Harry & Meghan Launch Own Instagram Account: @Sus... - Page 9

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

Sooner, Loved your post and your humor.

Drythe · ‎07-09-2011

@dooBdoo wrote:
@Drythe wrote:
@stevieb wrote:
@Drythe Apparently, with the separation of Harry and William's households, which was apparently seen as somewhat of a given, Harry and his wife will have a 'court' of their own. However, instead of being independent of the royal family, which was what they wanted, the queen and Charles have decided that their office must operate out of Buckingham Palace and their staff must report to the queen's staff... True or not, I also read that the queen has brought back a trusted advisor to 'keep an eye' on the Sussex office... William and Kate's 'office' will continue to operate out of Kensington palace, where they live... And yes, the queen and Charles foot the royal bill for these 'offices'...

@stevieb

Thank you, I did understand that.
Just a bit of irony on my part.

*** Edited to add - Never did I think they would want to be independent enough to give up that lovely Lolly, as the Brits I know call it!

Hello, @Drythe and @stevieb! I can't help but wonder if a large part of the desire to have some distance yet continue to concentrate on philanthropic and humanitarian causes is more fueled by Harry's goals (and his history). I'm far from being expert on this, but based on the documentaries I've seen and on what I've read over time, he's so keenly aware of the work in which his mother was so invested and dedicated but also the constrictions "the firm" placed on her -- perhaps that, at least in part, drives his desire to be a bit more separate. Since he and Meghan continue to be active as representatives of the royal family (and it's been reported more than once that they're considered to be as busy and active as Princess Anne, who is said to be one of the most hard-working royals) I'm not sure it would follow that they wouldn't be funded by them as is the tradition. I can see why people, in general, wonder if the entire concept of "the monarchy" makes any sense in today's world, though.

@dooBdoo

Yes, it does make sense that the Palace continue to fund them as long as they do the work of the Palace. ITA.

My point is that it is not logical (at least in my view) that the palace fund them to do work that is not first reviewed and approved by the Palace, and may be counter productive to it’s role.

While we may not understand / see the point of The Monarchy, it has existed for a long time and surely can’t be expected to fund things which are counter to it, or may cause issues for it, such as opinions on USA politics.

I choose this simply because it has already been an issue.

"Animals are not my whole world, but they have made my world whole" ~ Roger Caras

50Mickey · ‎05-21-2010

@Drythe Actually Harry said in a recent interview that he did not think that any child should be asked to walk behind the casket of his mother and that that would not happen today. So he is probably not glad that he had to do this. Prince Charles was sent to a very spartan school Gordonstoun. A place where he was miserable. Prince Philip attended Gordonstoun and insisted that Charles attend this school. When it came time for Charles and Diana's sons to go to boarding school they chose a different school as Charles did not want his sons to experince what he wnet though. So traditions change and I imagine that Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth want Harry to be happy. It doesn't appear that either Harry of Meghan are shirking their royal duties and they have so far represented the Queen very well.

Harvard99 · ‎06-18-2018

@dooBdoo wrote:
@stevieb wrote:
@Anonymous032819 wrote:
Oh, yipee.

Another "I-hate-MM" thread.

People act as if she is the devil incarnate.
I guess I don't see it that way. Like most public figures, there are those who like her and those who don't. What I'm seeing is a discussion involving both those points of view. Unfortunately, it sometimes seems as though those enamored with her, as a group, appear to want to overstate the feelings of those who aren't. I don't hate Markle, I simply don't care for her and I am not buying what some would consider to be her 'act'... I certainly don't consider her the devil incarnate but neither do I see her as the second coming of Diana or of Mother Teresa...

To be fair, after following many of the threads it seems to me the problem isn't one-sided. The label extremes such as lovers/haters and all the rest do nothing but poke the bear -- they're incendiary. On either "side." We do so much better when we "attack" the topic rather than "attacking" each other with personal jabs. Sure, there are a few who might gush, and wax rapturous, but that's not most of us. There have been a few who wrote despicable, vile things to which we only can allude... some of us saw them and can't erase them from memory... but that's not most of us. Most of us fall somewhere between the extremes, yet if we post criticism of M&H we're slapped with the "hater" label and if we dare to be complimentary we're plastered with the "adorer/gusher" label. There's plenty of room for all perspectives, and I wish we could be more receptive to that -- if we would do so, I don't think the threads would dissolve into "poofdom."😉

@dooBdoo As far as attacking the topic rather than the poster, I've been asking and saying and repeating that for so long. Because I am on 'one side' of this debate my requests for that have largely been ignored. It would be nice if some of the 'personal attackers' would consider your request, as it's coming from a more neutral position.

