Skip to main content

Romance in the AIR - Expectations and Then there is Reality

 I read somewhere an observation of parallels of Harry and his mother - of how they both appeared to become bored after they no longer had their official duties.  And how they seemed adrift as to what to do next with themself.

I started thinking then of how Diana (probably) had certain expectations of what love, marriage would be (maybe he loves me, only me and not her, happy ever after and who knows but perhaps that marriage is all sweetness, light, happy and joy like in a romance novel) ... which leads to expectations of what marriage might have been for Harry's wife.  Or even Harry.

Oh boy. 

I don't recall marriage comments but do remember how he talked and wrote about how he wanted for his kids to be able to grow up with their cousins, second cousins in what sounds like how he grew up playing with family, doing the annual this and that with family (minus his parents not getting along).  A vestige of his childhood he wanted to repeat, pass on as important to his kids.  

So ... what marriage appears to be is an unknown except possible what might or might not have been said to his past girlfriends or the woman he married.  Nor any idea of what his mother had said, either directly or implied, about marriage in general to him.  What is interesting is that, allegedly, he and his brother were sorta kinda tolerant with the idea of Camilla being around but not married to their father.  Besides his book, I don't remember other sources but they could be out there.

And, Diana was able to work a really nice settlement post divorce from Charles.  One, that I remember reading somewhere, that his mother, The Queen, had to fund as he did not have sufficient capital to pay off immediately.   Andrew's wife did not fare as well but one might come to the conclusion that getting divorced from a (senior) BRF member is not a big deal, the women walk away with lots of money and retain some status/stay in the public eye.  Their life goes on with parties, pictures in the magazines and so on.

Knowing that he was handled well (closely) by the palace plus young, he probably was not the most informed  resource of how that all played out with the adults or court protocol for dress (other than his uniform, medals), rules other than be behind higher ranking people and other specific details about his family and how they function.  We know he didn't have a good sense of how the money worked as he really got upset when his father tried to explain that things would change once he became king, William would get the Duchy money and Harry would no longer have any right to a cent of it.  We don't know if any similar conversations with his father were attempted.  Truth be told, many families do not talk about money with their kids.  Or talk about how to save, make good investment decisions or plan for expenses.  At any rate, it was a rude awakening.


Her - well we have some information that she didn't feel a need to tap into the various helpful people offered to answer questions or adjust to a new and very different life with very different rules and how to avoid mistakes with  many people watching/ commenting when a mistake was made.  Nah, she had him as a resource allegedly.

She definitely had way more experience at long term intimate relationships that Diana didn't before either married in.  

What she didn't have, but Diana did, was the knowledge of the UK, primogeniture, British history, an existing relationship with the Royal family and general knowledge of how things worked within the family.  Both women pushed back at help adjusting.  I can remember reading of someone's career left in tatters as they were to help educate Diana about some things she didn't know and pretty much refused.

I suspect a larger factor (for greater adjustment) was Diana also knew the rank of the person she was marrying as how it would impact her.  And who she was not getting married to.  But mainly how marriage would impact her future.  That part, I think, she went in with her eyes open.

So ... I think that when I think about why Harry's wife had difficulties.  If you didn't grow up seeing various members of the BRF ribbon cutting, invitations to one of the garden parties, tours overseas as an endless meet and greets (grind or not) but perhaps you did see the Crown Jewels (flashy and well protected), the various mentions in more PR based magazines then you miss the fundamental reason why they were doing all this (not reported in various USA PR magazines) in the first place  - as Service to Her Majesty.  

If you grow up being told, as many are in the US, that you can become anything you want to be, then you aren't going to understand primogeniture.  You might think that stupid at best and clearly outdated and more at worst (not female equality).  And that it isn't something one can change because you don't like it or it isn't in your understanding of how other parts of the world work.  To even know about it, as much of British royal and court history is not part of the American revolution, culture, you would have to make an effort to learn what it was all about.  (basically you have to get past Henry VIII having the authority to order heads off as the monarchy does what it wants to, the jewelry, fancy dress balls and get into the nitty gritty of how the UK political scene has evolved since Queen Victoria and before her).

