Are the royals on the rocks?

1323335373842

Comments

  • It's ironic that the evil Meghan theme, is now being reinforced by Meghan the liar theme.

    Yes, and with no real proof that either theme is accurate.

    I think we're in fairy tale territory, the white Prince has been poisoned by the dark witch, and she has taken him away, and cast her baleful spell over the kingdom.
  • It's ironic that the evil Meghan theme, is now being reinforced by Meghan the liar theme.

    Yes, and with no real proof that either theme is accurate.

    I think we're in fairy tale territory, the white Prince has been poisoned by the dark witch, and she has taken him away, and cast her baleful spell over the kingdom.

    That's about it, I think.

    There are also a few gallant cavaliers, charging into battle to defend the pure, wholesome, aged, but much-beloved, white Queen.

    Rather touching, really.
  • Gee D wrote: »

    No HRH for Archie
    Under Letters Patent in 1917 George V cleaned-up the proliferation of princes, serene highnesses, etc. As a result the only people entitled to HRH are children of the monarch and their children.

    When Grandpa Charles becomes king then his grandchildren will be entitled to HRH, although it is likely he will have a tidy-up after his accession.

    Enough!

    Was Serene Highness ever used in the UK or any of its constituents? My recollection is that it was not, those being serene being neither imperial or royal.

    Serious Nerd Territory alert. Several of the German princely types who had married into Queen Victoria's brood were HSH and retained this with Victoria's permission, even when they had been born in the UK (e.g., Louis of Battenberg, later Marquis of Milford Haven, and Alexander of Teck, later Earl of Athlone, later the WWII Governor General of Canada). AFAIK those who were still around in 1917 surrendered their German titles and got UK ones. I was told (but cannot find one) that there have been one or two HH around, afterthoughts from that period but most were HRHs (such as Alice, Princess Andrew of Greece, mother of the Duke of Edinburgh).

    Currently the only non-royal HH around is the Aga Khan, who got it from the Queen on the death of his grandfather in 1957. Wikipedia says that their Qajar princely status (the Persian dynasty thrown out by the better-known Pahlevis) was recognized by Britain in 1937 but gives us no source so we don't know if this was an ad personam thing, or was by the Indian Empire or by the UK or what. I once met a member of the Qajars at a reception for a medical award and he said that the title has little practical use after the first century or so, and he does not use it currently (but will for his obituary).

    In the days of my importance, I drafted a briefing note on this really arcane topic when an immigrant princeling wanted to use his title on his Canadian passport. We just wrote back quoting Lester Pearson that the dignity of Canadian citizen was the highest etc etc., and that currently no instructions had been drafted to officials to include foreign titles on identity documents. I think that this is perhaps the only instance when my trove of trivia was remunerated.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited March 17
    I was told (but cannot find one) that there have been one or two HH around,

    Those 1917 Letters Patent that we've been talking about cleared out the remnants of the HH for royal great-grandchildren. One such person was The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was born His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught, as the great grandchild of Queen Victoria, but lost his HH in 1917, and became known as the Earl of MacDuff.

    The Duke died in Ottawa, whilst serving as aide-de-camp to the Governor-General of Canada. The story seems to be that he was generally rather useless, got drunk, fell out of a window, and died of exposure.

    One might note that the Duke was also Earl of Sussex :wink:
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    This all makes interesting reading; I'm grateful to @Telford and @TheOrganist for supplying some of the details I asked for.

    I'm also "FFS!" about the Who Made Who Cry episode (there's stress and heightened feelings and tears when planning a wedding: who knew?) but I think it's a good illustration of the problems, misunderstandings, misapprehensions and different expectations. Meghan ended up in tears: Catherine sent flowers and a note of apology. End of story as far as Catherine/the royal family was concerned. Later it was (mis)reported in the press that Meghan had made Catherine cry and Meghan expected the royal family to speak out and set the record straight, which is not the way things work as far as the royal family are concerned. They reckon to sort out family affairs in private, as the palace's response to the interview stated. In my opinion that response was also calm, quiet and dignified.

