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?

It's interesting that you think that. I feel he looks angry and petulant all the time. William on the other hand is a statesman of the first order.

Dan Wooten = Omid Scobie

Count escorted out don't they?

Each other ! No idea about them and escorts!

Because they said they didn't want a job in the Firm?

Nobody could say Ann isn't important to the RF.

H&M could easily have had that role, and looked after the Princes Trust and carve out other causes they wish to support.

Scobie has not said really personal, hateful and vicious things about Kate. Wooten has about Meghan. Scobie and Wooten are nothing even remotely alike.

I believe he ate dinner in a separate room at Balmoral (don’t know what happened at breakfast but he had legged it by 9am). He wasn’t invited to share the Royal flight from Northolt.

Meghan has always been put in a car with just Sophie ( she’s a trooper) . It’s seems that the RF have finally learnt to avoid giving the opportunity to experience more ‘truths’.

@WomanStanleyWoman2

David Linley and Sarah Chatto are the Kings cousins, not his grandchildren!

I think the point is that they were King George VI's grandchildren.

Look the issue isn't H left it's how he did it. It's not hard to imagine the situation applying to your family and understanding the frustration of someone seemingly trashing the family.

H and his wife may have valid points but that now gets drowned out with the silly stuff (dad cut me off so I'm just a regular millionaire now etc) and also what did airing their grievances hope to really achieve anyway?

H is not less important to them but not being a working royal does remove the need to quite emphasis his position so much.

He's now a kings son but if he doesn't make peace he may not always be as close to Charles and William as he might otherwise be. And maybe that is ok but certainly in the short term at least anything they come out with is going to seem crass (eg any complaints about Charles over this last week as he'll be supported due to his grief and punishing schedule ascending to the throne)

Regarding the 'lies' - not sure they are lies but I do feel the undertone is an issue. Did they marry 3 days before? Does it matter? It's the suggestion the royal wedding was something they felt was for the ghastly plebs that is the issue.

It's like the Mandela comment - could be true but why on earth repeat that anecdote??? It's this that H and M get so wrong really. Also why the continual same arguments (what about Andrew, racism, Dan Wooten) is not very credible as H and M themselves provide new things to pick over and continue the negative press coverage.

There is really not much to say about a couple live private life in California or a couple support charities and good causes without comment on their private business is there.

My point is @clyspa the people who’ve been doing the most leaking in the RF have been William and Kate’s camp.

Posters like you clack your gums, day in and day out, about the RF having to be cautious about what they say around Harry and Meghan incase it ends up on Oprah when they’ve done one interview. Yet you never acknowledge the fact that Meghan and Harry have to be really, really careful around certain members of the RF because whatever they do or say in private will be on the front pages the next day because those in other camps are like leaky sieves.

As we all saw yesterday, being a monarch is actually a massive deal and I think Kind Charles will protect "The Crown" under all circumstances, like Queen Elizabeth did. He also needs to ensure the survival of the RF for William, and George. I also think William feels the same way.

I think Harry and Meghan would have been great assets to the RF, but they have blown it. They cannot be trusted. Even if they came back, in 2 years time it may all kick off again.

There needs to be some way of being on good terms with them, but they stay in the US.

I don't have time to check scobie but he promotes the victim narrative and is arguably their mouthpiece which was really my point

I read a comment on another website which summed it upped rather well... Harry and Meghan decided to effectively 'resign' from being working royals, which I suppose they are entitled to do. However, what they have done since then is similar to if we resigned from a job but expected to keep the company car, attend the Christmas party and keep the employee benefits. You can't do it.

Both Harry and Andrew should be removed from the line of succession. Harry because he’s not a working Royal - he’s rejected the life, and Andrew because he’s a disgrace.

Theyd both be even less important which would be appropriate. I think we will see much more of the children now as they get older.

I'm a bit young to clack my gums (good expression though) and have not said anyone needs to watch themselves around H and M - I was instead referring to the fact itself that people can do two separate actions at the same time ( leak and watch themselves)

I can understand if it were ME that I'd watch myself but I have no idea if the RF do or don't. None of us actually know right? It's just a discussion.

Actually Archie does have a title, he is the Earl of Dumbarton. Or am I being ‘culturally ignorant’ * in believing Burkes Peerage and the College of Heralds?

I suppose you will say that doesn’t count, because some ‘African Americans’ don’t use Earldoms, or something. I’m willing to place a small bet that A&L are soon referred to as Prince and Princess, though.

• whose culture? Not that of the nation hosting and paying for the ceremony, presumably.

There are lots of non-working royals in the line of succession, Bea and Eug for example

The press will never leave them alone - They make too much money from H+M, they will not stop.

Given it now seems to be confirmed that the Sussexes and their PR agency Sunshine Sachs have now parted ways, it’s also been said that the Sussexes were paying them USD 2m a year for their services - principally, to keep them in the press.

It’s completely disingenuous to pretend that this isn’t something that the couple want, and are prepared to pay hugely for. The hard part, as ever, is to manage it so that the only press coverage are the positive pieces that they are paying for.

They won't remove them, something I learned on here the other day the line of succession goes over 1000 people!

The vast majority of them are not working Royals. So can't ditch Harry for not being a working Royal.
Andrew has never been convicted in court. Innocent until proven and all that. So we can't ditch Andrew based on hear-say (even if he did buy his way out of court).

but at no stage did they actually lie about anything.

They said - on TV - that the Archbishop of Canterbury had married them privately before the main wedding. (I’m aware that some cultures have a different tradition, which might be more meaningful for them, but we are talking about the Church of England here where this is not done.) It’s a legal requirement that weddings take place in public. If they had been telling the truth, the Archbishops would’ve committed a criminal offence!

No it goes to Harry. He would have to abdicate effectively and it would go to his son Archie. If anything happens to Charles and William, Harry along with several others would take over until George came of age. It's complicated

Harry of all people should be able to understand how titles/inheriting titles works.

His own mother was not born “Lady Diana”, but rather, as the granddaughter of an earl, she was “The Honourable Diana Spencer”. When her grandfather died, her father became Earl Spencer and she became Lady Diana Spencer.

his own cousins, Lady Louise and Viscount Severn do not use the Prince/Princess although they are entitled to as grandchildren of the monarch in the male line.

These are known facts in his close family, of course he knows exactly how it works. It’s just another thing for them to moan about that has zero substance

The line of succession is just a historical curiosity these days, I think. Bar a thankfully unlikely “King Ralph” style incident (or a horrific massacre as happened in Nepal 20 years ago), once you get past the first 5 or so, it’s all completely academic.

Plus weddings have to take place in authorised venues. Which doesn’t include backgardens.

it was a lie, and an insulting one, given the millions that were spent on their wedding.