Harry and Megan: How long will it last?

How long


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .

Dwarf

LE
All this chat about princesses and their mum has made me mull over the fact that pretty much all the problems that the Royals have had stem from their choices in women.
Prior to the 20th Century a Royal married a princess or girl from a nobby family who knew what to expect and how to act. If there was a problem they quietly slipped off and bonked a chorus girl or the like and all was normal, nothing to see here move on.

Fast forward to the soon to be Duke of Windsor and he marries a on the make american type which causes the first major scandal. Where his brother married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon typical nobby type and that turned out rather well.
Daughter Elizabeth married a sailor who just happened to come from a royal family and he's still well respected, at least on here and that's where it counts. Margaret should have married her quiet respectful equerry and that might have worked like her niece did with that other (quiet respectful) sailor after marrying an on the make nobody from a cavalry mob.

Now it really starts, Chaz marries because everyone told him not to let her get away, and can't marry for love. She turns out to be just as manipulative as someone else who appears on these pages.
Andy marries a spendthrift airhead who loves a roll in the hay and that turns out less than well.
Eddie married a non-royal and is just that much under the thumb that he can't get into trouble.

The only male to have married a non royal and is really happy (though Eddie might actually be so) is William and she's a cracker.

Maybe we ought to have a law that Royals have to marry princesses. It might make life simpler, but it would sell fewer newspapers, make a few chorus girls happy and maybe save a Mercedes Benz or two from being trashed.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
To be straight he has a point about the Commonwealth's history being brought into the open.
Perhaps he could start with India and the millions slaughtered by both Hindu and Muslim groups on partition? Or would this not suit the agenda as it's not the horrors of the colonial white person?
He could mention the British nastiness of tying miscreants over the muzzle of a cannon and firing it, at least that was down to us white colonials.
To get it right Megan needs a guided tour around the history of the world but that will take too long to fit on a video clip for the PR money.
That punishment was actually a piece of cultural appropriation which the British adopted as a mark of respect because it was established local custom and practice for dealing with serious military transgressors. Of course, even back then, we had the proto-Islington types who were gripped by righteous horror.
 

Sexton Blake

Old-Salt
Harry and the Meeagain going on about BLM?

Thats the Meghan who disappeared off the radar for some months when she was a struggling non entity bit part actress of colour and resurfaced as a new plastically enhanced and bleached person of not so much color?



View attachment 488559
(Puts on Kenny Everett voice or something similar/up to date)

Yeah, but one photo is black and white and the other one is colour is its bound to look that way innit?!
Show me 2 in black and white or 2 in colour and then we can compare proper like.

(takes off Kenny Everett voice etc)
 

giatttt

Old-Salt
That's true - I never realised that she was a 'woman of colour' until she made such a song and dance about it. I just thought she had a touch of the latino in her.
A lick of the tar brush as they used to say. I suspect that the right on BLM brothers would not recognise her as black, although she certainly ticks all the boxes marked "useful idiot".
 
All this chat about princesses and their mum has made me mull over the fact that pretty much all the problems that the Royals have had stem from their choices in women.
Prior to the 20th Century a Royal married a princess or girl from a nobby family who knew what to expect and how to act. If there was a problem they quietly slipped off and bonked a chorus girl or the like and all was normal, nothing to see here move on.

Fast forward to the soon to be Duke of Windsor and he marries a on the make american type which causes the first major scandal. Where his brother married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon typical nobby type and that turned out rather well.
Daughter Elizabeth married a sailor who just happened to come from a royal family and he's still well respected, at least on here and that's where it counts. Margaret should have married her quiet respectful equerry and that might have worked like her niece did with that other (quiet respectful) sailor after marrying an on the make nobody from a cavalry mob.

Now it really starts, Chaz marries because everyone told him not to let her get away, and can't marry for love. She turns out to be just as manipulative as someone else who appears on these pages.
Andy marries a spendthrift airhead who loves a roll in the hay and that turns out less than well.
Eddie married a non-royal and is just that much under the thumb that he can't get into trouble.

The only male to have married a non royal and is really happy (though Eddie might actually be so) is William and she's a cracker.