    How much Meghan knew, or was told and didn't understand, or chose not to believe was serious is, to a degree, speculative I think. There's clearly been a lot of hurt and upset and I hope things can be healed.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited March 17
    jay_emm wrote: »
    Meghan's passport taken away
    Cannot be true, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to do the official tours. The only person not to have a passport is HMQ, all the others have on. The only difference is that MM has a US passport (she never applied for British citizenship).

    In any case, unless on an official trip MM will have had to look after her own passport - so for things like the New York baby shower, plus other holidays in Ibiza, Italy, Greece, etc, as well as the flight to Canada.

    That's all supposition on your part (if the story was they'd burnt the passport or still had it that might be different)
    No. It is fact the The Queen doesn't have a passport.
    It is also true that even in official tours the royals are required to have passports: usually either the British Ambassador or High Commissioner deals with the formalities after they have greeted the royal at the airport, where passports for the entire party are handed over by an equerry.

    It is up to each royal whether they keep their own passport or leave it with their Private Secretary. When travelling abroad for private purposes royals take their own passport because, especially in the case of younger ones, they travel alone; even if the have a PPO they don't deal with things like passports.

    The Duchess stated in her talk with Ms Winfrey "When I joined that fanily, that was the last time - until we came here - that I saw my passport, my driver's licence, my keys."

    For that statement to be true, it means that the governments of Ireland, Australia, Fiji, Tonga, New Zealand, Morocco, South Africa, Malawi, Angola and Botswana disregarded accepted international practice, which seems unlikely.

    More incredibly, it would mean that on private trips - The Netherlands (for the opening of a branch of Soho House), Italy (twice: party at the Clooney's, wedding of friend), Spain (her 38th birthday party), France (took Archie to see Elton John), Canada (took Archie to see friend Jessica Mulroney), USA (baby party, US Open tennis) - she managed to get through without a passport. As I said, incredible.
    Who made who cry
    FFS! I suspect both were in tears but, in any case, since MM said she cried and Catherine went round with flowers, card and apology, why bring it up.

    What is known is that MM changed arrangements for a dress fitting of bridesmaids, less than 3 weeks after Catherine had given birth to Louis. With one older child needing to be collected from school, a two year old to be fitted and a newborn this may just have been stressful!

    Enough!
    Both in tears makes sense, but the papers had pushed the evil Megan version, I can see why (notably at that point the same standard should also apply to that), also it's been a year.

    It was reported in the autumn of 2018. It is now nearly three years and the Duchess is the person who brought it up, no one else. And as I said, if the Duchess had "accepted her apology" why drag it out for the benefit of Ms Winfrey and the rest if the world?

    Last thought: the Duchess said she "couldn't" bring Archie to the UK when she was here in 2020 because the trip (over a week) was too short. Strange since she took him to other places when he was under a year old for just 3 or 4 days.

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    One might note that the Duke was also Earl of Sussex :wink:

    [Chip on shoulder] I notice that nearly all the royal dukedoms of recent creation are places Down South. Scotland gets Edinburgh, Oop North gets York, Wales and Northern Ireland don't get anywhere AFAIK, while Down South gets Gloucester, Kent, Sussex, and Cambridge. [/chip on shoulder]
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 17
    Is Iterage!

    Although Wales does have a Prince all to itself...
    :wink:
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    One might note that the Duke was also Earl of Sussex :wink:

    [Chip on shoulder] I notice that nearly all the royal dukedoms of recent creation are places Down South. Scotland gets Edinburgh, Oop North gets York, Wales and Northern Ireland don't get anywhere AFAIK, while Down South gets Gloucester, Kent, Sussex, and Cambridge. [/chip on shoulder]

    That's because there's not much left in Scotland once Argyll and Sutherland have taken their share. Besides, if you title someone Duke of Thurso it sounds like you're trying to get rid of them. I would point out that Charlie boy is actually styled Duke of Rothesay when in Scotland, rather than Prince of Wales. Similarly the title Duke of Lancaster is retained by the Crown, and is more than titular so can't be easily handed out.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 17
    At the other end of the country, Charles is also (as enny fule kno) the Duke of Cornwall, which Duchy was established a very long time ago.

