Enoch, I stand corrected, that the regnal numbering is the issue with reference to William I.
In terms of blood legitimacy, I am reminded of a youtuber who stated plainly in reference to the wars of the roses, as in "no one at the end of the day, gave a crap if Henry Tudor had no blood legitimacy to the Throne, he had the biggest stick."
That's probably true. Especially for the ruled-over. Though it did matter, of course, to both Henry Tudor and Richard - and their followers. And it's arguable that Henry VIII's own obsession over legitimate heirs had its source in Tudor's mother's bastardy. It's one of those things, I suppose, that is essential in technical terms of establishing claims and loyalties, but ultimately does indeed come down to the 'biggest stick'! Tudor's claims were very poor compared to Plantagenet, but he happened to get lucky on the day.
Henry VII's oldest son was called Arthur as a tribute to the Tudor family's Welsh heritage and Welsh followers. As Prince of Wales he had his own court at Ludlow. He would almost certainly have been King Arthur if he had not died shortly after marrying Catherine of Aragon. She was then passed on with a papal indulgence to his younger brother Henry.
Charles II was not by any means even the beginning of a transition to a figurehead monarchy. To avoid what happened to his father, or 'being sent on his travels again' as in due course happened to his brother, he had to work within a constitution rather than ignore it like his dad or a Czar. He was, though, King and let nobody forget it.
Here lies our Sovereign Lord, the King,
Whose word no man relies on,
Who never said a foolish thing,
Nor ever did a wise one...
To which sally Charles II is said to have replied: My words are my own. My actions are those of my ministers.
His full names are Charles Philip Arthur George. He could simply be Charles III, or he could be George VII (in deference to his grandfather, whose leading Christian name was actually Albert).
King Philip would sound like something out of Gilbert & Sullivan, or Monty Python, and King Arthur would inevitably lead to round-the-table jokes...
There's no actual rule that says he has to pick one of his baptismal names as his regnal name, although George has been the subject of popular speculation for a long time.
King Philip??!!! He’d have to be Philip 2 since Philip
1 was the consort of Mary Tudor
And I think for this reason, King Philip is vanishingly unlikely. English history likes to gloss over the fact that their marriage treaty meant that Philip of Spain was co-ruler with Mary I, although unlike William III, Philip's rule of England was only during Mary's lifetime.
Yeah, I never could understand why it was Mary I, not Mary I and King Philip, but it isn't Mary II alone but William III and Mary II together.
I think that was one of the conditions William had for conducting the Inva...I mean the Glorious Revolution.
Yeah, I never could understand why it was Mary I, not Mary I and King Philip, but it isn't Mary II alone but William III and Mary II together.
I think that was one of the conditions William had for conducting the Inva...I mean the Glorious Revolution.
Philip was only to be King during Mary's lifetime (hence the throne passing to Elizabeth when she died), whereas William was King after Mary II's death. That certainly gives Philip a lesser status than William III - whether it means he doesn't get a regnal number or not, I don't know...
I believe Harry is still quite involved in veterans affairs--btw, never refer to veterans as "ex-servicemen/women." Veterans have honorably served their country. "Ex-servicemen/women" imply they have washed out of the service for a number of reasons.
Let's be fair. George III wasn't in fact bad, though he may have been a bit mad at times. He would have preferred to take a lenient line withthe transatlantic coloists, but his ministers insisted on taking a tough line, which turned out to be unwise, as so often happens.
I believe Harry is still quite involved in veterans affairs--btw, never refer to veterans as "ex-servicemen/women." Veterans have honorably served their country. "Ex-servicemen/women" imply they have washed out of the service for a number of reasons.
Don't think it has that implication in the UK. Veteran sounds to me like an Americanism - don't recall hearing the word in this sense when I was young.
Yes - ‘veterans’ isn’t a word used for ex servicemen and women in my part of the UK.
When we visited the US for the first time we kept seeing people with signs saying ‘homeless vet’. I asked ‘why on earth are vets homeless, did they train too many round here?’ I thought it meant veterinary surgeons! I’d never heard of any other kind of vet.
Yes. In U.K. usage ‘vet’ is a veterinary surgeon (veterinarian is rarely or never used).
