Here are some photos of Dirty Ginger Snap Prince Harry unveiling the UK Invictus Team in London on Wednesday. These photos made me sigh deeply and think about his mother. I actually thought, “His mother would be so proud of him in this moment.” To turn his military career into something so positive for veterans… it’s a unique and wonderful thing. At this event, Harry spent a lot of time posing with veterans (and a dog!) – go here to read more.
The Invictus Games are in May, and Harry still has more to do to promote the games and work with some of the commonwealth teams. It’s just been announced that he will be traveling to Toronto on May 2 to launch the countdown to the games and meet the Canadian Invictus team. While Harry is in Florida next month, he’ll also be playing a polo match for charity, and he’s bringing his favorite horse.
With all of this positivity about Harry (HONKS!), would it be weird if we also discussed the recent comments by Dr Anna Whitelock? She’s a historian – a royal-history historian – and she gave an interview a few days ago about how the British monarchy will likely end in our lifetimes. Whitelock predicted that after the Queen has passed, there will be a larger conversation about ending the monarchy, especially when Charles takes the throne. Whitelock said, in part:
“All of those questions about ‘What the hell do we want this kind of unelected family (for)? What does that represent in Britain today?’, all these profound questions have been held in check because of the Queen. I think there’ll be a discussion and a debate in a way that there hasn’t before [after the Queen dies]. As the older generation who are generally more wedded to the monarchy die out, the question of the future of the monarchy will become even more pressing, and then potentially more critical voices will come to the fore. I would say by 2030 there will be definite louder clamours for the eradication of the monarchy. I can’t say that there won’t be a monarchy. I would definitely say that the monarchy – its purpose, what it’s about, will be questioned and challenged in a way that it hasn’t been before. I don’t think it’s out of the question that the monarchy would be potentially be on its last legs.”
I do wonder what will happen after the Queen passes. I’ve stopped worrying about what Charles would be like as a king, just because he’s a workhorse and I believe he genuinely cares about public service. Charles has always been prepared to step up to whatever challenges would face him. But yes, when the queen passes and Charles becomes king, there will be these conversations and it will mostly be about what comes after Charles, whose reign will likely be brief. Because people are actually pretty concerned about Workshy Will. If Harry was the heir? If Harry was going to be the Prince of Wales? I think it would be a different story altogether.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Yes. That is all.
Nope. I wouldn’t change my mind about the monarchy if Jesus was the heir. Principle not personality.
This. I might be less snarky about it, but no one should be elevated to this status. Period.
Yep, this. Monarchy was always a bad idea and it’s past time for it to be done. It’s the luck of the draw whether you’ll end up with an Elizabeth, a Harry, a Will, or someone even worse than Will.
Besides being theoretically untrue, (that there are superior beings); as well as the fact that this kind of power seems to be destructive to those who have it – it should be shucked. Look what the “free for all” given by the British government has done to so many members of the family. Does the Queen have even one male child who has not broken laws both God and men, and the hearts of many? Worst of all, they get away with it, because they are “royal”.
Harry doesn’t want the job! ( Just think about what he has had to endure for the institution). I say let them all be rich and free to do as they please, and let them have consequences, like everyone else.
Yes yes yes……Harry is the one!! More soul. I’m American so that’s all I know.
I’m a modified monarchist. I don’t believe in divine right, or elevated bloodlines, but I do think the monarchy is part of the British tradition and for that alone I would vote for it (and I could vote if it ever comes up!). I do think that to continue it has to become relevant, and I also think that if there’s anyone who has a shot at accomplishing that it’s Harry.
@bluhare, well said and I agree.
Thank you, Liberty. I also think it’s something that the country can rally round in bad times. It’s apolitical and I think could really help with unifying differing political beliefs under one banner.
I agree. It’s so entrenched it the very fabric of the UK, I think there is a use, especially when it comes to working with charities, promoting them and introducing the right people to make things happen, If Harry were to be POW, I would be much more of a Canadian Monarchist. HONK!
I agree, but I suspect Harry wouldn’t be the wonderful, open hearted free spirit he’s turned out to be if he were the heir. I’m sure not having that pressure on him is part of what has made him grow up to be such a delightful person. Meanwhile, both Charles and William are SO uptight.
Charles and William aren’t really uptight. Compared to his Diana and Harry, yes. However, everybody is uptight standing next tuptigh because they have excess of empathy and charisma.
Further, William is secretive to an obsessive level, and equally obsessed with not giving anything away which makes for difficult interactions.
When you see him in unguarded moments family members and friends, he isn’t stiff or awkward.
Completely agree with what you said. There is a completely different type of pressure on the heir as opposed to the spare (for lack of a better word).
I would feel very differently about the Monarchy. I’d suddenly have an irresistible urge to just… hold it against me. 😂
People wouldn’t have forgiven him his earlier indiscretions if he were the next King. I’m sure he gets away with a lot and has developed very differently just by the nature of being the spare. Not fair to compare. In my opinion 😉
Do you think if Harry was the heir you would have known about all his ‘indiscretions’?
Yeah, it’s not fair to compare, the heir has more responsabilities and also more protection, form the outside and from the inside as well.
Recent events have shown how easily he (and other family members) can be thrown under the bus to save the heir’s image. The important thing is: who is the precious heir that will be protected? and is he worth the trouble?
They all have ‘indiscretions’, but is the heir worth the trouble for the cover – up work? In my opinion, William is not worth the trouble. Harry could have made it worth the trouble.
According to press agents and former employees of the royals, there actually were a lot of things Harry did that never got reported. What was reported in the papers was just what couldn’t be stopped. Harry is redeeming his image now, just like his mom redeemed herself from being seen as a pouty, do-nothing, whingeing royal. She had a whole team of PR people helping her rehab her image, and a lot of it was to spite her (then) husband, who wasn’t so popular and was seen as stuffy. She wanted the public to be on her side. It’s very well known in media/press circles that she fed lots of stories to the tabloids, and called the paparazzi when she needed a good photos to go to press. I’m not saying Harry is doing the same, but technically a royal should be serving his/her own country and the Commonwealth countries, and it’s citizens. Not people in other, non-Commonwealth countries. I think he likes adventure and travel, and spins his trips into do-gooding trips to get away with it and get the positive press. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. And I do love Harry.
But it’s a different story because he has no responsibility
Right, you just can’t compare, he is who he is in part because of his circumstances, change those circumstances and he wil change. He has had the benefit of a lifetime without that burden so perhaps he won’t change that much, but that has been his privilege, not afforded to the first born. Lucky him in that respect. We built will up just to tear him down it seems sometimes.
