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?

@CatsandFish marriage is a big deal to many people in countries other than the United Kingdom including the United States.

He didn't correct her as he should have 'no darling, it was just an exchange of vows, our wedding day was 19th May'.

I think she knew/knows the actual date of their formal official wedding day. But the point is, she felt they were married when they had that private ceremony. That's how she feels and she is entitled to say that. I don't think anyone has the right to tell her what to feel in her heart or to think. She never said "we were legally married 3 days before". So she didn't actually lie. She clearly felt the private ceremony was the real wedding. And who the hell cares if that's what she feels? She can feel that way, just as many millions all around the world feel the exact same thing for themselves.

I think H&M have been very badly advised in the US. The interviews/podcast/books may have felt cathartic but they also gave some the impression they were indiscreet. They've effectively barred themselves from high profile events that could have any diplomatic repercussions.

Yes, it is, and the point is, many feel they are married on the exchange of vows.

And people are entitled to feel that. And no one has the right to say they can't feel that way. Marriage means different things to many people. There is no one definition, and no one has the right to tell anyone how to feel.

Viscounts are usually the eldest son of a Earl . For example Earl Spencer and Viscount Althorp, The Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn, Earl of Snowdon and Viscount Linley. Daughters of an Earl are Lady , hence a lady Diana Spencer and lady Louise Windsor , younger sons are Lord.

When I was growing up Lady Sarah, Lady Helen Windsor ( daughter of Duke of Kent) the Olgivies ( dc of Princess Alexandra of Kent) were in the tabloids a lot. They and Prince Edward were born in 1964 and the Queen threw a joint 21st for them at Windsor . Google the pics they are 1980s posh !

The current Earl Snowdon went out for many years with Susannah Constantine but then married Serena Stanhope (dd of Viscount Petersham, now Earl Stanhope) .

Harry definitely knows how this all works !

An Earl comes below a Duke - Edward is currently the Earl of Sussex and is said to be waiting to be Duke of Edinburgh: the wife of an Earl is a Countess. A Viscount is the son of an Earl. Viscount Linley, as David was as a young man, was a total staple of the gossip columns, as already mentioned above, and I recognise him easily.

Diana was the daughter of an Earl, and her brother was a Viscount until her father died. So she was born into very high society - not the outsider she often presented as. She played with Andrew and Edward as a child and grew up at Sandringham.

My husband is too and I bet he spotted her. He was discreet about it though like that time in the supermarket.

As I age, I spend my whole time doing double takes at how OLD everyone is, and no different watching the funeral yesterday. When I read on here that ‘no one cared’ about any of these people who were all over the press in the 80s, it makes me feel so aged.

@sóh₂wl̥ I agree they have been showing the 8 Grandchildren, maybe its just been the occasions marking the Queens life, jubilees and funeral.
Or they are antispating that William might need to rely on his cousins to step up as working Royals esp with Harry and Andrew out the picture, Charles taking the lead role and both him and Ann are getting older.

As much as Charles wanted to slim the Royal Family down, there's being slim and being anorexic that their just isn't enough people to do the job.

True gentlemen are discreet and don't stare at Melons.

You are wrong, OP.

Have you been under a stone since 2019? They 'left' the RF to pursue private lives in the USA. How can they not decline in 'importance' within the RF??

Their choice entirely.

Nothing to do with racism on the part of the RF, I suspect (Gutter press racism - yes, but that's not the fault of the RF). I think it must have been devastating to the Queen and Charles when they flounced cleared off.

Also, just as George Vi was horrified to be left to do the heavy lifting when his bro, Ed VIII left, so I'm sure William and Kate are cheesed off that H & M have gone and left them to it. Harry would have taken a share of the role had he considered his position more thoughtfully and stayed in the UK.

They have bad-mouthed the RF on international TV...really, what do you expect?

Not quite

Harry can only relinquish succession or abdicate for himself and any future hypothetical DC born after he quits (like Edward VIII)

So if he quit, it would be King Archie, with Andrew as Regent. Unless Charles secures the changes he is reported to want, and roles under the Act be limited to 'working' Royals, in which case it would be the Earl of Wessex as Regent, or if they have any sense, co-Regent with the Princess Royal

I wish they could just make Anne Queen. I think we need to move away from this outdated notion of men being monarchs.

