To be shocked at some RF members turning their back?

[fiheka]

It has been reported that some Royal Family members literally turned their back on Prince Harry at Prince Philip's funeral and refused to even acknowledge him.
I have had extended family members behave badly and are in no hurry to be friendly. But I think this is appalling behaviour. I would never do that and especially not at a funeral.
It reminds me of that video being shared where William and Kate totally snub and ignore Harry and Meghan.
It is just so rude and awful.

Yes, definitely that too. Get the money shot while he can. Harry won’t be anywhere near William at any official event in the future (if, that is, he is at any official events).

I think if you can’t be trusted to accept decisions Queen made at a funeral, then nothing is sacred/respected.

I’m sure at the funeral there was not really enough opportunity for everyone to speak to Harry whether he they wanted to or not. As has been said, there was also the added complication of Covid regulations. It must have been a relief for those who were feeling upset with him to have an excuse not to interact. There was probably quite a bit of not making any effort to talk to him, but I didn’t see any actual back turning. It would have been an inappropriate way to behave at a televised event. If anyone did turn their back on him, it was probably just as they turned round or changed position or something.

@ShamedBySiri, Perfectly put. I'd been scrabbling around trying to articulate what it was about Meghan's "we got married 3 days before" thing that was really bugging me, and you've got it in a nutshell.

It kind of fells as if we've been duped and mocked for wanting to celebrate their marriage.
And whilst I understand that many people in the public eye prefer not to show their children's faces, with Archie it seems as if there's a similar agenda. They want our good wishes and support, but won't let us see him or know when he was born or who his godparents are etc..
How long are people going to maintain interest in him/them if they're shut out?

And re: the RF turning their backs. I didn't see anyone doing this; it was a solemn occasion and it would not have been right for anyone in that procession or service to have effectively "high-fived" him or given any sort of acknowledgement. We all saw the endless speculation about them all walking up the hill afterwards.
But besides, what on earth did he expect? He went on global TV and trashed the entire family and everything they all work and stand for and spend their lives promoting. He'll be lucky if any of them ever speak to him again. I'm not sure I would.

Concerning the prior "wedding" which we know little about and which may or may not have happened, I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the "nobody knows that"
Well yes, obviously nobody knew, but why say it at all? Unreasonable, perhaps, but it smacks to me of a rather infantile "I've got this big secret and wasn't it clever of me to keep it from everyone"

I also agree with @ShamedBySiri

As a divorcee myself I know that it is not easy to be married in Church when divorced. No one else in the RF has been able to be married in a Church of England Church when one party was divorced.

Times are changing and I am mightily glad of it, but I would strongly suspect that because it was Meghan's second marriage, a quiet private wedding would have been one of the options on offer. A big "spectacle" of a wedding would have been pushed for rather than forced upon them. Most people love a Royal Wedding so few members of the British public begrudged it, but at the same time no one would have minded it being a private affair like Princess Beatrice's and in fact we would have loved them more for it for the saving to the taxpayer.

So yeah it's pretty insulting to imply the lavish wedding was something "the world" was demanding of them.

But this is nothing to falsely claiming that the Archbishop of Canterbury conducted an illegal ceremony, not once but twice. Once marrying a couple without witnesses present and not in an official venue, and the second time marrying a couple whom he knew to be already married. The man is the head of the world-wide Anglican Church, with a pastoral "flock" of many millions who look to him for spiritual guidance and leadership. And they casually lie and make him look like someone who breaks his own, his Church's, and his God's, laws Just For Them, at their whim.

I have actually tried to think of an analogy for this to compare it with but I actually can't think of anything bad enough.

Yes, agree Siri definitely nailed it - it is difficult to articulate as it is a visceral reaction from public that grew up with RF in background to lives. Not for everyone obviously, but it was so misjudged to run with the ‘secret wedding’. A pit of the stomach distaste and although (being generous here) M may have not understood that insulting U.K. public life you’re mocking quite a few of the U.K. population too, it can’t be undone.

