The Royal Family #27

[Blurp]

Seems like a credible article to me. Harry and Meghan seem like demanding nightmares and a lot of staff seem like old curmudgeons stuck in their ways. I think both things can be true. It seems to keep going back to Meghan not understanding what it is to be a member of the royal family. She keeps mistaking it for being a celebrity. That anecdote about the PR gifts being sent to Kensington Palace is very telling of what she thought her 'role' would be.

Yes, Hollywood names and generally rich people get a hell of a lot of freebies. On the other hand, it's fairly standard in the UK public and private sector, disregarding the royals for a minute, that you have to declare any gifts or favours and may only get to keep token gifts (I have things like a desk clock, paper knife, hunting knife(!), decorative plate, etc) and that has spread to the royals relatively recently. So there's a cultural difference there.

One thing I can understand.

 

[Boring Monday]

There's a huge difference in how the media treat the women that marry in compared to the women. I don't think there's a difference in how the palace treat them though. Philip had to play second fiddle to the Queen the same way Kate and Camilla will have to with Charles and William.


If they don't sue then it will be really telling also. That article paints a nasty picture.

I think the Palace Suits grade people by gender and then lineage and blood line. A female of no discernible ancestory has a mountain to climb.
Philip was treated appallingly (as per aged relative of same era)

 

[Em_gardener]

I think the Palace Suits grade people by gender and then lineage and blood line. A female of no discernible ancestory has a mountain to climb.
Philip was treate appallingly (as per aged relative of same era)

Ya I'd say he wasn't considered good enough for the Queen. And he was a prince! I'd say they put lineage above gender. Mad way of thinking!

 

[peradetlic]

Yes, Hollywood names and generally rich people get a hell of a lot of freebies. On the other hand, it's fairly standard in the UK public and private sector, disregarding the royals for a minute, that you have to declare any gifts or favours and may only get to keep token gifts (I have things like a desk clock, paper knife, hunting knife(!), decorative plate, etc) and that has spread to the royals relatively recently. So there's a cultural difference there.

One thing I can understand.

Americans are those who legalized corruption. What is lobing but legalized corruption?

 

[Multi-21]

If they don't sue then it will be really telling also. That article paints a nasty picture.

That’s another problem they’ve got now. They’ve been so trigger happy with the suing and denials, now if they don’t refute a story or sue people will assume it is true.

 

[Em_gardener]

That’s another problem they’ve got now. They’ve been so trigger happy with the suing and denials, now if they don’t refute a story or sue people will assume it is true.

Especially when it's a big story like this. I know they can't go around clarifying every little thing but this is big. The behaviour described in that article is horrendous. It doesn't reflect very well on the palace that it was allowed to go on for so long either.

 

[Annie6154]

Excuse my ignorance (and sorry if it’s been asked before there’s a lot of threads) - re the burial at St Georges Chapel - underneath the black engraved slab, is there another room where the four coffins would be laying side by side? Or are they one on top of the other? I’ve tried googling it (even looking at plans of the chapel) and can’t see any sort of answer and it’s driving me crazy. Not really sure how these sorts of burials work?

 

[Multi-21]

Excuse my ignorance (and sorry if it’s been asked before there’s a lot of threads) - re the burial at St Georges Chapel - underneath the black engraved slab, is there another room where the four coffins would be laying side by side? Or are they one on top of the other? I’ve tried googling it (even looking at plans of the chapel) and can’t see any sort of answer and it’s driving me crazy. Not really sure how these sorts of burials work?

There’s a metal rack, George and Philip on the bottom and the two Elizabeth’s above them. Bit like bunk beds.

 

[Suzesnooze]

There’s a difference between how precedence treats people … it’s totally not personal but I think it’s more the way that incomers are treated … or incomer females. Just imagine if Beatrice was a chap and had married a what amounts to a society butterfly with a child from a previous relationship. Same with Eugenie - If a male member of the Royal family had married a bar manager … would they have been called a barmaid and given the nickname Bet Lynch?

He’s not really a bar manager! I don’t know why the press ever called him one!

Camilla has been managing the press directly since at least 1982, when she started calling Stuart Higgins, royal reporter then editor of the Sun, once a week. She did it for 10 years. Then she got Charles to hire Marc Bolland, an idea of her divorce attorney, to be her spin doctor at the palace -- to restore her reputation, get her married, and get her crowned. All this is a matter of public record. Higgins talked to respectable royals biographer Sally Bedell Smith, and Marc Bolland himself has talked and leaked about what he did as Camilla's own sherpa 1997-2002.

Yes, so you’ve said on previous posts!

 

[Brah Day Izit?]

