ended up with a situation where William had one, or several, girls, and then a boy that outranked his sisters in terms of title but not in terms of succession. The Queen did it to maintain clarity around 'rank' in the family which otherwise would have been confusing. The simplest way to do that was to say 'all of Williams children' rather than 'all of the girls but not subsequent boys after the eldest' which just wouldn't make that much sense.

There was a clear reason for it when you look at the various laws involved. The same isn't there for Archie. Regardless, William's children are the children of the man that will be King. Harry's are not. They are members of an institution that is all about rank and status, and that makes William's children, frankly, more important when it comes to that status. It isn't about Charles being fair and treating the sons equally as it might be in a personal context, because in terms of laws around titles and succession, they aren't.

At the same time, don’t forget that Princess Margaret is a good equivalent of Harry. None of her children ever had the Prince or Princess title as none were ever destined to rule. That’s the difference here and the difficulty no doubt for “the spare” to sometimes understand. All of Princess Elizabeth’s children did have the titles (Charles and Anne before she became queen). This isn’t a new thing.
Report
BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs · 10/03/2021 14:14

None of her children ever had the Prince or Princess title as none were ever destined to rule.

Indeed. There's a slight difference in form, but the spirit of the change is the same and as you point out, is completely relevant.

The Letters Patent 1864 and 1917 didn't allow for Margaret's or Elizabeth's children to have a title (although that was down to titles only passing down the male line) because they weren't male. If Elizabeth and Margaret had been male, however, both of their children would have been 'Prince/Princess' at birth (which was the rule under the LP 1864 and unchanged by the LP 1917). George VI released a new Letters Patent 1948 around the time of Charles' birth in order to formally recognise Elizabeth as his heir presumptive by granting her children titles at birth. If he hadn't, Charles would have been 'Lord Charles' until Elizabeth ascended the throne.

What the King didn't do is actively prevent Margaret's children from receiving titles they were entitled to already (which would be the case if Charles prevents Archie and his sibling(s) from gaining a title at the point he ascends the throne, hence the slight difference if what was said about him 'never being a Prince' is true). Margaret's were never entitled to one to begin with, and evidently, it was never seen as something to be changed.

However, the effect is the same in practice; only the children of the sovereign, and the direct line of the sovereign's heir, get the title, while the lines of the other children of the sovereign, don't. It's just taken some time and work arounds to make it all work properly as the Letters Patent have been reactive to specific situations. To that end, Beatrice and Eugenie were pretty much just born at the 'right' time to a male son of the sovereign in between changes to the rules. A generation later and I doubt they'd have been entitled to 'Princess' either because they'd have been caught in Charles' slimming down exercise.

It's all very interesting academically at least I think it is.

Report
BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs · 10/03/2021 14:15

I'm going to stop posting essays now Blush

Report
Krispyk · 10/03/2021 18:17

@MadinMarch

It seems to me that Meghan has a very forceful type of personality and a strong belief that her views are the only ones that count. Harry, for whatever reasons, (brainwashed/ blinded by love and/or awe/ need to be emotionally dependent etc etc) has fully embraced her views and narrative and can only see the world through Meghan's eyes now.
It created the perfect storm and inevitably led to their ill thought out and very badly planned exit from the RF. They only have themselves to blame for it in my opinion.
Having said that, my position on Meghan is fairly neutral, and I don't dislike her. I do think that her personality is definitely not suited to be a member of the RF though. She would have been much better suited to have gone into politics.

Excellent summary,
Report
SmellsLikeBacon · 10/03/2021 18:23

Exactly. I'm dark brown (proof: see image!) and for decades I've avoided accusing people of being racist, even when they obviously were. In such cases I steered clear of self-pity. It's far heathier. I hate labels and I hate labelling others.

I was all excited when H. chose a mixed-race bride. Over the moon! But over the years I've been thoroughly put off by her excessive and what appears to be self-pitying behaviour. If I am critical of her it's not because of her race. It's a constant centering of herself and pontificating about being kind. In the midst of a world crisis when people are truly suffering and dying, and her father in law in hospital, I just think it's in bad taste to wash one's dirty laundry in public.

