Why are H&M "less important" now?

[thefoggiest]

Let's not make this a bashing thread!
But in another thread yesterday it occured to me that the way I see it, I just get the sense that with the queens death they almost drop a rank. But that doesnt make sense? If anything shouldn't they now feel more important? Now that her majesty has gone it just feels like they become more distant somehow. Could it be to do with the passing of a generation, so they are no longer "the youth"?

By the way this isnt based on any facts or anything I've read, just a feeling on it. Can anyone explain? Am I right or wrong?

@JustLyra totally agree. How could he be so irresponsible as to not explain to her what she was getting into

An Earl comes below a Duke - Edward is currently the Earl of Sussex and is said to be waiting to be Duke of Edinburgh: the wife of an Earl is a Countess. A Viscount is the son of an Earl

Not quite…

The UK peerage has a pecking order of titles. Starting from the top, they are:

Duke
Marquess
Earl
Viscount
Baron

There are any number of peers in the UK who hold one of these titles - the Duke of Norfolk, the Marquis of Bath, Earl Spencer etc etc.

If you hold one of the higher ranks in the peerage, often you will also have been awarded titles from the lesser ranks at the same time. So, to take the Duke of Devonshire as an example, whoever holds the title of Duke also holds the titles of the Marquess of Hartington, the Earl of Burlington, and Baron Cavendish. They will only use one title at a time, however, and usually that will be the highest ranked title - i.e. Duke.

It has become custom for peers to accordingly allow their heirs use their subsidiary title to indicate their position as heir to the eventual higher title. This is known as a courtesy title. So, to stay with the Duke of Devonshire for the moment, his oldest son will style himself the Marquess of Hartington, and his oldest son in turn will style himself the Earl of Burlington.

So, when Tony Armstrong-Jones married Margaret, he was given the title Earl Snowden, with the subsidiary title Viscount Linley. Hence their son used that title for years until his father died, and it’s now used by his own son in turn.

(Most of this knowledge comes from tears of reading Georgette Heyer books, by the way 😀)

But I think she just didn't realise that the word 'marriage' is so rigidly adhered to it the UK

she was baptised into the Church of England before marrying Harry.
part of her religious instruction would include understanding how the Church views Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage etc.

plus Harry knew what “marriage” means in the UK. He could easily have corrected her - or asked for that bit to be edited out.

JustLyra · Today 11:15
-So of course Harry knew what “married” meant, he knew that claiming to have been “married” in secret, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in an unauthorised venue on a date different to that shown on the marriage license would be perceived around the world and he still did not correct Meghan.
I actually think this is one of several moments where if Meghan had posted in relationships she’d have been told to LTB.
Harry, by neglect stupidity or deliberate intent, did not remotely ensure Meghan knew what she was getting into. She didn’t know they curtsied to the Queen in private settings, she didn’t know what the UK press was like, she didn’t know how the palaces worked and she didn’t know that using the word ‘marriage’ in an informal way is a big deal if you are part of a hereditary monarchy and the Archbishop of Canterbury was there.
She should have known all of that.

I agree, JustLyra. The person here who tends to escape blame is dim old Harry. How on earth did he not tell Meghan just what she would be getting into? I'm not Meghan fan (massive narcissist/attention-seeking/prima donna alerts on my radar) but didn't she know that she would not be the star of the show? That her role would be to follow behind several others who had precedence, including Kate (and blimey, we know how that went down..) and curtsey to them?

I'm not a Harry and Meghan fan - I think they are cringeworthy - but I blame Harry, not the rest of the RF, for Meghan's predicament. I'm sorry - I have no illusions about Meghan herself - she seems to be a troubled and difficult character. Is it true that, as well as being NC with most of her own family, she has fallen out with the Canadian family whose sons were her pages? Not a good sign.

I guess there are a few options…

One is that he assumed she knew. Which makes him a bit stupid.
Another is that he didn’t know so couldn’t teach her. Which would make him really quite stupid.

And the other is that women who know what they’re getting into, as Chelsy Davy and Cressida Bonas appeared to, tended to walk away and not marry him so he choose not to tell. Which would make him a prick.

Agree - it's not about what she felt during the meeting with the Archbishop, it's that she described it publicly in a way that meant he was sufficiently concerned he needed to issue a clarification. That was badly done.

Harry either did not grasp the issues, or was utterly careless of impact. It is possibly because things were checked by staff before they quit, and they did not put in place adequate checking of the British implications of what they said (yes, I get that UK is not their main audience, but it is still one that could potentially damage the 'brand' if they get it wrong.

It would help if I knew what they actually do 🤷‍♀️ In terms of the RF, they chose to walk away from the duties involved so in the same way I wouldn’t expect a seat at a meeting in my old workplace, they are less important from the public face point of view. I see two people paying their respects to a much-lived family member and then heading home to be with their own family until the book tour

Errr... didn't we recently have a female monarch for 70 years ??

