Being Royal Is No Joke - Or Is It?

acai berry

As interest focuses on the Harry / Meghan wedding, what is the likely outcome? In your opinion, how can Meghan adjust to being Royal and are there comparisons that can be made with people who preceded her, such as the Duchess of Windsor, Wallace Simpson?

Some rules that Meghan will be expected to adhere to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWJy81z1vjU

degsie

Wow, you know them on first name terms. Are you an insider?

iamwhoiam

degsie wrote: »

Wow, you know them on first name terms. Are you an insider?

What was she supposed to call them ?

WoollyRedHat

You’re a prince Harry.. and ginger.

acai berry

There is an interesting series on the BBC at the moment. "Spying on the Royals". It concerns the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, who abdicated from the throne before WW2. Their every move became a source for spying. Bodyguards were spies. Meghan now has two bodyguards (spies?!) that follow her everwhere she goes. Is she already wondering "What have I done?" regrding what she has taken on?

riffmongous

Rule number one: wear a seat belt incase of 'accidents'

degsie

iamwhoiam wrote: »

What was she supposed to call them ?

The Ginger and the Nut?

acai berry

No doubt, their every move in their recent visit to Ireland would have been spied on and accounts sent back to the British Government. Things don't change that much, where History is concerned.

_Dara_

It will be hard, I’d imagine. She really is totally new to that world. At least Kate Middleton was born in the UK and would be much more familiar with the reality of Royal life. Meghan has basically had to ditch her old life. But she may adjust well. Who knows? I just hope that when the honeymoon period passes, it’s all been worth it. She will never be left alone by the media for the rest of her days, no matter what happens! :eek:

acai berry

_Dara_ wrote: »

It will be hard, I’d imagine. She really is totally new to that world. At least Kate Middleton was born in the UK and would be much more familiar with the reality of Royal life. Meghan has basically had to ditch her old life. But she may adjust well. Who knows? I just hope that when the honeymoon period passes, it’s all been worth it. She will never be left alone by the media for the rest of her days, no matter what happens! :eek:

Exactly as I was thinking, _Dara_! Kate M. moved in those circles before she was married, having met William in college and known him for a few years. She seems to have adjusted extremely well to her role in the Royal Family. It will be very difficult for Meghan, IMO.

Giraffe Box

No joke indeed.
I hope they'll be ok financially as everyone knows how difficult it can be paying for a wedding, honeymoon, finding a suitable home to raise a family etc.

from MONEY: ''While there are a lot of guesses out there about the 33-year-old prince’s wealth, global wealth insights firm Wealth-X estimates Prince Harry’s 2018 net worth is about $25 million — at the very least. Other reports speculate his net worth is as high as $40 million, but $25 million is the conservative estimate, Wealth-X told MONEY.''

Maybe they'll be fine after all.

acai berry

I imagine money is the least of Harry's concerns. I'm wondering how he and Meghan sort out their budget.

Giraffe Box

acai berry wrote: »

I imagine money is the least of Harry's concerns. I'm wondering how he and Meghan sort out their budget.

With little to no difficulty, I suspect.

acai berry

Giraffe Box wrote: »

With little to no difficulty, I suspect.

Just wondering! You never know what complications can arise.

https://www.ok.co.uk/celebrity-feature/1345070/kate-middleton-shopping-food-supermarket-royals-prince-harry-waitrose-truth

Prince Harry talks abot how Royals do their grocery shopping.

Summer wind

Meghan was already famous and moving in Harry’s circle of friends before their marriage. She wasn’t plucked from obscurity. I’m sure she was clever enough to fully research her role in the royal family before she took it on.

acai berry

Summer wind wrote: »

Meghan was already famous and moving in Harry’s circle of friends before their marriage. She wasn’t plucked from obscurity. I’m sure she was clever enough to fully research her role in the royal family before she took it on.

Hopefully she did that well, Summer wind. Doing research in advance obviously is a good thing, but actually living and experiencing her new life must be challenging, to say the least.

Edgware

acai berry wrote: »

I imagine money is the least of Harry's concerns. I'm wondering how he and Meghan sort out their budget.

