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 find it a bit strange that the Archbishop of Canterbury would have gone along with an informal wedding in a back garden. By definition being the top priest in the Church Of England is not an informal.job.

It may be that like many clergy he gave the soon-to-be newly-weds a pep talk on the glories and responsibilities of marriage and when Harry and Meghan wanted to say a few words in front of him he thought: "What's the harm?" Well, you live and learn, don't you?

I'm speculating of course as anyone who is not Harry and Meghan or Justin Welby cannot know what passed between them in that garden - a meaningful ceremony to two of them, just a routine part of the job for another. I can see how he doesn't want to talk about it though.

I married in a register office. That was meaningful and legally binding enough for me.

I think comparisons people born to a time with no 24 hour rolling news, social media or celebrity culture are a bit pointless.

Children of famous footballers of the 60s wouldn’t be recognisable, yet many people would recognise some of the Beckhams’ kids.

I mean, how many people would recognise a photo of Princess Mary? Very few yet she was the daughter of a King, sister of two and niece of one. Princess Anne didn’t have that level of anonymity and Charlotte certainly won’t. It’s a totally different era that William and Harry’s kids are growing up in.

But that might be different if she'd lived longer.

David and Sarah. Do I get a small prize?

I agree that the Archbishop should never have been put in a position that it was necessary to issue a clarification

A more careful choice of words, reflecting more closely what it appears she meant - that she found the occasion significant and moving - would have meant there was never an issue in the first place

Just googled Sarah Chatto, do not recognise her at all.

I get the impression that Welty will do whatever the Royals want.

Lots of people do. Not people who take their history from The Crown or who knew nothing about the RF till bots and squads took over social media trying to create drama.

I think H&M seem less important because Charles reiterated their life is in the US, and because the past week has shown the UK RF can be a strong, working unit that has lots of support across the UK.

Tbh H&M haven't been important since they chose to leave. There are lots of European Royals in the US. The only reason there's been so much drama about H&M is that the media (and certain countries) use them as an excuse to attack the UK and the UK RF. H&M sniping whether in interviews, books or podcasts doesn't make any difference to their importance in the grand scheme of politics or the monarchy.

With the wedding vow issue, I think it was the way she said it that set people's teeth on edge. If she'd said she and Harry had made their own personal vows to each other the day before, everyone would have understood - they wanted a small, quiet, intimate, private moment before the pomp and ceremony of a 'royal wedding'. But to say they were 'married' the day before, well, that's just odd.

Many certainly do think their religious wedding is the real deal, perhaps having gone through some sort of legal ceremony at a registry office, and couples do make important promises to each other outside of a legal marriage ceremony, but it usually happens when the legal bit isn't particularly personal, just transactional.

If they'd wanted a small, quiet, personal wedding without all the trappings, I'm absolutely certain HMQ would have had no issue with it at all.

To have the full on royal do, with carriages and choirs and celebrity attendees, designer frocks, the works, then claim it wasn't your actual wedding seems slightly tone deaf.

Anyway, I'm sure Meghan understands a bit more after this last week, of what it means to be a member of the royal family. She probably wants no more than to go home and see her children. It would be nice to think they can then both just get on with their lives outside the 'royal' bit of the family, as they wished, and perhaps end up with something more of the 'family' relationship.

Probably not, as they were the Archie and Lili of their day, and very well known

Their DC are the new Viscount Linley (Charles) and Lady Margarita, and Arthur and Samuel Chatto. Arthur is the one who joined the Marines and was in uniform at the funeral

They stopped having any 'importance' at all when they decided not to be working royals. That hasn't changed. Clearly there is occasional overlap between family events Harry and his wife can attend in a personal capacity and official events that guests are invited to, like the Queen's funeral. But beyond that they are now just like the rest of us - making their own way in the world (but with the added advantage of a lot of money and connections).

Princess Margaret’s children were in the papers in the 80s when they were young and single, so many people will remember them from that time. Viscount Linley was a catch.

I’m reading some wartime diaries at the moment and the current Duke of Gloucester has just been born. At that point he was fourth in line to the throne, and his father would have been a very prominent figure as a son of George V. Now he’s the bloke in the back row of the processions this week who very few people recognise.