And the US is kind of funny about rank.  Ranks of grades is one thing you hear and hear about as a kid but most are not exposed to rank as status until they start into their first real job and they see who gets what in their office compared to someone else based on specific job title.  We don't have family status titles like Duke, Duchess.  The closest might be titles of elected officials (which can change the next election so temporary) or the C titles of a corporation if you have that kind of job.  I don't recall that she had a lot of corporate type jobs so that would be another type of exposure she didn't get which might have helped her understand rank within the family she was about to marry into.  And, how she fit into it.  There could be some flexibility within the family but the adjusting would always be mainly by the one entering it.    

You need more than just the movie 84 Charing Cross Road to learn about rationing post war or visiting the crown jewels in the museum once to learn about what their meaning and role in the history/future of the country.  

However, if you did grow up reading and seeing Diana in the same magazines as this movie star at an opening, that pr story of rock star on the road as one of Diana at this party, that event, socializing with this pop star, that concert, fancy fancy dresses, you might think of that British royal life is about being famous, parties and not as primarily in service to the Queen.   And, Diana did drop her patronages and the world did not stop turning.  One might then remember that and think that (for someone at that status level) you can be famous, life is lots of parties, concerts, meeting famous people, ie do the parts of royal life that you like and toss out the rest and  ...  it doesn't matter in the end if you leave.  You still wind up with all the fun stuff you had with them  before you left.  And, if you've been very successful at getting what you wanted in life, there would not be a lot of reason to think that this new life could or would be any different than the past experiences for getting what you want.

Learning/adjusting to a new life in a different country than you grew up in (ie a new culture) is a big deal.  It has different rules - from grammar to etiquette, different slang or meanings even if it is technically the same words and sentence structure.  All of that before you add in marrying into the BRF. Even those who grew up "local" to the BRF culture still had some adjustment to the new way of life in addition to adjusting to marriage.  

Romantic expectations not living up to the reality.  A lot of marriages everywhere flounder on that.  Same is true about money.  Reality can be a rough adjustment.


Comments

abbyh said…
Guidelines for this blog is as follows:

-Keep discussions on the Sussexes. Politics must be strictly related to their involvement. Off topic subjects are permissible but should be limited and are subject to the discretion of Mods.
-Be civil and courteous in discussions.
-Posters who are disruptive will not have their posts posted.
-Anonymous or unknown posts are not allowed.
-We know that some of this is not family friendly. It can be a fine line sometimes on the topics such as sex and sexuality. Try to lean towards family friendly (thanks).
-Profanity has not traditionally been a problem, so let's keep it that way.
-We never encourage vindictive or other harmful actions.
-Please try to keep the conspiracy theories down.
-Do not discuss the blog, blog history, or other posters.
-No personal attacks both direct and indirect.
-Please de-escalate "fights" by dropping the subject. (please drop us a message that someone is treading on your last nerve so we can be aware that this is a problem).
-Please remember that the focus of the blog is on others, not any individuals posting here. So if your name is not attached to something posted, please begin with the idea that what is written is not likely to be directed at you if it upsets you.
-Posts which may be deemed too many flat statements/too provocative or mean spirited may not posted on the blog.
-Remember that not every one who reads the posts is happy about what is posted here. Please do not give out personal information. Be safe.
-Your privacy matters.
-Remember that certain sites require prior approval for reuse such as Harry Markle. Please respect their request on how to handle it. Links to share is a great alternative.


Mods do their best to ensure the guidelines are met. However, lapses happen because moderating this blog is a 24/7 responsibility and we all have jobs and families (and laundry) to care for. If you see overlooked issues, please feel free to message us so we can address them.

Thank you again for all your patience and support.

Moderation is still on.
The baroness wanted to have fame, money and jewels when she married. She did not want the work for she is a very lazy person and her boast of being very big in the details in everything she does is a just her normal bragging as her wickless candles prove. Her extremely vulgar wedding showed to the world what she wanted.

I don't believe Harry ever understood anything about the royalty or his family. His behaviour after he left Britain proves it. He just lived his life without ever stressing his pea brain with anything except drinking and filling his nose with cocaine.

What he wanted was the idea of a happy marriage as he thought William had without understanding what made his brother's marriage a success. (Two grown up adults ready to work together with respect towards each other AND LOVE.) Harry was not ready to be adult and he probably will never be. His idea of love had everything to do with his sexual pleasure and nothing else.

