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?

I suppose if H's father, as heir to the throne could have a 'quiet' wedding, H could have done too. I think they probably both relished the occasion at the time, until they had second thoughts.
What is apparent is, that they are two different cultures. Meghan brainy, ambitious, ruthless and has had to look after herself. Never mind previous marriage and older. Harry, let's face it, dim. Always taken care of, including in military career. Immature and in many ways not her equal. I guess as part of the RF package he was worth the gamble, but alone, not so much.

Is 5th in line not considered an heir anymore?

Perhaps he was worried his family would cut him off and make things hard for him and Meghan (he hadn't planned on leaving the RF at that point) and he wouldn't have wanted to go against his grandmother's orders.

Of course he could have had a scaled down wedding - his own father had one when he married Camilla on the basis they were both divorcees. In fact a special exception was made for H to be allowed to marry a divorcee in church. Harry has been allowed to do exactly as he likes - the Queen even gave him a year to change his mind when he decided to leave the RF. He chose not to return. He's got what he wanted - whether it was what M wanted I'm not clear. I don't think Meghan ever truly understood what she was getting herself into in the first place - I think she thought being royalty was just an extension of being a celebrity. Not her fault - I don't think anyone who is not British or from the Commonwealth really gets it.

Also, didn't Princess Anne have a very quiet wedding to Timothy Lawrence, in the Crathie Kirk in Balmoral? She was then the daughter of the monarch and had a much higher profile back then than she does now.

I know the primary reason for the wedding in Scotland was because they were both divorced, which was somewhat frowned on back then. But Meghan was also a divorcee. And as a poster above said, there's not actually any 'protocol' for the marriage of someone who is not the heir. The idea that these two were not 'allowed' to have the quiet wedding they supposedly would have preferred doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Which protocol are you referring to - can you link to this please.

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.
*
Sorry this is all wrong , Harry isn't the heir , he's 6th in line.
There is no protocol for weddings, but if there was , how do you explain the fact the the future king didn't have to have a spectacle wedding?
Are you from the U.K.?*

Harry has never been heir to throne.

Does no one remember that it was never a given they would have a large, public wedding? There was much discussion at the time whether they'd opt for a private, intimate ceremony and it was made very clear by Harry that they wanted a large, public wedding with - specifically- the carriage procession.

I found it astonishing that when Meghan declared they'd had a private ceremony 3 days beforehand because that was that they wanted and that all the public stuff was "for" the public, it wasn't questioned. I'd like to know why, during austerity, the British had to foot the bill for that enormous spectacle when it apparently wasn't what the couple wanted.

Either they fibbed that they only had the big wedding "for" the public or they're incredibly deluded - personally, I found that attitude incredibly patronising.

When it comes to popularity, nothing would have sent a bigger message to the public than choosing to have an intimate, private ceremony to save the taxpayers huge expense they couldn't afford. Many people were in favour of them having a private wedding and there was a lot of talk about how admired they'd be for choosing to do so.

What were “his grandmothers orders” - can you explain what they were and evidence this?

Also, didn't Princess Anne have a very quiet wedding to Timothy Lawrence, in the Crathie Kirk in Balmoral? She was then the daughter of the monarch and had a much higher profile back then than she does now.

She did - very good point.

The Queen has lived through a period of huge change when it comes to the question of divorce: it’s how her father came to the throne for a start! Then there was Princess Margaret and Townsend. It wasn’t that long ago that the C of E wouldn’t remarry divorcees in church at all. She’s seen most of her children divorce and has moved a lot with the times - but the definite Royal protocol is that second marriages are lower key. So I doubt she’d have had any problem at all if Harry and Meghan had asked for a lower key event…..

He wasn't 5th in line at the time of his marriage, but if you're saying that makes you an 'heir' where do you draw the line? Surely Bea and Eugenie are also 'heirs' by that vague definition?

I agree with you that Harry didn't intend to leave the royal family, despite what his supporters say. But are you now saying that the gran who he was supposedly so close to would have 'ordered' him to have the type of wedding he didn't want, with the threat of being 'cut off' if he didn't comply?