‘Veteran’ is old and/or experienced - not by itself normally used of a former soldier, sailor, or airman/woman. It is often used adjectivally rather than as a standalone noun. It doesn’t inherently imply no longer active in a role. If without context you referred to someone as a veteran it might easily prompt the question ‘a veteran what?’
Ex-serviceman/woman has no negative connotations in the U.K.
Yes - ‘veterans’ isn’t a word used for ex servicemen and women in my part of the UK.
When we visited the US for the first time we kept seeing people with signs saying ‘homeless vet’. I asked ‘why on earth are vets homeless, did they train too many round here?’ I thought it meant veterinary surgeons! I’d never heard of any other kind of vet.
Yes. A veteran in the UK is someone with long service, not an Ex serviceman.
All I can say is don't call someone an ex-Marine. You might end up with a few teeth missing. S/he is a veteran Marine.
That would mean, here, if it meant anything, a former Marine who was very old, possibly 75+. It would also be unwise⇒offensive to use 'veteran' in any context to describe a woman.
'Veteran' is also used to describe a car (automobile) made before 1919.
'Vet', as explained already, means a doctor (physician) for animals.
Back on royals, an additional difference between Philip of Spain and William III was that William III was descended from Charles I and so had a claim to the throne if one excluded Catholics, but not as good a one as his wife's. Philip had no such claim. He was just a husband of Mary, just as George of Denmark was the husband of Anne.
On the Tudor claim, it was a bit ropey. However, something that doesn't get mentioned often in the history books is that by 1485 half a century of civil and dynastic strife - a whole century if you include Henry Bolingbroke's seizure of the throne - meant there were only about 20 peers left in England. That includes the ones who had no claim to the throne at all. Once Richard III had removed his nephews, virtually the only claimants left were his niece Elizabeth, her sisters, Henry Tudor whose claim was weak but who eventually married her and the son of the Duke of Clarence.
All I can say is don't call someone an ex-Marine. You might end up with a few teeth missing. S/he is a veteran Marine.
That would mean, here, if it meant anything, a former Marine who was very old, possibly 75+. It would also be unwise⇒offensive to use 'veteran' in any context to describe a woman.
'Veteran' is also used to describe a car (automobile) made before 1919.
'Vet', as explained already, means a doctor (physician) for animals.
Back on royals, an additional difference between Philip of Spain and William III was that William III was descended from Charles I and so had a claim to the throne if one excluded Catholics, but not as good a one as his wife's. Philip had no such claim. He was just a husband of Mary, just as George of Denmark was the husband of Anne.
On the Tudor claim, it was a bit ropey. However, something that doesn't get mentioned often in the history books is that by 1485 half a century of civil and dynastic strife - a whole century if you include Henry Bolingbroke's seizure of the throne - meant there were only about 20 peers left in England. That includes the ones who had no claim to the throne at all. Once Richard III had removed his nephews, virtually the only claimants left were his niece Elizabeth, her sisters, Henry Tudor whose claim was weak but who eventually married her and the son of the Duke of Clarence.
It could be argued that Elizabeth had a better claim than Richard but the allegation that Richard removed his nephews is disputed. A current favourite for their murder is the Duke of Buckingham.
Think of how Shakespeare would have handled the current situation, possibly combining elements from several plays. Andrew of York strides on to the stage, and begins his soliloquy, Othella of Sussex sheathes her dagger, then Sir Boris Falstaff enters from left, pursued by bears....
On the Tudor claim, it was a bit ropey. However, something that doesn't get mentioned often in the history books is that by 1485 half a century of civil and dynastic strife - a whole century if you include Henry Bolingbroke's seizure of the throne - meant there were only about 20 peers left in England. That includes the ones who had no claim to the throne at all. Once Richard III had removed his nephews, virtually the only claimants left were his niece Elizabeth, her sisters, Henry Tudor whose claim was weak but who eventually married her and the son of the Duke of Clarence.
Do you want to have another go at your last sentence? As it is, you have Henry Tudor a bigamist, with one of his spouses also male.
Yes, it was the validity of that which Henry VIII questioned. It did not take him long to conclude that it was invalid (quite likely Anne Boleyn had called him to join her in bed, and so he decided quickly). That left him free to marry Anne. In due course, it was Catherine's death which directly led to the charges against Anne (and thus her execution) and the marriage to Jane Seymour.