PS I find it interesting that the women (not ladies, the women) in Daily Mail are quite capable to write prince Andrew's name as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor only after a few days and are quite incapable to write Catherine's name as The Duchess of Cambridge/The Princess of Wales after 15 years of marriage?

I mean Andrew's name has 25 letters and Catherine's only 18? (note very heavy sarcasm)

Maneki Neko said…
Thank you, @abbyh. This is a good summary of how * must have viewed being in the BRF, especially if she read about Diana meeting rock stars, going to parties etc. Not being British, not knowing about British history and culture, not and the general working of the BRF certainly didn't help. Diana came from an aristocratic background and moved in royal circles before her marriage so it was easier for her, although she wasn't the meek, docile bride Charles expected. * even less.
As far as romance is concerned, when a journalist told Charles and Diana they looked very much in love, to which Diana replied 'yes, absolutely ', Charles famously replied 'Whatever 'in love' love means'. Not exactly reassuring. Harry might have been in love, but I doubt * was. Harry was a means to an end.
abbyh said…
I was thinking of the difference between reality and what one thinks/hopes the future might be ... and then ... why reality was just so so different.

Generational pattern.

And then there is the whole romance novel genre which is easily available in many first world countries which is all about the happy ending.

All of that flying into the brick wall of the BRF (and how things very slowly change - never mind how Charles was in love with someone he was told he could not marry - grateful he was more into following destiny, protocol than a second Mayerling).

Girl with a Hat said…
Marrying for love is a rather new concept, especially for the upper classes and royalty. More practical concerns were always prioritized like political alliances, social standing, money, etc.
That`s not to say there weren`t exceptions, for example, Elizabeth and Philip.
Thank you, Abbyh, for this very thoughtful piece.
Here in the UK, we don't get a very positive view of American education and it appears that the idea, that the rest of the world works differently from the US, hardly features. That said, it's doubtful if even the most rigorous schooling would have made much impression on a certain little know-all.
You're right - she just saw the shiny bits and assumed they were there for the picking.
Maneki Neko said…
@Girl with a Hat

'Marrying for love is a rather new concept, especially for the upper classes and royalty.' Very true and very good point.
Maneki Neko said…
Not quite the same but the 8th Marquess of Bath, married to - genuinely - half-Nigerian Emma Thynn - 'has backed legal action to make sure his son who was born via a surrogate mother can inherit a share of his £157 million fortune.'. Their second son was born via surrogate as having a second child could kill her. 'However this has raised questions about the legitimacy of his son's right to inherit a share of his vast wealth.'
As I said, not the same but if it turned out that * used a surrogate and this became public, she could and would claim her case was the same as Emma's.
Girl with a Hat said…
The best comment at the DM article about * inviting herself to the 15 percent gala:

"Another badly fitting dress; but then it must be so difficult dressing a box"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15542079/Meghan-Markle-claims-invited-Hollywood-fundraising-gala-VIPs.html
Girl with a Hat said…
ok, this comment is just mean, but I can`t help laughing.


Meghan has become an oddity rather than a celebrity. She right up there with the elephant man.
abbyh said…
Technical question on surrogate/inheritance law: If the first son inherits title, so on, how would what was left to the second (surrogate) son be exempted from him? Wouldn't it be covered in the will? If the first son had passed, then it does factor in but I'm not following this.
Maneki Neko said…
@abbyh

Re the Marquess of Bath, 'Although Henry is the biological child of the Thynn aristocrats, a Bristol hearing heard there was “uncertainty as to whether Henry falls at present within the class of beneficiaries”.
It is understood that the family trusts currently observe a “pre-1970, common law meanings of descriptions of family relationships.”

A judge said: “The [marquess] and his wife consider it would be unfair and unfortunate if their second son and his issue were excluded from benefit.”

Reports suggest that additional clarification is required regarding US tax, as Henry was born to a U.S. national within the United States.

