Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[cabanafrau]

that is how you see it...

I see a nice young couple with their whole lives ahead of them... filled with so much potential. One beautiful baby on the way.... another child already blessing their home. Like I tell my smart and beautiful daughter... you use all the blessings you are so lucky to have.... take your opportunities and run with it.

You have one life, how you choose to live it.... is your decision alone.

I personally wish them all the happiness together... In America... In the UK wherever.

I see a young couple with a lot of advantages who have the right to make their own choices. They have one wonderful child and hopefully will soon welcome another.

I also see a lot of complaints and blaming of everyone coming from this young couple. Okay, maybe they've got some legitimate complaints. They say they want their privacy, yet go out of their way to get very specific forms of attention, all on their terms, designed to create an image. Eh, whatever.

They complain unkind and untruthful things are written and said about them. Then they release an op ed that is so far from straightforward and genuine, right from their own hands. Don't complain about people twisting truth about you and then sell me a line of disingenuous BS.

 

[gwynne]

I think that is what fuels a lot of the angry or anti sentiment against these two (MM and H).

So many people would change places with them in a heartbeat, so they cannot understand how they would choose to walk away from being a royal.

to quote one of my favorites....

""You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view. Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it." Atticus Finch, To Kill a Mockingbird

None of us are them... living the day to day. We can only sit on the outside... reading stories, and making assumptions.

I think when you take the wedding, the wardrobe, the presents, the prestige, and the wealth complaints about how hard it is don't go over very well.
It would be great if they opted for the quiet private life they promised when they moved to LA.

 

[NotUrsula]

I think in dissecting all the statements, the pundits have overlooked the key word in the one from the Queen that gets to the actual heart of the matter: " ... the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service." [emphasis mine]

You'll notice in the Sussexes' reply that the word "public" is missing, and IMO, that's the key to the entire puzzle. The heart of this issue isn't about fame or money; it's about control. "Public service" means being a government employee, with all of the rules and restrictions that come with that. We see the Queen as being in control of this situation, but in legal terms, as a Constitutional Monarch, she really isn't. In the end, the UK Royal Family exists and functions at the pleasure of Parliament, and the illusion of the Queen being in charge only holds when she and her family stay within the limits they are granted; in effect, she is like a CEO who must answer to a Board of Directors. That is literally the deal when one is an employee; you keep the job only if you do the work you are given in the way that you are instructed to do it.

So, yeah, "service" is something that anyone can undertake at any time and place of their choosing, but "public service" in the context of that statement, is a paying job, and one that you cannot keep if you are unwilling to accept the conditions of employment.

 

[Karin1984]

I think that is what fuels a lot of the angry or anti sentiment against these two (MM and H).

So many people would change places with them in a heartbeat, so they cannot understand how they would choose to walk away from being a royal.

to quote one of my favorites....

""You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view. Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it." Atticus Finch, To Kill a Mockingbird

None of us are them... living the day to day. We can only sit on the outside... reading stories, and making assumptions.

I don't think a lot of European people envy them as in wanting to trade places. To be honest, if Harry (or William) had knocked on my door and proposed, I would have to think hard before I would turn it down. It's not an admirable position. I think it's similar for the US to become president or being a president's wife/husband. Yes, there are many advantages, but also many downsides.

As I mentioned before, everyone who lives in a European kingdom knows that becoming a princess is a job, and nothing to think lightly off. With the British royal family being the hardest of them all. Not just Harry's previous girlfriends declined a relationship because they couldn't handle it. It's the same for several of my own King's previous girlfriends. There were some he loved, but becoming queen... That's a whole lot of a commitment for a lifetime.