I don’t know about that. Yes, he would have had different pressures, but he has a very different temperament than William. One better designed to hold up under those pressures, I think. He inherited his father’s work ethic and Diana’s charisma. I believe he would have been fine.
Harry has had double the responsibility. The press didn’t go after William, so they went after Harry twice as hard. William has been coddled, Harry has been held accountable for his mistakes and for William’s.
William the always been treated with kid gloves and he has run away from his responsibilities. Harry had been attacked since he was 2 years old, held accountable for both their mistakes, and has ended up better for it.
Was Diana fine? I don’t know a ton about her, I could be wrong. But she seemed less than fine; depression, eating disorder…
Lucky: think of Diana as a coin of two halves. One side was as petulant and vindictive as we see in William whilst the other side was as charming and as charismatic as we see in Harry.
For the most part she showed the Harry side to the public whilst keeping the vindictive, petulant side for private interactions.
The eating disorders, depression already had fertile ground seeing as Diana grew up in a very unhappy household where her father abused her mother. Diana was initially a disappointment for not being the longed for boy, mother losing custody in the divorce, a decision reinforced by the judges and maternal grandmother simply because father was a titled aristocrat. Sarah, her older sister had succumbed to anorexia at about 18yrs-ish.
All of it left her extremely needy. Together with an era that didn’t acknowledge emotional problems or their physical manifestations and she was REALLY unprepared to join the royal family and subject herself to the public.
To her credit, she said she liked to work because it took her out of her own problems. And she sought help for her problems and for her role.
I suppose we are are all spoilt by her. She changed public perception of the usefulness of monarchy. That it needn’t be remote and closed off. That they can do more than wave at us and or cut ribbons.
Sure there were scandals and histrionics, but my goodness we were mesmerised.
BTW, the way William goes about his PR is an echo of Diana. She was a brilliant demogogue, and William thinks he has inherited that from her, and keeps trying to emulate her. Sadly for him, he has not and it keeps falling flat.
As for heir vs spare responsibilities, what Nota said.
William has been raised as a precious flower, coddled and given everything. He has reacted by running away.
Harry was raised normal, but was thrown to the wolves early.
If the courtiers were going to coddle Harry, the press had no truck with that.
@NOTA- It always drives me nuts when people say that. It comes down to the two things. You think Harry has it so much better? 1) Would you marry him then? If he was the perfect guy, I mean. Would you want that life? And QEII’s other children and a few of her cousins are examples of that life. It’s splitting hairs to say that Harry has more freedom and less responsibility. Not even. Harry has many responsibilities, with no protection, or favoritism to play on, and he will never receive the same benefits and luxuries as his brother. And it’s all a matter of spin isn’t it? Some people would say that William’s had it worst given no choice in things. (Not true. There’s always a choice. Catholicism for one.) But Harry has had to create everything he has for himself. (Which William, the part-time royal, and part-time, part-time co-pilot, is also free to do anyway! Just like their father has revolutionized the POW position.) Figuring out who you are and what you want to do with your life is one of the most difficult tasks many of us face. Harry had to do that in front of the world, as the younger brother of the “Golden Boy”. Not to mention, I sure wouldn’t want to be treated second best to my sibling, as some superfluous dumb-dumb. That certainly would make you question your place in the world, and have an effect on your self-worth, and therefore, what you believe you can accomplish. Look at what Harry is accomplishing!
2) Why assume that Harry wouldn’t have been just like his grandmother, father, or someone like Crown Princess Victoria and rather, William would go the way of Uncle Andrew, times ten? And Harry was attacked from birth really. That superfluous, badboy, dumb-dumb thing. I’m sure it hasn’t been fun hearing paternity gossip for most of his life. And if we’ve heard about Charles’ disappointment over Harry being a boy, with Spencer red hair at that, I’m sure Harry’s heard it as well. No matter the validity. It can’t be nice to hear. In fact, I think that’s part of the reason for William and Kate nonsensically putting so much emphasis on Charlotte being a girl. As though there were none in the family, (rather than being the majority). Getting the gender of the second born right is just another #mommydaddyissue that William is trying to correct. Nature–their temperaments and personalities–Had already played a hand in how William and Harry are. I truly believe that if their roles were reversed, William would just be even more bitter and mindbogglingly complacent. While, as you said, Harry has benefited from being held accountable for his mistakes. So if he was the heir, he wouldn’t have had the burden of low expectations to start with. I have no doubts that Harry would’ve just risen to the occasion from the beginning.
LAK, I agree. That was a really good explanation of DIana especially.
And, Amber, I would marry Harry. 😀
Which is all the more reason he could be workshy like Will. He doesn’t HAVE to do a thing and there’s nothing anyone could do about it. He chooses to give his time to veterans, to Africa, nothing flashy or exotic or showy, just real work for real people. Unlike Mr and Mrs Workshy Dolts. So I give him more credit for his work and lack of entitlement.
@Bluhare – I’d marry Harry too 😀 Republican attitudes put aside. Would the scrutiny suck? GAWD, yes! Would there be times when you want to explode from the pressure and expectations? Probably. Would the work become mindnumbing for loooooong stretches? No doubt. But just think of the opportunity. And what job doesn’t have drawbacks? This one requires no experience, education, or skills. You are just born or marry into one of the prime humanitarian positions in the world, where 95% of your work is for charity, and representing your people and their interests, (and you have MONTHS of free time, unless you’re QEII). That would outweigh the bad for me. I’d just get on with it like Sophie and Anne. Keep my head down and ignore the BS as best I could. It can be done.
But I can’t for my life understand why people think that the things that are so godawful for poor, put-upon Willy don’t apply to Harry and don’t see what he had to overcome.
jib, I like how you shortened Dolittles to Dolts!
I don’t think of Harry’s naked Las Vegas shenanigans as an indiscretion, that was more of a gift.
Entirely different story for sure!
As a U.S. Citizen I don’t have a dog in this hunt. But, I would think that it takes an extraordinary amount of admiration, respect and goodwill from the citizens to support the monarchy.
The queen clearly has it. I think Will and Kate COULD HAVE had it, but squandered their opportunities to shine by being tone deaf and work-shy. So, yes, if Harry continues to build that kind of respect and goodwill with the public, I think it would be different.
Same here @Kkhou I live in the U.S. so it doesn’t really affect me directly. I did became in love/obsessed when Princess Diana was alive, I was young & didn’t know princesses were real (I know, I know). Obviously growing up everyone became obsessed with Will & Harry, everyone thought Will was going to be just like his mom. Yet he didn’t ended up like his mom or dad for that matter.
