Endgame Part 7

[Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar]

Continuing a civilised discussion, with a few laughs along the way, trying to stay within the topic, please. Thank you to all the lovely contributors who make this a pleasure and an education.

Previous thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4968930-endgame-part-6?page=39&reply=132539427

SheriffofRottingham · Today 12:10

Camilla is an interesting one. It could be argued she isn’t a limelight chaser, and that is what makes her so well suited for the role. I think Diana and Meghan didn’t quite get that. And when they were probably pulled up on it, they interpreted that as the other royals being jealous of them. When actually, what they didn’t get, they’re not supposed to make it about themselves. And as Philip said, the crowds aren’t there for you personally but for your role and title (paraphrasing!)

Sherriff, you are right. That's what Meghan certainly got wrong, and to some extent Diana. Curiously (and M would be baffled by this...) it's about not having an ego - not having a sense of yourself as in individual, important person. You are there to reflect back glory on other people and to let the light shine on them. That is something totally alien to Meghan, with her career background and training...and her personality. She is a desperate attention-seeker at all times and just will not stick to rules/protocol, because a) she knows better and b) she is Meghan, and people want to see the real Meghan, don't they?

This attitude couldn't be further from what is actually required of the RF. I mean, if the Queen has fussed over wearing Givenchy for the State Opening of Parliament and sashayed in, glancing flirtatiously from side to side as the passed through the House of Lords..., then winningly crossed her legs on the throne before absolutely EMOTING the speech to Parliament. That's the antithesis of what's required of the royals, and Meghan never got that. OR...perhaps thought the power of her charisma would be enough to change things and conquer a thousand years of tradition. Silly mare!

Ooh - should have added...Queen insists on holding DofE's hand at all times during her official duties.

And gazing adoringly at him for at least 50% of the time.

with the other 50% shoving him across the stage...

I think for Diana though she didn't initially seek the attention-it just happened.

Then being young & after a time unhappy she did seek it.

CoffeeCantata: said "Sherriff, you are right. That's what Meghan certainly got wrong, and to some extent Diana. Curiously (and M would be baffled by this...) it's about not having an ego - not having a sense of yourself as in individual, important person. You are there to reflect back glory on other people and to let the light shine on them. That is something totally alien to Meghan, with her career background and training...and her personality. She is a desperate attention-seeker at all times and just will not stick to rules/protocol, because a) she knows better and b) she is Meghan, and people want to see the real Meghan, don't they?"

I can't remember which thread it was on but someone in the past few days posted the TIG posting that Meghan did for her father one Father's Day. Among the things she thanked him for was teaching her how to always find her light. As a Hollywood actress that is exactly your job, to find your light and make sure you are seen.

I am struck by the contrast between this and with what you have outlined as the royal role, to let the light shine on others, or perhaps to let them find their light.

Great posts @SheriffofRottingham abd @CoffeeCantata

I'm struck, reading what you said, about the way OS portrays Catherine as a Stepford Wife and, similarly, Harry in Spare accuses William of marrying someone who fits the mould, rather than a love match. Wheres, actually, Catherine is just extremely good at her job, looks great, sounds like a kind and thoughtful person, but doesn't try to take the spotlight from the people she is meeting through behaving like it's all about her and trying to be a TV star (the specific OS criticism was about a Blue Peter appearance).

Don't complain, just get on with the job and let your actions speak for you. It is a long-term strategy, but all have been very unpopular in the past and turned it round.

This reminds me of something a past Communications Director at Buckingham Palace said - it was a real adjustment for them when taking on the role, because unlike other people/companies they had previously worked with, the Palace was actually able to plan a long term strategy. Most PR is short-term thinking because long term is never guaranteed.

Totally agree. I'd go so far as to say that Diana, at 19, probably didn't have a plan to become the limelight when she married Charles. Meghan, in her 30s and a struggling and aging actress in North America moving into her second marriage, I think intended to bask in the limelight being reflected upon her by association with the RF. Hence why she's so routinely accused of using her charitable endeavours (such as they are) for her personal gain: they are useful for making the spotlight shine on her.

Speaking of which, is there anyone else thinking that, after last night's appearance in Las Vegas, Harry's 24 hours trip to London to see his Dad for 30 minutes was a pre-emptive PR strike? In that, there's no way he could weather the PR storm if Charles's diagnosis became known at the weekend -> silence from Harry -> he pops up at a glitzy American awards ceremony in Las Vegas on the Thursday. Harry needs to be seen to be still-Royal; it's all he's got and the only thing that keeps him getting the gigs he gets. He has to kiss the ring from time to time, in order to go play in Hollywood. This week's visit to pater was basically that. Keeping his agents happy.

Which means that his trip to London was for personal gain, appearance's sake (he certainly didn't have any meaningful time with his parent) so he could make last night's appearance look not-appalling. He basically used his dad.