Maybe we ought to have a law that Royals have to marry princesses. It might make life simpler, but it would sell fewer newspapers, make a few chorus girls happy and maybe save a Mercedes Benz or two from being trashed.
I prefer Eddie's. There's something of the night about the one Will dragged in.

Off topic: Yersel' being a vegan and all give this a go. Chuck in a decent curry mix and some green chilis when next you make felafel. Really gives it a lift and works well with labneh.
 
@Dwarf - I don't think that dynastic marriages between ruling houses can really work any more. There is no political need. Historically in any marriage one has to sit below the other - think Mary Tudor and Phillip of Spain - not a good one. But think George 5 and Princess May of Teck - that worked becuase the imbalace in status made working as a team (a somewhat broken team by modern family standards), but successfully as a team constitutionally reigning empire and (in Queen Mary's case) managing good and bad crown handovers down 4 generations.

The Queen Mother was a titled commoner - and it was let by because she was marrying a second son - who was thought to need support. They rose to the occassion.

Charles, Prince of Wales - married an aristocrat from a typically eccentric family (we would call it broken now) for her sexual status. Instead of the middle class commoner who he should have - and did later - marry, who understands the consort role as supportive, not competitive

Duchess of Cambridge - middle class commoner - who also understands the consort role

Countess of Wessex - middle class commoner wife of the struggling for a role 3rd son, both rising ot the occasion - also understands the consort role.

Zara Tindall - Married to a commoner

Lord Linley - Married to a commoner, although that has discretely fallen apart. I think.

Princess Royal - married twice to commoners with service / palace history - the second match being the less pressured, better match as tradition was broken for her to marry 'down' as, at teh time, who could marry the Princess?

Prince Andrew - married, divorced and happily co-parenting as friends with a commoner. Fergie was good for him, as she could prick his bubble - but then he's not really the modern royal times demand.

Neither of the Wales boys courted aristocrats as - I read somewhere - the current crop were too eccentric to understand and take on the consort role safely......

I think even the Emporer of Japan married a commoner, by their court standards.
 
By the way the Queen was right to insist that Kate worked before marriage and carve a role of her own before marrying in, even though she was educated to degree level and 29. Scooping a socially inexperienced, poorly educated 19 year old from a job in an upper class nursery contributed to a lot of the problems......

Any marriage - but high profile marriages in particular - are jobs and require work and maintenance as much as personal matches. If you are only seeing the romance and not taking into account the responsibilities and framework you have to fit into, you've pressed your own self destruct button.

And no, Meghan is now claiming that 'no one told her' - but in contradiction to previous statements.
 
Last edited:
By the way the Queen was right to insist that Kate worked before marriage and carve a role of her own before marrying in, even though she was educated to degree level and 29 - scooping a socially inexperienced, poorly educated 19 year old from a job in an upper class nursery contributed to a lot of the problems......

Any marriage - but high profile marriages in particular are jobs and require work and maintenance as much as personal matches. If you are only seeing the romance and not taking into account the responsibilities and framework ypu ahve to fit into, ypu've pressed ypur own self destruct button.

And no, Meghan is now just claiming that - but in contradiction to previous statements.
I suspect Meghan thought that the UK royal family was like "celebrity royalty" and she would sit around with flunkies saying how wonderful she was and hanging on every word and whim.
 
I believe at one point 'she wasn't aware there was a rigid pecking order'" was even tried......twistier and twistier. It's sadly like watching a 5 year old try to reason themselves out of being in trouble: you can predict the next slant that will be attempted to shift the blame.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
By the way the Queen was right to insist that Kate worked before marriage and carve a role of her own before marrying in, even though she was educated to degree level and 29 - scooping a socially inexperienced, poorly educated 19 year old from a job in an upper class nursery contributed to a lot of the problems......

Any marriage - but high profile marriages in particular - are jobs and require work and maintenance as much as personal matches. If you are only seeing the romance and not taking into account the responsibilities and framework you have to fit into, you've pressed your own self destruct button.

And no, Meghan is now just claiming that - but in contradiction to previous statements.
Any marriage, at least any successful one, is a working partnership. You don't need to be royalty. It just depends how those within understand and define their roles.

I can think of a very well-known TV presenter who I used to work with whose wife became his PA. Some might see that as a 'subservient' role but it allowed her to cope with a chronic condition and be a mother.