Direct Descendant of Charles I
Joan Beufort is a great grandmother several times over
Edward the Bruce is also in the line
Edward I
Phillip II, Roi d' France
Charlemagne (but I think anyone coming from Europe can claim that one)
My best one though is Ukko, the Finnish God of Sky and Thunder. Wife says I got the thunder part right.
On the Tudor claim, it was a bit ropey. However, something that doesn't get mentioned often in the history books is that by 1485 half a century of civil and dynastic strife - a whole century if you include Henry Bolingbroke's seizure of the throne - meant there were only about 20 peers left in England. That includes the ones who had no claim to the throne at all. Once Richard III had removed his nephews, virtually the only claimants left were his niece Elizabeth, her sisters, Henry Tudor whose claim was weak but who eventually married her and the son of the Duke of Clarence.
Do you want to have another go at your last sentence? As it is, you have Henry Tudor a bigamist, with one of his spouses also male.
Assuming I understand what Enoch is saying, I think all the sentence really needs is a comma after "married her".
@Forthview, well Edward Bruce was the younger brother of Robert the Bruce and proclaimed himself King of Ireland before sacking and burning Kells in 1315. But that may not be what @Gramps49 meant.
I don't suppose Meghan Markle has ever read the Gormenghast Trilogy. If she had, she would have gained some idea of what she was about to become involved in and many people might have been spared a lot of trouble and heartache.
On the Tudor claim, it was a bit ropey. However, something that doesn't get mentioned often in the history books is that by 1485 half a century of civil and dynastic strife - a whole century if you include Henry Bolingbroke's seizure of the throne - meant there were only about 20 peers left in England. That includes the ones who had no claim to the throne at all. Once Richard III had removed his nephews, virtually the only claimants left were his niece Elizabeth, her sisters, Henry Tudor whose claim was weak but who eventually married her and the son of the Duke of Clarence.
Do you want to have another go at your last sentence? As it is, you have Henry Tudor a bigamist, with one of his spouses also male.
Assuming I understand what Enoch is saying, I think all the sentence really needs is a comma after "married her".
The royals have weathered other, worse, storms and they'll get through this one: the Duchess of Sussex has only been on the scene for four-and-a-half years, part of The Firm for less than 3, and living outside the UK for 16 months of that.
That they have weathered other storms is not the issue.
Circumstances were, however , very different. Less information was available and more people "accepted" things without question and with large amounts of deference. Today, with wider exposure, we discover that the Windsor family actually aren't that much different from most of us (3/4 of the monarch's children are divorcees for example) - the exceptions being a sense of entitlement and a great deal of money (even if it's tied up in property and antiques).
The upshot of it all is that less slack will be cut esp as we seem to have entered a PR war this week with the "sudden" emergence of bullying accusations. Hardly coincidental and showing just how these people really operate. They don't just sit, grin and bear it - they get someone else to stir up the dirty work.
If you ever need evidence, just remember the whole Paul Burrell trial collapse when the Queen suddenly "remembered." It wouldn't have had anything to do with potential exposures would it???? If any other person had done the same the issue of contempt of court would have come up - perhaps this is Elizabeth's true character coming out.
They failed to protect and integrate her, hopefully, they might learn to do better next time as their hit rate with spouses is starting to look very poor.
The upshot of it all is that less slack will be cut esp as we seem to have entered a PR war this week with the "sudden" emergence of bullying accusations. Hardly coincidental and showing just how these people really operate.
Especially compared with the signal lack of an investigation into Prince Andrew's various associations (and afaict everything he claimed he was going to do to co-operate with other investigations he hasn't done).
Yes, I thought the bullying claims showed that the firm are rattled. It's a mistake surely, as it's fighting dirty. Well, are they really ready for that? Also, right wing media are now ferociously anti H and M, probably dangerous stuff to be connected with.
The Windsors are human beings, like the rest of us, and behave no differently from the way any of the rest of us would, placed in a golden cage and confronted by the same opportunities and temptations. Thank God we are not.
I have been feeling unwell all day - covid tested of course and expect the negative result tomorrow morning. I have had hay fever and muscle soreness all week, and that's probably all it is, for the 16th or so time.