I think the sentiment comes from the hypocrisy I mentioned a few pages ago, but also being disappointed. Think Tyra Banks 'I was rooting for you' speech. Harry was the fun prince, like his mother 'a people's prince'. And after everything that had happened, the public wanted him to get his happily ever after. Meghan was welcomed as a breath of fresh air. She would bring glamour, diversity and a modern feel to the royal family. Harry seemed over the moon. A 30 million wedding, go ahead, redecorate your rent free home for 3 million, here you go, Meghan needs a million GBP wardrobe, of course!
If you then start complaining and after 18 months say 'no, it's not for me, I am going home' with the message 'I want the benefits, but not everything that goes with it', people probably feel betrayed and now think 'good riddance'. That's maybe not fully fair to the couple, but if you are funded by the public, it's how these things work.

Nobody is really against what they say, but how they say it.

 

[cabanafrau]

As far as feeling any envy towards any of the royals, big nope. That would be my idea of several circles of hell.

 

[PaulaSB12]

I think that what has happened is their rank hypocrisy has annoyed people, saying that people should watch their carbon footprint then taking private jets. He said that he did that because public flights where too dangerous then Prince William was seen taking a cheap airline flight so he doesn't think its bad. Its like the extinction rebellion protests before covid they went on tv to talk about the need to watch carbon footprint but my sister saw a load of extinction rebellion protesters taking flights down to London. Where they promptly did stupid things like glueing themselves to tube trains meaning all these people who couldn't use the tube a green travel option had to drive to work. Harry wants the fun part of being royal having the palaces and being on the balcony but isn't willing to do the boring stuff that is why he has been told your in or out you can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Wow, I am speechless here. I can't imagine hating someone so much, and you don't even know them personally. Talk about poison hearts. The lack of empathy here is just shameful. I feel sorry for you.

They themselves haven’t shown much empathy toward her family, or his.

 

[rigs32]

I would absolutely welcome being 6th in line to the throne in the British royal family, in a heartbeat ....

Did you honestly & sincerely reflect on your own question? Most people would love to have the wealth, security, privileges and adulation that they take for granted.

I have a job that bring stress and anxiety from the public at times. Unlimited resources would probably make it easier to insulate myself, but I honestly can't imagine what it's like to constantly see your name and face being castigated in the media.

 

[mousefan73]

Now my turn to get into the speculation and water cooler talk.

IMO, they left England to gain more control of their lives and make more money. not sure if or what Charles gives Harry from his Duchy, but if you look at what Harry inherited and what Meghan made they are not THAT rich. Granted in England they had living allowances etc... but no royal is seen buying a ferrari and blasting about town. Based on Meghans past life, her career choice is influencer with a touch of community service vs public servant.. Being in the UK and working for the "firm" was too restraining for her.. Now she is free to create the next coffee table book and make money off of it.

I think Harry was generally unhappy in life, found her, happiness and is taking things as they come.



I am curious what they have to say during the Oprah internview.. My guess it will be full of "woke" moments on how they want to SERVE/save the world. Maybe some recognition and maybe even mention how GRATEFUL they are to have this life of privledge where their DUTY is to help other others in need. Basically creating a new job profile of " Entitled Servant for the People"

 

[TLSnell1981]

I have a job that bring stress and anxiety from the public at times. Unlimited resources would probably make it easier to insulate myself, but I honestly can't imagine what it's like to constantly see your name and face being castigated in the media.

They could step away to a great extent if the wanted privacy. They want the perks but don’t want to pay the price. My biggest beef..refusal to be accountable for words and actions.

Now my turn to get into the speculation and water cooler talk.

IMO, they left England to gain more control of their lives and make more money. not sure if or what Charles gives Harry from his Duchy, but if you look at what Harry inherited and what Meghan made they are not THAT rich. Granted in England they had living allowances etc... but no royal is seen buying a ferrari and blasting about town. Based on Meghans past life, her career choice is influencer with a touch of community service vs public servant.. Being in the UK and working for the "firm" was too restraining for her.. Now she is free to create the next coffee table book and make money off of it.

I think Harry was generally unhappy in life, found her, happiness and is taking things as they come.