She could learn a lot from the Queen: never explain, never complain.

Funnily enough, the people I've seen who are most vicious towards her, and mostly unfairly, is on the forum lipstickalley -- and these are black American women! Hundreds of them!


Excellent post.

Report
Krispyk · 10/03/2021 19:00

[quote Cokie3]@AliceLives2021 Anyone who believes anything Samantha said is a gullible fool indeed. And simply desperate for Confirmation Bias, while throwing logic and all reason aside.

Add in the sexism of "SHE split him from his family", rather than a man defending his wife's honour above all else, which, after all, is what we laud men on here for, and call them spineless when they won't stand up to their mother/family who is upsetting their wife.

The sexism, misogyny and blatant hypocrisy (based almost 100% on RACISM, in my view, this thread and others like it have proved that to me in spades) and cognitive dissonance on here is unreal. Harry is doing what we all advocate HUSBANDS DO on here. But because it's Meghan, the husband standing up to his mother/family and defending his wife all of a sudden is a 'bad' thing. You people are such hypocrites you can't even see it.

Meghan didn't 'split his family up', her HUSBAND decided to step up and put his WIFE and child first![/quote]
Utterly ridiculous comment, displaying your immaturity and petulance.

Report
Krispyk · 10/03/2021 19:28

@VanillaIce

One things for sure, none of them will utter a word verbally or written to H&M for a long time because the trust has been broken.

This is Harry who only surrounded himself with a small trusted circle of friends all his life and whom, to their credit, have never spoken a word about him publicly. He and William valued discretion and trust above everything else.

Now Harry does this to his brother. The one person William surely thought he could trust to the end. I don’t see how William will ever get over it. Even if they do try to forge some civility, he and Kate will be wary that every private note, every text, every photo could end up in the public domain when H&M run out of money hawking their tale off woe.

Absolutely, H&M have destroyed whatever trust was left between them and the family, BP doesn't have to rise to their bait, like many of us, they likely hope that it will be pretty much forgotten about in a few weeks.

I know some on here think Harry is a privileged little manchild, which is a fair observation, but I think he probably has deep mental health issues from the death of his mother and perhaps sees Meghan as his 'rescuer' so he's just going along with this charade because he's still in the honeymoon period, I have also said, give it five years but after this, even less. Hopefully, Harry will be able to mend the bridges he's burnt, and come back to the family he was once so close to and the country he loves

Right now it looks like coercive control to me, and he looked so miserable and uncomfortable, the idea that this will make life easier for him, is laughable, but for MM, she's now made for life.
Report
Krispyk · 10/03/2021 19:48

@HeathIns

An ITV spokesperson said: "Following discussions with ITV, Piers Morgan has decided now is the time to leave Good Morning Britain. ITV has accepted this decision and has nothing further to add."

Hmm. Stepped down?
Go yourself or we’ll sack you more like.
Who did he punch back stage?

He's been in talks with Murdoch who is launching a 'Fox News' style news channel/entertainment show.

GMB had one of its highest ratings ever yesterday, he is hot property right now and he knows it, he's got another job lined up.
Report
HeathIns · 10/03/2021 20:07

GMB had one of its highest ratings ever yesterday, he is hot property right now and he knows it, he's got another job lined up.

God help us.

OP posts:
Report
ImAncient · 10/03/2021 20:46

A PP who mentioned the African American forum is right that the people on there are pretty awful when talking about MM. 7000+ pages. I looked at there not long ago & was shocked at the vitriol. MN is no where near as savage imo.

Report
ivykaty44 · 11/03/2021 06:20

GMB had one of its highest ratings ever yesterday, he is hot property right now and he knows it, he's got another job lined up.

God help us

Murdoch wants PM for his far right gravy train to keep the Tory in power

Report
Blueberries0112 · 11/03/2021 19:08

twitter.com/madaboutmeghan/status/1369720233230016515?s=21 I have just came across this tweet, not sure it is important (I don’t do podcast for a reason) but everyone’s saying it need to be report

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.