Well there is a Lidl branch in Slough only three miles from Windsor if thet can get accommodation there

freshpopcorn

I think people who get married into the royal family know what they are getting themselves into.
I'd have no issue with it but I don't think the queen or Charles would like me falling out of Lidl wearing a hoodie with cinnamon buns.

acai berry

After her May 19 wedding to Harry at Windsor’s St. George’s Chapel, Meghan’s clothing budget for official outings will be covered by the money that Prince Charles gives to Prince William, Kate and Harry from his Duchy of Cornwall income of about $28 million.

Last year, the trio drew the expenses needed for their public lives (salaries and office costs and other expenses) from a fund of $4.8 million. (That part of Charles’s official outgoings also covers other aspects of his accounts, such as some capital expenditure.)

Meghan Markle's Royal Wardrobe: Here's Who Pays for It, and Why She Can't Accept Free Clothes

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markles-royal-wardrobe-heres-who-pays-for-it-and-why-she-cant-accept-free-clothes/

acai berry

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think people who get married into the royal family know what they are getting themselves into.
I'd have no issue with it but I don't think the queen or Charles would like me falling out of Lidl wearing a hoodie with cinnamon buns.

Is it really possible to know what you're getting into in advance - the full implications? Meghan Markle needs to be very strong mentally and emotionally in order to survive this.

Princess Diana was much more connected with the Royal Family and did not survive everything that was involved.

Fergie - Sarah Ferguson, also became a cropper, even though she had mixed with the royal family from childhood.

freshpopcorn

acai berry wrote: »

Is it really possible to know what you're getting into in advance - the full implications? Meghan Markle needs to be very strong mentally and emotionally in order to survive this.

Princess Diana was much more connected with the Royal Family and did not survive everything that was involved.

Fergie - Sarah Ferguson, also became a cropper, even though she had mixed with the royal family from childhood.

I think their might have being a time when people like Diana and Fergie might have being a little naive around what exactly what they were getting themselves into but I think these two showed people what it was like to be royal.

acai berry

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think their might have being a time when people like Diana and Fergie might have being a little naive around what exactly what they were getting themselves into but I think these two showed people what it was like to be royal.

Not so sure what that means. They don't seem to have acted any differently to other royals before them.

freshpopcorn

acai berry wrote: »

Not so sure what that means. They don't seem to have acted any differently to other royals before them.

My point was most people know how Fergie and Diana were treated and got on.
If anybody signs up to the royal family thinking it's a fairy tail they deserve exactly what they get if they don't like it.

meeeeh

Diana got married at 19. No 19 year old is prepared for the life at the centre of media storm with a man who picked her because she was convenient.

Markle is older, like many tv actresses she would sink into obscurity after Suits finished. She is not sacrificing that much, Hollywood doesn't have much interest into ageing almost famous tv actresses. If the marriage works, good luck to them, if it doesn't she will still have enough money for the rest of her life.

acai berry

meeeeh wrote: »

Diana got married at 19. No 19 year old is prepared for the life at the centre of media storm with a man who picked her because she was convenient.

Markle is older, like many tv actresses she would sink into obscurity after Suits finished. She is not sacrificing that much, Hollywood doesn't have much interest into ageing almost famous tv actresses. If the marriage works, good luck to them, if it doesn't she will still have enough money for the rest of her life.

Good points there, meeeeh! Especially those concernng Meghan's prospects as an aging actress. Good luck to her, if she can make this marriage work!

I imagine a prenuptual agreement would have been a foregone conclusion.

DivingDuck

Diana was a virginal almost-child raised in a very sheltered environment who mistakenly believed her intended was in love with her when his affections had long belonged to someone else.

Meghan is a divorced thirty-something who has spent years in the public eye and whose husband is absolutely besotted with her.

There is absolutely no comparison.

I do imagine she'll struggle a little bit to adapt to the reality of the limitations of her new role, but she had a fairly good idea what she was getting into. Hopefully she'll be fine— but if not, they can always get divorced. There's a precedent for it now, and as Harry isn't heir to the throne, she'll probably be allowed to walk away without the character assassination Diana suffered.

I don't think I'd personally be able to live with all the restrictions of being a royal, even in exchange for their great wealth. I actually feel more sorry for Harry who had no choice in the matter, whereas Meghan chose this life as an informed adult. I think they've probably got as good a chance as any other young couple starting their lives, they just have different blessings and different challenges.

acai berry

I'm wondering if Meghan, being an actress, takes this on as another acting role. :eek:

Carry

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think people who get married into the royal family know what they are getting themselves into.
I'd have no issue with it but I don't think the queen or Charles would like me falling out of Lidl wearing a hoodie with cinnamon buns.