I am curious what they have to say during the Oprah internview.. My guess it will be full of "woke" moments on how they want to SERVE/save the world. Maybe some recognition and maybe even mention how GRATEFUL they are to have this life of privledge where their DUTY is to help other others in need. Basically creating a new job profile of " Entitled Servant for the People"

Nope. It's a hard pass for me and the Oprah interview. Not wasting an hour of my life to hear a broken record. I've listened to the words but trust the behavior.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Now my turn to get into the speculation and water cooler talk.

IMO, they left England to gain more control of their lives and make more money. not sure if or what Charles gives Harry from his Duchy, but if you look at what Harry inherited and what Meghan made they are not THAT rich. Granted in England they had living allowances etc... but no royal is seen buying a ferrari and blasting about town. Based on Meghans past life, her career choice is influencer with a touch of community service vs public servant.. Being in the UK and working for the "firm" was too restraining for her.. Now she is free to create the next coffee table book and make money off of it.

I think Harry was generally unhappy in life, found her, happiness and is taking things as they come.



I am curious what they have to say during the Oprah internview.. My guess it will be full of "woke" moments on how they want to SERVE/save the world. Maybe some recognition and maybe even mention how GRATEFUL they are to have this life of privledge where their DUTY is to help other others in need. Basically creating a new job profile of " Entitled Servant for the People"

“Prior to Harry and Meghan becoming financially independent, the wealth-tracking site celebritynetworth.com estimates that Prince Harry was worth $40 million, a sum he's accumulated from funds left in trust to him by his mother, Princess Diana, an inheritance from the Queen Mother (that reportedly included her jewels), and his former salary as a captain in the British Army (where he earned between $50,000 and $53,000 a year, according to Forbes).

.
In the year since stepping back from their official working royal roles, Harry and Meghan have indeed become financially independent, and have established several professional revenue streams, including deals with Netflix and Spotify.”

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a20745405/prince-harry-net-worth/
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“... The Sussexes have managed to pick up $183 million in future earnings in the scant nine months since they officially quit as working members of the royal family.

But there is an astronomical difference between needing to pocket enough dosh to remain financially independent and the $183 million that is reportedly coming their way. (In August, the Daily Mail estimated that their costs, from the mortgage for their luxe Montecito mansion to staffers to security would be $5.8 million annually.)

For two people so committed to remaking the world into a happier, better place this just seems like an obscene amount of money to accrue in the process.

While there is every chance that they will plough all of profits, sans living expenses, back into Archewell - their soon to launch charitable entity - or other philanthropic ventures all of this money being associated with the Sussexes is still deeply problematic from the palace’s perspective.

When the Queen allegedly forced Harry to choose between life in the family or out of it during the Sandringham Summit, she was reportedly motivated by a fear of anyone ever being able to suggest that someone was monetising their royal position.

Let’s be real: Just Harry and Meghan, two wealthy, kind-hearted do-gooders, are not getting eight figure contracts but Harry and Meghan Duke and Duchess of Sussex can easily pull in that sort of serious coin. It is not their enthusiasm or world-changing ideas that are going to see them earn the big bucks but the platform and global fame that they bring with him because of their royal identity.

Their hearts and heads might be firmly in the right place but that does not change the fact that their access and clout in the entertainment and business worlds rests largely on their surname and royal imprimatur.

At some stage in the first few months of 2021, the 12-month review period that the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry agreed to during the Sandringham Summit will be up.

With Harry and Meghan $183 million richer (on paper anyway) than they were at the same time last year, the looming question is, will the Queen feel she needs to take action to further distance the crown from all this new cashola?

That is, will she make some sort of change to Harry and Meghan’s titles? Under the terms of the Megxit divorce deal struck in January, the couple retained their official styling as His/Her Royal Highness but agreed not to use them. Could there be some change on this front?”

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...c/news-story/2d999661b7cf180020b9c3d3c370912c

 

[Cheburashka]

As far as feeling any envy towards any of the royals, big nope. That would be my idea of several circles of hell.

I guess you've never worked full-time in a Tyson chicken factory?

