Harry and Meghan and the coronation.

[purpledalmation]

If King Charles asked people not to boo the couple and did a deal with newspapers and TV to not print pictures of them or comment on their appearance, do you think they would come.

If there was a total news blackout where they were concerned (which I would just love!) so we didn't have to even see them, (apart from a passing glimpse), i think I could bear them coming. Daddy clearly want them there. Fatted calf and all that.

Would this get around the problem of them taking the spotlight away from the actual ceremony?

Novella4 · Today 08:29
Charles had to walk behind the coffin
There was a very real risk that the crowd would abuse Charles
W and H were 'encouraged' to walk - this would protect Charles

I find this hard to believe. The Queen wasn't a monster, she wanted to keep the boys at Balmoral - "life as normal" as far as possible. Blair was the one who wanted to up the emotion. Like most P.Ms after a long "reign" he needed a reason to look good.

@BadgerB

Your comments make no sense

• Are you suggesting the queen should have kept W and H at Balmoral? They had to attend the funeral . And they were forced to change their beloved 'royal' protocol due to public anger at how the 'royals ' reacted to Diana's death. Windsor coldness was palpable .

• Blair was trying to manage a hugely emotional event . He had no need to 'up' any emotion. The royals were in deep trouble at that moment . Most especially Charles

He would definitely had things shouted and possibly thrown at him if he hadn't had Diana's sins there to protect him

Diana's funeral was one short day in many years of parenting. I do not know if it was handled badly but a forty year old man cannot use it as evidence of never having been shown affection and love throughout his childhood when many photographs suggest otherwise.

I agree that one of the reasons that the boys were placed beside him so that he would not get attacked at the funeral. Charles had to do it to almost establish his right to what is coming in May. If he had receded on that occasion, it would have given a green light to those who no longer wanted him there. From his recent behaviour, it is obvious that he holds his right to ascension very close to his heart; it possibly means more to him than the feelings of an increasingly estranged grown up son.

I was right there on the day of Diana's funeral (but not for that reason - I had temporarily forgotten about it as kids do, even though it was absolutely everywhere!)
It was really strange to see so many non-local people trudging along silently and mechanically carpeting every rolling meter of ground in floral arrangements. There was a anaesthetizing stillness in the air which in itself would have discouraged a lone wolf attack on Charles the villain.

Novella4 · Today 08:59
Your comments make no sense
Are you suggesting the queen should have kept W and H at Balmoral? They had to attend the funeral .

The Queen wanted to keep them at Balmoral until the funeral. They didn't have to walk in the procession. Harry wanted to, William didn't. Obviously that wouldn't have worked

Blair was trying to manage a hugely emotional event . He had no need to 'up' any emotion. The royals were in deep trouble at that moment . Most especially Charles
He would definitely had things shouted and possibly thrown at him if he hadn't had Diana's sins there to protect him.

I didn't suggest that Blair "upped" the emotion. He more or less forced the Queen, against her better judgement, to bring W & H back to London and parade them to the sobbing crowds, "look at the flowers" etc. Harry has said it was traumatising.
And Charles wasn't responsible for Diana's death. She turned down royal protection in favour of that provided by the Fayeds. If she had still had royal protection she would not have been allowed to get into that fatal situation. But she was a free agent at that time. (Of course, it didn't mean the over-emotional crowds wouldn't have booed him)

And your evidence for this is what?

Now that Harry has admitted current drug use, I wonder if he will opt not to come to the coronation because his visa will be revoked when he tries to renter the USA? He possibly lied on his visa application about his drug use, and if he did they can revoke it immediately. The revocations are decided on a case by case basis, so it will be down to immigration officials, but I think he may decide not to come and risk being refused.

Problem solved as Harry will be consulting lawyers to see if he's shot himself in the foot with his oversharing.

@purpledalmation

This is being much discussed over on the ‘Harry and Gabor’ thread

@Novella4

If that’s true, it’s funny how we’ve come full circle as Harry is the one being booed now.

