The British Royal Family #5

[fridaybaker]

Why do we, the public’s, have to know anything and everything any Royal will say, do, write, think etc.? Can they have not one thing in private at all?
If Hand M want to write a thank you or not it is up to them, not us. If the Prime Minister wants to share it with the citizens, fine but he does not have to.
Would you like your every second scrutinized by your friends, family and the public?
Even if they are Royal they have their privacy, they are people.
No wonder some of the Royal and Noble families hide from society and all people.

There are many reasons why "royalty" aren't expected to have very much "privacy"; mainly because they are supported by the public. (Also, people who put themselves constantly in the public eye are putting themselves up for scrutiny as well. It's just a fact.)

However, the whole "royal" and "privacy" thing goes back to why on earth we have a monarchy in the first place. It certainly has devolved into strange and uncertain territory. A monarch has subjects. As such, ruling monarchs (and, by extension, all their privileged royal family) have a tremendous responsibility for their subjects. The subjects, in return, can expect that, since they spend their lives toiling to support their masters (yes, taxes support the BRF) they know that everything is on the "up and up" with the ones who reign over them. Years past, members of royalty didn't give birth, take a bath, get dressed, etc. without EYES ON THEM. Yes, there was no expectation of "privacy"; rather the opposite.

Now, we have a titular monarchy, and no one knows what they're supposed to do. Some people, though, likely members of the Commonwealth especially, wonder what they get for their money. Why do people live at their expense, and they receive so little in return? I ask this in earnest. The monarchy today stands more like mascots. They don't truly rule over anyone, yet everyone has to scrape and bow, support them through taxes, and yet, those incredibly privileged folks want "privacy".

As far as MM and Just Harry go, they are more in uncertain territory than anyone ever was of royal blood, it seems. They don't want any of the responsibility of royalty, such as showing up to boring military functions over rubbing shoulders with A-listers. They want people to "just call me Harry", yet don't want to give up their royal titles. They want to live in mansions and trade on their royal connections, but want "privacy". I have to say: A lot of people want what H and M have, but very few people get it: Lot's of visibility and fawning press (they obviously have a great PR team), a fabulous, over-the-top wedding, etc., but no need to give anybody anything in return. I say, it's a great gig if you can get.

 

[fridaybaker]

I know this is an old photo, but I came across it again recently. So love that the "younger generation" (ahem, does that make me sound geriatrical or what?) are starting to wear more substantial pieces. For Kate, specifically, I think it's a bit difficult, in that she's so.... TINY. And those gala jewels are ginormous. However, I thought this necklace was lovely on her. (Actually, this particular necklace, in my opinion, is just lovely in and of itself. One of my faves.)

I do think it would have been better worn with a less "busy" dress. Like the dress, but sans ruching would have made for a better showcasing of the necklace.

 

[Kakidoll]

I'm so confused. If H asked for M's number when they met, how did the mutual friend set them up on a 'blind date'?

 

[HongKongPhooey]

There are many reasons why "royalty" aren't expected to have very much "privacy"; mainly because they are supported by the public. (Also, people who put themselves constantly in the public eye are putting themselves up for scrutiny as well. It's just a fact.)

However, the whole "royal" and "privacy" thing goes back to why on earth we have a monarchy in the first place. It certainly has devolved into strange and uncertain territory. A monarch has subjects. As such, ruling monarchs (and, by extension, all their privileged royal family) have a tremendous responsibility for their subjects. The subjects, in return, can expect that, since they spend their lives toiling to support their masters (yes, taxes support the BRF) they know that everything is on the "up and up" with the ones who reign over them. Years past, members of royalty didn't give birth, take a bath, get dressed, etc. without EYES ON THEM. Yes, there was no expectation of "privacy"; rather the opposite.

Now, we have a titular monarchy, and no one knows what they're supposed to do. Some people, though, likely members of the Commonwealth especially, wonder what they get for their money. Why do people live at their expense, and they receive so little in return? I ask this in earnest. The monarchy today stands more like mascots. They don't truly rule over anyone, yet everyone has to scrape and bow, support them through taxes, and yet, those incredibly privileged folks want "privacy".

