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?

Yes it was demeaning and rude to the people who watched the wedding and believed it was meaningful to the bride and groom and we were sharing that moment with them.

@LillianGish There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Meghan (or Harry for that matter) didn't want the Dumbarton title because of the 'dumb' bit. You are posting tabloid conspiracist bs as if it were true.

And we wonder why they left the UK when people truly believe that rubbish.

She and Harry didn't exactly have a choice in their type of wedding. There is NO WAY the Queen would have allowed Harry and Meghan to have a small common wedding. That just was not possible.

A common wedding? Not sure what you mean by that, but I agree that it was never going to be Slough register office followed by a reception in the Holiday Inn. But why wouldn’t they have been able to have a small, private wedding if they’d wanted one? Harry wasn’t heir to the throne, so politicians and heads of state weren’t invited as they had to be to William’s. It didn’t have to be a public “Royal Wedding” at all. I don’t see any reason why they couldn’t have had something like Zara Tindall if that’d been their choice.

I remember Meghan calling the wedding a ‘spectacle’, which is a very odd use of the term. It felt as though she disapproved of her own wedding.

Before he married , Harry had lost royal rank significance after William produced three children. Right away, it meant that Harry's spouse/offspring would never carry any more importance or significance than the spouses/offspring of Princess Anne and Edward. Those shadowy nobodies most people don't even recognise.

Anne and Edwards marriages did not produce little Princes and Princesses; their children were raised in private obscurity out of the public eye. The only child who came to any public attention (Zara Philipps) achieved it in her own right as an Olympic athlete. As an adult, by hard work.

Harry undoubtedly knew all that before he met Meghan and seems not to have explained it to her. She was never going to be a princess; or famous for marrying him; her destiny was an occasional walk-on part on a balcony or cutting ribbons . Harry was nowhere near heir to the throne; his wife was never, ever going to be the Top Bill royal spouse like Diana and Kate.

The Royal Family must have been dreading what effect Harry's book would have on the Queen . But she's dead and beyond its reach now; so that ship has sailed. The King and his consort are very tough, from decades of experience riding out the most excruciating public personal shame and disgrace. Charles and Camilla have spent their life playing the long game. Waiting for absolute power. They are not about to let a book or any TV interview screw them again, like Diana did.

IF Harry has any sense he'll educate Meghan on what happened to the last couple who abandoned Royal Life and jumped ship . Same old story.

Edward and Wallis imagined they would be feted abroad as Royal celebrities; when that didn't happen they expected to be forgiven and quietly re-admitted to royal family circles; when that didn't happen they courted rehabilitation by Germany. Repeated wrong judgement calls. They were excluded, frozen out, spent the rest of their lives in humiliating obscurity with none of the royal perks and social status they had taken for granted would be theirs.

Georgette Heyer is a fine historian! And everything you say is true. But I was just trying to explain the basics to someone who hadn’t heard of an Earl. Many Earls are not also Dukes! It confuses things a little.

Indeed we have. Which is why male monarchs are outdated!

H&M gave it all up to live their own lives. Why should their children be made HRH and remain in line for the throne if their parents want to opt out for privacy? When you give it up you give it all up.

That's my thoughts the Royals have various small Chapels they could have used including the one Bea go married in.

They could have had a small family only, no TV crews wedding.

@ WIMPOLEHAT

"She and Harry didn't exactly have a choice in their type of wedding. There is NO WAY the Queen would have allowed Harry and Meghan to have a small common wedding. That just was not possible."

You're talking bollocks. That's EXACTLY what the Queen allowed Charles and Camilla to do.

Given the amount of money big weddings cost, and the Queen’s awareness of the public scrutiny of expenditure, I imagine she’d have been thrilled by a low key event. She’d still have been invited one assumes.

There is NO WAY the Queen would have allowed Harry and Meghan to have a small common wedding.

I'm not sure what a 'common wedding' is, but if they had said that they wanted a private wedding, not televised, with just a few photos released to the public after the event, what exactly could the queen have done? Put a gun to Meghan's back as she walked down the aisle of St. George's Chapel?

I mean, Harry's supporters always say he had been desperate to 'escape' from royal life for years. Wouldn't this have been a perfect opportunity to start in that direction?

The formal wedding was not of her choosing

I don't believe that for one second.

I think she absolutely wanted the full bells and whistles royal wedding, and if it had been suggested to her that she have a quiet wedding, given that she was a divorcee and Harry was not directly in line, you can be absolutely sure she'd have been on Oprah complaining bitterly that 'they' wanted to sideline her and treat her differently from other royals, with all her supporters here nodding in outraged agreement.