Agree.

How do we know Charles did listen to Harry? Therefore, how can anyone say Charles played a blinder

On the first we don't know either way; they all lie and they all have previous for only listening to what they want to hear

On the second, regardless of sporting metaphors and the fact this is father and son, the situation is what it is and it's been Harry's own choice to pour scorn on both the institution and family which Charles now heads. I'm the very last to defend Charles for anything, but under the circumstances I'm not sure what else he could have done but invite them and leave it at that

That very funny 😂😂😂

How many full days has Charles ever spent in the full care of his son.

Compleatly looking after him and if that's a step too far, what about total days with endless other help and nannies?
A few days on holiday at Balmoral or Sandringham doesn't really cut it?

Has Harry ever actually lived with him and shared a proper home?

The problem is he's just been absolutely shoved from pillar to post. Was it ever even discussed that Harry and possibly William shouldn't go to an institution to be raised after Diana died?
Maybe they should have gone to day schools and lived with their surviving parent? Or was Charles incapable.

Even before she died William and Harry have complained about being the products of a difficult divorce and caught between two warring parents. He said you want to spend longer with one but made to see the other.

Pretty normal in divorced families. Is it 50% of marriages end in divorce? So an awful lot of people grew up in those circumstances. All pretty well adjusted

Come on!

Diana and Charles divorce was not normal and the children experience was not normal.

Many children around the world grow up in slavery that doesn't mean its OK either.

Many fathers of Charles' generation, and not only in the upper classes, had little role in the day to day care of their children. If you want to criticise him for that, much of it would apply to Diana too, as she had little to do with her sons' daily care.

And I don't think being sent to the best schools in the land is being 'absolutely shoved from pillar to post'. It was the norm for upper class boys at the time, and still is to some extent. Arguments certainly can be made against sending children to boarding school from an early age, and I'll be interested to see what happens with George in a few years time. But Charles and Diana both would have had what they considered their sons' best interests at heart when they sent them to boarding schools. As I understand, there was talk of taking Harry out of Eton as it was considered too 'academic' for him, but it was later decided it would be best for him to stay close to his brother.

Tiggy Legge-Bourke was always there for him - probably one of five key staff who lavished them with attention. They weren't latch-key kids. They also had some amazing tutors brought in to boost their cultural education like Rory Stewart and as for all the travel and access to elite sports - one can only dream, honestly.

Also once C&D separated the boys holidays were split between parents a scrupulous 50/50.
So as Harry went to boarding school at eight and then only got to spend 50% of holidays with Diana the fact is he spent very little time with her. You can count the days. 1/2 of 16 weeks holidays 56 days a year max. He hardly knew her.
At least as time went on he probably got to spend more time with his Dad after her death.
I think his constant references to her and his grief is very sad but it's turned into an obsession when she might as well have been a distant relative. I highly doubt, for instance, that if she did use Elizabeth Arden 8 hour cream that he either knew that or would remember.
Some children do better with the boarding school experience than others, but Harry was probably not at all suited to being sent away age eight. If he had been at a day school he might have got to spend more time with his mother.

Charles boasts that after Diana died he set aside the time to take William and Harry on holiday with him so they could spend time together.
I think that says it all. Two bereaved children were given time with their father for the length of a holiday before being sent to boarding school and staff and Charles thought he was being magnaminous.

@ShamedBySiri Diana visited them at boarding school. You do know children in boarding school don't only see their parents during the term time holidays?
And referring to a child's mother as like a distant relative is pretty awful.

Long reign - Blair was only in the job when Diana died.

Yes I do know. I went to boarding school. Add the occasional weekend exeat to the holidays. (Usually one either side of half term).

Diana was a loving mother but really didn't get to spend much time with her children, especially Harry so I'm not being insulting when I compare her to a distant relative. That's fact in terms of time Harry spent with her over his later childhood.

Yes. It is probably why he has so few intimate memories of her. By that age, a typical child would remember more.