Would it be different if it was Harry taking over? Maybe but also he would’ve more responsibilities, marry someone he probably didn’t want to marry (yet), etc. I think what helps Harry it’s that he’s not heir, he can make mistakes & start over. That being said Will can really step up & take a page out of his mother & brother’s book.
Also I wonder how it is for their citizens, what do they really think? How does it affect them if there’s a monarchy or not? I know people are upset with Will & Kate, I mean who wouldn’t if they don’t even do the only jobs they have. It certainly is interesting what the historian said, after Queen Elizabeth passes away there’s definitely going to be more conversations about the monarchy & Will/Kate.
Agreed. If the head of the monarchy isn’t doing anything for the people they represent, why should the people support them? Can anyone picture William actually stepping up when he inherits?
No, I cannot. He isn’t stepping up now when his 90 year old grandmother wishes to start relinquishing some of the duties. Why would he step it up later?
The Queen does more than what he does, & she’s 90! I would be so embarrassed if I was William. I wonder how family dinners go for William, “Oh Harry you were so great in Nepal” “Eh William….you mhmm oh look at George he’s destroying his toys how adorable”
Kate would have honed in on him instead of Wills and we’d have a very different Harry in front of us today. Let’s be happy he’s the spare and does such great work.
Honking for Harry!
Pffft- so wills issues are because of Kate? Lame.
She certainly doesn’t help them. He’s flawed but so is she and both very deeply. Yes she could have softened some of the bad optics but she hasn’t and does deserve half the blame in this debacle.
+1
After Diana, the BRF wasn’t going to risk another naturally charismatic member. Kate will not outshine her husband, and since he’s lazy…
She certainly doesn’t seem to bring out the best in him. Never saw as much negative press until she and her power-hungry mother entered the picture.
she doesn’t even need to be charismatic, but it would be better to have someone who can motivate William.
i’m not sure the BRF could handle someone Queen Maxima for example, who is exuberant, flashy, charismatic in spades. but i am sure that William could benefit from someone like Queen Mathilde who helped Phillipe overcome some mental blocks, or someone like Crown Princess Mary who works uber hard.
eh, we’ll see them meet the King and Queen of Bhutan; Queen Jetsun is the quiet elegant type also not very exuberant or shiny but carries herself with quiet dignity and seems to work hard and is well spoken in her given capacity. so that’s also someone who can benefit the BRF…
Yeah sorry NO! I’m not a big Kate fan, no real opinion on her, but if William is not doing his job or living up to his responsibilities, then that is ON WILLIAM. I’m not going to blame the woman for destroying the man sorry nope not going for that sexist way of thinking.
William is the heir to the thrown, if he wanted to do more there would be no stopping him. Let’s be real.
As said above, Mathilde has helped Philippe immensely, likely because she wears the pants in that family in her oh-so-elegant way. Maxima has helped Willem-Alexander deal with his lousy temper. Letizia has made Felipe a much steadier, more commanding public speaker (tv journalism training!).
Some say your partner can be your mirror, to mirror all of your worst qualities (as Kate Middleton and William do for each other). Or your partner can be a mirror that shows you how you can improve. William chose the former. A future king should have chosen the latter.
Thank you notasugarhere … you said what I was thinking much more eloquently 🙂
Nota: Not forgetting the Queen Mother.
NOTA: so true. A partner is like having a mirror into what you’re really like. Kids are like a bunch of tiny mirrors reflecting back at you. It’s a humbling thing to experience! I never knew how selfish I was until I got married. I never knew how angry I could be until I had kids!
Too bad Wills is too coddled to own up to his bad parts. Many would respect him more to show that he can improve himself.
@Nota I think there is truth to that, I believe a partner can bring out the best or worst in a person- well only the worst if it isn’t right, but the idea that had Kate been with Harry he’d behave like William and that is why William is like he is I take objection to.
William is as he is because it is who he is, and no Kate doesn’t challenge it, that we know of, but she isn’t responsible for his not caring or taking responsibility he is and if we want to pass blame off him it should go to Diana and Charles but honestly it’s on William.
I agree and disagree with you guys. Absolutely, I think the old maxim holds true (the behind a good man is a good woman one), but you have to have a good man to start with. And he has to listen. And from all accounts William does not. So, I won’t pin his lack on her.
LAK, accurately called “a marshmallow made on a welding machine” by Cecil Beaton
KM chooses to be in a relationship with a man who cares as little about the world’s problems as she does. I’m not going to say she’s responsible for him overall, but she is responsible for choosing to be apathetic in the face of his apathy. If she cared, she’d be 100 percent on point the few times she works. Lead by that tiny example. But she’d rather go on vacation.
I’m obviously not blaming her 100% for Wills behaviour for sure, but I do think she exacerbates the problem instead of trying to move the monarchy forward in a positive and more modern manner. Like candyblackmail and betsy say, she doesn’t help. And when it comes to the “heir” spot, that matters.
I should have been clearer: I do not fault Kate. She is not the sort to attempt to rise above her douche husband. William’s laziness is 100% on William.
Just because if Kate went after Harry, that doesn’t mean Harry would have married her.
Also, Harry didn’t go to university. He went into the military instead, so I doubt Kate would have joined up.
Totally agree! I don’t think Kate could have done anything to attract Harry’s attention.. If this were possible, don’t you think Pippa would have molded herself into Harry’s dream girl to score another royal in Carole’s feather bespoke cap?
Harry likes the blondes, Kate or Pippa would have never stood a chance.
I will HONK for Harry forever!!
That is all.
Harry’s personality and attitude is probably due to the fact that he is not the heir. He did’nt grown up the pressure of the throne lurking in the background. Interesting how a few years ago William was the savior of the monarchy and Charles should be skipped over. Now William should be skipped over for good king Harry. Public perception is very fickle.
I love Harry & his gingerness, I really do. But I do agree with you, Harry didn’t grew up with the pressure of being the heir. Look at poor Will he lost all of his hair because of it which I think Harry is grateful. I think people had the idea that Will would be just like his mom there were no signs of that but they loved him because of it. Now that he’s supposed to have more responsibilities & taking duties as the heir, meh he doesn’t do much. He flakes on jobs, duties, responsibilities & then takes long vacations. I don’t think that’s what people were expecting of him at this point while Harry takes more duties than him.
I have to respectfully disagree. His personality, or temperament, is genetic. Yes, it can be partially shaped by circumstances, but you cannot say he is completely who he is due to his position.