    Still, he might, in due course, make a useful figurehead President (or something) of the Celtic Confederation (Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, Norn Iron - if they haven't joined the Republic of Ireland by then - Cornwall, and Brittany).
    :innocent:
  • A bit of googling suggests that my suspicion about distant titles signifying a desire to get rid of has some merit - the Duke of York also holds the Earldom of Inverness. Maybe they thought naming him Jarl of Lerwick would be too obvious?
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    Ricardus wrote: »
    One might note that the Duke was also Earl of Sussex :wink:

    [Chip on shoulder] I notice that nearly all the royal dukedoms of recent creation are places Down South. Scotland gets Edinburgh, Oop North gets York, Wales and Northern Ireland don't get anywhere AFAIK, while Down South gets Gloucester, Kent, Sussex, and Cambridge. [/chip on shoulder]

    Edinburgh, York, Gloucester, Kent, Sussex and Cambridge have been the "royal" duchies for a couple of centuries. This will change somewhat as Kent and Gloucester both have male children. Edinburgh may also fall out of the category if Prince Edward "inherits" it on his father's death, and if his son then has male issue. So will Sussex if young Harrison has male issue.

    All this arises because in the past holders of most of these duchies have died out within only one or two generations. Cambridge, for example, was held by one of Victoria's uncles (and then a cousin who had only daughters). The last Duke of York before Prince Andrew became King (George VI) and previously his father (eventually George V) was Duke of York.

    The only "royal" duchy left is Clarence, and the odds are not good that it would ever be revived (and where is Clarence, after all?)

    As for Scotland's share, Prince Charles is Duke of Rothesay in Scotland (an old royal duchy), and is usually referred to as such when he is in that country. Albany is also an old royal duchy, but (like Clarence) may be considered tainted by having been held last by George V's not-at-all-lamented older brother.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 17
    A bit of googling suggests that my suspicion about distant titles signifying a desire to get rid of has some merit - the Duke of York also holds the Earldom of Inverness. Maybe they thought naming him Jarl of Lerwick would be too obvious?

    O I dunno.

    *Jarl of Lerwick* has a certain ring to it, though the good people of Shetland might not welcome him...come to that, he probably isn't welcome anywhere just now...

    Lerwick is closer to Oslo than to London - maybe the Norwegians have a Jarldom going spare?
  • A bit of googling suggests that my suspicion about distant titles signifying a desire to get rid of has some merit - the Duke of York also holds the Earldom of Inverness. Maybe they thought naming him Jarl of Lerwick would be too obvious?

    O I dunno.

    *Jarl of Lerwick* has a certain ring to it, though the good people of Shetland might not welcome him...come to that, he probably isn't welcome anywhere just now...

    Lerwick is closer to Norway than to London - maybe the Norwegians have a Jarldom going spare?

    Rockall?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    1. The potential skin colour of the baby. She alleged that this had been questioned. Why should this have been? The father is white. The mother looks to be white. Anyone with any sense would assume that the baby would look white and he does



    Why would anyone assume that? The gene remains. I know someone of mixed race heritage. Her mother is a blonde haired English woman and her father Jamaican. She herself is light skinned with straight light brown hair. She is married to a white man yet one of her children is darker skinned with Afro hair. This is not uncommon.

    So why would anyone ask the question then ?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 17
    A bit of googling suggests that my suspicion about distant titles signifying a desire to get rid of has some merit - the Duke of York also holds the Earldom of Inverness. Maybe they thought naming him Jarl of Lerwick would be too obvious?

    O I dunno.

    *Jarl of Lerwick* has a certain ring to it, though the good people of Shetland might not welcome him...come to that, he probably isn't welcome anywhere just now...

    Lerwick is closer to Norway than to London - maybe the Norwegians have a Jarldom going spare?

    Rockall?

    Hmm. The status of Rockall is rather unclear - but, as it is apparently uninhabitable, it would appear to be eminently unsuitable for the HRH to whom we refer...or possibly not...

    There are some relatively new islands in the world - mostly due to volcanic activity - and one which has appeared off Greenland, following the melting of ice, might do nicely:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uunartoq_Qeqertaq


  • @Telford, last night a Host informed you that your racist comments were being referred to the admins, with a follow-up warning when you responded to one of the posts calling you out for that. And, on this thread you are continuing to go on about the subject of skin colour.

