Gransnet forums

News & politics

Meghan and Harry pay off Frogmore

(276 Posts)
trisher Tue 08-Sept-20 10:01:59

So all those who have complained about this the debt is paid off in full. Do you feel better?
www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a33942968/prince-harry-repays-frogmore-cottage-renovations/
Can you at least acknowledge they are doing their best?

haporthrosie Thu 10-Sept-20 10:25:10

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally thought her dress was ridiculous considering she's a divorced woman, and the scale and fanfare of the whole thing given H&M's distance from the throne a bit silly. Granted as Princess Diana's son a bit more pomp than usual seemed in order, but that show was just absurd.

Something more modest would have been much more appropriate and, incidentally, have made them look better and given some grounding to later claims to want to be 'normal.'

Instead, whether accurately or not, it made Meghan look like someone who wanted a Hollywood idea of 'Royalty' but then wasn't willing to live up to the responsibility that actually being a member of the Royal Family entails. And not long afterwards she did indeed live down to that picture. Glad they've paid off the gaff though. 'Bout time too.

haporthrosie Thu 10-Sept-20 10:27:43

Sorry I'd meant below to be in response to comments about the wedding itself; sorry it ended up stuck out of place!

trisher Thu 10-Sept-20 10:37:13

Who knows maybe Harry wanted the big wedding same as big brother (who cares for that matter). Didn't watch it, saw some pictures.
Charles could have been more active during this epidemic he has after all had the virus. As for Will and Kate well there are lots of birds that need shooting.

Anniebach Thu 10-Sept-20 10:40:36

A 36 year old divorcee in bridal virginal white with veil was unusual.

trisher Thu 10-Sept-20 10:45:05

Oh come on all the Royals have worn white including Margaret and Fergie who both had colourful pasts. It's usual today anyway.

janipat Thu 10-Sept-20 10:55:33

trisher what exactly would you want Charles to be doing? Just one or two specific examples would be fine.
Just out of interest is there a reason you always refer to Meghan by her full name ( not Meg) and yet refer to Will and Kate, not William and Catherine? Of course Royals have married in white who weren't virgins (just like the general population), none have been divorced though. Not that it bothers me either way, let people wear what they want.

Anniebach Thu 10-Sept-20 10:58:12

Neither were divorced

merlotgran Thu 10-Sept-20 10:58:38

We've been speculating at Merlot Manor as to why the Queen and D of E are going to leave Balmoral a month early and go straight to Sandringham. So far we've come up with:

Midges are rumoured to spread coronavirus.
The staff are threatening to go on strike because they're bored stiff.
They need to be 'sprung' in case of another Lockdown.
It's closer to London hospitals.
The whisky has run out.
Philip's mates are all in Norfolk.
The Windsor 'bubble staff' have all gone AWOL
The dorgis refuse to go on any more bracing walks. They want to slob out and enjoy life in the time of Covid like all their doggy friends on facebook.

Or maybe they've locked Prince Andrew up in one of the towers and want to leave him there.

Anniebach Thu 10-Sept-20 10:59:54

Kate lived with William before they married, I doubt there are
many virgin brides

trisher Thu 10-Sept-20 11:11:20

I've no idea janipat but there must be some things that need opening/acknowledging. What about visiting the hotels where the homeless or refugees are currently staying and thanking the staff there?
As far as I know Meghan has never shortened her name both the others have although I will agree I missed the s off Wills.

merlotgran grin loved that-but I think they want to be out before winter strikes and they get snowed in (but they will miss autumn with all the lovely colours)
If only someone would lock Andrew in a tower.

maddyone Thu 10-Sept-20 11:12:44

I agree with you 100% haporthrosie. It has been said that even the Queen queried the need for a veil since Meghan had been divorced. Of course, whilst that may be in the book, according to the news, we don’t know if it’s true. However Meghan did want the high profile wedding and the extra long veil, otherwise she wouldn’t have had it. Virginal white for a lady with an alleged very colourful past. She also wanted the title despite having the offer of no title, so that she could continue to work.

Camilla was divorced. She got married in blue/grey, and she looked lovely. Very appropriate in my view. Of course, Camilla knows more about public flack than Meghan has had hot dinners. Camilla was intensely disliked by the public both before and after her marriage to Prince Charles. She kept a low profile, worked quietly, and without fanfare with her chosen charities, supported her husband with dignity, and never answered any of her critics. The result, she is now admired, in particular for her support for the charities that deal with battered women and domestic abuse. Meghan would have done well to take a leaf out of her book. But for Meghan, quiet dignity and service was clearly never in her game plan.