So you are the one who buys all the cinnamon buns! :mad:
I hate you!



(Sorry, acai berry, have no interest in royalty, only in royalties that land on my account. Cinnamon bun was the trigger here...)

degsie

It's Royalty, who actually gives a shoite.

Chaos Tourist

acai berry wrote: »

I'm wondering if Meghan, being an actress, takes this on as another acting role. :eek:

Isn't the royal family really a family of pre-packaged actors and actresses?

acai berry

Chaos Tourist wrote: »

Isn't the royal family really a family of pre-packaged actors and actresses?

You're probably right there, Chaos Tourist! They're certainly playing roles! :P

acai berry

https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex


HRH The Duchess of Sussex


I'm noticing Meghan is referred to with the title HRH (Her Royal Highness) in this article. When her forbear, King Edward VIII, abdicated the thrown, he was given the title HRH Duke of Windsor, but very pointedly, the woman he loved was only appointed Duchess of Windsor, without the HRH. This, at the time, was taken as a huge insult and sore point by her and her husband. The fact that Meghan has been given the HRH title is HUGE.

The Duchesses' classless half-sister is cashing in on her connections by taking part in Celebrity Big Brother in the UK. You can only imagine how embarrassing it's going to be. Also stretches the meaning of the term celebrity a fair bit. A cheap move on the sisters part but I'll be tempted to check it out for what I suspect is going to be the mother of all car crash tv shows.

I feel sorry for the girl, her extended family are letting her down badly. I wouldn't live their lives for any money, no day is their own and there's no such thing as privacy for any of them anymore. To Harry and the Windsors credit, they would have known her family were liable to let the side down, but it didn't stop them tying the knot. Good luck to them.

acai berry

Well said, Candle. I couldn't agree more. Her sister is a huge embarrassment. Yes, I agree, the Royal Family did very well in their treatment of Meghan during the wedding. Meghan walking half-way up the isle on her own and then Charles stepping out to offer his arm for the other half, was brilliant. Whoever thought of that is a genius.

That wedding made a fortune for the UK via the tourists and it's broadcast around the world was the biggest, longest, tourism promo ever made.

Windsor did look really beautiful and I do have a fondness for the pomp and ceremony, even if (as an English person) I'm not really a Royalist! I just like the tradition of it all, but I'd prefer it without the hereditary privilege.

acai berry

I've always had a fascination with Royalty even since childhood. I have huge admiration for the Queen - how she's stuck in there through thick and thin for so many years. Her children's marriages didn't really go according to plan, but now her grandchildren seem to be falling more in line with what's expected of them. So, there's a real strength in the Royal Fmily at the moment, in comparison to the last generation with all of those marriages falling apart.

It had to change and evolve. It still has to. I'm not especially interested in the Royals but I do think the Queen is an impressive lady. In all these years of representing the country, she's never made an embarrassing move and has been a picture of dignity.

Phil, on the other hand, is a different story.

acai berry

There were times when the Queen got some bad press, especially around the time of Diana's death. But, fair dues to her, she managed to weather all of these storms and come out better than ever.

I love how the Queen shows such an interest in farming and how her estates are run. She really is very down to Earth.

I've always found Prince Phillip to be very amusing. His role has not very easy.

When she dies, it's going to be an absolutely devastating event to a large percentage of British people. She's really loved and respected by many, and I can see the country virtually shutting down the day it happens. She's in her nineties, she could be gone any time and many people will feel a personal loss when it she goes. It'll be the end of an era.

acai berry

Candie wrote: »

When she dies, it's going to be an absolutely devastating event to a large percentage of British people. She's really loved and respected by many, and I can see the country virtually shutting down the day it happens. She's in her nineties, she could be gone any time and many people will feel a personal loss when it she goes. It'll be the end of an era.

Absolutely, Candle! It will be massive. She has held all of that massive family together, keeping them in line, so that they are where they are now.

Will anybody be able to replace her?

I don't know, AB. I do know that if someone does carry on in that tradition and garners the same affection and respect, it definitely won't be Charles. He's just not popular or liked in the same way his parents or his sons are.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

When she dies, it's going to be an absolutely devastating event to a large percentage of British people. She's really loved and respected by many, and I can see the country virtually shutting down the day it happens. She's in her nineties, she could be gone any time and many people will feel a personal loss when it she goes. It'll be the end of an era.