Interesting few facts I learned today from reading ‘And What Do You Do?’: you cannot sit in the presence of a Monarch or be above one (like a balcony). So on walkabouts or visits to community centres or schools, if you need to sit down, tough luck (protocol wise).
Also, when they wanted to change the surname Saxe-Coburg and Gotha due to anti German feeling Plantagenet was put forth as an idea by one Lord (however deemed too ‘theatrical’), Plantagenet-Tudor-Smith (Tudor was too closely linked to Henry and his wives and the Stuarts beheaded on of their own). Guelph was also suggested due to medieval links.
Due to the fact that the Queen inherited the throne and took on her husband’s surname of Mountbatten, Prince Charles and Princess Anne had the surname Mountbatten. However Churchill stopped the Queen trying to incorporate the Mountbatten name and had forced her into a declaration that the royals would be known only as the House and Family of Windsor. An amateur expert on the monarchy said that when her next child would be born, he/she would be a bastard as they had the mother’s surname (he felt very strongly about children being born with their mother’s maiden names). He wrote to the prime minister saying “When the new baby is born, as matters now stand it will bear the Badge of Bastardy namely, its mother's maiden name”. Subsequently to stop any future children being labelled bastards, she made a new declaration saying that she had adopted Mountbatten-Windsor as the name for all her descendants who did not enjoy the title of His or Her Royal Highness 11 days before Andrew’s birth.

this article goes into more detail:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/18/monarchy

I love learning things from this thread. I thought I was super knowledgeable about the royals, but I was surprised by how much there is still to learn. Thank you.

'Mean girl' come off it! Meghan is out of her depth because she never bothered to learn her role and wanted to be the 'star' of the family. Kate knows her place.

'Kate knows her place' - I find that incredibly sexist, whether you meant it or not,

First photo of the headstone. The wreath nearest to the camera is the one that was on the Queen's coffin.
View attachment 1600375

After watching the documentary "Elizabeth and Margaret - Love and loyalty" on Netflix, I can't help but feel said that Princess Margaret's name isn't there. They were such a four-man team.

 

[House of Tea]

The Craig Brown book about Margaret is a good read.

 

[Spid]

Seems like a credible article to me. Harry and Meghan seem like demanding nightmares and a lot of staff seem like old curmudgeons stuck in their ways. I think both things can be true. It seems to keep going back to Meghan not understanding what it is to be a member of the royal family. She keeps mistaking it for being a celebrity. That anecdote about the PR gifts being sent to Kensington Palace is very telling of what she thought her 'role' would be.

Would it have been ok if it was suitcases of cash like Charles has got a few times?

 

[queenamber]

Would it have been ok if it was suitcases of cash like Charles has got a few times?

No. I’m well aware there’s corrupt members of the family. I was commenting specifically on that one article.

 

[coconochanel]

I love learning things from this thread. I thought I was super knowledgeable about the royals, but I was surprised by how much there is still to learn. Thank you.


'Kate knows her place' - I find that incredibly sexist, whether you meant it or not,


After watching the documentary "Elizabeth and Margaret - Love and loyalty" on Netflix, I can't help but feel said that Princess Margaret's name isn't there. They were such a four-man team.

Wasn't meant to be sexist it was meant in the sense that Kate knows what is expected being in The Royal family and Meghan didn't care and wanted to do it her way.

 

[Suzesnooze]

New photo of King Charles

 

[StarGZR528]

There's a huge difference in how the media treat the women that marry in compared to the men. I don't think there's a difference in how the palace treat them though. Philip had to play second fiddle to the Queen the same way Kate and Camilla will have to with Charles and William.


If they don't sue then it will be really telling also. That article paints a nasty picture.

 

[MemoryLane]

But his previous tweets say different if you click on those replies there. Where he refutes staff made bullying allegations and states only JK did. He also tweets about Celia Walden (Piers Morgan’s wife) mocking Harry’s book. It’s ok for everyone else to write one, just not him.

None of its unbiased so once again, it’s with a pinch of salt for me!

 

[thegirlscout]

I know it was a different time, but God If even the literal Queen's maiden name was not good enough to stand on it's own and would render a child a bastard, then what chance did any other woman of the era have of being treated as whole beings... I'd like to see the person with the balls big enough to call the Queen's child a bastard, just to figure out how he or she manages to carry them around all day

I’m interested in genealogy and it’s really jarring when you see baptism records from the 1800s where under ‘father’ they have written bastard. I get that it’s from a totally different era but it’s interesting that one of the ultimate sins back then was having a child without a father.

 

[billybudd]

Why do the men in the Royal family age so badly but don't look too shabby in uniform?!

Classic tailoring is the antidote to wrinkles and sagging jowls.
Whenever any of the Vogues has an age issue or features women over 60, it's always men's wear and Jane Fonda in popped men's shirt collars. Like starch offsets the crepe.

As is walking around in made to measure designer gear, dripping in jewels, travelling on private jets, eating and drinking the best of everything whilst complaining you’re “not getting paid”.

Yeah, that one wiped me out. $650K worth of Prince Bonesaw Chopard earrings, mama. That is being paid.

Meghan’s earrings were gift from Saudi prince accused of murder | New…

archived 3 Mar 2021 00:45:09 UTC

archive.ph

As well as all the freebies you fired Touabti for registering.

Harry, Meghan and the palace insiders who saw what really happened | …

archived 23 Sep 2022 16:08:59 UTC

archive.ph

 

[Sideboard Bob]

Has this photo been shared here? It’s the Queen at Balmoral in 2010, taken by Julian Calder. It’s so different to a typical modern royal portrait.
In my eyes, whatever you think of the monarchy, this is just a brilliant photograph.