As far as vile posts, I doubt these was widely viewed. A few nights ago, in the middle of the night, someone (a Markle fan), started two news threads, each specifically defaming two different posters. These troll like posts contained profane language and vicious, disgusting statements about each. They were shocking and they stayed up for five hours, despite them being reported as inappropriate. Whoever posted these should really have been banned...... permanently.

Drythe · ‎07-09-2011

@50Mickey wrote:
@Drythe Actually Harry said in a recent interview that he did not think that any child should be asked to walk behind the casket of his mother and that that would not happen today. So he is probably not glad that he had to do this. Prince Charles was sent to a very spartan school Gordonstoun. A place where he was miserable. Prince Philip attended Gordonstoun and insisted that Charles attend this school. When it came time for Charles and Diana's sons to go to boarding school they chose a different school as Charles did not want his sons to experince what he wnet though. So traditions change and I imagine that Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth want Harry to be happy. It doesn't appear that either Harry of Meghan are shirking their royal duties and they have so far represented the Queen very well.

@50Mickey

@50Mickey

I am aware of the history of the whole schooling thing.

Surely most of us here know that traditions change.

As for your last sentence I have NOT said in ANY WAY that they were Shirking, (not a word I used AT ALL), have NOT said that they haven’t represented the queen well. Where in the world did you get that?

I DID say that it doesn’t seem logical that the Palace would fund them in the future IF they went on to do their OWN message, and choose their own charities without Palace review.

I saw an interview on the BBC in which Harry said he was glad he had walked in the procession for his mother. Have NEVER seen anywhere that he said he was NOT glad to have done it himself. Have you?

Do not try to cast me for or against anyone of the royals, because I am not.

"Animals are not my whole world, but they have made my world whole" ~ Roger Caras

beckyb1012 · ‎03-09-2010

Not sure how accurate this is below but interesting reading nonetheless. I know he was treated terribly at that place.

https://rebeccastarrbrown.com/2018/01/03/charles-at-gordonstoun/

"Live frugally, but love extravagantly."

50Mickey · ‎05-21-2010

@Drythe wrote:
@50Mickey wrote:
@Drythe Actually Harry said in a recent interview that he did not think that any child should be asked to walk behind the casket of his mother and that that would not happen today. So he is probably not glad that he had to do this. Prince Charles was sent to a very spartan school Gordonstoun. A place where he was miserable. Prince Philip attended Gordonstoun and insisted that Charles attend this school. When it came time for Charles and Diana's sons to go to boarding school they chose a different school as Charles did not want his sons to experince what he wnet though. So traditions change and I imagine that Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth want Harry to be happy. It doesn't appear that either Harry of Meghan are shirking their royal duties and they have so far represented the Queen very well.
@50Mickey

@50Mickey

I am aware of the history of the whole schooling thing.

Surely most of us here know that traditions change.

As for your last sentence I have NOT said in ANY WAY that they were Shirking, (not a word I used AT ALL), have NOT said that they haven’t represented the queen well. Where in the world did you get that?

I DID say that it doesn’t seem logical that the Palace would fund them in the future IF they went on to do their OWN message, and choose their own charities without Palace review.

I saw an interview on the BBC in which Harry said he was glad he had walked in the procession for his mother. Have NEVER seen anywhere that he said he was NOT glad to have done it himself. Have you?

Do not try to cast me for or against anyone of the royals, because I am not.

Good grief calm down. I never said that you claimed that they were shirking their royal duties or that they were not representing the queen. i simply made a statement. The interview that I was referring to was on ABC in 2017. It quoted William and Harry. Harry was just 12 years old at the time of his mother's death just a boy. Harry is very mindful of his royal duties. I don't think that he is going to go rogue and neither is Meghan.

Drythe · ‎07-09-2011

@50Mickey wrote:
@Drythe wrote:
@50Mickey wrote:
@Drythe Actually Harry said in a recent interview that he did not think that any child should be asked to walk behind the casket of his mother and that that would not happen today. So he is probably not glad that he had to do this. Prince Charles was sent to a very spartan school Gordonstoun. A place where he was miserable. Prince Philip attended Gordonstoun and insisted that Charles attend this school. When it came time for Charles and Diana's sons to go to boarding school they chose a different school as Charles did not want his sons to experince what he wnet though. So traditions change and I imagine that Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth want Harry to be happy. It doesn't appear that either Harry of Meghan are shirking their royal duties and they have so far represented the Queen very well.
@50Mickey

@50Mickey

I am aware of the history of the whole schooling thing.