Another friend of mine is a very well-bred and very attractive woman in her late 50s*. She's now divorced but for quite some years her 'job' was being the consummate hostess. Again, that might not be a very fashionable take on life with the feminists but it was equitable, understood and accepted by both partners.



*Yes I have, and no, you're not seeing pictures.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I suspect Meghan thought that the UK royal family was like "celebrity royalty" and she would sit around with flunkies saying how wonderful she was and hanging on every word and whim.
You're not alone there... every day a real-life slice of Hello magazine.

Hence the various comments from various people here that she should have just snagged herself a successful hedge fund manager.
 
I believe at one point 'she wasn't aware there was a rigid pecking order'" was even tried......twistier and twistier. It's sadly like watching a 5 year old try to reason themselves out of being in trouble: you can predict the next slant that will be attempted to shift the blame.

You're a bit posh - where are you in the royal family pecking order? :)
 
All this chat about princesses and their mum has made me mull over the fact that pretty much all the problems that the Royals have had stem from their choices in women.
Prior to the 20th Century a Royal married a princess or girl from a nobby family who knew what to expect and how to act. If there was a problem they quietly slipped off and bonked a chorus girl or the like and all was normal, nothing to see here move on.

Fast forward to the soon to be Duke of Windsor and he marries a on the make american type which causes the first major scandal. Where his brother married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon typical nobby type and that turned out rather well.
Daughter Elizabeth married a sailor who just happened to come from a royal family and he's still well respected, at least on here and that's where it counts. Margaret should have married her quiet respectful equerry and that might have worked like her niece did with that other (quiet respectful) sailor after marrying an on the make nobody from a cavalry mob.

Now it really starts, Chaz marries because everyone told him not to let her get away, and can't marry for love. She turns out to be just as manipulative as someone else who appears on these pages.
Andy marries a spendthrift airhead who loves a roll in the hay and that turns out less than well.
Eddie married a non-royal and is just that much under the thumb that he can't get into trouble.

The only male to have married a non royal and is really happy (though Eddie might actually be so) is William and she's a cracker.

Maybe we ought to have a law that Royals have to marry princesses. It might make life simpler, but it would sell fewer newspapers, make a few chorus girls happy and maybe save a Mercedes Benz or two from being trashed.
It doesn't even need to be to a royal - just not a manipulative succubus like Diana or MeGain.

Maybe HM should have the final say in vetting future members of the Royal family?

Even better, beyond spouses, why not go full Spartan and if any young Royals are turning into cunts (like Harry has), then can be cast from the top of the Shard?
 
Have to admit to young Beatrice causing a certain amount of hormonal conflagration in one's rugger shorts. They both seem pretty nice people, particularly when compared to the American disaster zone dragging their cousin around by his winkle.
I've always thought that both of them are quite tidy. I don't know why, though.
 
Gongfarmer, Supes. By Appointment, but definitely gongfarmer.
 
Last edited:
I agree, and actually they have been somewhat discrete.

They have not had plain sailing as they grew up : after the seperation they stayed with mum, rootless, often in financial complication - viz her debt and overspending.

They are not senior royals, they have to earn their own money becuase their birth in theory includes them in a a certain social set, but which they haven't the means to run with.

They have stayed loyal to their parents, even though it has made them an easy target for lazy ridicule. They are not fashionable - which again makes them an easy target for lazy ridicule and is becuase they have been an easy target for lazy ridicule.

Their weddings have been / are to be fairly low key. They turn out to all occassions, behave well enough, even if at times somewhat gauchely, but then they are essentially family outliers. It would be interesting if the press took time to look at who they are now, rather than trading on past easy stereotyping.

In hindsight I wonder if they weren't set aside by The Firm, but actually under their parent's lurching-under-a -lens-lifestyle, been granted the kindness of distancing to shield from press fall-back wallowing in old news when pages are empty.

If they aren't brought in to cover small duties, then they've the greater freedom of private lives.
Beatrice and Eugenie may have to be pulled in as needed to fill in for Harry now that he's off in exile. The "slimmed down monarchy" was based around the idea that Harry would be available to do royal duties. With the older generation of royals starting to get on in years, and William's children to young to fulfil royal duties, there will be a gap between them which will have to be filled somehow and not a lot of acceptable alternative candidates to do that.
 