I actually think this is one of several moments where if Meghan had posted in relationships she’d have been told to LTB

what - being corrected when you are 100% wrong is a reason to LTB? Why?

it’s not like that would ever have been broadcast - it would have been edited out. Oprah was in full-on fawning mode. Goodness knows what else was cut out.

Is it true that, as well as being NC with most of her own family, she has fallen out with the Canadian family whose sons were her pages? Not a good sign.

To be fair on that one I think the friend used Meghan as a “I have black friends…” type thing in an interview apologising/explaining an incident where she was accused of racism and lost her tv job.

if it’s the one I’m thinking of.

The other thing - those people who are blithely claiming that the concept of getting married is just a word used loosely to refer to any kind of informal commitment between a couple - I presume you don’t live in a vacuum? The whole fight for the right for same-sex couples to be married, in binding legal and religious ceremonies, has been a huge feature of the last two decades both here and in the US, precisely because the concept of marriage as an important legally and ceremonially sanctioned relationship matters. I am surprised campaigners bothered, given according to many posters here it’s all essentially meaningless. 😀

The fact that he didn’t correct her, which caused the shitstorm.

If he’d made sure she knew the implications we’d never have heard that - she either would have not said it or had it edited out. He didn’t. He just let it go and the storm came down on her head.

Harry, by neglect stupidity or deliberate intent, did not remotely ensure Meghan knew what she was getting into. She didn’t know they curtsied to the Queen in private settings, she didn’t know what the UK press was like, she didn’t know how the palaces worked and she didn’t know that using the word ‘marriage’ in an informal way is a big deal if you are part of a hereditary monarchy and the Archbishop of Canterbury was there.
She should have known all of that.

I thought this around her children titles - her saying they didn't get Prince/Princess - it was clearly set out how that worked so basic research should have explained it to her or he should have explained it.

I wonder if really didn't understand or thought if she made a fuss it would be changed.

With press perhaps she thought - press oh I know all about that not realising it was more intense - or perhaps she was just not get warned. I do think the press has been badly behaved and sometimes racist - but also think their bad PR and make them easy targets.

I don't think anyone minded that they had a private ceremony beforehand. What people objected to was the idea that what they had seen - the Royal Wedding, which had a great deal of public funding, public support and public goodwill, with many people choosing to tune in or travel to throng the streets - was not the real deal, and they'd been fooled, and it wasn't good enough for the couple. I'm not saying that's right, just that one of the things that makes royalty palatable for many people is the idea that the public gets a share in major life events like weddings. By denying it was the "real thing", so to speak, Meghan seemed to be refusing that public share. She kept it from you; what you saw wasn't the real wedding. (Although legally, of course it was, and however she felt spiritually, in real, practical, legal terms, she wasn't married or a duchess or a princess or a royal or a wife until the public ceremony. Marriage is a legal contract. Even solely religious weddings create a religious commitment within the legalities of the religion. You aren't bound by anything in secular life but there will be changes in your religious community.)

Which is why she isn't suited at all to royal life and it's no bad thing they opted out. But goodness, I wish they would just bloody opt out. They have more than enough start up capital and industry connections to do whatever they want. I thought they'd probably start a film and TV production company, given Megan's professional background.

I do think the press has been badly behaved and sometimes racist - but also think their bad PR and make them easy targets.

Agreed. Their PR is utterly shocking, in Britain at any rate. I guess they're catering to an American audience but I don't know how popular they are over there.

Maybe Harry just, like me, didn't think it was a big deal and naturally assumed people would 'get' what she was saying. The fact people went so batshit over a non-issue that the poor Archbishop was hounded for a clarification shows how completely batshit way over the top people went over what was really a non-issue to most people. Harry probably knew what she meant and didn't even think to correct her on that point because like me, it never occurred to him anyone would make an issue over it.

The fact people went so batshit over a non-issue that the poor Archbishop was hounded for a clarification shows how completely batshit way over the top people went over what was really a non-issue to most people.

Don’t be silly - if true, “we were secretly married three days before the big ceremony” would have been an absolutely huge story

Racist cultural ignorance? That’s a reach even for you. If anyone was culturally ignorant it was her.

If Princess Charlotte can inherit after Prince George, then why cannot Princess Anne inherit after King Charles?

My mistake - I misread that.

The law changes which were made before Prince George’s birth weren’t retrospective, strawberriesarenot, so they only altered the line of succession going forward.

Because the new law only applies to children born after 2011

The Letters Patent that fixed make primogeniture are not retroactive.

Charlotte is the first princess with a younger brother who doesn't leapfrog her in succession.

(Also, Princess Charlotte will only inherit after George if he is childless - the moment he has a - legitimate - child, boy or girl, they will be next in line).

Did he deliberately not tell her the real deal incase she walked away like previous girlfriends?