Agree! There are interviews of Diana saying when they were both young children that Harry had the personality,mtraits to make a better King.
The eldest being more dutiful and responsible doesn’t always happen. Look at David and Bertie.
Harry has always been the dutiful one, Diana saw it early on. Whenever William refused to do something, she’d say, “Then Harry will do it an have all the fun!” “Yes, mama I will!” replied dutiful Harry, then William would run over, shove him aside, and do whatever it was Diana wanted.
Wiliam’s mistakes and transgressions are covered up, Harry’s are open season for the press. Harry wearing the costume William picked out to the party? All over the news. William wearing an African Native costume to the party (verified by shop owner) is turned into a “lion costume” in the press.
William refuses all responsibility. He refuses his royal role and has complained about it his entire life. William has been coddled, protected, fawned over, and indulged. Harry has been thrown under the bus by William, Charles, the press. Harry was always steadier and more dutiful, but he’s also had to grow up faster in many way. Or rather, Harry has had to grow up while William is the eternal adolescent.
The evil William/victim Harry narrative is so old and tired.
Agree that sibling order probably affected the personalities, but I also think we are born with the majority of our traits. Prince Harry would be the people person either way, in my view. It would have been better for William to marry an extrovert that liked people and the reverse for Harry. They should have used Myers Briggs to choose the right personality for William. It seems to me that the marriage is mostly loveless anyway.
I agree with you. Harry is the people’ s prince not because he’ s the spare, but because that’ s his personality. Same for work ethic: Will’ s lazy, Harry isn’ t. And Harry had to earn the respcet Will was given for birth. If Will was the spare he would have been as lazy as he actually is to me
Charles’ decision to be dutiful wasn’t due to his not being the heir. Yet he’s come out of this starting up the Prince’s Trust when he was in his 20s, and he’s done decades of work on a consistent basis.
So being heir doesn’t necessarily mean one turns out like William. Charles is proof that one makes of it what one decides to make of it. Spend one’s adulthood being useless to everybody else or apply oneself to consistent work not only to benefit others but out of respect for one’s position, one’s familial lineage, and for oneself too.
Conversely, would William have been a better person if he wasn’t the heir? He’d still be a Prince with money, perks, and influence, and he’d still have a mother who died tragically. He’d still be someone who has to take accountability for his decisions and what he does with his life.
If anything, if Charles being the heir made him more conscious about his duties and thus more responsible as a person, then that should have applied to William too.
Andrew isn’t the heir, but did that make him as appropriate a person as Charles and even Anne? He’s not even on the same par as Edward. So there’s no concrete evidence that being heir or not the heir is the sole factor in what kind of person one wants to be.
Charles is the heir. Yet he’s better than Andrew who’s not the heir.
I agree: being the heir doesn’ t make you a worst person than what you actually are. If Will had been the spare he woiuld have been as lazy and entitled as he actually is
Charles is the next in line and he has always done his duty. He knew from day one he would be king after his mother died and while his personal life was a mess, no one has suggested that he shirked work the way William has. Everyone says that Harry takes after his mother, but his father has also done a fair bit with the Princes Trust.
Compare him to the last male heir who had to wait decades before taking the throne from his mother and Charles is miles above Edward VII in terms of work ethic, and frankly a few less scandals too, even with the press having more freedom than ever before.
To be fair, Edward 7 wanted to work while he waited, but Victoria wouldn’t let him.
She actively stopped him working and asked everybody, cabinet and patrons alike, not to let him work. She had no faith in him, not to mention actively hated him even before she blamed him for her husband’s death.
Whenever he received a smidge of praise for working, she acted astonished and quickly poured vinegar on his efforts.
So he threw himself into partying. Nothing else to do.
Yes, I think it would. Back at the time of the wedding, when loads of people wanted to skip Charles and go straight to William, there was at least the attitude of “we just have to hang on for a while, then we’ll get the king we want”. Except that William’s proven himself to be a far more undesirable heir than his father, and the public’s not really engaged with George and Charlotte enough to want the crown to come to them in spite of their parents. A popular, visible heir like Harry could well make a massive difference.
To be perfectly honest, though, this is partly why I think the BRF’s favourite strategy of throwing one member under the bus to polish the image of another (see: William and Harry’s entire lives up to now) is slowly starting to backfire. They need to be really promoting the good that ALL their family members do, and either more successfully conceal the bad or (more preferably) force the family member in question to address their image problems (I’m looking at you, Wills and Katie). Because if the public’s starting to turn against William, I don’t think that a bad article about Harry/the York sisters/etc is going to make them think “Oh, William’s not so bad then, at least he’s not like them”. They’re going to start thinking “well, it’s not just William being a rotten apple, the entire bunch is a problem”. And that’s when the future of the monarchy is really going to be in danger.
“They need to be really promoting the good that ALL their family members do, and either more successfully conceal the bad or (more preferably) force the family member in question to address their image problems (I’m looking at you, Wills and Katie).”
Yes! If they could all work together, then all the boats rise. I don’t understand why they don’t seem to see this.
Edited to add: I sometimes feel the members of the BRF aren’t even on the same team, if that makes any sense. Granted, I’m an American and I see this in a different perspective.
HM is league owner but Philip runs the show behind the scenes.
Kents, Gloucesters, and Alexandra are a veteran team still playing the game in spite of age and infirmity. The fans ignore them but they bat cleanup well.
Charles, Anne, and Harry are on one team. Harry used to sub on the W&K team, but they kept blaming all fouls on him.
Andrew is on his own team. Charles is in a lifelong rivalry with him because Andrew keeps being named MVP by the league owner even though Andrew breaks all the league rules.
Edward and Sophie are Junior Varsity, hoping to keep playing for anybody’s team for years to come.
W&K are on their own team and claim their team should be handed the trophy without competing. They’re sitting in the luxury box skimming the profits from all league games.
Nota, this is a fantastic analogy.
Thanks, Not! You knocked that out of the ballpark. 😉
@ Lulu
+1
I agree 100%. They should promote more heavily all the Royals who are doing good works rather than hoping to rest the BRF future on just a streamlined version of the monarchy, especially as half of this narrow line is disastrous (W&K). It seems as if Charles’ strategy is failing big time as W&K don’t want to work with him to make this plan work.
I get the idea behind Charles’ plan but, IA with you, he has the wrong family for that sort of streamlined process. Charles’ streamlined monarchy once he takes the throne will be Charles, Camilla and Harry (and his wife, if he ever marries).