Did the queen also 'order' them to do the full routine of engagement photo call, interview and portraits, complete with designer dress? Because they both seemed very happy to play along with it all. If Meghan hated it, then she's a better actress than her performance on 'Suits' would have you believe.

@CatsandFish the protocols around precedence in the royal family are complex and not based on those lines which you outline. Prince Harry had no greater precedence than Princesses Beatrice or Eugenie, they are each grandchildren of the monarch and all carry equal royal titles. Harry's centering through his life has been largely down to balancing the precedence between him and William and, also, by the death of Diana.

One only needs a brief study of history and the concepts how power is delegated by the crown through protocol to understand this.

Didn't the Queen politely question Meghan's decision to go for full white dress and train, given it was her second marriage?

They could even have asked for a very private wedding anywhere in Scotland (if the minister was up for it) within the grounds of Balmoral, Dumfries House, Palace of Holyrood House, they could have got married anywhere.

Did the queen also 'order' them to do the full routine of engagement photo call, interview and portraits, complete with designer dress?

Exactly. If their wedding had been on HM Queen’s orders, I think we can be sure that it would’ve looked rather different. They had the wedding they wanted. And they had a huge degree of public support and affection. All good; why shouldn’t they? But to make out that they’re some sort of victims here is - frankly - ludicrous….

Harry is a selective victim. He rightly complains about his role in his mother's funeral, don't blame him at all. We never hear the effect that his (unstable and very much wronged by his father) mother leaving the care of him from about eight years old onwards largely to extended family and staff while off with boyfriends. You'd think she'd been killed on the school run, to hear Harry's version.

Prince Harry was 6th in line at time of his wedding - and did need his Grandmother's permission to marry - per 2013 Succession to the Crown Act, which states that only the first six in line to the throne need the monarch’s consent.

However that didn't mean it needed to be a big wedding - there were several precedents about smaller events including his own father's second wedding.

The press coverage at time did seem to suggest big event was coming from the couple themselves - but who knows the real situation. In any event her subsequent comments did make them look very ungracious.

When it comes to popularity, nothing would have sent a bigger message to the public than choosing to have an intimate, private ceremony to save the taxpayers huge expense they couldn't afford. Many people were in favour of them having a private wedding and there was a lot of talk about how admired they'd be for choosing to do so

Given that the grand spectacle of a wedding was for others, I wonder if they had a hand in the Hollywood sleb guest list or did they leave it to the men in grey suits and the public to decide whom to invite?

Given that the grand spectacle of a wedding was for others, I wonder if they had a hand in the Hollywood sleb guest list or did they leave it to the men in grey suits and the public to decide whom to invite?

Well - exactly. If it had all been on HMQ’s orders, I can’t believe that she’d have had George Clooney in the best seats…..

Maybe she would wimp, 😉

@jeffgoldblum Fair point - maybe she was a huge fan of ER? 😂

Famously, when William received a long list of grandees he'd never heard of to invite to his wedding, the Queen told him to forget all of them and focus on who he wanted to invite.

That must have been a bit sour for OW who was a sleb guest at the wedding to then be told to her face in the interview that it was spectacle for “others”…..

Hopes she’s informed him you can get arrested there for walking across the street:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6251431.stm

”In the UK no one would bat an eyelid. In Atlanta, you could be wrestled to the ground.”

‘Jaywalking’ this is called. Another draconian law there is its illegal to drink under 21. If behind a wheel and you have had one drink, you will be arrested.

Bet most younger people (25 and under) wouldn’t have a clue who Fergie is. She was everywhere at one point. Only Diana was bigger among the royals.

I find the whole victimhood thing surrounding them to be quite weird, frankly.

On the one hand, Meghan's supporters say she's an independent, worldly wise woman, often with snide comments about other royal wives thrown in for good measure.

Yet her whole 'persona' now seems to be built on a sense of victimhood. She wasn't even 'allowed' to have a private wedding? That couture dress, that carriage ride with cheering crowds, that beautiful historic church, the Prince of Wales walking her down the aisle? That was all a 'spectacle' which was forced upon the poor hapless princess in the tower, with her passport taken away by 'the institution'?