A lot of their narrative in the press was intrinsically linked to the Queen. Supporting the Queen, how close they still were with the Queen despite their physical distance. There was always that connection to be involved in Royal events (to support my grandmother).

That narrative has been lost. The funeral also seemed to be a goodbye to the Sussexes - in terms of their role within the 'monarchy' (not within a family).

What reason could there be for either of them to come back to the UK now for Royal events? Without it looking like rank hypocrisy. There is no duty to attend, they are not working royals. They have made their views on Charles and William pretty clear.

They need to carve out new roles in life which don't reference the Royal family, that don't trade on victimhood or the past. Otherwise they look increasingly like Donald Trump, clinging to and sniping about the past continuously. It is not a dignified look.

Seriously, Harry is the son of the King. He was, when he got married, the son of the very near future King. He cannot be compared to Zara or Beatrice. There is no way the son of the near future King could have a scaled down wedding. It just was never going to be allowed and I think people are delusional if they genuinely think Harry as son of Charles can be compared to any of the other royal members further down the line. We are talking the son of Charles here. Prince Henry. Not Zara or Beatrice or Eugenie.

Again, what do you mean by 'allowed'?

To repeat my post above, if Harry and Meghan had said that they were going to have a private wedding, to be paid for by themselves, what, precisely, could have been done to force them to do otherwise?

I thought Harry was always 'desperate' to leave royal life. Wouldn't this have been a great way to start off this new chapter in his life? Or, in addition to the beautiful wedding, did 'they' make him and his wife accept peerage titles and do royal engagements too?

H and M could still have had a large private wedding without all the tv coverage .

Edward and Wallis imagined they would be feted abroad as Royal celebrities; when that didn't happen they expected to be forgiven and quietly re-admitted to royal family circles; when that didn't happen they courted rehabilitation by Germany. Repeated wrong judgement calls. They were excluded, frozen out, spent the rest of their lives in humiliating obscurity with none of the royal perks and social status they had taken for granted would be theirs.

TBH does look like Wallis knew what she was in for and letters make it look like she hadn't really wanted to marry him - just be his mistress and keep her second husband - but everyone out maneuvered her and she made the best job she could with the situation.

I think he didn't realise what he was getting into - and was apparently very upset his brothers didn't attend his wedding and with the loss of status and money worries.

There is no way the son of the near future King could have a scaled down wedding. It just was never going to be allowed

If you think about it, a “scaled down wedding” is exactly what he DID have. No Westminster Abbey, no bank holiday, no heads of state. Why? Because he wasn’t heir to the throne. No “requirements” as such for the spare. He could’ve done (within reason, I accept, but still with a fair degree of latitude) whatever he wanted to do. I think you’re very wrong to suggest that the Windsor “spectacle” was down to HM Queen at all…..

They'd have been wise to allow a number of photos and footage clips to be released for publication.

How does PH’s warm connection with his grandmother square with him not visiting her when he was in the U.K. days before her death?

I can’t imagine anyone choosing not to visit their frail, ill, adored 96 year old grandmother if you lived on another continent and were then in the country.

Each rare opportunity to visit must carry the weight of this might be the last time you see them in those circumstances.

Was he not allowed by others?
Was he not welcomed by the Queen?
Or was it his choice not to visit?

That's hereditary monarchy for you - you only remember the Kings and Queens, not the also rans

I am not sure that such a negative slant on the whole business is warranted. There may only be one monarch but there is also typically only one CEO of an organisation, one head of a school, one mayor of a city, one president of a country, one... you get the point. The chances of any single individual occupying such a role are small - for everybody. Yet, most people manage to get through life without pulling the stunts that H & M have pulled. Even siblings of monarchs.

No, they couldn't. Because of who Harry is. And what difference would it make between a large wedding and tv coverage? It seems like petty splitting of hairs now.

The fact is as Heir to the throne and as the son of the (future) King, it's pretty clear he would not have been able or have a small wedding without tv coverage. Protocol dictates this, pomp etc must go on. Like I said, he is not Zara or Andrew's daughters. He was what, 5th/6th in line? Compared to their what, 12th etc.

The fact is as Heir to the throne and as the son of the (future) King, it's pretty clear he would not have been able or have a small wedding without tv coverage.

Heir to the throne? Are you sure?

And for the 3rd time, what exactly could have been done to force him to have a major televised wedding against his will?

Yes of course. Like Zara did .

You're talking bollocks. That's EXACTLY what the Queen allowed Charles and Camilla to do.

Actually - yes, that’s a really good point about Charles and Camilla. Very low key; register office and church blessing and private reception. Arguably, that precedent had been set for “what happens when a senior royal marries a divorcee”. They could very easily have gone down that route if they had so wished.