    It is our opinion that you have had sufficient time to note the Hostly warnings and the comments of regular Shipmates on these two threads, and respond appropriately by apologising for your posts that came across as racist. Therefore, you are now suspended for two weeks.

    Alan
    Ship of Fools Admin
  • Telford wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    1. The potential skin colour of the baby. She alleged that this had been questioned. Why should this have been? The father is white. The mother looks to be white. Anyone with any sense would assume that the baby would look white and he does



    Why would anyone assume that? The gene remains. I know someone of mixed race heritage. Her mother is a blonde haired English woman and her father Jamaican. She herself is light skinned with straight light brown hair. She is married to a white man yet one of her children is darker skinned with Afro hair. This is not uncommon.

    So why would anyone ask the question then ?

    Possibly because they're racist, and for some reason the colour of a baby's skin matters to them?
  • One might note that the Duke was also Earl of Sussex :wink:

    In which case you'd be wrong. The title is Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited March 17
    The only "royal" duchy left is Clarence, and the odds are not good that it would ever be revived.

    There are only two royal duchys - those of Lancaster, which is held by the monarch, and Cornwall, held by the heir to the throne.

    There are eleven royal dukedoms. At present six are in use: Edinburgh (Prince Philip), Kent (the older Prince Edward), Gloucester (Prince Richard), York (Prince Andrew), Cambridge (Prince William) and Sussex (Prince Harry).

    The "vacant" royal dukedoms are: Clarence, Connaught, Kendal, Ross and Windsor.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    The only "royal" duchy left is Clarence, and the odds are not good that it would ever be revived.

    There are only two royal duchys - those of Lancaster, which is held by the monarch, and Cornwall, held by the heir to the throne.

    There are eleven royal dukedoms. At present six are in use: Edinburgh (Prince Philip), Kent (the older Prince Edward), Gloucester (Prince Richard), York (Prince Andrew), Cambridge (Prince William) and Sussex (Prince Harry).

    Ah, I hadn't realised there was a set list, and that she didn't just pick whatever city/region she fancied. That makes better sense.
    The "vacant" royal dukedoms are: Clarence, Connaught, Kendal, Ross and Windsor.

    I imagine the last-named will remain vacant for quite some time ...
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    jay_emm wrote: »

    That's all supposition on your part (if the story was they'd burnt the passport or still had it that might be different)
    No. It is fact the The Queen doesn't have a passport.
    It is also true that even in official tours the royals are required to have passports: usually either the British Ambassador or High Commissioner deals with the formalities after they have greeted the royal at the airport, where passports for the entire party are handed over by an equerry.
    []
    For that statement to be true, it means that the governments of Ireland, Australia, Fiji, Tonga, New Zealand, Morocco, South Africa, Malawi, Angola and Botswana disregarded accepted international practice, which seems unlikely.
    The first part of the post suggests that Megan's version is quite consistent with these trips.

    It is up to each royal whether they keep their own passport or leave it with their Private Secretary. When travelling abroad for private purposes royals take their own passport because, especially in the case of younger ones, they travel alone; even if the have a PPO they don't deal with things like passports.


    You might be better informed about the personal habbits of the individuals concerned. I have no way of knowing (though given the press correspondents gave their reaction prematurely, I'm definitely sceptical of any info if it comes from such sources).

    More incredibly, it would mean that on private trips - The Netherlands (for the opening of a branch of Soho House), Italy (twice: party at the Clooney's, wedding of friend), Spain (her 38th birthday party), France (took Archie to see Elton John), Canada (took Archie to see friend Jessica Mulroney), USA (baby party, US Open tennis) - she managed to get through without a passport. As I said, incredible
    They on the other hand are much more questionable. Although obviously no idea of the details.

    Although three* (pre Brexit) of those I've been able to get to without in person showing my passport (for me, getting back is a different matter, that obviously wouldn't be a problem).
    One (France, pre Schengen) I think without even having an individual passport (I can't remember how it went, I think I did have to look after something during the trip).

    The 4th I needed to personally show passport, but I think that was transit security rather than border control.

    If they weren't truly private trips on public transport*, it would be trivially easy to happen (more or less the same as you detail above), but also no need for it to happen.
    On easyjet less so.