“At this stage the intention is simply to confer power to add Henry to the class [of beneficiaries] but not yet to exercise it,” the judge said.'
There is the complication that He nry, the second child, was born in the US to an American surrogate. The Thynns just want to ensure that he can inherit his share of their £157 M fortune as he wasn't born 'of the body'. At least Emma Thynn had a medical reason for using a surrogate and was very transparent about it.
There are comments on SMM to the effect that the dress was made for someone `foot taller' and that the hem is only taped up (it certainly hasn't been pressed).
Apart from thinking the skirt would be improved by the wearing of 1960s style foundation garments, I loathe the back slit - looks like an invitation to be goosed in the most intimate manner
SMM features a video of how to use up her `spread' in a kind of cheesecake. Nothing new under the sun - I remember a version of that from 40+ years ago which looked and tasted OK - it's one for the grown-ups:

Briefly dip chocolate-chip cookies in a sherry of your choice, sandwich them together with whipped cream to make a `roll;' cover with more whipped cream. Chill , add optional flaked almonds / dark chocolate shavings of dark chocolate and cut into portions as you serve.
Very indulgent, dead easy, ideal if you didn't feel up to making Charlotte Russe or similar and didn't need to impress over much.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1r0k2dt/as_ever_a_new_atrocity_this_is_one_of_the_worst/
Try this for a laugh (sorry, have no idea how to archive this) IB Times of course.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/does-meghan-markle-want-queen-royal-expert-claims-prince-harrys-wife-will-run-country-1777241
Is she waiting for the invitation to form a government? Or for HM to stand up and offer her his seat?
Has Angela flipped her lid?
Maneki Neko said…
Is this 'cheesecake' as much haute cuisine as her outfits are haute couture?
Maneki Neko said…
In the DT 'Meghan’s confidant has written a novel so bad, AI would disown it'

'Scobie, supposedly a journalist, has turned to fiction with a slop fest called Royal Spin. It’s a wacky romcom about a quirky American who gets a whimsical job: director of communications for the eccentric Royal family. Lauren, our heroine, has been working for the White House – all details about who might be occupying that White House are tastefully deleted, lest specificity ruin the good mood – but after suffering a difficult break-up, she flings herself over to London. There, she’s enjoined to teach the inhabitants of Buckingham Palace, who are generic, one-dimensional Royal figures, about scandal management, diversity and love.'

Some of it loosely based on *?
Girl with a Hat said…
from the Celebitchy review of it

Well, Royal Spin comes out this week, and the book is already being adapted and developed as a TV show (Scobie scored a seven-figure payday for the rights). As I read the book, I thought about how it would make a good show as well – it’s not sugary, and it treats the palace courtiers as regular people just trying to do a ridiculous job. The lead character, an American PR expert, is a flawed heroine and a fish out of water at the palace. The absurdity of the situation is often the story, although there are some wry hits on lazy royals and racist courtiers.

Well, the British media is gleefully trying to take down Omid and his novel. They’re trying to review-bomb it like they’ve done with everything the Duke and Duchess of Sussex touch. After so many years, their whole act is so stupid and unnecessary. Jan Moir devoted her Daily Mail column to the book and how it’s obviously all about Meghan (it is not). The Telegraph gave it one star and the review is called “Meghan’s confidant has written a novel so bad, AI would disown it.” The Telegraph claims the whole book is slop and schmaltz and that story is obvious, but that’s not true – the lead character ended up with someone I was not expecting, and she does a few very unusual things within the story. I thought it was going to be much more about how the royals function and a fictionalized version of what it’s like to work with royals, but the machinery of the novel is more “how the royal sausage is made through endless meetings and incremental change.”
From what I've little glimpsed of Royal Spin (from a site purporting to reveal it chapter by chapter - that is, before the warning from my computer security pops up to says it's a dangerous site -) as literature, it's down there with Barbara Cartland ...
I find that SMM allows me now only to read the posts and not the comments, unless I sign on. At the moment, I have other IT issues of higher priority. perhaps someone else could try and find out whether It's just me who has spent too long the site or if it's a general ruling. TIA
Wow! Wow! and WOWI again.
Piers Morgan REVEALED King Charles SIGNS Custody Order As Harry ACCUSES Meghan & Andrew!