Once QEII passes I think W&K are gone from public duties. If W&K are this workshy, entitled, and resistant to the BRF/their future roles when they’re still beholden to Charles for their operating expenses (aka he pays for everything), how workshy, reclusive, and ridiculous are they going to be when William come into the 19 million pounds of income per year from the Duchy of Cornwall? They can do whatever they want once they have full financial independence and Charles will have very little that he can use to pull them back in line (unless he’s willing to call Normal Bill’s bluff and call in the government and make moves to change the laws of succession).
Excellent post @Lulu. I’ve been saying this for years. It’s a much more of a group effort than they realize.
The monarch is central but supporting players are key. For the life of me I can’t understand Charles’s direction on eliminating so many key players to focus just on him, his wife and two sons. That’s not enough people to cover all the events and needed charity patronages – and with the work ethic seen so far on W&K there’s even more reason to worry.
If the York girls for example wish to step up and do pt work for The Firm why not let them? They’re perfectly presentable and can do a lot of the ‘grunt’ appearances the senior members don’t want. I know Charles dislikes Andrew (don’t blame him) but prejudice can’t get in the way of common sense. Use the best of what you have.
I think when the plan to slim down was first mooted, it was assumed that William and Harry + spouses would be work horses in the same way as Charles and Anne. Assuming that they would step up without being prodded into it, and quickly pick up the pace.
It was also short-sighted in copying the European model because the BRF represent the UK and 16 realms where as the European Royals do not. Plus they have Commonwealth duties.
It’s always good to review and restructure, but this plan isn’t panning out to be as brilliant as George V’s restructure and more cutting off nose to spite face.
I know I’d be all for King Harry – like enthusiastically. I care a lot about equality issues. Everyone has their “pet issue” — that’s mine. When I see Harry work, it lights my heart. He is so relaxed around — and interested in — other cultures and peoples. Will and Kate, on the other hand, can only seem to look natural around other uppercrust white folks. ( I mean, can we stop dancing around this? I’m sorry, but I get the distinct impression that W&K aren’t nearly as “culturally evolved” as we’d hope they’d be.)
Harry would make a GREAT world ambassador for the UK. He’d be a king that focused on the whole commonwealth.
Agree with everything you say with exception of W&K only like upper crust white folks… I think it’s more accurate to leave it at upper crust. There have been lots of photos of them looking equally if not worse around the pleb, lower crust white folks as well. I just think they are just snobs period regardless of color.
yes, this x100!
As a Canadian I don’t want the monarchy period. I think it is a completely outdated tradition that has no place in today’s world, and I don’t for a second understand the need to support this family with tax payer dollars. I actually like Charles, and I like the queen, and I think Harry is terrific. I don’t give a fig about his “youthful indiscretions” no matter whether he is a royal or not. What I like is that he is hands-on with his charities, lovely with children, seems emotionally invested in everything he does, and the quotes that get released are pretty much spot on for the occasion.
That being said, they would continue to keep their titles and I would be greatly in favour of Harry being involved in (and receiving public acclaim for) the charities and causes he is supporting. I never need to hear another word about the “normal” work shy Will and Kate. They can disappear into oblivion with their wealth.
You’ve said pretty much everything I came here to say. I admire Harry deeply as a person—the fact that he is “royalty” matters not one bit to me. No person is automatically worth more than another simply because of whose sperm and egg created him or her.
Fellow Canadian here, and I agree 100% with what you said.
I wonder if Harry actually wants it, though? He seems to be excelling in the role he’s currently occupying, and if that roll were to change- he had more or different expectations- would he also turn into a work-shy lump of a royal? I would say no, since he seems to have a pretty decent work ethic, but it brings up the question of how much of Harry has been shaped simply because he ISN’T the heir?
Well, the grass is always greener when the spare is standing on it. He looks great doing what he’s doing because the expectations are different. How do we think the conversations about his love life and potential wife would sound right now if he were the heir? It would be a THING. His swastika/nudity shenanigans would have been an even bigger thing than they were. I don’t think we can look at this person and say “Well, HE could do it.” Yes, because he doesn’t actually have to.
Having said that, do we forget how enthusiastic people were in 2011? Or when they got engaged? The new generation! He’s marrying for love! And a commoner at that! People wanted to skip Charles and let these two yahoos take over after the Queen. And suddenly everyone realized that it’s actually Chaz who will have to turn this around. And this is a man who – for a time – was hated. Truly hated by some. But he turned it around by being a workhorse and employing some good PR people.
God knows what comes after the Queen. But I would guess that most Brits don’t even care?
Agree with EVERYTHING you say.
It’s super fickle and very fluid when it comes to Windsors. All of them.
Your points are exactly what most of us said, when Barnet was debating hosting a street party for Queen Liz’s b-day.
@littelmissnaughty
Oh and when Harry does stuff like, make racially daft remarks to the a UK comedian or sayss many other incendiary stuff which I won’t list here, (and go off track) the go-to is that its William’s fault.
Always Billy’s fault.
Isn’t Harry lucky??
Yes, it’s true Harry’s job is and as always was different, but he has risen to it. Will has pouted every step of the way, dodged work, invented poor excuses. I just do not believe that William has any intention of being a full time Royal.
I agree Betsy. He’ll do as little as possible while he waits for the Duchy of Cornwall money and then he’ll stop doing anything at all. That money is coming to him whether or not he gets named the Prince of Wales, so he’s just playing the waiting game.
The grass is brown and dying under William, so anybody looks better. I cannot see Harry being worse at the job than Wiliam. Harry makes mistakes but he takes responsibility and moves forward. His brother makes more mistakes, blames everyone else, and runs away and sulks.
I’m not going to fault a member of the military for cutting loose before deployment to a war zone. Over 3000 filed complaints on his behalf for invasion of privacy and a military meme was sparked supporting him. He was on personal time in his hotel room. His SIL meanwhile was skipping out on the paraolympians and sunbathing on a balcony in view of a road.
Let’s not forget press spin. Harry chose to wear the costume but William picked it out. William went to the party dressed as an African Native but the press said it was a lion costume. Too bad the shop owner admitted the truth.
William has said publicly that he’s always done worse than Harry, but that the press went after Harry more. When William the selfish actual admits something like that, pay attention.
Wrong place
NOTA you are on a roll today and I agree with everything you’ve said. I’ll just sit here and keep reading 🤓 HONK HONK HONK for more Harry please!
Oh and has anyone commented on whether all his Invictus stuff will finally be counted as actual RF work? I can’t wait to see him in Orlando!
Nope. If Harry was the heir, you would never have found out about the Nazi/swastika thing.
People do not seem to understand how much the heir is protected.
