duck sake
Actually, in the original circumstances, I could actually see that being a thing Her Maj would do ā¦ whether that is a gift that keeps on being granted is a whole different issue.As I was skimming through the transcript, I found this little nugget. Surely the biggest lie in the whole thing. Nobody just picks up the phone and calls the Queen
Itās a difficult one ā¦ and to be fair to Harry itās always going hard to be the first one not to have something thatās happened automatically for centuries and that been a thing you kinda expect, even if you donāt think about it much, from being a child yourself. Add in the whole racist situation and stopping it now just makes it even messier.
If I remember correctly, neither were Charlotte and Louis as itās was just the first born heir but the Queen changed the letters patent? My recollection is a bit foggy though.
The Queen changed the letters patent before George was born, because if the first born had been a girl as absolute male primogeniture had been abolished, she would be the permanent heir ā¦ and you couldnāt have a first born girl and the direct heir not being a Princess but a second born son and āspareā being a Prince.
I still don't know why her continuing to work would have been a problem for them, other European royal spouses continue their career and Harry's cousins aren't working royals. She had worked her whole life, so why now be annoyed you have to continue working, or was it that shr wasn't going to get to do all the tours and visit amazing countries like she'd been sold by Harry?
I think the problem was āthere wasnāt money to pay for herā and that meant she had to work. I do think Harry and Meghan compared themselves to how William and Kate were treated. Sibling rivalry I guess which is quite often deep seated and long lasting. Guess that is amplified when one of you is the future king and the other labelled a spare.
Can you imagine, though
To be fair, thats not that hard to believe. Sheād only be what? 4 or 5?
Considering most people in the country have no idea who āLouiseā is either, she certainly wasnāt in the minorityā¦
Ooo that rings a bell! Thank you!
I have a soft spot for Louise- she was terribly bullied for so long, especially about her eye.
And she told Oprah that she gave up her whole life including her career for them. They're so inconsistent with their complaining.
My recollection is that, as it stood, Prince/Princess went down to the grandchildren of the monarch through the male line, hence the Kents and Gloucesters having it and HRH as grandchildren of George V. It seems that a living monarch with great-grandchildren wasn't thought of so HM extended it to the Cambridge children as children of the heir to the heir. The Sussex children wouldn't be entitled to the same titles as their cousins until their grandfather became monarch. Charles was apparently thinking of restricting the royal titles of grandchildren to just the direct line which would make the Sussex children the first male line grandchildren without royal titles. I can understand the thinking but it wouldn't be a good look for the first part-black grandchildren of a monarch. (The part-Maori Gloucester grandchildren are too far removed as even their mother isn't royal.)
Yes, Sophie Wessex mentioned it in an interview a while back.
www.marieclaire.co.uk
The monarchy will last for centuries more, it is part of the culture of the UK. Yes the loss of the Queen will be a blow but no different to the loss of other great Queens like Elizabeth 1st or Victoria. The monarchy will soldier on. Charles will have a short but better than expected reign and William and Kate will renew the monarchy's popularity with younger generations
No one can say with any certainty what will happen in 20 years' time, let alone 'centuries more'. Change is happening at such a rapid pace, social systems and norms are constantly being reevaluated and morphing, our knowledge as a civilisation keeps growing, our tolerance of antediluvian traditions is shrinking. There are far too many variables to speak with any true conviction of the permanence of an inherently deeply conservative institution that is predicated on 'divine right' in a society that is becoming increasingly liberal and apathetic to religion and convention. You also cannot compare the world post Elizabeth I or Victoria to the world today; they were completely different times - the former having lived in the time of absolute monarchs and the latter having died when the British empire was at its peak.
She always knows where the camera is.