    *The Clooney one was private jet with protection officers.
  • I have a friend who served as an equerry some years ago: the details are correct.
  • I must admit that I find this apparent desire to prove Meghan a liar somewhat unseemly and unedifying, to say the least.

    What is the reason for it?
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited March 17
    One might note that the Duke was also Earl of Sussex :wink:

    In which case you'd be wrong. The title is Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

    Wrong Duke. I was referring to the late Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was also Earl of Sussex.

    The present Duke of Cambridge, of course, is also Earl of Strathearn.
  • I was told (but cannot find one) that there have been one or two HH around,

    Those 1917 Letters Patent that we've been talking about cleared out the remnants of the HH for royal great-grandchildren. One such person was The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was born His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught, as the great grandchild of Queen Victoria, but lost his HH in 1917, and became known as the Earl of MacDuff.

    The Duke died in Ottawa, whilst serving as aide-de-camp to the Governor-General of Canada. The story seems to be that he was generally rather useless, got drunk, fell out of a window, and died of exposure.

    One might note that the Duke was also Earl of Sussex :wink:

    A few more details about this. He was the second Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, assuming the title upon the death of his grandfather, Prince Arthur, who was one of Victoria's favourite sons (mainly because he never got up to all the naughty stuff that his older brothers did). Prince Arthur died in 1942 (at the grand old age of 91). As Alastair's father had died in 1938, he became the second Duke of Connaught but he then died himself just 12 months later. As he had not married and had no heir, the short-lived line of the Dukes of Connaught and Strathern came to an end.

    (Don't ask me how I have come to know all this stuff!)
    The Duke died in Ottawa, whilst serving as aide-de-camp to the Governor-General of Canada. The story seems to be that he was generally rather useless, got drunk, fell out of a window, and died of exposure.

    There's actually little doubt about the story. Although, at the time, his death was attributed to "natural causes", subsequent letters and diary entries from those close to him confirm both that he was regarded as a waste of space and the manner of his death.

    Although, in theory, the Queen could resurrect the title, I suspect that the Republic of Ireland may not be terribly happy about the English Royal Family trying to reclaim part of their land.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Istm the reason for all the inflated outrage @Bishops Finger , is so that no one stops and considers what is going on with our govt right now.


  • Telford wrote: »
    Spike wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    1. The potential skin colour of the baby. She alleged that this had been questioned. Why should this have been? The father is white. The mother looks to be white. Anyone with any sense would assume that the baby would look white and he does



    Why would anyone assume that? The gene remains. I know someone of mixed race heritage. Her mother is a blonde haired English woman and her father Jamaican. She herself is light skinned with straight light brown hair. She is married to a white man yet one of her children is darker skinned with Afro hair. This is not uncommon.

    So why would anyone ask the question then ?

    Inane gossip. I enquired of a neighbour (Mauritian, married to a Dalmatian) if she knew of people saying this sort of thing. A shriek of laughter issued forth, and then an account of her various aunts and cousins arguing over the likely shade of her soon-to-be-daughter and, she thought, were close to placing bets on it near a paint chart.
  • I have a friend who served as an equerry some years ago: the details are correct.

    It is possible security procedures have changed.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    I didn't comment at the time as I hadn't seen the interview and so couldn't assess the primary material, but I can comment on something I did see. My social media timeline came alive during it and afterwards with Black women and men who were absolutely disgusted about the racism Meghan Markle had experienced, and they didn't doubt her for a second from what they had seen of her treatment in the media and from their own experience of how racism works. A common opinion was that it would likely have been much much worse than what she chose to disclose.

    A bunch of predominantly white people holding forth to each other with their pet theories of how she must be wrong and lying is not going to change that, or do any good at all.
  • I don't think it's intended to do good. It keeps Meghan as bad, slightly more subtly than the tabloids..
  • Louise wrote: »
    A bunch of predominantly white people holding forth to each other with their pet theories of how she must be wrong and lying is not going to change that, or do any good at all.

    I don't think many commentators have said that the Duchess must be wrong about having experienced racism. Many people have pointed out that some factual claims that the Duchess made are wrong. It doesn't matter how much she feels that they are true - they aren't.