At Easter, in a documentary, the heir referred to national costume at a diplomatic reception as attending a fancy dress party. The interview before that he backed trophy hunting and brushed off all accusations of his poor work record as haters gonna hate!
Those few instances were brushed away as if they don’t really matter…..because they involve the heir, so everything is downplayed, if it can’t be hidden.
If the spare had said or done any of the above, we would still be talking about it a decade later. As we are doing about *Harry’s Nazi uniform. The fact that the shop keeper gave quotes confirming that William, the heir, picked it out for Harry is completely swept under the carpet. Ditto the fact that he went to the same party as a ‘native’.
*someone else picking out the costume doesn’t exonerate Harry, but that’s the same as saying accessory to murder doesn’t existewhere a murderer has been helped in their crime to use an analogy to explain William’s part in that debacle.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Nope.” when I was actually making the same point you just did? He is not the heir and that is why we look at him and everything he says and does a lot differently. That’s why he’s the person he is today. Of course he’s looking good right now because we actually did find out about his partying etc. He had a bit of a rough time, he did some things that looked terrible, and then he grew up. The fact that we DO know all those things about him makes him look even better to us now.
William, on the other hand, has no personality it seems. He was always sold to the public as the future king, the poor boy who lost his mother too early, the one who actually looked a lot like her. That was it. Nothing else. Except now it doesn’t work anymore because you can’t hide his inner petulant child forever. Protecting him is coming back to bite them in the ass. So of course Harry looks better.
I have no idea how much of this comes down to personality vs. upbringing but I tend to believe that your personality doesn’t change all that much once you leave primary school (barring traumatic events in your life). 😉
‘Nope’ meaning the examples you use wouldn’t be in the public arena if Harry was the heir, and that would influence how people saw him.
Harry would be the charismatic heir who had never put a foot wrong whilst William would be the dull charisma free spare that no one cared for. David vs Bertie situation.
It is always difficult to judge because it’s never a level playing field. Harry has managed to convince the public of his good intentions/willingness to try and that’s why he is preferred.
William, with all the protection in the world, has managed to demonstrate the opposite.
Andrew was the spare, yet he made his life a mess.
Charles is the heir, yet he made his life purposeful.
So if this is any indicator, then being the heir or the spare isn’t the sole qualifier of what makes a person a mess or purposeful. It seems as if it’s based on what each person wants to make of his/her position.
BINGO, you win the prize! 🙂 Just not sure what it is, LOL !!! 🙂
I think the conversation will happen in the Commonwealth first. Australia, Canada, etc. They’ll ask, why be represented by a head of state across the globe? The Queen had everyone’s respect for ruling through wars and peace, but a new crown after her? I think no.
Australia first, it seems to be more independent and is, after all, further away. I’m in Canada and this just doesn’t seem to be a burning issue.
Not yet, but it will be raised when the Queen dies. And likely in Quebec first. We are too busy dealing with our senators right now.
I expect many of them to leave after HM passes, either right after or during the short reign that will follow.
I mean I’m American so I don’t really care what England does with its Government but I will say getting rid of the monarchy would be bad for the country solely for economic reasons. I mean think how many none British people buy into it, watch the weddings, visit the country to see it, etc if it was gone that would stop.
I don’t have opinions on the royal family I like Harry the best, but isn’t Charles pretty well liked now? I don’t think Harry being the heir would change my indifference to what they do, I enjoy them for the glamour and gossip and the unique history to a past the actual people mean little to me.
Plus do they really impact government that much? I mean they have an elected prime minister and parliament. But again I’m American
The Britishers here have said the research says people visit for the palaces, etc. not the royals themselves, meaning the economic impact would be mitigated. If hard-working royals bring more money into charity that’s great, but the money spent supporting the royals could be redirected into charity directly. And with lazy sots like Will and Kate sucking up taxpayer money, it’s just a waste of the public purse.
I could be wrong but the fact the can have a royal wedding, Royal births etc gets them attention and keeps the country relevant.
Again I don’t care what they do but I do think it could have an economic impact. I mean think of all the people who work for them, all the people who sell stuff with their faces on it.
Think of all the lifetime movies not made.
Britain is an economic, cultural, and political powerhouse. It doesn’t need this anachronistic system to be “relevant.” That’s like saying the U.S. needs Kardashians to stay relevant. Nor does it need this family for tourism dollars. People do not go to Britain to see the royals.
Fellow American here- and I kind of agree. It’s more the history of it that intrigues me… and the places/crowns/jewels/things that would draw me in. HM is interesting because of her own history and how long she’s been queen.
But I wonder, if the BRF was done way with- what about the industry that surrounds THEM, not just tourists, but the people employed by the BRF? Would there be a sizable loss of jobs or would it be barely a drop in the bucket? I can’t always tell how extensive the BRF staff seems o be.
Certain jobs would disappear simply because those were created to look after the monarch. Or they would mutate into something eg the LIW could mutate into PAs, BUT since PAs are already employed, they might not have enough work between them, and be forced to retire.
Good question. If more of the estates were opened to the public, they would still need to be staffed. The royals are rich enough privately that they could afford to maintain personal secretaries, servants etc. They might need fewer schedulers etc. and I don’t know about the security apparatus. Fewer journalism jobs for royal-watchers.
They are NOT the top tourist attraction nor do they help tourism. They don’t hinder it, but they fall in the realm of ‘nice to have, but not necessary’.
All UK tourist boards agree on that. Recent Polls for reasons why people visit the UK don’t have the royal family in the top ten. People come for the history, culture and heritage. Everything from the theatres, shakespeare, stone henge, the countryside, the pubs. Castles of historic significance dotted around the country.
The only Royal related site that pulls tourists is the tower of London, but only because people remember it as a prison and a museum for the state jewels, and completely forget that it is also a Royal Palace albight only used during coronations only these days.
Further, of the Royal Palaces worlwide, the most visited are France (Versailles) China (Forbidden City), Spain (Alhambra), Russia (Hermitage). France attracts the most visitors.
If he was heir i, as a UK citizen, would feel more positive about the future of the Monarchy and how we as a people/nation are viewed internationally. TQ and Chuck (to a degree) are respected on the world stage and that reflects on us as a nation. When it comes to these 2 lazy, clueless twits they will be nothing but an embarrassment – particularly Willy who has already shown himself to be a buffoon in his dealing with gov leaders and other heads of state.
Guess what? I wouldn’t feel differently.
But if Normal Bill ever gets to the point where the pitchforks are out for him, I think the historian is right. There would be a national conversation about whether to rearrange the succession or to give up the monarchy altogether.