Anniebach Thu 10-Sept-20 11:40:26

Meg and dignity !

Sparklefizz Thu 10-Sept-20 11:44:16

Apparently Camilla gave Meghan plenty of advice and took her under her wing at the start, but M ignored it (allegedly).

trisher Thu 10-Sept-20 11:50:10

Amazing isn't it how Royals can progress from BR (Bad Royal) to GR (Good Royal) in no time at all. Not that long since "there was a third person in this marriage" made everyone hate Camilla.
Still who cares really. It's just a sort of real life soap opera to keep the plebs in order. If only they would all run off to LA.

Oopsminty Thu 10-Sept-20 11:52:53

I never hated Camilla

Anniebach Thu 10-Sept-20 12:14:13

I never hated Camilla , Diana wasn’t good at maths was she,

3 in the marriage yet she accused Tiggy of having an affair with Charles and having an abortion, then there was
Manakee, Hewitt, Gilby, Hoare, Carling, Forstmann

That’s 8 in the marriage !

Summerlove Thu 10-Sept-20 12:35:20

Anniebach

Tourists would stand outside Buck House to see refugees ?
most unkind

What’s unkind?

Anniebach Thu 10-Sept-20 12:42:49

Strange question,

Sparklefizz Thu 10-Sept-20 13:03:32

Not that long since "there was a third person in this marriage" made everyone hate Camilla.

Well 25 plus years is quite a long time, don't you think trisher ?

haporthrosie Thu 10-Sept-20 13:43:37

Excellent points re. dress Anniebach and janipat.

I liked Meghan so much at first (long after the wedding: though it seemed immature to me I didn't hold it against M.) and almost everyone I know felt the same. She seemed to bring a happy new note to things while also caring about the tradition into which she'd married, and - though this may sound superficial, and I recognise that other women have the right to condemn me because my views may not match theirs - I loved her style. Seeing old photos of her will always pull at me a bit and make me wish things could have worked out. I don't mean mere beauty, though heaven knows she has that in abundance, but a wonderful ability to wear clothes rather than letting them wear you. I thought it was marvelous, in this age of WAG submissiveness to surface, that she was setting such a good example to girls and young women by being more than your face/body/clothes and letting one's essence be what pulls it all together and carries it off.

Marrying into the RF is difficult even for aristocrats (Princess Diana) and gentry (Fergie) who have acquaintances within the family and some knowledge of how things work. It's a tough job to marry into even if you're English. If you're from another country, it only makes sense to me that you should be willing to give things plenty of time. You're not only living in a foreign country, you're living in an institution that's alien territory within that country. You're slammed with two new sets of completely different ways of life.

M. barely gave it two years. Imho someone married to a common-or-garden foreigner, living in that spouse's land, should allow for a longer adjustment period than that.

M. wanted to be an activist. Nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of activists of a sort within the Royal Family. Many years ago H. was made an Honourary Gurkha: think what M. could have done for Gurkha wives and children struggling both here and in Nepal. If I had money to spare I'd bet any amount of it that Joanna Lumley would've come in on this in some way, which would have been spectacular. (Not because JL is white and English, but because her name has enormous 'get attention factor.' That's important in charity work.) Helping girls regarding body image and bullying. As a former actress, support of the arts would have been marvelous. She had hundreds of opportunities for a platform and a voice.

If she wanted to be a completely un-fettered activist, then she should not have married into the RF and most especially not accepted the title. You simply can't get political once you're in there (i.e. remarks about abortion. It's natural that she'd make some slip-ups, but they should have been apologised for and learned from: 'Right, I can't do that, but I can do this.')

But look at the good you can do without politicising - the Prince's Trust, Save the Children, riding for the disabled, the list could go on and on. M. had plenty of time to learn about this before marrying H. Imho you can set just as good an example for women within the RF as without, chiefly by showing that we can be mature and strong enough to do the whoppingly difficult job per instructions.

As for the press, no one denies that some of what was written and said was unconscionable. Princess Diana, Prince Charles, Fergie, Princess Margaret, Kate, HM - they've all been given ridiculously rough rides. Two wrongs never make a right but it's unreasonable to marry into the RF and not accept the fact that there will be unfairness from the press.

'It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.' It's the way H&M handled things that sticks in my craw. The way Archie's birth and christening were handled. The way the whole split was handled.