PIERS MORGAN reacts as Prince Harry invokes the Royal Guardianship Protocol in a royal crisis that has shaken the House of Windsor to its core. In this explosive breakdown, we dive deep into the dramatic custody escalation involving Meghan Markle, Princess Anne, King Charles, and Prince William and the unprecedented decision that could permanently reshape the monarchy.From emergency palace meetings to frozen passports, joint UK-US legal actions, and the shocking Sussex Protocols declaration, this video uncovers the full timeline of events that led to title revocations, custodial intervention, and global headlines. Was this a necessary act of royal protection or the most aggressive institutional move in modern monarchy history?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX4r1F5i8rg

Not 1st April is it??? Could it this really be legit? It sounds as if it may well be...
I dunno - some of the timings don't add up but otherwise I can't find any holes in it. I wish it were true. I can believe that the Palace would have contingency plans but whether this is a all deep fake I can't tell.
Poor kids, whoever and wherever they are, if they exist, of course,
Girl with a Hat said…
Try going to old.reddit.com instead.
I hate the new format and the old one is available at that URL
Maneki Neko said…
I didn't watch the video, I just read the transcript. It does seem rather fanciful. I can't understand why Lady Louise would be involved. She is in her final year at university. Princess Anne, obviously; Sophie and Catherine, I understand as they are both mothers and do have a strong standing in the hierarchy.
I couldn't find confirmation of the facts in the YouTube video you mention but while looking for said confirmation, I found another video 'JUST IN: Princess Anne Strips Meghan of All Custodial Rights - Archie & Lilibet Return to UK'. Just in but underneath it says '6 days ago'. I haven't had time to watch all of it yet but watched the start, it sounds as if the content is very similar to the other video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EeWNTXJ5ia0

Frankly. I don't know what to make of it. I searched 'has Meghan gone to Dubai' only to find a 3 hour old Dan Wootton video saying that *'s been refused entry to Dubai/kicked out by the sheikh.
https://youtu.be/_HWnNaxYhdA?si=QV3MNmuJtt_FhFx0


Girl with a Hat said…
Lady C's latest video claims that King Charles' health has taken a turn for the worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmLsvvp5mnA
Girl with a Hat said…
Neil Sean says that Beatrice and Eugenie are on the hot seat and may have to relinquish the use of their princess titles because of their involvement in their mother's activities and schemes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0mLfOTS9c
Iansgirltammy said…
I can see why a title would be withheld from a child born of a surrogate, but I don't see why inheritance of money or anything not tied to the title need be denied.
Thank you Maneki.
Deep fake, I fear. PM doesn't seem quite right. Is he deliberately expressionless and real, or pure fake? Might he have something to say about the video if it's not genuine or would he ignore it?
Is there just too much official sounding stuff?
I found that Bea and/or Eug had gone to Doha , whichever one works for the art gallery, but not* . It's difficult to see how they can't be enmeshed in their parents' machinations, if A &S are as deeply corrupt as they are increasingly appearing to be.
Much as I would love the `PM video' to be true, I must resign myself to disappointment.
@iansgirltammy.
Money from personal accounts can be bequeathed but not money tied to an entailed estate (think of the problem experienced by Jane Austen's Bennet family in `Pride and Prejudice', or how second sons had to go into the Army and third sons the Church because the first-born got the lot.
Strange, I've now come across another PM video without looking for ire's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmMmQCP7TxE&list=TLPQMTIwMjIwMjZo5it7BkpGDg&index=3

It seems to be a livestream. Curiouser and curiouser.

Dan Wootton has a piece where Harry is having a hysterical meltdown in public comparing his 30 years old phone hacking case with the horrible sorrow of parents who has lost their children to suicide. It is so bad that I think he needs hospitalisation for he has totally lost any plot and all sense of proportion. It is scary.

Here's Dan with footage of H:
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=u41eSRTy8-4
Dan is in conversation with Angela Levin - I think she says some sensible things.

Hmm...
"ALLEGEDLY
This is another A.I. Piers Morgan YouTube video, approx 23 minutes long. What is interesting is that it has 41k views since yesterday, and says some pretty inflammatory, but highly detailed, stuff.

