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
-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.
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)
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.
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).
That`s not to say there weren`t exceptions, for example, Elizabeth and Philip.
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.
'Marrying for love is a rather new concept, especially for the upper classes and royalty.' Very true and very good point.
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.
"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
Meghan has become an oddity rather than a celebrity. She right up there with the elephant man.
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.
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
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/
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?
'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 *?
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.”
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...
Poor kids, whoever and wherever they are, if they exist, of course,
I hate the new format and the old one is available at that URL
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmLsvvp5mnA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0mLfOTS9c
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.
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.
It seems to be a livestream. Curiouser and curiouser.
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=u41eSRTy8-4
Dan is in conversation with Angela Levin - I think she says some sensible things.
"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/
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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
`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/
Look who uploaded the video. Nothing said in it is true, and besides, it's not Piers Morgan's YouTube channel.
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.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/454b0fdd1e57ab1b97c758da765b9a48e1850fef10674ba015e6307f90ec3fff.jpg
Money but no pictures of her ageing face on the front pages of the world?
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.