    Like, for example, her claim that Archie isn't a prince because she's black. She might well feel that way, but she's wrong. She complains that the children are treated differently. They are - but it's not because of race, it's because the Duke of Cambridge will be King, and the Duke of Sussex won't.

    That doesn't mean she hasn't experienced racism. It doesn't even mean that the person who told her that Archie wouldn't be a prince wasn't racist. But it does mean that the statement that Archie isn't a prince because of her race is provably and definitively false.

    My personal prejudice is that a person who is not accurate about statements whose truth I know is likely to be similarly inaccurate about statements about whose truth I have no information.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »

    No HRH for Archie
    Under Letters Patent in 1917 George V cleaned-up the proliferation of princes, serene highnesses, etc. As a result the only people entitled to HRH are children of the monarch and their children.

    When Grandpa Charles becomes king then his grandchildren will be entitled to HRH, although it is likely he will have a tidy-up after his accession.

    Enough!

    Was Serene Highness ever used in the UK or any of its constituents? My recollection is that it was not, those being serene being neither imperial or royal.

    Serious Nerd Territory alert. Several of the German princely types who had married into Queen Victoria's brood were HSH and retained this with Victoria's permission, even when they had been born in the UK (e.g., Louis of Battenberg, later Marquis of Milford Haven, and Alexander of Teck, later Earl of Athlone, later the WWII Governor General of Canada). AFAIK those who were still around in 1917 surrendered their German titles and got UK ones. I was told (but cannot find one) that there have been one or two HH around, afterthoughts from that period but most were HRHs (such as Alice, Princess Andrew of Greece, mother of the Duke of Edinburgh).

    Yes, but none of the titles used which brought Serenity were UK titles. In the UK, dukes are graceful, barons to marquesses are lordly, many of the royal family are royal highnesses, but none is serene from a UK title. Like you, I can't find any who were HH from UK entitlement. If there were any living in the UK who had such appellation, they had it from another monarch.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    One of the really interesting issues about the Royal Family is their place in our cultural universe. It has its ugly side, such as the fawning over irrelevancies that goes on in the Press, but it is in the Arts where the Royal Family comes into its own as muses, as objects of scorn, or as inspirational role models. In this scene, Steven Toast is filming the closing scenes of a film on the life of Prince Philip.
  • I have a friend who served as an equerry some years ago: the details are correct.

    It is possible security procedures have changed.

    International rules on travellers having a valid passport? I don't think so.
  • I must admit that I find this apparent desire to prove Meghan a liar somewhat unseemly and unedifying, to say the least.

    What is the reason for it?

    Because the whole schtick of her love-in hard-hitting interview with Ms Winfrey was about "putting the truth out there". And because she claims that the RF and the household lied about her. If you're going to claim to be the only truthful bunny in the field expect people to check out your claim to the title - in her case, it doesn't stand up.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    One of the really interesting issues about the Royal Family is their place in our cultural universe. It has its ugly side, such as the fawning over irrelevancies that goes on in the Press, but it is in the Arts where the Royal Family comes into its own as muses, as objects of scorn, or as inspirational role models. In this scene, Steven Toast is filming the closing scenes of a film on the life of Prince Philip.

    Link doesn't work in the UK.
  • @Louise @quetzalcoatl
    No one is saying she is "bad", but she does appear to have a well-developed persecution complex which sometimes trumps fact.
  • I have a friend who served as an equerry some years ago: the details are correct.

    It is possible security procedures have changed.

    International rules on travellers having a valid passport? I don't think so.

    I was more thinking about who holds the passports etc
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    {Cross-Pond.}

    Various:

    --Maybe Meghan was told by someone in The Firm the bit about Archie not being a prince because of being bi-racial? It could have been one of those "meaningful look" things. Or facial expressions of distaste about his possible coloring.

    --Respectfully: however well a Shipmate trusts royals, The Firm, and the system, however well they might even know royal individuals and the inside workings, no one knows for sure what was said and done except the people who were there.

    And even they might see it differently from each other.

    --Reiterating what I said on pg. 34, especially here.