Mods, please delete if a duplicate: https://youtu.be/VTtK32lvbSw?si=jpdo1FAK4YEnToN0 F

from SMM at
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1r3bjbd/harkles_in_debt_to_american_express_to_the_tune/
I've worked out why/how she walks so strangely.
Instead of using her glutes to push her along when she takes a step, and /or letting her torso swing in a contrapposto manner (right arm & shoulder forward, left leg & hip back, then changing with a twist - like the way our soldiers march when in battledress) she plants a leg way out front and uses to pull the rest of herself forward.
My ballet teacher calls it `clawing your way forward withyour legs'. How very appropriate.
I was watching the wedding of William and Catherine again and oh my! that was such a dignified spiritual beautiful ceremony in the stunning Westminster Abbey (very enjoyable camera work for an art historian!). The regal sophistication was perfect and their obvious happiness with each other was telling. When we see their happiness with each other and their children today we can see they both chose right. And I hope they will have many happy years together in the future.

I will not watch Harry's circus wedding because it was not dignified or spiritual or beautiful, but I feel sorry for him because of his face when Catherine came to stand beside William. Harry had such adoring longing yearning look before he turned his eyes away. He did not show a face like that in his own nuptials that's sure. Poor man.

Maneki Neko said…
Our doucheass has shared a photo of Harry and Lilibucks with the DM saying 'The As Ever mogul captioned the picture: 'These two + Archie = my forever Valentines', in a loving nod to her seven-year-old, who did not feature in the snap.' 'Mogul'! As if.
If you look at Lily's hand, it looks as if the ballons have been added or else the hand has been photoshopped in some way. As for the balloons, one has a nearly invisible string attached to it. You can see a bit of red, faintly, against the trees and the rest of the string is practically invisible. It could be the light, it could be photoshopping.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15560553/Meghan-shares-photo-beaming-Harry-carrying-Lilibet-arms-gushes-Archie-forever-Valentines.html
Girl with a Hat said…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15560553/Meghan-shares-photo-beaming-Harry-carrying-Lilibet-arms-gushes-Archie-forever-Valentines.html

A Valentine's day photo of Hairy and Lilibucks.
That girl is extremely tall for her age. I think she's 4 and she looks 6 or even 7 in that photo.
Some people say she looks like she's wearing a wig.
@GWAH
Nah, that ain't a 4-year old.
I agree about this child being significantly older then 4 - and it's not just her height.
Her proportions are wrong. Judging from the number of times her head (sans wig) `seems to fit' into her overall height, I'd say she is at least 7, probably more, or even up to 9 or 10. more. I've tried to find a formal medical chart online but most of them are for illustrators who conventionally distort for effect.
This is one of the better ones (from 1911 so naturally only males are shown)
https://www.lookandlearn.com/history-images/M557854/Diagram-showing-the-Proportions-of-the-Body-at-Different-Ages. The central figure looks most like the little girl but the age is almost illegible 5,6 or8? I'd favour 8.
At any rate, it's another example of where *'s whip-smartness fails.
Nah, that's not a 4 yr old.
Not just that's she's too tall but she of the whip-smart intelligence and fastidious attention to detail has slipped up again. It hasn't registered that body proportions change as one grows. Small children have large heads and short legs and acquire adult form with time. She's almost a teenager judging by the growth of her long bones. (OK, that's pushing it a bit...)
She's also dressed as if on the way to a formal ballet class, just needs her hair done into a neat chignon. Yet IIRC ballet class has never been mentioned.
Here are some lovely 5-6yr olds doing a class in NYC for comparison - they're gorgeous but not one of them has lallies like Lilibet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ4aLNNVlSA
Here's SMM's interpretation of the ballet kit -
`Look! She does ballet, just like Granny Diana.'

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1r52jp6/love_is_in_the_air_just_like_pollution_and_the/
Girl with a Hat said…
Very interesting. Thank you. I wasn't aware of this, and neither,probably is *.
abbyh said…
Relooking at the photo of the child holding the balloons. Most people, not all, are right handed so ... if the kid is right handed, then it means that they really can't do much of anything other than stand around with the balloons tied to their wrist for posing.

Evie said…
All these videos are fake because they were created by artificial intelligence.

Look who uploaded the video. Nothing said in it is true, and besides, it's not Piers Morgan's YouTube channel.
Evie said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Evie said…
It would therefore be wise for Beatrice and Eugenie to relinquish their princess titles.

This would facilitate the removal of the prince and princess titles for Archie and Lilibet, a possibility Prince William might consider in the future. The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh's children do not use these titles.