You’d have a few arch royalists sparring endlessly with a few arch republicans. But I still think the quiet majority would say that the monarchy just isn’t important enough to bother going to the effort to get rid of it. Compared to, say, whether we should or should not Brexit, the BRF is miles upon miles further down on people’s list of priorities.
Do you think it could end in dramatically reducing the costs and size of the working family? Beyond even Charles’s plan? I can see discussions demanding open information about taxpayer money used at private residences (Sandringham, Balmoral). Reducing to monarch, spouse, main line, and one official residence only. Cutting it down bare bones, so the government function is there without the lifestyle excess.
Honestly? I don’t know how it would end.
My bet would be on a constitutional fudge and a continued monarchy in a stripped down form. This has been the monarchy’s story in Britain literally since Magna Carta. Incremental devaluations of the institution following various crises.
But I would also bet that there will NEVER be full financial transparency. You only have to look at the current Panama Papers scandal to see that. Exactly the same story would play out with royal finances. Not because they are royal: because they are rich.
So economics alone wouldn’t have the taxpaying public questioning whether a) the monarchy would continue or b) reducing the amount of funding the BRF receives?
I claim complete ignorance as to how much the British taxpayers support the BRF’s lavish lifestyles and as you know I’m a Yank, so naturally I chafe at the thought of paying a cent to the wealthy because they happen to exist.
This is what I was going to say @Sixer. Ya’ll have seen me fangirl over Queen Maxima, C.P. Victoria and many others. I have nothing but respect and admiration for them as individuals. But if every monarchy in the world was abolished tomorrow, I’d do a little jig.
I know nothing about Maxima other than the fact that she wears fabulous hats! She looks like she’d be a lot of fun to hang out with.
Maxima is great. People always carry on about how Kate needs to spend time with her kids, there’s tons of time in the future for her to perform her role, etc. etc., and I read an article the other day about a couple of days in Maxima’s schedule. She made a speech at a conference about micro financing, she presented awards and made a speech elsewhere, she made a speech somewhere else, etc. etc. She shows everyone how it’s done.
Nutballs – the monarchy costs approx £300m a year out of a total government budget of £750bn. It’s a lot of money but proportionately a tiny sum. And we would not SAVE £300m by getting rid because we would still have to pay for a) the electing and b) the office of the replacement head of state. We aren’t ONLY paying for them just to exist, you know?
But I don’t think people see it like that. I think people don’t mind paying for the BRF provided they do their jobs. They are aware that it’s not a lot of money in terms of the national finances. I think Brits are resistant to change. I think Brits despise politicians more than they despise lazy royals and fail to see the advantage in replacing lazy royals with (corrupt, careerist, sleazy – take your insult of choice cos in the minds of Brits they all apply to the political class) politicians.
I also think that if you polled Britishers on changes that they think would most benefit the country, keeping or getting rid of the royals would come in at about number 19874521 or something. Monarchy or republic? It’s just not on the radar of most people. We simply enjoy getting out the pitchforks for a short while if one of them steps too far out of line.
I wish it were not like this! But it is!
Hmmm… I saw the PM as the head of state, your equivalent of the President, with the House of Lords & Commons being your Senate. And that the monarchy was there for show & international public relations and that despite the public’s interest in them, the BRF isn’t what accounts for tourism dollars. Is that not the case?
ETA: I’m watching the History of Scotland series on BBC2 and enjoying it.
We have a cabinet government. So legislative and executive branches are combined. We don’t vote for a Prime Minister – we vote for political parties who choose their own leaders internally, and the leader of the majority party after a general election becomes head of government. The party can change leaders halfway through an electoral cycle and we would have a new PM without an election. So our executive is never blocked by our legislature, like yours. On the other hand, way too much power is invested in our executive.
Head of state is just for ceremonial and figurehead duties (since the nation is embodied by the institution of the crown, not the actual monarch/person). Head of state is the monarch.
Tourist dollars come from the heritage. The heritage would be available whether we keep the BRF or not – in the same way France’s tourist dollars partly depend on its heritage, despite having got rid of its monarchy. In fact, you could argue that if the BRF weren’t still squatting (sorry, couldn’t resist!) in half our heritage, it would make more in tourist dollars.
ETA: not seen that. Who’s presenting? Is it worth my downloading?
How would getting rid of the BRF change the other titled artisocracy there? Would it have any impact to the other Dukes, Earls, etc?
Crickett: it depends on whether we are changing entire system, which would be difficult, or simply cutting off the top which might find us in Cromwellian territory.
Cricket – I’d say, aside from the very few peers left in the House of Lords, who would also have to go, it would just be the monarchy. The aristos could keep or jettison their titles as they pleased. They have no constitutional function and monarchy or republic is solely a constitutional issue.
Sixer, just saw your ETA…
It’s a documentary that examines how Scotland was shaped politically and culturally in the aftermath of WWI. After reading Ken Follett’s “Fall of Giants”, I find that aspect of UK history quite interesting. Jennie Lee sounds a bit like his fictional labor politician, Ethel Williams.
OMG! I love that you’re calling him Dirty Ginger Snap now!!! I might even like that better than Prince Hot Ginge! LOL
a King Henry IX? but instead of wife killling why not a reality show auditioning for each new wife. Updated monarchy and all that.
One henry out of 8 kills a wife or two and the rest are forever tainted?
Any woman that marries Harry needs to accept the fact that he will have mistresses, as is the custom.
If Harry was the heir and comported himself the way Harry does now, the monarchy would have a bright future. Harry has direction, he has charisma, and he genuinely cares about people. William and Kate have none of that. Let’s be honest: royal families in today’s world are pointless. Without someone who truly has a passion for making the role mean something, the BRF will become increasingly unpopular.
Maybe William has no desire to be King or to uphold the monarchy? Maybe his whole plan is to bring down the outdated institution that chewed his mother up and spit her out.
I wouldn’t be surprised. Trick is, it isn’t his call. He doesn’t get to decide to end the monarchy, that is the right of the people. If he wants to end it, get out with the kids, stop living a 1 percenter lifestyle off of the institution you hate, and openly campaign as a Republican candidate for public office.
I think William does want to be the Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall ($$$$$) and then the King of England, Duke of Lancaster ($$$$$$$$$). His ego would love it, he loves the deference people give him, he loves the money and the perks, he loves being exalted.
The thing is, he won’t be PoW for years and king for another 25-30 years. So he’ll be in his 50s or around 60 when he becomes King. So he knows it’s just a waiting game. All he has to do is to just ride it out until then and maybe he thinks that all this negative publicity will go away and he’ll be safely ensconced in the throne.