He's totally, utterly lost to this California 'dream', made a pact with the devil. He's basically traded one machine for another. He, like I thought Meghan was from the get go (and initially had quite a bit of respect for her, for it) is hustling and stopping at nothing to progress.

I think I feel the same rainy although I thought it was more for the Canada visit rather than Vegas. (I didn’t know about Vegas).

Although to be absolutely fair, I think he was buggered either way.

It is the fanfare of it all that makes me wonder. I completely understand him wanting to see his dad. I don’t understand the need to publicise it though - unless, as you say, it was for other reasons.

It is like desperately seeking relevance.

I don't feel the compulsion to be fair, Arcane.

William gave out gongs on Weds (or Tuesday, whenever) and Harry gave one out on Thursday. The major difference is that the former did it out of duty, the latter for money. The former has made no mention of his father's illness; the latter let it be known via the BBC within 8 minutes of the official announcement on that channel, that he was going to visit. All the conversations and planning and decision-making that has to happen for that timing to work, is proof that Harry wasn't in this for "fair" reasons.

To show any integrity, Harry would need to disassociate himself from the RF to stand on his own two feet. By his actions, he shows that he doesn't. On what planet would he be chosen to give out the NFL award (when there are so, so many more better qualified and knowledgeable and respected people in the USA to do so) on his own merits? And he even insulted the sport in the process! On their home turf! His USP is being the son of the King (and then being the brother and then the uncle of the king). That's all he has to sell, and he has to sell something to maintain the lifestyle he wants.

In that, there's no way he could weather the PR storm if Charles's diagnosis became known at the weekend -> silence from Harry -> he pops up at a glitzy American awards ceremony in Las Vegas on the Thursday.

Why would there be a PR storm just because he didn't rush over before a presumably already arranged event?

Sherriff - he does, I agree.

I'm not saying Charles is perfect - I can well believe he has a temper and is sometimes 'difficult', but I think he had (in his way) just as damaged a childhood as Harry, but has just had to get on with it. I think he is a very genuine man who does care about the environment and wants to do good with his life and position. Look at the Prince's Trust.

Apart from the distant relationship he had with his parents - not all their fault either, and they were different times - he was a misfit at school and was bullied. He was pretty isolated at Cambridge because students in the 1960s didn't want to be seen to be friendly with him, for a number of reasons - it wasn't cool or right-on. People who knew him there have said he led a fairly miserable existence with mainly his detective for company.

I'm not condoning his marital shortcomings, and of course it was a sad situation for Diana, but I can see why he just screwed up these relationships. He'd been given the message that he could only marry a certain type of woman, and the love of his life, Camilla, didn't fit that template. Also - he was very much in love with Davina Sheffield at one point but when journalists revealed that she'd had a previous relationship, that was that and he was leaned on to give her up.

So I think he's done pretty well to come through all this (and more) to be the basically good man he is. I know that I personally couldn't have survived even the Tampon-gate phone hacking - poor chap.

He was pretty isolated at Cambridge because students in the 1960s didn't want to be seen to be friendly with him, for a number of reasons

I remember him saying in an interview once that nice people, who he might have liked to be friends with, held back, either because they didn't want to be accused of 'sucking up', or because they thought he wouldn't be interested in being friends with them..

And yes, he didn't fit in with the Swinging Sixties. And for a long time afterwards many of his interests were sneered at as fogeyish and eccentric. Then environmental issues became fashionable, but he, and Philip, had been talking about them for decades by then.

I don't think Camilla was the love of his life at that point.

Before his first marriage, he had two main mistresses (and he seems to have cooled it - physically at least - with both for several years). And Camilla wanted to, and did, marry someone else.

No-one would have predicted, at that point, that either of those mistresses would regain significance in his life as his marriage cracked.

The idea that there were three in the marriage was a concept introduced by Diana as part of the War of the Waleses. And has been jolly useful in getting Camilla accepted as a fixture in Charles' life and later his second wife. But it wasn't an unbroken love story

Before his first marriage, he had two main mistresses

Surely they were girlfriends, since he was a single man?

I understood that Charles wanted to marry Camilla but due to her ‘past’ was advised not to, he then went into the Navy for a stint and when he returned she had married APB?

He went to university and he went into the Navy and he also did some RAF stuff, which were all fitting things for the heir to do at the time. I don't know how many years that took up. I'll have to google. 😃

Did you ever have a first love, that you didn't marry, and you thought you were fine, or indeed you WERE fine, with someone else? C and C weren't the first to do that.

After Charles got his degree he was in the RAF and the RN from 1971 to 1976. Camilla married APB in 1973.

I think Camilla wanted to marry APB so her past & what Charles wanted maybe didn't even matter!