All this is a prelude to my claim that great art is a tonic for my ills, and The King is great art. It fills me with energy. It excites me. It revives me. Its only fault, and I don't really care about it, is that it is materialist in outlook, and the spirituality of the world it seeks to portray is largely absent. There is no fate, a limited sense of the nearness of death and no folk belief on display, in sharp contrast to Shakespeare.
It revived in me my sense of outrage at Diana and her selfish disregard for duty. But Diana did nothing more than allow herself to become a tool of celebrity culture fanned by Fleet St and their counterparts overseas. Diana had no modern example, save perhaps Margaret, to observe as a warning. Margaret's foolishness is before my time. I don't know the detail.
I don't care what Harry and Meaghan do. They are as relevant as Sarah Fergusen and they should take a lead from her daughters. Be rarely seen and barely heard. This interview with Oprah, a woman I would really prefer to know nothing about but who has thrust herself into my orbit by this ridiculous interview, or commercials about it, is very bad already, in its portrayal of Markle as some sort of innocent with little idea of the unique pressures of royal life. What a calumny! Diana's life was all she needed, and she was marrying her son.
Begone, celebrity treatment of royals! Begone, Harry and Meagan, from the public eye as commentators on the Royal Family. From now, let Meagan resume her acting if she wishes, and limit her accessibility to interviews promoting her roles. From now, let Harry manage his investments and other property well, if he wants, and limit his accessibility to promoting events and causes he cares about.
Vale Sussex, and God bless King Harry and St George!
The leaked email might be dirty tricks but ISTM that it's the sort of dirty tricks you can defend yourself against by not putting yourself in a position where that sort of email is explosive if leaked.
Correct responses would be:
1. These allegations were investigated at the time and found to be baseless;
2. These allegations are correct; I apologised to the staff members at the time and do so again now;
3. I was not aware my staff members felt like this but I am of course willing to cooperate in any investigation.
Their actual response suggests that they think the allegations were not investigated and don't need to be investigated. Cf Priti Patel.
The Windsors are human beings, like the rest of us, and behave no differently from the way any of the rest of us would, placed in a golden cage and confronted by the same opportunities and temptations. Thank God we are not.
I hope I would be more careful in my sexual liaisons, even were I living in a gilded cage.
--If there was trouble between Meghan and staff, might it have been strong cultural differences? I skimmed a few things about the bullying accusations. Some people complained that (approx.) Meghan "had an American work ethic", including starting her day around 5 am, and wanting staff to accomplish things (much) more quickly than usual. I have no idea what the staff's usual work style is. But a work-style clash can cause all sorts of problems, especially when a boss/supervisor is involved.
--Sarah/Fergie and Diana referred to "the Grey Men", the wranglers of the royals. Might they have been involved in or responsible for the bullying story? (Whether it's accurate or not.)
They failed to protect and integrate her, hopefully, they might learn to do better next time as their hit rate with spouses is starting to look very poor.
I think it should be said that integrating anyone into any family is a two-way thing.
As for the bullying claims, there were things in the press at the time about people (staff as well as Catherine) being reduced to tears. Some of those people had worked for the RF for over a decade, one for more than 20 years, and the Sussexes caused them to quit. That's a big deal.
And when someone says "I have bent over backwards to do X", it often contains the implication of "I wasn't obligated to do that, but I did it anyway, so aren't I the big hero."
It would have sufficed to say "The Palace is commited to treating everyone in an inclusive manner, and that includes the Duchess as much as anyone else."
This interview with Oprah, a woman ... is very bad already, in its portrayal of Markle as some sort of innocent with little idea of the unique pressures of royal life. What a calumny! Diana's life was all she needed, and she was marrying her son.
Quite. I think there are parts of the media which have undoubtedly been anti-Meghan and highly likely out of pure mischief-making, profiteering and the usual prejudice against 'foreigners'. Racism is bound to have played a nasty part, too. And I wouldn't underrate how difficult it must be for an independent, sensible, intelligent person like Meghan to join the Royal family so close to the top of the tree. The culture of 'Royaldom' is so weird, even now, it's hard to see how anyone could reasonably get on with it, unless they'd been brought up to it.
