7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agree.

 

I expect protocol demands that second in line to the throne receives an invite, but I'll bet it's not expected to be accepted, or at least that she doesn't attend.

You forgot the 3 kids between Harry and the 2nd spot.

Even Andrew has a better chance at the Throne than Harry.

Edited March 7, 20233 yr by BritManToo

15 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Even Andrew has a better chance at the Throne than Harry.

He really doesn't, thankfully.

They wont turn up but ginger might on his own. If Meghan went she would have to curtsey to the new comic 'Queen' Camilla and can't see her doing than for the old hag.

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

This article gives an indication of how 'unfairly' Meghan has been treated by the press. Rather than courting such negativity, could it be that the press (and the palace?) are out to punish them?

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

Well I have read the article.

 

BuzzFeed is a US based website. A cursory glance through the other content it headlines suggests that much of it's product is inconsequential tittle tattle.

 

Nor does it's American focus suggest that it is well placed to discern any media bias within British national newspapers.

 

None of the contrasts drawn were really evidence of a deliberate editorial policy, some of the articles contrasted  had publication dates separated by several years.

 

They (BuzzFeed) do suggest that the decision by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to withdraw from "Royal life" was a result of a sustained press campaign over many years against them - the Duke and Duchess of Sussex withdrew less than a year after they entered "Royal life"; many of the accounts of actions on their part, and reactions from other members of the Royal Family, which presumably led to that withdrawal have been published subsequently, and spring from  interviews films and books published by them after withdrawal. Now of course the pair are entitled to withdraw from "Royal life", but they have hardly withdrawn, rather they have set up a rival hostile and extremely vocal "court" in a foreign country which seeks to undermine, rubbish and "spoil" the established one. 

 

They can hardly be surprised if that provokes a reaction!

Edited March 7, 20233 yr by herfiehandbag

"Harry" and "Meghan," who?

9 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Well I have read the article.

 

BuzzFeed is a US based website. A cursory glance through the other content it headlines suggests that much of it's product is inconsequential tittle tattle.

 

Nor does it's American focus suggest that it is well placed to discern any media bias within British national newspapers.

 

None of the contrasts drawn were really evidence of a deliberate editorial policy, some of the articles contrasted  had publication dates separated by several years.

 

They (BuzzFeed) do suggest that the decision by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to withdraw from "Royal life" was a result of a sustained press campaign over many years against them - the Duke and Duchess of Sussex withdrew less than a year after they entered "Royal life"; many of the accounts of actions on their part, and reactions from other members of the Royal Family, which presumably led to that withdrawal have been published subsequently, and spring from  interviews films and books published by them after withdrawal. Now of course the pair are entitled to withdraw from "Royal life", but they have hardly withdrawn, rather they have set up a rival hostile and extremely vocal "court" in a foreign country which seeks to undermine, rubbish and "spoil" the established one. 

 

They can hardly be surprised if that provokes a reaction!

They have not trashed the monarchy, and they certainly don't have a rival court.  Much of what Harry has written about is well-within the type of conflict that many families have.  Two brothers who don't always get along and who come to physical blows -- which they apparently did in their younger days as well.  They had a stepmother whom they didn't exactly like.  They had a father who was emotionally distant and showed little to no physical affection.  These are all signs of a dysfunctional family, but not out of the bounds of what many have experienced.  

Harry's big problem is with the paparazzi and the press, who have seriously mischaracterized some of his actions.   He acknowledges many of his antics.  The press has been relentless in pursuing him and when they went after his wife, it was too close to the situation that took the life of his mother.  

His big beef with the palace was their inability or unwillingness to provide the support and protection he felt he needed for his family.   Charles and Camilla may have been either involved in or complicit in leaking stories that reflected bad on Harry and Meghan.  Keeping the spotlight on them kept it off Camilla.   Much of what happened was not so much what the palace did, but what it did not do to get the relentless paparazzi and press coverage off of them.  In some cases, a simple official statement would have been sufficient, but was never forthcoming.

 

49 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You forgot the 3 kids between Harry and the 2nd spot.

Even Andrew has a better chance at the Throne than Harry.

You are correct. No need to invite the bounder at all.

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

The internet must cause them concern though - the UK newspapers may have obligingly looked away, but UK social media was abuzz with articles such as this last year:

 

Searches for "pegging" went up 400 percent after a salacious rumor started circulating about Prince William's alleged sexual predilections

Possibly but no more so than other celebrity. Notwithstanding that this particular report may be completely fictitious, it may have gained William a few admirers.

 

As an aside, I have no idea why I even looked at this thread let alone have become engaged in a discussion on it. If we must have royalty (very debatable), then I would much prefer the UK royals - "working" or otherwise - to follow the Belgium model i.e. have nothing more than a ceremonial constitutional role and be rarely mentioned in the media. 

Edited March 7, 20233 yr by RayC
Grammar