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 suppose you are all right in a way.

I always wondered how Charles was going to streamline with only 2 sons and their wives.

I had a gander the other day at other royals diaries, and even with the best will in the world, there was no way W&C or H&M were ever going to be able to hold the workload when the older royals pass away/become too old to do the job.

So now I'm starting to wonder what "streamlined" actually means.

I really hope you're right, tadara. His heart seems to be in the right place and he could do so much good. I think he needs people around him who will help him focus his efforts in the right direction. If he and M could do that for the next ten years, bingo, he's everyone's favourite again.

Harry was always part of the streamlined monarchy I thought.

F*irstFM
"No, not at all. I have simply sought to understand why they (like you) dedicate your days (weeks, months, and I’m willing to believe, years) on threads discussing a person you do not know and whose life you have no power to impact. If you have that much time available why not put it to good use. There are many charitable organisations in need of volunteers. Meghan is neither a cause nor disadvantaged that she needs so much of your time."
*
Maybe instead of instructing other posters on how to spend their time you can spend less of your own time making quite so many personal attacks on other posters which have resulted in multiple deletions by MNHQ of your posts.

I'll be honest and say I'm not a fan of every move H&M have made since they left the institution. I do believe they are two individuals who want to do good but are very impulsive and sometimes lack finesse.

The days of him being everyone's favourite are long gone but there's still room for them to make positive impact in the world.

I guess it would just mean a lot less royal 'work'. Fewer patronages and random charities, and instead more of a focus on a few core projects? Maybe 'peripheral' royals like the York sisters or the Wessex kids could be 'drafted in' from time to time for an occasional engagement, but not considered 'full time' royals?

Most European monarchies only have the monarch, consort and direct heir and their spouse as 'working' royals. In fact, in some of them such as Spain or The Netherlands, the heir is too young to take on duties so it's really only the king and queen. Then again, these countries are all much smaller than Britain and there's also the Commonwealth to factor in, although with more and more of the overseas realms likely to become republics in the near future, the Commonwealth may become less of a focus for the royals.

So I think a 'streamlined' monarchy is doable, but it would require a different idea of what a royal family is supposed to do in the modern world. But that wouldn't be a bad thing.

As I said, it could be argued that the monarch isn’t important because he has no political powers. He may support our democratic processes but he is not fundamental to them – as many republics can attest. You will find fewer and fewer nations accepting our monarch as their sovereign/head of state in years to come.

Secondly, most of those attributes cannot be contested. There is more evidence to support them than many of the frivolous claims made against the duchess which you and others promulgate with vigour.

In regards to my posts being deleted. That is true. I took to MN for the first time two days ago to highlight what I considered to be the hypocrisy of one poster who took exception to me making a judgement about her actions, while at the same time said poster deemed it acceptable to make judgements about another individual (i.e. the Duchess of Sussex) on a frequent basis (daily, in fact). For reasons unknown to me a supporter of that poster took exception to me making reference to the fact that the majority of people that disapprove of Meghan are, shall I say, of a mature age. This came from a BBC survey last year so I’m not sure why it triggered the reaction it did if it’s true.

One thing I did not in "that article" posted earlier was Harry's concern about having less impact when George gets to 18

That was an important part of the article and, quite possibly, the explanation underpinning much of what has gone on. However, did he ever actually have as much of an impact as he thought he did or had this idea been encouraged by others seeking to equalise H to W? Otherwise, why would H think that his impact was that big in the first place - big enough to be concerned about losing? That his 'impact' had been built up artificially would explain his preoccupation with losing it rather than focusing on the more positive aspect of his situation, that is, the opportunity to live his life in considerable luxury and comfort. I am surprised that nobody pointed this out to him.

The racism argument is used so indiscriminatly.
For instance, I think Kwasi Kwarteng has delivered a corrupt, destructive and cruel budget.
I think it is a reflection of his own desires and morals. I condemn him for it. Am I going to be called a racist for my opinion?

@FirstTM ok so you stand by your personal attacks even though MNHQ deleted them?
And you think it's Ok for you to behave like this?

Very true!