But if anybody should have been in a position to present her with chapter and verse, in explicit and unedited detail, about the pitfalls of signing up to 'The Firm' it was the man she was marrying. Harry must've said something about Diana to Meghan in all the time they were together. Failing that, a five minute search on Google would've sufficed. At any rate, it's difficult to imagine any situation where the response must've been 'Didn't see that coming! Wow, it's been a whole few months of this, better give up and run away!'
In marrying Harry, Meghan was quite literally being made subject to the Queen, and therefore, the machinery that is the Royal institution. If Harry, bearing in mind his mother's experiences, wasn't able to enlighten her on the implications of that, I'm sure she was bright enough to have figured that out for herself, long before the banns were read. It's good that they seem to be a very solid, loving couple. I hope it all settles down for them and they'll be happy. I hope Harry doesn't miss his family as much as I would've thought he might have, given how apparently fond he was of them.
I thought they underestimated the sheer hatred that would be projected onto Meghan. No doubt, this is naive, and Harry may have thought that his military career, closeness to the Queen, etc., would insulate them. But Meghan living with the Munsters would never work, so they were both naive and dumb, unless you subscribe to the view that Meghan has planned it all.
They failed to protect and integrate her, hopefully, they might learn to do better next time as their hit rate with spouses is starting to look very poor.
I think it should be said that integrating anyone into any family is a two-way thing.
As for the bullying claims, there were things in the press at the time about people (staff as well as Catherine) being reduced to tears. Some of those people had worked for the RF for over a decade, one for more than 20 years, and the Sussexes caused them to quit. That's a big deal.
Could it possibly be a wake up call for time servers who weren't delivering?
It wouldn't be the first post I've moved into where I've discovered "coasting" which has caused long term staff issues within a team. Sorting it out even in the best way possible always brings unhappiness partly because someone has been caught out.
They failed to protect and integrate her, hopefully, they might learn to do better next time as their hit rate with spouses is starting to look very poor.
I think it should be said that integrating anyone into any family is a two-way thing.
As for the bullying claims, there were things in the press at the time about people (staff as well as Catherine) being reduced to tears. Some of those people had worked for the RF for over a decade, one for more than 20 years, and the Sussexes caused them to quit. That's a big deal.
This is my conclusion. A decision was probably made not to take action but she has stirred things up by this 'interview'
Ah well - if there were things in the press, they must have been correct, no?
As @Golden Key has pointed out, there may be some cross-Pond cultural differences - and, of course, there are at least two sides to every story. I doubt we shall ever know the truth of it.
Comments
That's probably true. Especially for the ruled-over. Though it did matter, of course, to both Henry Tudor and Richard - and their followers. And it's arguable that Henry VIII's own obsession over legitimate heirs had its source in Tudor's mother's bastardy. It's one of those things, I suppose, that is essential in technical terms of establishing claims and loyalties, but ultimately does indeed come down to the 'biggest stick'! Tudor's claims were very poor compared to Plantagenet, but he happened to get lucky on the day.
Here lies our Sovereign Lord, the King,
Whose word no man relies on,
Who never said a foolish thing,
Nor ever did a wise one...
To which sally Charles II is said to have replied:
My words are my own. My actions are those of my ministers.
Yeah, I never could understand why it was Mary I, not Mary I and King Philip, but it isn't Mary II alone but William III and Mary II together.
I think that was one of the conditions William had for conducting the Inva...I mean the Glorious Revolution.
Philip was only to be King during Mary's lifetime (hence the throne passing to Elizabeth when she died), whereas William was King after Mary II's death. That certainly gives Philip a lesser status than William III - whether it means he doesn't get a regnal number or not, I don't know...
Don't think it has that implication in the UK. Veteran sounds to me like an Americanism - don't recall hearing the word in this sense when I was young.
When we visited the US for the first time we kept seeing people with signs saying ‘homeless vet’. I asked ‘why on earth are vets homeless, did they train too many round here?’ I thought it meant veterinary surgeons! I’d never heard of any other kind of vet.
‘Veteran’ is old and/or experienced - not by itself normally used of a former soldier, sailor, or airman/woman. It is often used adjectivally rather than as a standalone noun. It doesn’t inherently imply no longer active in a role. If without context you referred to someone as a veteran it might easily prompt the question ‘a veteran what?’