As far as MM and Just Harry go, they are more in uncertain territory than anyone ever was of royal blood, it seems. They don't want any of the responsibility of royalty, such as showing up to boring military functions over rubbing shoulders with A-listers. They want people to "just call me Harry", yet don't want to give up their royal titles. They want to live in mansions and trade on their royal connections, but want "privacy". I have to say: A lot of people want what H and M have, but very few people get it: Lot's of visibility and fawning press (they obviously have a great PR team), a fabulous, over-the-top wedding, etc., but no need to give anybody anything in return. I say, it's a great gig if you can get.

It's interesting to think how times have changed. You could argue that social media has a lot to answer for in terms of privacy. I think it obviously has, but there has always been a lot of attention on the royals.

I read a lot about Henry VIII because I find it all fascinating. In those times, court gossip was rife. Imagine beds being checked by doctors to make sure a marriage was consummated eek!! And the consequences if tidbits of gossip got back to His Maj, well we all know about that. Off with their heads.

When Ann of Cleves was brought over to England to marry Henry, he decided to play a romantic joke on her. At one of her stop overs en route to where they were supposed to meet, he arranged a masked ball and attended it incognito. He approached her in his mask and said something which made her take offence and rebuff the masked stranger. He was mortified not to have been recognised as the romantic hero and the relationship was doomed. The only visuals they had then were miniatures, like the Holbein ones. Guess he didnt provide one to Ann of Henry in a mask.

Holbein of Ann attached. Rumour had it, was painted with the modern day equivalent of filters which also didnt go down too well when she arrived in the flesh. Poor woman, but at least she survived the chop.

 

[otto]

I'm so confused. If H asked for M's number when they met, how did the mutual friend set them up on a 'blind date'?

There seems to be two stories about how they met. One is that they met in Toronto in May 2016, the other is that she just happened to be having a pint with Piers Morgan before running off to a blind date with Harry. Maybe the incorrect word is "blind". Maybe they met in May and exchanged numbers, then a friend assisted with setting up a date in London.

 

[Kakidoll]

There seems to be two stories about how they met. One is that they met in Toronto in May 2016, the other is that she just happened to be having a pint with Piers Morgan before running off to a blind date with Harry. Maybe the incorrect word is "blind". Maybe they met in May and exchanged numbers, then a friend assisted with setting up a date in London.

Maybe they should get the story straight LOL. Except they supposedly didn't know WHO they were meeting at that date. Which i still call BS on.

 

[otto]

Maybe they should get the story straight LOL. Except they supposedly didn't know WHO they were meeting at that date. Which i still call BS on.

It's beginning to look like Harry and Markle have two versions of truth - that which is actually true, and that which they think is the right thing to say. They claim to be afraid of the media and in search of a quiet life, then move to LA. They claim that they want to raise the baby out of the spotlight, then name a foundation after him. Those are just two examples that come to mind, but their entire lives seem like this. Markle claims that she's a feminist who wants to make positive change for women and girls, but when she had the platform in Africa her only message was to theatrically ask why she doesn't get more attention.

I suppose they thought blind date sounded better than the alternate truth, where she gave Harry her number while she was in a serious relationship with the chef.

 

[Gardenista]

Meghan Markle described as a ‘fame addict’ in new royals book

 

[Gardenista]

RCMP bill for Meghan and Harry topped $50,000

 

[otto]

RCMP bill for Meghan and Harry topped $50,000

That's over time and extras, not salaries, and only spans Nov. 18, 2019 to Jan. 19, 2020. They didn't leave Canada until Trudeau announced that Canada would stop paying the security bill at the end of March.

"The current bill does not include the salaries paid to the Mounties on duty and only shows the pay costs such as overtime, travel, meals, incidentals and accommodations."​

What they were doing for Markle and Harry:

"Scotland Yard officers guarding Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's have said they are treated 'like skivvies' and forced to do 'menial tasks' like picking up takeaways and groceries, it has been claimed. "​

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle security 'treated like skivvies' | Daily Mail Online

 

[otto]

Meghan Markle described as a ‘fame addict’ in new royals book

From your link - rather unflattering for Harry.

"She says Meghan wants to run for president of the US someday and that “England doesn’t do it for her.” She describes her as “an operator… a fame addict”… who’s “had a series of men.”

“Meghan’s whole life is an act.” Harry? “was desperate to meet someone”… “he’s not the swiftest”… “he’s a prop.” Page 217 calls him “pathetic.”
...

Also from Her Ladyship’s mouth, which is as tart as her pen: “This person is no more suited to royal life than Angelina Jolie would be to competitive boxing. She has inflated herself beyond natural entitlement. Since she always wanted to be a star, she has this propensity for exaggeration.