So all this hand-wringing now doesn’t seem to worry him as he knows it’s still decades away until he gets the Kingship and in the meantime, he knows nobody is going to take away anything from him but that he’ll just an increase in income and higher titles, so he’s just looking forward to an easier life for at least a couple more decades.
And I don’t get the hand-wringing as it’s not going to change anything in the next step in this progression. The Queen can die any day now and the powers-that-be are not going to stop Charles from being crowned King nor stop William from becoming PoW and Duke of Cornwall ($$$$$), which would give him more freedom money-wise.
No. The idea of a Monarchy is outmoded, and has no place in modern society. Yes, we love the glamour and idea, but that is because we’ve been programmed with centuries of Prince and Princess fables. It’s a genetic memory, at this point, to be a little in love with the idea of royalty, and of being set apart from the rest. Also, would Harry be so appealing if he were the heir? Would he behave more like William, if the crown were a shoo-in?
There’s a lot of Harry love going around now, but….
Did we forget when he dressed like Hitler?
Or the photos of the drunken orgy in Las Vegas?
Or refusing to pay his multi-thousand pound bar tab?
I mean, I think the Harry love may be a bigger reflection of how disliked and useless Wills and Kate are. Harry is doing good work, for sure, but he hasn’t always. This shift in his life style (that we can see) and work ethic seems to have only occurred in the last 2 years.
I think that Harry being in the military and especially spending time in Afghanistan forced him to grow up. While he still appears to be fun-loving and charismatic, when he was forced to leave the front, the things he witnessed and the camaraderie he had with his fellow soldiers had a great impact on him. His new-found maturity allowed him to follow through with his own initiative. The Invictus Games are the result. Then add his work in Africa and Sentable and I think his youthful indiscretions can fully be seen as just that. He’s finally grown up and is a credit to his position, unlike Workshy Willie who never uses his position for anyone’s benefit but his own.
Hyperbole much?
It wasn’t Hilter- He was a (young and immature) British soldier who dressed up as/mocking a Nazi soldier for a costume party. Given the British tv history, mocking the Nazis seems to be a national pastime- as is their right since they suffered so much during the War.
No orgy- Strip billiards in the privacy of his hotel room before going off to a war zone. To me, his privacy rights were violated, where’s your outrage for that?
The Nazi costume was gross. It was also a long time ago, and as royal sins go, WAY far down on the list.
The so-called “drunken orgy”? First, that’s not what it was. Second, even if it had been, he was with other consenting adults. That was a non-issue and a non-scandal, the whole thing was ridiculous.
This might be a random comparison to make and I don’t even know what made me think of it, but this hypothetical situation reminds me of the season 2 finale of Project Runway (the American one). There were three finalists in the runway show (Santino, Chloe, and Daniel) and one decoy (Kara), because the penultimate episode had not yet aired and the producers didn’t want to spoil the final episodes by revealing that Kara had been eliminated. Kara had done poorly most of the season but her final collection was far and away the best and would have won if she had still been in the competition. However, as Tim Gunn pointed out, had she still been in the competition, she probably wouldn’t have made such an amazing collection. The circumstances under which she created this collection were entirely different than they had been all season and she was no longer psyching herself out because the pressure was off.
Point being: if Harry was raised as the heir, not the spare, he might now be an entirely different person because the circumstances in which he was raised would be entirely different.
NO, I won’t feel differently. The idea of monarchy is a relict. S.O. is entitled to rule based on his/her birth and family name? Why? Because it’s been done for thousands of years?
Does anyone know if there is one new sponteneously arisen monarchy somewhere?
I don’t think it’s a viable form. And I suspect that Will and Kate know it too.
As an American, I think the royal family is quite useful as a head of state separate from the government. Here, the head of state and the head of the government are the same person, and when that person is ideologically different from you, you can feel disenfranchised, leading to all this ridiculous “Take Back America” from Obama and “Make America Great Again.” (Tho I felt the same way during the Dubya years, so….) Being able to still feel united under a politically neutral head of state probably helps mitigate that sort of feeling quite a bit. Coalition governments can’t hurt, either.
Pardon me while I cry into my teacup over the American political system.
Despite being a dyed-in-the-wool republican, I think this is a good point. The monarchy does confer us with an apolitical institution through which we can invest love/pride in the nation.
But there are drawbacks. They are unaccountable, which causes resentment. And a cabinet democracy does put too much power into the hands of the executive.
I will never feel different about wanting to watch him be gritty and dirty and charming O MY!!!!
As a (pitchfork-wielding) republican with no time for royalty, I will concede that a very pared down royalty that included Harry could be an acceptable option.
At this point in history, isn’t the BRF really nothing more than public relations personnel for the Empire who are born into the job? Some adapt well to their roles – Elizabeth II and Philip; Charles, Anne, Edward but not Andrew; Harry but not William. Some were aided by their spouses – Victoria by Albert; George VI by the Queen Mother; Elizabeth II by Philip; but not Edward VIII and his choice of Wallis or William and Catherine. Charles and Diana could have been the all-time power couple but Charles never really tried to give it a chance since he had Camilla at his beck and call.
Firstly, I just want to say how much I have loved reading this read. Some very good arguments in this debate, from both sides, and I think you all have a point.
I can’t add anything other than I do wonder whether the hate on for William is actually just localised to one or two websites like this. I say this because when I see stories about William on the wider net, all I see is the sickly gushing of people saying how Wills is the future of the monarchy.
Makes me a little sick in my mouth to read the fawning over him, considering how work shy he is.
I’m sure they would hate the gushing over Harry too.
I think that if Harry was the heir the throne wouldn’ t be in danger at all. he’ s not bone idle and arrigant like his brother, he doesn’ t put excuses for shrinking from his duites and he show much more responsibilities. He’ s done some (big) mistakes but he was young and he had lost him mum when he was nearly a kid. He’ s grown and changed, he’ s proving that he’ s the real rpince of people. Seeing all the efforts and care he puts in what he does I can say he would be a great king
I think they both inherited Diana’s emotional problems but they manifest differently. I think they both suffer from depression. Will’s manifests in a way that is debilitating, while Harry’s manifest in avoidance. I think William gets stuck in his holes and can’t do anything. I think Harry does so much charity work bc it takes him out of himself.
And I think you’re pretty wise.
Thank you, Bluhare.
He actually created these games, right? If so, I think that’s impressive.
Can we talk about how much LESS ginger there suddenly is on that lad? I saw video of that event and the bald spot is overtaking….