 

[Cheburashka]

“Prior to Harry and Meghan becoming financially independent, the wealth-tracking site celebritynetworth.com estimates that Prince Harry was worth $40 million, a sum he's accumulated from funds left in trust to him by his mother, Princess Diana, an inheritance from the Queen Mother (that reportedly included her jewels), and his former salary as a captain in the British Army (where he earned between $50,000 and $53,000 a year, according to Forbes).
.
In the year since stepping back from their official working royal roles, Harry and Meghan have indeed become financially independent, and have established several professional revenue streams, including deals with Netflix and Spotify.... The Sussexes have managed to pick up $183 million in future earnings in the scant nine months since they officially quit as working members of the royal family.

Did anyone else have an issue with the way they described their plans last January as "working towards financial independence"? Hello? "Working towards"? With a combined net worth of over $20 million (conservative estimate) before they even left?

 

[person]

I think when you take the wedding, the wardrobe, the presents, the prestige, and the wealth complaints about how hard it is don't go over very well.
It would be great if they opted for the quiet private life they promised when they moved to LA.

The difficulty of completely retiring from / quitting the Royal Family is similar in some ways to the difficulty of the idea of an actress completely retiring from / quitting Hollywood.

(Especially when amidst a blaze of publicity they move to LA, of which Hollywood functions as a suburb, in more ways than one.)

If another wealthy actress went to LA and kept repeating: "I don't want publicity!", "I don't want publicity!", "I don't want publicity!", she might get various reactions indeed. (But not a huge amount of sympathy.)

 

[person]

Walking away is one thing. But walking away in such a publicly self-pitying and blaming fashion, given their lives of extreme privilege, is morally abhorrent. They gave a self-pitying interview during their official tour of South Africa, a place where a large percent of the population doesn't even have decent housing, and also used that tour to declare a lawsuit they were beginning against a media outlet.

In addition, their subsequent $100 million deal with Netflix in exchange for starring in a reality show indicates that a need for privacy was not their motivator, rather, it was greed, the desire to have even more money (which they only got due to their royal connections), than they could ever have if they had remained in the royal family.

An historical comparison with the opulent flair of King Farouk of Egypt comes vaguely to mind.

 

[cabanafrau]

I would absolutely welcome being 6th in line to the throne in the British royal family, in a heartbeat, with all of the perks that come with that position, in exchange for the hardscrabble life of childhood neglect and the challenges of being the single mother of an autistic child on a schoolteacher's salary. Many, many people would choose a life of security for themselves and their loved ones, yes, they would.

Did you honestly & sincerely reflect on your own question? Most people would love to have the wealth, security, privileges and adulation that they take for granted.

I guess you've never worked full-time in a Tyson chicken factory?

I didn't say there are no other things in life that would make me miserable. But in point of fact, no, I would not want to be a member of the royal family, not at all. Ridiculously wealthy, I'd love to take a crack at that. Famous, no thanks, I'd be miserable.

Simply because you have a different take on it for yourself does not mean that others aren't self aware and able to recognize their individual likes and dislikes. The fact that my preferences are different from yours doesn't make them less credible or less valid, simply different.

 

[person]

“Prior to Harry and Meghan becoming financially independent, the wealth-tracking site celebritynetworth.com estimates that Prince Harry was worth $40 million, a sum he's accumulated from funds left in trust to him by his mother, Princess Diana, an inheritance from the Queen Mother (that reportedly included her jewels), and his former salary as a captain in the British Army (where he earned between $50,000 and $53,000 a year, according to Forbes).

.
In the year since stepping back from their official working royal roles, Harry and Meghan have indeed become financially independent, and have established several professional revenue streams, including deals with Netflix and Spotify.”

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a20745405/prince-harry-net-worth/
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“... The Sussexes have managed to pick up $183 million in future earnings in the scant nine months since they officially quit as working members of the royal family.

But there is an astronomical difference between needing to pocket enough dosh to remain financially independent and the $183 million that is reportedly coming their way. (In August, the Daily Mail estimated that their costs, from the mortgage for their luxe Montecito mansion to staffers to security would be $5.8 million annually.)

