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?

DFOD I agree

They are grandiose, deluded, tone deaf “victims” who use “charity” as a front for the accumulation of substantial wealth to which they believe they are entitled.

That’s very eloquently put @DFOD . And, if you don’t mind my extending the point, I think what’s so offensive about it is that it’s the opposite of what the Queen stood for. Yes, she had palaces and jewellery (oh, and what jewellery!), but the focus was always on the country or the causes and never on her. And that’s been the way that the Royals were “supposed to do it” - and it’s why Harry now seeking to monetise his title and his family connections is so grating.

I agree, Beatrice had a small family only wedding. OK it was during a lockdown, but I’m sure if she wanted the whole shebang she’d have waited for it

*Many people with a minuscule fraction of the resources and time they had at their disposal achieved incredible things for others under huge duress during the pandemic.

They are grandiose, deluded, tone deaf “victims” who use “charity” as a front for the accumulation of substantial wealth to which they believe they are entitled*

Harsh, but im inclined to agree. Mind you, the attitude to charity which you highlight is pretty standard among the rich, they're hardly the only ones and don't we tend to judge ourselves by standards set by our peers?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=xHV_vmYoSjY

I agree …. and have a listen to that other wonderful “Queen” on the other side of the pond - Michele Obama - on what service is - and how MM & PH behave.

“The thing that I always keep in mind is that none of this is about us in public service - it’s about the people that we serve. I always try to push the light back out and focus it on the folks that we are actually here to serve”

Michelle Obama is a class act - as always…..

I think the coronation will be very interesting. I assume they will just be bystanders having to watch. I’m guessing at this point Harry will realise what his position is now.
I found the whole, we’ve been cut off thing quite distasteful really. I’m really surprised they had any sympathy for wanting to live it up in America on Charles coin.
Maybe the queen has left them a chunk of cash and they’ll go quiet.

Maybe the Queen has left them a chunk of cash on condition that they go quietly.

I think the coronation will be very interesting. I assume they will just be bystanders having to watch. I’m guessing at this point Harry will realise what his position is now

They're Duke and Duchess, so full robes, ermine, coronets. Not exactly bystanders (other than in the sense that everyone except the King, Queen and Archbishop are bystanders)

Jubilee, did wonder whether the Queen would leave Harry some £ so he could stop whatever it is he's currently doing to raise cash.

And compare that to the late George Michael, who did so much- all without any publicity. He understood what charity really is.

as the Bible says

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil

The same could have been said for the Queen or any royal family member who does charity. So why pick on Harry?

Btw, the Bible also says Do Not Judge.....

They are grandiose, deluded, tone deaf “victims” who use “charity” as a front for the accumulation of substantial wealth to which they believe they are entitled.

So exactly like the Queen was and like the whole of the Royal family is then....

I level the same criticism at most of the royal family, but the point people make here is that other working royals carry out a large number of duties and, mostly, don't publicly complain (with one notable exception!)

The Princes Trust and the Invictus Games are both brilliant examples of what they can achieve, sadly most of the charitable efforts of the Sussexs since they left have appeared more performative than worthy.

its not about Harry - it’s about Meghan. Who won’t sully her own hands handing out stuff, but gets a staffer to do it.

the Bible does indeed say many things. Including honour thy father and mother. They aren’t doing so well on that front, are they?

i wonder how Harry is feeling about having to kneel before his father and pay homage to him at the Coronation in the following words:

I, Harry , Duke of Sussex,
do become your liege man of life and limb,
and of earthly worship;
and faith and truth I will bear unto you,
to live and die, against all manner of folks.
So help me God

And they had an informal ceremony 3 days before, in some cultures like some African Americans they perform a non-binding ceremony first, before the legal one, and often consider the first one the real one

If Meghan was celebrating her African/American culture they could have had a ceremony for that 3 days before the wedding. BUT the Archbishop of Canterbury to perform it?! Impossible. And wouldn't they have wanted/needed a celebrant from an African background? It was just a lie - again

Unless the Queen set up trust funds during her lifetime then she won't leave Harry, or anyone other than Charles, anything. Queen to King = zero inheritance tax. Queen to anyone else = tax.

She may have left trust funds, but I'd think she'd have done similar to QEQM and left it to her great-grandchildren as her grandchildren were pretty well set up by QEQM and will be by their parents.

If he's not a working royal, does he have to?

If it's a requirement to get/keep the Sussex title, I imagine he's decided that it's an old ritual they all have to do to maintain protocol and he doesn't mind going through the motions. Maybe he does want to pledge that kind of allegiance anyway. He served in Afghanistan.

If he doesn't want the title, I'm guessing he won't have to do it. Happy to be corrected.

All male peers at the coronation kneel and pay homage to the monarch.

if he doesn’t attend, then he doesn’t have to

You are so right.

It wasn’t a ceremony/wedding.

because that’s against the law in the UK. Everyone requires a marriage license, which states the date and place of the wedding. It’s obvious the Archbishop is well aware of the law and would never countenance such a thing. A blessing would be totally different.

as has been stated, suggesting there was any sort of wedding before the actual one is showing cultural ignorance of this country.

I completely agree @DFOD .
And as for MM requesting a private meeting with the King? I suspect that they were on the first plane out on Monday night or Tuesday morning.
If only they would bugger off to California and drop out of view 🤞🏻🙏

If he doesn't want the title, I'm guessing he won't have to do it. Happy to be corrected

Interesting one, but I think you're right.

There hasn't been a coronation since they changed the rules about peers and sitting in the House of Lords. If a peer does not swear allegiance, they cannot be a working peer, and I do not know if other peers have to swear allegiance other than at a Coronation.

But I don't know if there are consequences if they don't

So if he does not want to, then the sensible course of action would be to decline to attend. Conspicuously not doing so at the Coronation itself would be a terrible snub and I can't believe he would wish to do that. Nor do I think he lacks respect for the Monarchy as an institution (whatever he might personally think about his family members).

So I think he will attend and will pledge allegiance

Snag in that is that it is the Archbishop who grants licences, and is the only prelate in the country who can indeed authorise or solemnise a marriage outwith the usual regulations legal if he believes the circumstances warrant it.

Hence his need to clarify that he did no such thing.

Can he do it in the absence of witnesses? Just him and the couple? And presumably the marriage licence must be signed?