@Yesthatismychildsigh I suppose so but it depends which royals are doing the asking. I imagine our late Queen would have taken a dim view of a secret ceremony as I gather she was someone who took all that Defender of the Faith stuff seriously and she was in charge.

@CatsandFish I agree Meghan was culturally ignorant when she assumed the vows in the garden (if there were any) were of the same significance as they could be in the USA. And, with all the other things going on before the wedding I can forgive her for not taking the time to find out.

But...Harry is a member of the UK royal family. He knows how the CofE works, he knows his father had to have a registry office wedding then a church blessing as he and Camilla were divorcees. He knows the system. His job was to guide Meghan through the cultural differences of her new, adopted, country. Just as I assume she's doing with him in the USA. He didn't correct her as he should have 'no darling, it was just an exchange of vows, our wedding day was 19th May'.

He just stood by and let her land herself in a jam and become a little bit of a laughing stock for assuming an exchange of vows or a dress rehearsal is the actual wedding.

On top of which, the interview when she mentions these vows was when she was pregnant. Which was a full year after the wedding. You would have thought the vows thing would have come up before that and someone would have corrected her then. So either she ignored it or for some reason never mentioned it to friends or family prior to that interview - which is odd.

You can have one if it improves your day @limitedperiodonly 😂…… my point was that they have made their way relatively quietly & ‘normally’ and are rarely followed, feted or papped. Surely that’s what Harry said he wanted? Why won’t he get on with it!!

I couldn't have told you Margaret's kids names but they aren't titled are they? They grew up not expecting to be working Royals so possibly kept out the limelight to an extent.

I'm 40s so remember Zara competing and Peter playing Rugby (Scottish school boys) so it's maybe a generation thing that.
A few weeks ago I could barely tell you Louise and James names (Viscount servern) actually at one point I thought 'Servern' was his name and through where did that come from?😳

Margaret’s son is an Earl and was born a Viscount so is titled, but not an HRH if that’s what you mean.

You deserve my prize. They and other young royals seemed so important in the 1980s and were never out of the papers. I saw Lady Melons Windsor about 15 years ago. It was in Waitrose's Belgravia branch of course. No one seemed to know who she was except my husband who recognised her too and told me to stop staring.

DH is an expert at Melons and picked her out of the crowd yesterday.

Nope didn't know they were Earl and Viscount - what does Viscount actually mean?

I think coverage there has been emphasis since Jubilee that there are 8 grandchildren of the late Queen - several non working royals- with Prince Edwards two children being seen much more - partly due to Lady Louise Windsor becoming an adult.

Plus William's children are in front of the camera more.

Harry actually moved one step closer to the throne as have his children - but their own PR stumbles mean they've lost popularity both side of the Atlantic - they are non longer working Royals or even live in the UK and seem to have misunderstood many easily checkable things and lots of people now seem to enjoy hating on their every move.

I think they're seen as a liability - and are being sidelined by palace pr people.

Yes you're probably right that if she said personal vows to each other privately or something then it might be different. But I think she just didn't realise that the word 'marriage' is so rigidly adhered to it the UK. It honestly never occurred to me she said anything wrong, what she said seemed normal to me and I was gobsmacked at the backlash thinking who tf cares, get over it etc. I would have said married (because there are two types; legal, and non-legal) and not have thought any more of it. Because to me (and no doubt to her) the marriage bit is the vow bit. Apparently not in the UK though. She simply like me, had no idea it would be such a big deal, and she was accused of lying, when clearly she didn't lie. In her eyes, she was married. It really isn't that big a deal and I still don't get why it is, when it shouldn't be. Legal marriage vs non-legal marriage. Whatever. Who cares.

I think that is what he is doing, getting on with it. Apart from coming to the UK for the funeral.

Thanks but I can't accept it. The honour is enough. I know what you mean but would argue that Sarah was genuinely more low-key than her brother. Or perhaps just more subtle.

He was always photographed falling out of posh clubs with girlfriends - Susannah Constantine was a long term squeeze to use a word that made me shudder when I read the Nigel Dempster column in the Daily Mail.

Linley was always quick to name-drop his royal connections when flogging his furniture. His sister was a painter (watercolours not houses) but she didn't go on about being the Queen's niece so much.

All hail King Andrew!