“As for Harry, he should have been instructive. This nonsense that she didn’t at first know so much about him… I mean, please. She’d looked him up in books. And she pats him like, ‘good boy.’ She even answers for him.”
​

https://pagesix.com/2020/06/15/meghan-markle-described-as-a-fame-addict-in-new-royals-book/

 

[fridaybaker]

It's interesting to think how times have changed. You could argue that social media has a lot to answer for in terms of privacy. I think it obviously has, but there has always been a lot of attention on the royals.

I read a lot about Henry VIII because I find it all fascinating. In those times, court gossip was rife. Imagine beds being checked by doctors to make sure a marriage was consummated eek!! And the consequences if tidbits of gossip got back to His Maj, well we all know about that. Off with their heads.

When Ann of Cleves was brought over to England to marry Henry, he decided to play a romantic joke on her. At one of her stop overs en route to where they were supposed to meet, he arranged a masked ball and attended it incognito. He approached her in his mask and said something which made her take offence and rebuff the masked stranger. He was mortified not to have been recognised as the romantic hero and the relationship was doomed. The only visuals they had then were miniatures, like the Holbein ones. Guess he didnt provide one to Ann of Henry in a mask.

Holbein of Ann attached. Rumour had it, was painted with the modern day equivalent of filters which also didnt go down too well when she arrived in the flesh. Poor woman, but at least she survived the chop.

Sounds to me sort of as if he was testing her! Although, I guess he would have been pleased with her reaction if he were. If I were Ann, I wouldn't have taken well to the whole scenario but, then again, I guess maybe one would just have been pleased to go to the grave as an entire body.

 

[otto]

Interesting look inside the palace

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/galleri...ms-floorplans-Buckingham-Palace-revealed.html

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Sounds to me sort of as if he was testing her! Although, I guess he would have been pleased with her reaction if he were. If I were Ann, I wouldn't have taken well to the whole scenario but, then again, I guess maybe one would just have been pleased to go to the grave as an entire body.

I think he was so used to the court playing up to him too. He must have felt really humiliated. I love these little stories.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I think he was so used to the court playing up to him too. He must have felt really humiliated. I love these little stories.

I’m currently homeschooling my son on Elizabeth I for history, and finding it all really interesting compared to when I was at school! All the imprisoning and head chopping off is crazy, and quite appealing to a 12 year old

 

[Sherwood Park]

I'm not sure what was bothering Her Majesty: her back, her bra, her chair, or a horse that she was rooting for.
Princess Anne looks great in her matching hat and dress. Not sure what year this Getty picture is from. Prince Philip is looking smooth. I think that's him.

 

[Oregonmama]

Bumping this warning by @sillybilly from page one of thread. The words in blue font are Tricia’s.


BBM

The British Royal Family #5

All posts have been backed up with articles. I just scroll and roll if it doesnt match my opinions to any RF member .

 

[Oregonmama]

From your link - rather unflattering for Harry.

"She says Meghan wants to run for president of the US someday and that “England doesn’t do it for her.” She describes her as “an operator… a fame addict”… who’s “had a series of men.”

“Meghan’s whole life is an act.” Harry? “was desperate to meet someone”… “he’s not the swiftest”… “he’s a prop.” Page 217 calls him “pathetic.”
...

Also from Her Ladyship’s mouth, which is as tart as her pen: “This person is no more suited to royal life than Angelina Jolie would be to competitive boxing. She has inflated herself beyond natural entitlement. Since she always wanted to be a star, she has this propensity for exaggeration.

“As for Harry, he should have been instructive. This nonsense that she didn’t at first know so much about him… I mean, please. She’d looked him up in books. And she pats him like, ‘good boy.’ She even answers for him.”
​

https://pagesix.com/2020/06/15/meghan-markle-described-as-a-fame-addict-in-new-royals-book/

Thanks. The plot thickens. JMO.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

View attachment 251458

I'm not sure what was bothering Her Majesty: her back, her bra, her chair, or a horse that she was rooting for.
Princess Anne looks great in her matching hat and dress. Not sure what year this Getty picture is from. Prince Philip is looking smooth. I think that's him.

LOL could be all of the above - or the mixing bowl stuck on her head. Early 1970s maybe?

 

[oviedo]

Interesting look inside the palace

Buckingham Palace floorplans and photos of grand rooms revealed | Daily Mail Online

she looks so cute here - I can see her youth in this picture. (from your link)