Consequently, only members of the royal family holding official positions on behalf of the monarchy would be permitted to use them.
Girl with a Hat said…
I watched the Neil Sean video about this but it was too difficult to explain, so here's a synopsis:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/454b0fdd1e57ab1b97c758da765b9a48e1850fef10674ba015e6307f90ec3fff.jpg
The only way the baroness can make money now is her husband and his children. The question is can she live with this truth when she no more is the subject the photographs want to have but the pictures of Harry and Archie and little Betty are more and more in demand?

Money but no pictures of her ageing face on the front pages of the world?

abbyh said…
Well that's assuming that there is a high demand for either: her husband or the kids. Not convinced there is for either long term.

W & C tread a fine line about allowing access to their kids (controlled but not over choreographed) and there is demand for it. The kids are cute and come off as nice kids, have personality before you get to the and they are the next generation royals. They continue to grow up seeing their parents do public events (in the audience and not). They are getting practice for how to be in public.

I would say there would be some interest in the CA kids (as in Oh, now I see them) but not to the extent of their cousins. Nor would it likely be that sustained as it might well come off as a one trick pony (and what's the encore?). What is the good question: what is the encore once that is done?

We don't have the US royal court where senior royals are doing ribbon cutting and bridge dedicating or chairing a charity. So there is no natural feeding of photo ops the way the palace handles the Wales in the UK for the parents H&*) or the kids (A&L). Many public US families limit access to their kids but they also don't taunt the public with teasing photos either.

Right now we see highly controlled by photos and very little out in public of the kids. Not leaks like from a school chum on a play date. In theory he is in school and she would likely be in nursery school (remember the shot of the school run while pregnant?). Nor do they do fun things like trying surfing with their dad.

One of the things which always bothered me about focusing solely on looks is that at some point, some one else is going to start taking your slots and leave you in the dust. The same is true for being an influencer. Someone will surpass you in numbers and take your deals away from you. One of the things they try to do with sports newbies is to try to teach them about money handling and how to plan for a second career.

Popular posts from this blog

Cliff Hanger

Deadlines for responses have passed.  Will they show?  Won't they show?   And, rumors of demands for money to cross hands to make appearances (new level of pay to play). Such drama.  You would think this was a soap opera where every episode ends with a crazy cliff hanger story plot to drive the next installment.  Sadly, I don't expect it to change any time soon either.  No.  For them, there appears to be way too much energy left in the will they, won't they to end it now even though everyone else is pretty much tired of it.  Hardly something one can point to and claim that they are trying to reconcile with those who feel distressed about what was printed. Just noticed something: remember that talk of trying to reach out and reconcile after the book, etc.?  It seems to have drifted away, hasn't it?  Hmm.  Interesting.  I wonder if that is recognized as a total lost cause or just delayed into the summer (or fall) campaign (c...

Here comes Trevor

If you're a Beatles fan, you'll know that in the fifty years since the group went its separate ways, almost everyone involved with them has sold his or her story. Only one major figure has not: Jane Asher , who was Paul McCartney's girlfriend for five years during the heyday of the group, and accompanied him on the famous trip to India in 1968. An actress, Jane went on to become a TV personality and famous cake-baker. She has never spoken about her time with McCartney and dislikes being asked. Until recently, the Sussex saga had included a similar figure: Trevor Engelson, Meghan Markle's ex-husband.  Trevor has never spoken about Meg. But he has done well for himself: he married a wealthy woman , continues to work as a producer , and seems to have a loyal (and multi-racial!) circle of friends , unlike some people we know.  He appeared to have excused himself from the whole soggy mess.  Until yesterday, when he was papped. Driving his black Porsch...

But Really, Could they?

 Richard Eden has an interesting article in the DM which references an article in The Guardian about the necessity of the passport applications for the kids as including HRH and the last name of Sussex. Why?  Well supposedly this is all because they want to allow the kids to decide for themselves to become a working royal or continue to stay in private life. The main focus becomes how this bewilders the Palace considering how difficult the parents found it all and then left.  As well has his thoughts that this is about maintaining royal aura ("links" is his term) before ending with how a push for the daughter might be as the American Princess might be helpful to her mommy's business. What I wonder about is:  What or where did they get the idea that the kids would be welcomed into the fold and become working royal? I am not convinced that was ever an option once they stepped back. America doesn't do British history quite the same way or to the same detail.  Manne...