I may be being silly and misunderstanding but surely many people have a rehearsal before their weddings and practise vows and who stands where etc. That isn’t a wedding though…

The Letters Patent fixed the issue of male primogeniture before George was born, although they apply only to children born after 2011. Anne is younger than Charles anyway, though.

Will Charlotte be Princess Royal after Anne passes, or does William need to be King first?

This will likely compromise their access into US / global elite social networks.

Even Oprah last week was trying to distance herself from the original H&M interview when she spoke with Gayle King on CBS. She was trying to minimise her involvement as it has likely impacted her standing - she suggests that she had no idea what they were going to come out with - possibly true - but it was edited and if she believed it to be incendiary she could have suggested an edit - but it was massive for her commercially at the time but maybe it has consequences for her own reputation.

The problem comes from the fact that people in the UK (and I notice this being non-UK) simply cannot conceive of anyone saying they were 'married', even if the marriage isn't legal. In some countries and traditions, the word married is used to denote exchanging vows, regardless of whether paper was signed. In Meghan and Harry's eyes, they were 'married' when they exchanged vows in a private ceremony (the Archbishop denied they were legally married but 'wouldn't comment' on a private ceremony)

the problem with this is that Harry is from the UK. He knows the traditions and legalities of this country. And his grandmother was the Head of the Church of England - if anyone knew, it should be Harry!

So of course Harry knew what “married” meant, he knew that claiming to have been “married” in secret, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in an unauthorised venue on a date different to that shown on the marriage license would be perceived around the world and he still did not correct Meghan.

so either he is happy to condone what he knows to be untrue, or he will not correct Meghan when she is 100% wrong.

and you know what - if Meghan had said “The Archbishop of Canterbury gave us a beautiful blessing service in our garden a few days before the wedding - it was so very special and intimate” - nobody would have a problem.

People are entitled to feel as they want. It might have been better if Meghan had said something like: "I know it wasn't a legal marriage but for us exchanging our personal vows in a back garden in front of the vicar-in-chief of the Church Of England meant so much more than in the musty old church with guests including my closer personal friends the Clooneys while wearing a priceless diamond tiara I borrowed from Harry's mum."

That would also be more honest than some people arguing that a woman in her 30s who had been married before didn't realise the significance of being legally wed and that people are obsessed or racist to point that out.

There's nothing wrong with being divorced but going through one tends to make the legal niceties of marriage and dissolving it stick in your head.

I clicked this thread thinking it was about H&M the clothes store and was rather confused for a minute.

Yes, I wasn’t being entirely serious.

Princess Royal isn’t an automatic title: it’s conferred by the monarch. Anne only got it relatively recently, 20 years after the previous one died. But it does need to be the daughter of the monarch.

Rehearsals are different from vow exchanges.

It was not a lie, just racist cultural ignorance

yes, you are right - it was indeed cultural ignorance to claim that was a wedding.

especially when Harry’s granny was the Head of the Church of England!
and when the senior cleric of the Church of England was the person involved.
very culturally ignorant indeed

not sure Meghan was racist though.

They are less and less involved with the royal family and are living abroad so their relevance continues to decline with time.

Oprah is skilled in damage limitation;. Remember that time she championed someone's misery-lit book and then turned on him when he turned out to have made a lot of it up?

-So of course Harry knew what “married” meant, he knew that claiming to have been “married” in secret, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in an unauthorised venue on a date different to that shown on the marriage license would be perceived around the world and he still did not correct Meghan.

I actually think this is one of several moments where if Meghan had posted in relationships she’d have been told to LTB.

Harry, by neglect stupidity or deliberate intent, did not remotely ensure Meghan knew what she was getting into. She didn’t know they curtsied to the Queen in private settings, she didn’t know what the UK press was like, she didn’t know how the palaces worked and she didn’t know that using the word ‘marriage’ in an informal way is a big deal if you are part of a hereditary monarchy and the Archbishop of Canterbury was there.

She should have known all of that.