For two people so committed to remaking the world into a happier, better place this just seems like an obscene amount of money to accrue in the process.

While there is every chance that they will plough all of profits, sans living expenses, back into Archewell - their soon to launch charitable entity - or other philanthropic ventures all of this money being associated with the Sussexes is still deeply problematic from the palace’s perspective.

When the Queen allegedly forced Harry to choose between life in the family or out of it during the Sandringham Summit, she was reportedly motivated by a fear of anyone ever being able to suggest that someone was monetising their royal position.

Let’s be real: Just Harry and Meghan, two wealthy, kind-hearted do-gooders, are not getting eight figure contracts but Harry and Meghan Duke and Duchess of Sussex can easily pull in that sort of serious coin. It is not their enthusiasm or world-changing ideas that are going to see them earn the big bucks but the platform and global fame that they bring with him because of their royal identity.

Their hearts and heads might be firmly in the right place but that does not change the fact that their access and clout in the entertainment and business worlds rests largely on their surname and royal imprimatur.

At some stage in the first few months of 2021, the 12-month review period that the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry agreed to during the Sandringham Summit will be up.

With Harry and Meghan $183 million richer (on paper anyway) than they were at the same time last year, the looming question is, will the Queen feel she needs to take action to further distance the crown from all this new cashola?

That is, will she make some sort of change to Harry and Meghan’s titles? Under the terms of the Megxit divorce deal struck in January, the couple retained their official styling as His/Her Royal Highness but agreed not to use them. Could there be some change on this front?”

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...c/news-story/2d999661b7cf180020b9c3d3c370912c
View attachment 558716

Altogether an odd situation: Camilla in theory the Princess of Wales (but for certain reasons) doesn't use the title; MM in theory HRH but has to agree not to use it.

 

[cabanafrau]

Altogether an odd situation: Camilla in theory the Princess of Wales (but for certain reasons) doesn't use the title; MM in theory HRH but has to agree not to use it.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe marriage automatically confers titles. My understanding is they must be bestowed by the monarch. Princess of Wales is reserved for the wife of the Prince of Wales, but I don't believe has been conferred upon anyone since Diana relinquished the title in the divorce.

Kind of cool to think that if the monarchy survives at one point in the future there could be a Princess of Wales via primogeniture, not through her spouse.

 

[person]

I could be wrong, but I don't believe marriage automatically confers titles. My understanding is they must be bestowed by the monarch. Princess of Wales is reserved for the wife of the Prince of Wales, but I don't believe has been conferred upon anyone since Diana relinquished the title in the divorce.

Kind of cool to think that if the monarchy survives at one point in the future there could be a Princess of Wales via primogeniture, not through her spouse.

In Belgium, the firstborn male heir of the monarch was called the Prince of Liège.

When they decided this wasn't 'fair', they had to abolish the title altogether (or else make a putative Princess of Liège's marriage more or less morganatic or else make her become like a perpetual nun: neither of these were realistic). In theory a female Belgian Princess later succeeding to the throne could be married to someone without a title, such as Monsieur X. Dupont (rather like Princess Alexandra being married to The Hon. Angus Ogilvy) but in practice Sa Majesté et Monsieur Dupont would be unlikely to be accepted.

Mrs. Simpson becoming the Duchess of Windsor meant that she could not be HRH. When the Duke of Windsor went to the US he wanted to be part of the British Embassy's diplomatic mission (so as to avoid tax): having the Duchess of Windsor becoming HRH - which is what he also wanted - would have meant the Duchess, as an American, not paying tax either in the US as the Royal wife of a diplomat - needless to say, none of this worked out.

 

[Karin1984]

Legally Camilla is the princess of Wales, but is styled as Duchess of Cornwall. Camilla had the option to use 'princess' in daily life, but as that title and the addition 'of Wales' was so associated with Diana, and she definitely wasn't popular when she married Charles, she didn't take the title. Most likely Kate will take it when Charles becomes king and William becomes Prince of Wales.