Harry & Meghan change their surname

[Gottseidank]

… from Mountbatten-Windsor to ‘Sussex’.
Apparently it’s to strengthen their brand.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-meghan-sussex-archie-lilibet-children-name-royal-title-cnvf7d9jf

To be fair, Zara Tindall is an excellent horsewoman.

And David Linley seemed to be genuinely creative.

Other than those two, which members of the rf would prosper in the real world purely on the basis of their own talent? I'm not clear it's fair to single out Harry as not being all that.

No one has suggested they did

And that’s not the misrepresented part people are talking about, as you well know

Exactly.

I think it was beyond awful it had to come out with the salicious detail it did ( I really do not want to know) so for that reason, I feel sorry for him/them.

However he was carrying on an affair behind his wife's back.

(I don't need Diana's misdeeds at this point!)

@YetMoreNewBeginnings Toffeetalk and I were talking about the affair though, as you well know

@Roussette agreed

And David Linley seemed to be genuinely creative.

David Linley (aka Lord Snowden) is genuinely creative, and so is his sister, Sarah Chatto, but she is very much under the radar, by her own preference it would seem.

Oh I can debate without calling anyone names.

I didn’t specifically call anyone a name but I standby the general assertion I made that those who change a transcript to add their own nasty slant on a conversation are indeed talking pish and in my opinion it is the behaviour of clowns.

More so when that conversation is hacked and then incorrectly repeated ad nauseam.

I care not if anyone likes KC or H&M. Or likes or dislikes them all. I have made no assumptions on that regard.

We all have differing opinions.

It is a pity, as you say, that people can’t debate without getting their facts right.

It is fine to debate. I choose to debate with those who understand the points of my post - not those who make assumptions and not those who cannot admit they were mistaken.

It didn’t hasten the split of the royal marriage. Charles and Diana were already separated when the press went with the story.

They split in 92 and the tampongate headlines were 93. It was recorded several years earlier and sat on.

You are right you should be able to admit when you are mistaken .. calling people clowns is calling names

Just double checked and it was indeed released after Charles and Diana split

1993 recording made
Dec 92 Charles and Diana split announced
Jan 93 Transcript released (first in Aus then UK)

I don't understand.

They didn't split until 1996.

Diana did her interview (like it or not) in 1995 and at that point she was still hoping the marriage would carry on. I am only saying this because I was surprised and watched a clip the other day.

It's so amusing that people are twisting themselves in knots about the tampax comment but have conveniently missed the comments about Meghan not being suitable for a public facing role

The interview was in 1995? Well it was broadcast then according to BBC

They divorced in 1996

John major announced their separation in parliament in December 92

They should never have married

They separated in 92 and divorced in 96.

When their separation was announced there seemed to be a (foolish imo) expectation that things would just carry on with them as P&PoW doing things separately and it would make no difference

Major even said as much about their “constitutional positions”

Divorce seemed inevitable to everyone else!

That is one thing I do agree with you on

@YetMoreNewBeginnings ?

I do have a disability and I’ve no issue with what happened.

When their separation was announced there seemed to be a (foolish imo) expectation that things would just carry on with them as P&PoW doing things separately and it would make no difference

I guess at the time people were looking at other Kings and Queens who separated and later reconciled (King Albert and Queen Paola of Belgium, who were 10 years older than Charles) or separated privately but still carried out their public duties (King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain) and thinking that they did not know what the future held. Which turned out to be quite wrong, but with different personalities may have worked?

Also, plenty of normal couples stay together for the sake of their children’s stability even now. That’s probably more manageable if you can live in separate wings of a Palace rather than the same small house!

I think it was foolish because it was clear they couldn’t put on a face in public like the other split royals were doing. They couldn’t hide their feelings for each other so they were never going to cope long term around each other. With things like the Morton book the just weren’t going to be able to keep up a facade for long imo.

Very true!

Thinking of Albert and Paola of Belgium made me reflect on how in many ways their story was quite similar to Harry and Meghan.

Albert and his older brother Badouin were the children of the wildly popular and darling of the press Queen Astrid of Belgium, who died tragically in a car accident at a young age. Badouin was the responsible and serious older brother who married a serious and deeply religious young woman (Fabiola) who had been planning to become a nun before they met. Then Badouin and Fabiola became King and Queen quite young as his father, who had become deeply unpopular in Belgium partly due to the unpopularity of his mistress, later his second wife, abdicated.

Meanwhile younger brother Albert was forging his own path, falling in love with a stunning Italian aristocratic beauty Paola, and they got married and lived a life of luxury in Europe’s holiday spots, splitting and getting back together a bit like Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, and with Albert fathering a child out of wedlock along the way. The King and his wife looked very staid in contrast.

Things took a turn in their story however as Fabiola tragically suffered miscarriage after miscarriage, and eventually it became clear that Albert and Paola, and their children would be the next in line to the throne. Which duly happened when Badouin suffered a heart attack in the early 1990s at quite a young age.

Anyway here they are as young royal hedonists on a motor bike and then as King and Queen of Belgium.

Where are the similarities?

@Gottseidank you really can’t see any similarities?

@Serenster thank you that’s an interesting piece of history..