I think Harry and Meghan would have been very much part of the monarchy. Whether they would have been interested in the day to day ribbon cutting, chatting to pensioners and school children rather than attending film premieres and receptions for heads of state, who knows.

And if they didn't want to be part of the monarchy in that way, Harry could have stayed in the army - there are plenty of roles that wouldn't have required him to serve on the front line in conflict zones but would have still made an important contribution.

I do believe they are two individuals who want to do good but are very impulsive and sometimes lack finesse.
This x 100.

The days of him being everyone's favourite are long gone
Never say never. People love a good redemption story.

I think Charles want to cancel the Monarchy. Keep it Private and Small. I can see him cutting down all the ceremonies etc. These people want to live their lives - what's happening now is probably one of the main reasons.

Please see my post above that clarifies that point, although you should know the history as you were the original source of my address. Again, I will repeat, there are many charities in need of volunteers. Why not make a positive impact in the life of someone who can benefit from your service?

As I said, it could be argued that the monarch isn’t important because he has no political powers.

Right. So the Head of State of 15 countries is arguably not important, but a podcaster and an influencer for a coaching app are, because they get a lot of mentions on Twitter.

OK.

Secondly, most of those attributes cannot be contested. There is more evidence to support them than many of the frivolous claims made against the duchess which you and others promulgate with vigour.

No, I still take issues with these 'attributes' but it's irrelevant anyway. I'm not sure why you are getting so personal because I'm not a very prolific poster on these threads, and even if I was, I most certainly wouldn't have to justify my posting record to you.

In regards to my posts being deleted. That is true.

Yes it is, because your only focus seems to be making digs at other posters, while, ironically, getting all faux outraged at the very notion of criticising someone you don't know.

Have you got anything of substance to add to the discussion? Anything to say which doesn't involve questioning the motives of others? Seems not.

They did want to BUT they told Harry Meghan should go back to work as an actress didn't they? How would they have supported their family?
I believe PC will want Harry and M back into the fold in some capacity. He needs them now more than ever.
He's also fired a lot of the palace workers (up to 100 redundancies) . . . says a lot if you ask me.

Yes I think Cahrels always envisaged Harry being part of that slimmed down version. I don't think he was expecting what has happened to happen at all.

And yes, suppose streamlining means, less patronages and ribbon cutting.

I do disagree that the commonwealth is becoming less important, 2 countries joined in 2022! So people are still signing up. Maybe that's where the concentration will go, being more a "global ambassador of it" overseas tours more than leisure centre openings in Croydon 🤷🏻‍♀️

What happens when this thread fills up again re: Meghan Bashing? Will you all move onto the next thread again? Which one Lili and Archie one?

I do disagree that the commonwealth is becoming less important, 2 countries joined in 2022! So people are still signing up. Maybe that's where the concentration will go, being more a "global ambassador of it" overseas tours more than leisure centre openings in Croydon 🤷🏻‍♀️

I think 'less important' in the sense that, for the royals, the focus has mainly been on the overseas realms, and they are likely to dwindle in the coming years. It's interesting that Charles' first trip abroad as king will be to France, not to a Commonwealth country.

I'm sure they'll cope - after all they bash the royal family all the time!

@Coucous
"What happens when this thread fills up again re: Meghan Bashing? Will you all move onto the next thread again? Which one Lili and Archie one?"

Surely the real question is what will you do?

I don't find that too odd, there is war in Europe after all, so perhaps it's a message that GB stands with its allies at the highest levels maybe? As in above politics and as nations. But again maybe not lol

Meghan and Harry live RENT FREE in their heads. Why are you so scared of Meghan? Completely rent free!
People will go to be doing this and wake up in the morning straight into it again.

And we are yet to hear what your motivations are. That seems to be the modus operandi on these threads – repeat unsubstantiated claims (hoping others will take them as verified facts) and avoid answering questions that may incriminate oneself. As I said, it all seems very futile.

P.S. there was no outrage (faux or otherwise), it’s more sympathy – and I don’t mean for Meghan and Harry as I suspect they are a lot happier than most. I’m willing to believe they’ve got better things to do in bed around 5am in the morning (I see posts on these threads start quite early 😄).