    --As I said earlier about the interview, I think M & H told the truth as they know it.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    One of the really interesting issues about the Royal Family is their place in our cultural universe. It has its ugly side, such as the fawning over irrelevancies that goes on in the Press, but it is in the Arts where the Royal Family comes into its own as muses, as objects of scorn, or as inspirational role models. In this scene, Steven Toast is filming the closing scenes of a film on the life of Prince Philip.

    Link doesn't work in the UK.

    If you know the work of Matt Berry, The Organist, you might consider that a blessing.

    My focus is as always on satire, bad taste and toilet humor, but it is true that the monarchy has been a tremendous source of inspiration, and as a canvas for making observations about the world. The recent film The King is a good example; indeed the whole history of the story of Henry V is fascinating. But I am a theatre freak and a Shakespeare tragic, although a purposely ignorant one. I love seeing different interpretations of the same story and comparing them. How do they do Falstaff? That's the tell.

    This morning I was listening to an audiobook about the founding of Sydney, and the author spoke a little about King George III. He is another monarch who seems to be a different character when viewed through different lenses. I remember the Farmer George characterisation, but what mostly comes through are the anti-British cartoons out of the American colonies and of course his infirmity. What I didn't realise until this morning was that he was the first Hanoverian Monarch to speak English in daily life, and the first to take an active interest in the affairs of his kingdom.

    Naturally, I don't like The Crown on principle. Its one thing for the satirists to mock the Royal Family. Satire reinforces their authority and emphasizes their status. Harry Enfield is as useful a servant to his Monarch as Thomas Cromwell was to his. The Crown has an aura of reality about it. Nobody could believe that what female impersonator Gerry Connelly says as the Queen was actually said by her. But Olivia Coleman's portrayal, that feels real, even though it is fiction.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    I think I would put it that M & H told the truth as they perceive it. At least Harry has spoken to his brother and his father. But the bridge won't be mended for some time.
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    At least Harry has spoken to his brother and his father.
    Yes; that is good and it's all we need to know. I gather, however, that Harry has now told the press that the conversation was "not productive", whatever that means, and I don't suppose that will have gone down too well with the royal family who expressly said they want to deal with things privately. In my opinion he is not doing himself any favours when it comes to being thought well of, here in the UK at least.

    The royal family is weathering a storm. It has faced them before and survived. It is all terribly sad, but it occurs to me to think that for William to learn how to conduct himself in them, under the example of his redoubtable grandmother, is going a long way towards equipping him to be a good king one day.

    I've never thought of myself as a monarchist and am surprised at how strongly I'm starting to feel about this. I've typed more and deleted it and am stepping away from this thread for a while.

  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited March 18
    Eirenist wrote: »
    I think I would put it that M & H told the truth as they perceive it.

    "Truth" in many of the instances quoted by the Duchess is not a question of perception but of fact or fiction.
    At least Harry has spoken to his brother and his father. But the bridge won't be mended for some time.

    Since his wife then went straight to "friends" like Gayle King I would say never is more realistic.
  • I suppose it is sad, if you're a monarchist. I see Harry as doing something normal, breaking away from one's family. Believe it or not, this often involves tensions, backbiting, etc. Quite healthy, really, apart from the commentary in the tabloids..
  • From the link given by @TheOrganist above, Meghan and Harry want the Press to stop printing untrue stories about them. Unfortunately, the only thing the Royal Family have ever managed to agree with the Press is not to report on the children of the Family. And that still didn't protect Harry and William when they were children. It's why Prince William releases regular pictures of their children, to try and prevent paparazzi crowds outside the school gates - as you can see from the link, it fails. So why do Harry and Meghan think that they can be any more protected?
  • @Curiosity killed The agreement with the British press was reached affer Diana's death and was to last until they finished school. Charles negotiated an extension for William while he was at St Andrew's.

    The foreign press didn't sign-up to the deal and of course paparazzi, as independent operators, are a law unto themselves. While UK publications won't print snatched pap shots of the Cambridge children, "celebrity" magazines based in Europe, Australia and the USA have no such qualms.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I suppose it is sad, if you're a monarchist. I see Harry as doing something normal, breaking away from one's family. Believe it or not, this often involves tensions, backbiting, etc. Quite healthy, really, apart from the commentary in the tabloids..