Surely most of us here know that traditions change.

As for your last sentence I have NOT said in ANY WAY that they were Shirking, (not a word I used AT ALL), have NOT said that they haven’t represented the queen well. Where in the world did you get that?

I DID say that it doesn’t seem logical that the Palace would fund them in the future IF they went on to do their OWN message, and choose their own charities without Palace review.

I saw an interview on the BBC in which Harry said he was glad he had walked in the procession for his mother. Have NEVER seen anywhere that he said he was NOT glad to have done it himself. Have you?

Do not try to cast me for or against anyone of the royals, because I am not.
@Drythe wrote:
@50Mickey wrote:
@Drythe Actually Harry said in a recent interview that he did not think that any child should be asked to walk behind the casket of his mother and that that would not happen today. So he is probably not glad that he had to do this. Prince Charles was sent to a very spartan school Gordonstoun. A place where he was miserable. Prince Philip attended Gordonstoun and insisted that Charles attend this school. When it came time for Charles and Diana's sons to go to boarding school they chose a different school as Charles did not want his sons to experince what he wnet though. So traditions change and I imagine that Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth want Harry to be happy. It doesn't appear that either Harry of Meghan are shirking their royal duties and they have so far represented the Queen very well.
@50Mickey

@50Mickey

I am aware of the history of the whole schooling thing.

Surely most of us here know that traditions change.

As for your last sentence I have NOT said in ANY WAY that they were Shirking, (not a word I used AT ALL), have NOT said that they haven’t represented the queen well. Where in the world did you get that?

I DID say that it doesn’t seem logical that the Palace would fund them in the future IF they went on to do their OWN message, and choose their own charities without Palace review.

I saw an interview on the BBC in which Harry said he was glad he had walked in the procession for his mother. Have NEVER seen anywhere that he said he was NOT glad to have done it himself. Have you?

Do not try to cast me for or against anyone of the royals, because I am not.
Good grief calm down. I never said that you claimed that they were shirking their royal duties or that they were not representing the queen. i simply made a statement. The interview that I was referring to was on ABC in 2017. It quoted William and Harry. Harry was just 12 years old at the time of his mother's death just a boy. Harry is very mindful of his royal duties. I don't think that he is going to go rogue and neither is Meghan.

@50Mickey

I am perfectly calm, thank you.

If you were simply making statement without refference to my comments then why tag me, and quote me prior to your response?

Good Grief!

"Animals are not my whole world, but they have made my world whole" ~ Roger Caras

stevieb · ‎03-10-2010

@Somertime wrote:
@stevieb Rumor had it that Andrew requested his daughters have a title, thus Princess. Edward and his wife requested no title for their children and they are called, Lady........
Princess Anne as well refused titles for her children and her first husband, Mark Phillips, refused one for himself as well.

I agree with you that I cannot see Meghan refusing a title for her child. I think it is extremely hard especially for an American as well as a minor celebrity to adapt and follow the rules of being a Royal. Being a modern American woman and accustomed to doing as she pleases without having to answer to anyone is extremely difficult for her. Whether she will change, only time will tell.

Harry was raised and made very aware of the restraints placed upon a Royal but love changes everything as you pointed out, Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Meghan is a very strong woman but the position she now holds comes with rules and restraints which I am sure, she does not like, especially at 37 years old. She is, already, formed unlike Diana who was so young. Time will tell!

@Somertime I'm sure the role presents challenges for Markle for the reasons you've stated, and even though she was young and not quite so set in her ways, so to speak, Diana didn't do well at conforming either... For me the key, learned over the years, is never, ever to enter into a situation or relationship with the expectation that I'm going to be able to effect significant changes. If a situation, job, event, potential SO, whatever... is so outside the bounds of what I consider potentially rewarding and essentially acceptable, then it's best to move on... When we're young, we think anything is possible, as we age, sometimes we become a bit arrogant and think we're all-powerful, and at any age, we can be dreamers, but the school of hard knocks teaches us not to bite off more than we can chew...

In my pantry with my cupcakes...

stevieb · ‎03-10-2010

@occasionalrain wrote:
@dooBdoo Some time later the entire thread was removed and unless something happened later, there didn't seem a reason for it. There wasn't any explanation, it just entirely disappeared.
I hadn't quoted a post so I was miffed.

@occasionalrain I believe they've become very blase about removing threads and posts, often without a reasonable explanation... I also believe they're making a few too many preemptive strikes...

In my pantry with my cupcakes...