@CallmeHendricks did you see that Scobie has said that releasing photos that are either stylised artwork type of things, or not showing Archie’s face is M’a way of “trolling the world”. I thought that was a very odd thing to say. Why would you want to do that?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/harry-meghan-trolling-world-unclear-24069497

Totally agree @BalloonSlayer

We cannot know whether they were encouraged to go for a small wedding along the lines of Prince Charles and Camilla but pushed for the big one. But my mother is of The Queen's generation, and as a divorcee she never again took communion, she definitely sees a big church wedding as for first marriages only. Nothing wrong with a registry office followed by a blessing service (which can be quite a big affair - I've been to one, but everyone knew the deal) and a party.
So I do wonder if The Queen ever suggested that might have been more appropriate.

I think the RF were on the back foot and between a rock and a hard place. If they had insisted on the Charles and Camilla style wedding they would have been accused of a range of crimes from being unwelcoming, not moving with the times, mean to Harry, mean to Meghan etc by many people.

However, if H&M had stated they wanted a small wedding no one would have begrudged them that. Many people would have been pleased at the saving to the tax payer! So one can only conclude it was them that wanted the big affair.

If I had shelled out for a big wedding for a child and then they turned around and told me it was all a sham as they did it privately three days before I'd be fuming. I feel the same way (minus the personal financial pain) about Meghan's ridiculous assertion. Deeply disrespectful and ungrateful.

So many great points made this morning. The ‘secret wedding’ really grates me. I know lots of people who went down to Windsor at silly o’clock to line the streets. I know others who hosted bbqs to watch the wedding together. The public were happy for them and wanted to celebrate with them.

[quote smilesy]@CallmeHendricks did you see that Scobie has said that releasing photos that are either stylised artwork type of things, or not showing Archie’s face is M’a way of “trolling the world”. I thought that was a very odd thing to say. Why would you want to do that?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/harry-meghan-trolling-world-unclear-24069497[/quote]
Unlike the 'pap' shot where she was carrying him and his backpack on her bump when it was Charlotte's (?) Birthday a week or so ago?

Petulance in both instances, I'd say.

Scobie has said that releasing photos that are either stylised artwork type of things, or not showing Archie’s face is M’a way of “trolling the world”

As you say, it's an odd remark considering that H&M seem to use him as a moutbpiece, or at least haven't sued over the endless blather he comes up with

Hard not to wonder if this is a message which they want to put across - which would be rather unfortunate

Just don’t release a picture.

Pictures released publically or not, I thought it very sad that apparently Prince Charles had no pictures of his grandson to post for his birthday. It is said that he's only met him twice in his life. I think that's very sad, for Archie not to know a paternal family apart from anything else.

I imagine Prince Charles does have pictures of Archie but has been expressly forbidden from posting them.

I’m guessing they just wanted to highlight that Archie is a private citizen and they don’t have to release a photo

Nothing could be fairer, but in that case why not say so, or better still just keep schtum and issue no photo at all?

It's Scabies' choice of words that surprised me, given the status he appears to have as a mouthpiece ... though of course it's entirely possible he simply made the whole thing up

If they really wanted Archie to have privacy they wouldn’t post any photos.
It’s all a game to them.

@CallmeHendricks

Pictures released publically or not, I thought it very sad that apparently Prince Charles had no pictures of his grandson to post for his birthday. It is said that he's only met him twice in his life. I think that's very sad, for Archie not to know a paternal family apart from anything else.

But as I pointed out earlier, perfectly happy for his face to be seen in the picture released that clashed with Charlotte's birthday that was apparently published with full details of what she was wearing and where to buy it? 🤔

@CallmeHendricks

Pictures released publically or not, I thought it very sad that apparently Prince Charles had no pictures of his grandson to post for his birthday. It is said that he's only met him twice in his life. I think that's very sad, for Archie not to know a paternal family apart from anything else.

There's a pandemic so lots of under 2s haven't seen their grandparents this past year.

I'm not sure that Archie would have flown back very often - especially when people judge the Sussexes for preaching being green yet getting on a plane but they seem to be friendly with some RF members like Princess Eugenie (hence allowing her to live at Frogmore in their absense.)

I find it odd that they aren't part of the RF but continue with the RF tradition of a birthday announcement for their child on SM.
I'm expecting their birth announcement to be the stylised fingers and toes sort of thing that we saw with Archie and if she's Christened like her brother then the same to happen.

they seem to be friendly with some RF members like Princess Eugenie (hence allowing her to live at Frogmore in their absense.)
isnt there anywhere else to live in Queen's lots of places? why Frogmore Cottage?