Ex-serviceman/woman has no negative connotations in the U.K.
Yes. A veteran in the UK is someone with long service, not an Ex serviceman.
In the US. This is a linguistic pond difference.
'Veteran' is also used to describe a car (automobile) made before 1919.
'Vet', as explained already, means a doctor (physician) for animals.
Back on royals, an additional difference between Philip of Spain and William III was that William III was descended from Charles I and so had a claim to the throne if one excluded Catholics, but not as good a one as his wife's. Philip had no such claim. He was just a husband of Mary, just as George of Denmark was the husband of Anne.
On the Tudor claim, it was a bit ropey. However, something that doesn't get mentioned often in the history books is that by 1485 half a century of civil and dynastic strife - a whole century if you include Henry Bolingbroke's seizure of the throne - meant there were only about 20 peers left in England. That includes the ones who had no claim to the throne at all. Once Richard III had removed his nephews, virtually the only claimants left were his niece Elizabeth, her sisters, Henry Tudor whose claim was weak but who eventually married her and the son of the Duke of Clarence.
It could be argued that Elizabeth had a better claim than Richard but the allegation that Richard removed his nephews is disputed. A current favourite for their murder is the Duke of Buckingham.
Do you want to have another go at your last sentence? As it is, you have Henry Tudor a bigamist, with one of his spouses also male.
Yes, it was the validity of that which Henry VIII questioned. It did not take him long to conclude that it was invalid (quite likely Anne Boleyn had called him to join her in bed, and so he decided quickly). That left him free to marry Anne. In due course, it was Catherine's death which directly led to the charges against Anne (and thus her execution) and the marriage to Jane Seymour.
Direct Descendant of Charles I
Joan Beufort is a great grandmother several times over
Edward the Bruce is also in the line
Edward I
Phillip II, Roi d' France
Charlemagne (but I think anyone coming from Europe can claim that one)
My best one though is Ukko, the Finnish God of Sky and Thunder. Wife says I got the thunder part right.
Assuming I understand what Enoch is saying, I think all the sentence really needs is a comma after "married her".
I assumed so, but you never know.
Circumstances were, however , very different. Less information was available and more people "accepted" things without question and with large amounts of deference. Today, with wider exposure, we discover that the Windsor family actually aren't that much different from most of us (3/4 of the monarch's children are divorcees for example) - the exceptions being a sense of entitlement and a great deal of money (even if it's tied up in property and antiques).
The upshot of it all is that less slack will be cut esp as we seem to have entered a PR war this week with the "sudden" emergence of bullying accusations. Hardly coincidental and showing just how these people really operate. They don't just sit, grin and bear it - they get someone else to stir up the dirty work.
If you ever need evidence, just remember the whole Paul Burrell trial collapse when the Queen suddenly "remembered." It wouldn't have had anything to do with potential exposures would it???? If any other person had done the same the issue of contempt of court would have come up - perhaps this is Elizabeth's true character coming out.
Especially compared with the signal lack of an investigation into Prince Andrew's various associations (and afaict everything he claimed he was going to do to co-operate with other investigations he hasn't done).
I have been feeling unwell all day - covid tested of course and expect the negative result tomorrow morning. I have had hay fever and muscle soreness all week, and that's probably all it is, for the 16th or so time.
All this is a prelude to my claim that great art is a tonic for my ills, and The King is great art. It fills me with energy. It excites me. It revives me. Its only fault, and I don't really care about it, is that it is materialist in outlook, and the spirituality of the world it seeks to portray is largely absent. There is no fate, a limited sense of the nearness of death and no folk belief on display, in sharp contrast to Shakespeare.
It revived in me my sense of outrage at Diana and her selfish disregard for duty. But Diana did nothing more than allow herself to become a tool of celebrity culture fanned by Fleet St and their counterparts overseas. Diana had no modern example, save perhaps Margaret, to observe as a warning. Margaret's foolishness is before my time. I don't know the detail.