There will be 12 days of mourning.
She will lie for around 4 or 5 days for people to walk past.
The day of the funeral will be a state holiday, as such, as will the coronation of king Charles the 3rd or whatever he decides to be called.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

There will be 12 days of mourning.
She will lie for around 4 or 5 days for people to walk past.
The day of the funeral will be a state holiday, as such, as will the coronation of king Charles the 3rd or whatever he decides to be called.

I think they're going to have to keep her lying in State for around a week, since there will be members of the Commonwealth wanting to get to London for it and I think they'll want to accommodate that.

I know about the holidays, I meant it more figuratively! I was about ten when Diana died and I still remember the atmosphere in London then. You could feel something big and bad had happened.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

I think they're going to have to keep her lying in State for around a week, since there will be members of the Commonwealth wanting to get to London for it and I think they'll want to accommodate that.

I know about the holidays, I meant it more figuratively! I was about ten when Diana died and I still remember the atmosphere in London then. You could feel something big and bad had happened.

Yea, you're probably right. The longest serving British monarch, she will definitely lie for a week. Don't know has she out served the Thai king that died 18 months or so ago yet? If she does she will be the world's longest serving monarch. She could be two weeks lying!
Britain will basically shut down for the first few days, then again around the funeral.
I think it will be as much if not more than Diana, the British realise the massive contribution she has made, & I think they see her as the grandmother of Britain now.

acai berry

We have the Elizabethan Era relating to Elizabeth I and the Victorian Era relating to Victoria. I wonder what they'll call E II's era.

Of course, once E II's Era is mentioned that will immediately bring us into the Past, just as the Victorian and Elizabethan Eras are markers of the Past.

Lord only knows what the Future holds - and who'll hold the reins.

Oasis1974

acai berry wrote: »

Well said, Candle. I couldn't agree more. Her sister is a huge embarrassment. Yes, I agree, the Royal Family did very well in their treatment of Meghan during the wedding. Meghan walking half-way up the isle on her own and then Charles stepping out to offer his arm for the other half, was brilliant. Whoever thought of that is a genius.

But he went scarlet when she physically touched him. These people don't like Liquorice Allsorts I say a couple of sprogs to confirm he's not a poof then out on your arse Meghan. Shame on you Larry.....

Mod-Banned

acai berry

Oasis1974 wrote: »

But he went scarlet when she physically touched him. These people don't like Liquorice Allsorts I say a couple of sprogs to confirm he's not a poof then out on your arse Meghan. Shame on you Larry.....

You are speaking English, Oasis1974, or is this some rare dialect found only in the depths of Cork City?

acai berry

acai berry wrote: »

We have the Elizabethan Era relating to Elizabeth I and the Victorian Era relating to Victoria. I wonder what they'll call E II's era.

Of course, once E II's Era is mentioned that will immediately bring us into the Past, just as the Victorian and Elizabethan Eras are markers of the Past.

Lord only knows what the Future holds - and who'll hold the reins.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if Charles passed and let William at it, or if he only gave it a few years. He's waited so long, I can't imagine him jumping at it at his age when he's used to his comfortable life.

It'll be interesting times, that's for sure.

acai berry

Regarding Charles, there's the question of Camilla, of course. Her title and role would be bound to merit some discussion in Parliamment, should he take over as King.

I like Charles, I must say. Have just been watching him on Gardener's World.

whisky_galore

acai berry wrote: »

We have the Elizabethan Era relating to Elizabeth I and the Victorian Era relating to Victoria. I wonder what they'll call E II's era.

Of course, once E II's Era is mentioned that will immediately bring us into the Past, just as the Victorian and Elizabethan Eras are markers of the Past.

Lord only knows what the Future holds - and who'll hold the reins.

Think they have abandoned the practice of naming eras after monarchs since Edward VII.

acai berry

whisky_galore wrote: »

Think they have abandoned the practice of naming eras after monarchs since Edward VII.

Whether they have or not, I think they will name an era after E II. Like Victoria, her reign covers such a long peried of time. Designers, Sociologists etc, will find it convenient to name an era after her. Just like you have the Georgian Period here, that indicates a particular era in architecture.