Dwarf

LE
@Dwarf - I don't think that dynastic marriages between ruling houses can really work any more. There is no political need. Historically in any marriage one has to sit below the other - think Mary Tudor and Phillip of Spain - not a good one. But think George 5 and Princess May of Teck - that worked becuase the imbalace in status made working as a team (a somewhat broken team by modern family standards), but successfully as a team constitutionally reigning empire and (in Queen Mary's case) managing good and bad crown handovers down 4 generations.

The Queen Mother was a titled commoner - and it was let by because she was marrying a second son - who was thought to need support. They rose to the occassion.

Charles, Prince of Wales - married an aristocrat from a typically eccentric family (we would call it broken now) for her sexual status. Instead of the middle class commoner who he should have - and did later - marry, who understands the consort role as supportive, not competitive

Duchess of Cambridge - middle class commoner - who also understands the consort role

Countess of Wessex - middle class commoner wife of the struggling for a role 3rd son, both rising ot the occasion - also understands the consort role.

Zara Tindall - Married to a commoner

Lord Linley - Married to a commoner, although that has discretely fallen apart. I think.

Princess Royal - married twice to commoners with service / palace history - the second match being the less pressured, better match as tradition was broken for her to marry 'down' as, at teh time, who could marry the Princess?

Prince Andrew - married, divorced and happily co-parenting as friends with a commoner. Fergie was good for him, as she could prick his bubble - but then he's not really the modern royal times demand.

Neither of the Wales boys courted aristocrats as - I read somewhere - the current crop were too eccentric to understand and take on the consort role safely......

I think even the Emporer of Japan married a commoner, by their court standards.
I'm not for a minute advocating arranged marriages, the last one effectively was Charles' and look where that ended up. I was just musing on the choices of wife made by Windsor men. It was also meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, ref chorus girls and mercs.

As you say Charles, Anne and Andrew have ended up happy enough but it took them a couple of goes to get it right.

If you go back in time far enough we can find examples of everything in the different Royal dynasties, happy marriages and consorts, mistresses, divorces, beheadings, unhappy arranged marriages, red hot pokers where one would really,really not like them. In short a sort of toned down Coronation Street.

One can make the point that the 'lesser rank' royals have it easier in that they can sort stuff out away from the spotlight wheras the immediate Royal family are under the microscope every minute of the day.

But there is no denying that this modern round of Royal males have perhaps made bad choices or just been plain unlucky in their choices of spouses.
 

Dwarf

LE
Strictly speaking this was the East India Company and not the British Army or Government. When the EIC initially moved into India under licence from Queen Elizabeth (1600), they joined forces with the Dutch to take out the Spanish and Portuguese; then took on the Dutch and finally the French to gain a trading monopoly. And India wasn't really India back then, it was part of the Mongul Empire (I haven't heard them apologise for anything yet).

The EIC ran 3 Armies in India as well as a substantial and well armed Navy. The EIC Armies were substantially locally recruited sepoys, trained in European methods, and at their height had over 250,000 men under arms (many more than the British Army). It was the EIC's brutality during the Rebellion of 1857 that led to the British Government dissolving the EIC and, to prevent an even bloodier rebellion, moved in to fill the power vacuum and so began the British Raj. Remember the Raj lasted less than 100 years.

Most of the bollocks spouted by BLM, Megain, Harry-the-pussy-whipped-eunuch et al about slavery and colonialism is in fact the history of the East India Company and their Dutch, French, Spanish and Portuguese counterparts - not Government action at all.

It was the British Government that acted to abolish slavery and again to stop the atrocities being committed by the armies of the EIC etc. A "Force for Good" then and still today.
The East India Company were one of a number of geographically specific monopoly trading companies which were chartered in and around the 17th century to be national champions in foreign trade. The Hudson's Bay Company was the equivalent for what is now northern and western Canada. The HBC also held government authority in the areas in which they operated, until they were told by Whitehall that they were handing over their territory to Canada in 1870. The EIC of course was a much bigger operation than the HBC, but it wasn't unique and in general they were seen as means of expanding Britain's power and wealth without taking their operations onto the national budget.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top