I don't care what Harry and Meaghan do. They are as relevant as Sarah Fergusen and they should take a lead from her daughters. Be rarely seen and barely heard. This interview with Oprah, a woman I would really prefer to know nothing about but who has thrust herself into my orbit by this ridiculous interview, or commercials about it, is very bad already, in its portrayal of Markle as some sort of innocent with little idea of the unique pressures of royal life. What a calumny! Diana's life was all she needed, and she was marrying her son.
Begone, celebrity treatment of royals! Begone, Harry and Meagan, from the public eye as commentators on the Royal Family. From now, let Meagan resume her acting if she wishes, and limit her accessibility to interviews promoting her roles. From now, let Harry manage his investments and other property well, if he wants, and limit his accessibility to promoting events and causes he cares about.
Vale Sussex, and God bless King Harry and St George!
Correct responses would be:
1. These allegations were investigated at the time and found to be baseless;
2. These allegations are correct; I apologised to the staff members at the time and do so again now;
3. I was not aware my staff members felt like this but I am of course willing to cooperate in any investigation.
Their actual response suggests that they think the allegations were not investigated and don't need to be investigated. Cf Priti Patel.
The "some of our best colonies are Black" response of the royals suggests that no one has a monopoly on tin ears.
I hope I would be more careful in my sexual liaisons, even were I living in a gilded cage.
Couple of questions:
--If there was trouble between Meghan and staff, might it have been strong cultural differences? I skimmed a few things about the bullying accusations. Some people complained that (approx.) Meghan "had an American work ethic", including starting her day around 5 am, and wanting staff to accomplish things (much) more quickly than usual. I have no idea what the staff's usual work style is. But a work-style clash can cause all sorts of problems, especially when a boss/supervisor is involved.
--Sarah/Fergie and Diana referred to "the Grey Men", the wranglers of the royals. Might they have been involved in or responsible for the bullying story? (Whether it's accurate or not.)
Thx.
I think it should be said that integrating anyone into any family is a two-way thing.
As for the bullying claims, there were things in the press at the time about people (staff as well as Catherine) being reduced to tears. Some of those people had worked for the RF for over a decade, one for more than 20 years, and the Sussexes caused them to quit. That's a big deal.
And when someone says "I have bent over backwards to do X", it often contains the implication of "I wasn't obligated to do that, but I did it anyway, so aren't I the big hero."
It would have sufficed to say "The Palace is commited to treating everyone in an inclusive manner, and that includes the Duchess as much as anyone else."
Quite. I think there are parts of the media which have undoubtedly been anti-Meghan and highly likely out of pure mischief-making, profiteering and the usual prejudice against 'foreigners'. Racism is bound to have played a nasty part, too. And I wouldn't underrate how difficult it must be for an independent, sensible, intelligent person like Meghan to join the Royal family so close to the top of the tree. The culture of 'Royaldom' is so weird, even now, it's hard to see how anyone could reasonably get on with it, unless they'd been brought up to it.
But if anybody should have been in a position to present her with chapter and verse, in explicit and unedited detail, about the pitfalls of signing up to 'The Firm' it was the man she was marrying. Harry must've said something about Diana to Meghan in all the time they were together. Failing that, a five minute search on Google would've sufficed. At any rate, it's difficult to imagine any situation where the response must've been 'Didn't see that coming! Wow, it's been a whole few months of this, better give up and run away!'
In marrying Harry, Meghan was quite literally being made subject to the Queen, and therefore, the machinery that is the Royal institution. If Harry, bearing in mind his mother's experiences, wasn't able to enlighten her on the implications of that, I'm sure she was bright enough to have figured that out for herself, long before the banns were read. It's good that they seem to be a very solid, loving couple. I hope it all settles down for them and they'll be happy. I hope Harry doesn't miss his family as much as I would've thought he might have, given how apparently fond he was of them.
Could it possibly be a wake up call for time servers who weren't delivering?
It wouldn't be the first post I've moved into where I've discovered "coasting" which has caused long term staff issues within a team. Sorting it out even in the best way possible always brings unhappiness partly because someone has been caught out.
This is my conclusion. A decision was probably made not to take action but she has stirred things up by this 'interview'
As @Golden Key has pointed out, there may be some cross-Pond cultural differences - and, of course, there are at least two sides to every story. I doubt we shall ever know the truth of it.