    Its not sad for this monarchist. Its annoying because these two are repeating the same mistakes as Diana in engaging with an industry that fundamentally wants their lives to be filled with conflict and drama. But really, I only give a stuff because they didn't do what they should have done: keep schtum.

    The personhood of the Monarch is not important, and something relevant only to their humanity, not their status or role. Ultimately, the Crown is in the gift of the Parliament. It was given to the Hanoverians by Parliament, and it can be taken from the Windsors at will, just as it was taken from the Stewarts. The whole thing about Edward was not that he was unsuitable, but that he was unable to be King because he married a divorcee. It wasn't that it would be better if he didn't marry Wallace Simpson, but that it was unlawful for him to be King and married to a divorcee. Recently, Parliament changed the laws of succession to allow women to inherit on the same basis as men. The Queen didn't decide that. Parliament did.

    The point is that the personal foibles and strengths of the Monarch and her family are only important because they sell newspapers.

  • @Simon Toad Got it in one - on all points.

    What Diana didn't "get" was that her celebrity came about solely because of who she married and what, not who, their mother was.

    While William and Harry were at Eton they used to go to see granny for tea most weekends and (we know this from William) explained to them both about the monarchy. To an observer it is interesting to see that while one grandson seems to have absorbed the lesson that it's not about them personally, the other hasn't.

    On Edward VIII, subsequent events proved that Wallis Simpson actually did us a favour...
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »

    No HRH for Archie
    Under Letters Patent in 1917 George V cleaned-up the proliferation of princes, serene highnesses, etc. As a result the only people entitled to HRH are children of the monarch and their children.

    When Grandpa Charles becomes king then his grandchildren will be entitled to HRH, although it is likely he will have a tidy-up after his accession.

    Enough!

    Was Serene Highness ever used in the UK or any of its constituents? My recollection is that it was not, those being serene being neither imperial or royal.

    Serious Nerd Territory alert. Several of the German princely types who had married into Queen Victoria's brood were HSH and retained this with Victoria's permission, even when they had been born in the UK (e.g., Louis of Battenberg, later Marquis of Milford Haven, and Alexander of Teck, later Earl of Athlone, later the WWII Governor General of Canada). AFAIK those who were still around in 1917 surrendered their German titles and got UK ones. I was told (but cannot find one) that there have been one or two HH around, afterthoughts from that period but most were HRHs (such as Alice, Princess Andrew of Greece, mother of the Duke of Edinburgh).

    Yes, but none of the titles used which brought Serenity were UK titles. In the UK, dukes are graceful, barons to marquesses are lordly, many of the royal family are royal highnesses, but none is serene from a UK title. Like you, I can't find any who were HH from UK entitlement. If there were any living in the UK who had such appellation, they had it from another monarch.

    There is room for discussion on whether or not the Tecks or Battenbergs were HSH in Britain as resident foreign princes, or if Victoria's use of the HSH made them British titles, but I am inclined to leave that to a chilly evening when there is decent single malt on the table. UK princeliness, should one have it, is personal and entirely a matter of royal decision, and not connected with territorial titles, as it can be in Belgium or the Netherlands. Either way, they surrendered their German dignities, became commoners, and were then ennobled or given courtesy titles (e.g. Lord Louis Mountbatten)-- not instantly, but sometimes taking up to a year.* During WWI this bit of nobiliary tidying-up was probably not seen as a priority. It did end up leaving them ahead of their German relations (at least in getting reservations at good restaurants), who all became citizens of a republic a few years later, with titles disappearing forever under German law.

    One of our shipmates has found Prince Alasdair of Connaught-- to add to the details of his untimely death in Ottawa, the rumour at the time was that he was gay and his alcoholism was ascribed to this. A quick call to a former colleague who is a reference in local gay history confirms this, telling me that it was unclear if this was the reason why he was sent to Ottawa in the first place, and that closeted gays have been known to deal with their conflicts by drinking too much. He also noted that the Windsors have African blood already, but that for him a real test will be if one of the HRHs marries a person of the same sex (digression about legitimacy of any children under Canadian law omitted so that shipmates may go about their days occupied in productive labour).

    *Canadian trivia -- if you haven't had enough of it already-- foreign titles disappear when one takes Canadian citizenship.
Sign In or Register to comment.