There is always a choice between doing things respectfully or behaving like a spoilt brat. I'm sorry but the latter doesn't reflect well on M. or her so-called 'feminist' status. Respect has to be earned whether you're male or female. (This goes for H. as well.)

Though many will disagree, imho think there's no better example of an incredibly strong woman and perfect role model than the Queen. No, she hasn't a 'normal' job and yes, there's quite a bit of privilege. Oddly those are two of the very things that make her position difficult, and which make her ability to walk the bizarre tightrope that is her life with such level-headedness all the more amazing. She's devoted her life to the good of her country, she understands the importance of duty, and for the better part of a century she's shown that you can speak up and work for good while staying in the bounds of protocol.

And yet feminist M. didn't even include her in the 'Vogue' issue she co-edited. Just imagine the impact that photos of an eighteen-year-old Princess - future Queen - in ATS uniform, mending Jeeps - could have had on young women who probably wouldn't otherwise know anything about that part of HM's life. It would've spread the idea that you don't have to be a 'girly girl,' that it's more than OK for girls and women to show mechanical aptitude, and just generally been a decent and good thing to do. There are many other aspects of HM's life that I feel earned her inclusion in that magazine. H&M's treatment of her - and of the RF in general - has been appalling. If they honestly felt that they had to leave the family, even without giving it more time, they could have done it differently. Better.

As for the 'oh poor me' act while in South Africa ... repeat, South Africa ... was that the act of a strong, compassionate woman?

Pull the other banana, it's got bells as well as writing on.

And yes, supporting women does mean recognising their right to live as they choose regardless of whether you stigmatise it as '50's housewife or not.

M. has gone from someone I was in many ways happy to see join the RF to - again this is just my opinion - someone who's verging on coming across as a sort of cult leader. That video where she keeps crossing her arms over her chest (something Hitler used to do quite a bit, btw.) Sorry but her whole demeanour now doesn't seem quite balanced. Almost everything from the South African tour has been self-focused to the point of strangeness and growing stranger all the time.

Of course I bend the knee to feminists who are clearly superior to me because their opinion is different. Having my own view clearly makes me an embittered old crone with no right to express myself.

trisher Thu 10-Sept-20 14:05:07

OMG an opportunity to bring Hitler ito it all. Maybe that's why she fancied Harry -he did dress up as a Nazi didn't he? wink

haporthrosie Thu 10-Sept-20 14:10:34

Anniebach - 'Meg and dignity!' wink

Maddyone - ' knows more about public flack than Meghan has had hot dinners' grin You're spot on about Camilla, she looked stunning on her wedding day. I've always liked her and my respect has only grown through the years.

Elliant (sorry if I'm misspelling your name, I jotted it down but can't read my own scribble) your point about empty vessels was brilliant. Jaberwok and many others made really good points as well.

Sorry my above post was so long but it's the first time I've written on here about H&M so rather got it all of my chest at once! Apologies for length but not for views.

Thanks to all who haven't been intimidated by those who seem to think opinion isn't a matter of opinion.

Ellianne Thu 10-Sept-20 14:11:08

haporthrosie that is a really good and fair post, and your opinion mirrors that of many, I'm sure.
A couple of things you said jump out:
1. 2 years is no time at all to adapt to a new life. I remember Meghan saying she wanted to hit the ground round running, and thinking to myself whoa, slow down a bit and take time to learn.
She seems very fickle to me jumping from project to project, just as she jumped from relationship to relationship. Not someone who sticks at any task.
2. The videos during the covid crisis have suited her purpose because she is able to say exactly what she wants unhindered and do all those strange gestures and heavenward eye movements. I'm sure a lot of it is acting, and some of it is very good, especially alongside the wooden Harry who doesn't quite know what to do.
I do agree there is something of a cult leader in her and that would never have worked in the royal family.

trisher Thu 10-Sept-20 14:23:53

Well 25 plus years is quite a long time, don't you think trisher ?
Oh I agree it is Sparklefizz and I think the RF always play a long game.It just amuses me that the awful things that were said about Camilla-he can't marry her/she'll never be queen etc are now all forgotten and she has become something of a saint.
Do you suppose in 25 years time Meghan will be the same??? I think they are like everyone else they sometimes screw up and sometimes misbehave. They are not gods.

Anniebach Thu 10-Sept-20 14:29:21

Camilla, Kate, Sophie, Catherine Kent, Phillip, all knew
with the marriage went a job, to support the monarchy .

Meg didn’t want a supporting role, she wanted to be queen bee.