UK United Kingdom Royal Family / Royal Families Drama General Thread - formerly "Prince Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals"

1613740615135.png

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as "senior" royals and work to become financially independent.

_110441486_hi059012660.jpg


In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal - including the Queen or Prince William - was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is "disappointed".

Senior royals are understood to be "hurt" by the announcement.

In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision "after many months of reflection and internal discussions".

"We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen."

They said they plan to balance their time between the UK and North America while "continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages".

"This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity."

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said discussions with the duke and duchess on their decision to step back were "at an early stage", adding: "We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through."

The couple's announcement on Wednesday comes two months after the Duke of York withdrew from public life after a BBC interview about his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in August.

 
Last edited:
There’s a difference between being an intellectual and being canny, smart, common sense kind of smart.
That's fair. I guess my perception is that a lot of the royal family seem to lack pragmatism about their situation. Charles' entitlement caused the biggest royal scandal since King Edward's abdication over Wallis, and if Wills truly is philandering the work they've done to rehabilitate their image could easily be undone. I think the Queen was aware of the relative precarity of her situation; it's a bit unthinkable that we'd ever depose the Royals but she saw a lot of other monarchies (including her husband's) ending and also oversaw the breakup of Empire. The younger crop seem somewhat complacent (although Charles in later years at least is a bit more canny with his drive to modernise, but he might have wrong-footed it).
Here you go, have the whole chapter. The whole book is great, highly recommended.
This sounds fascinating. I'm not sure if I believe it, exactly, but it's one of those stories that I wouldn't be shocked if it were true. It has got my juices flowing a bit and reminded me of the old crackpot conspiracy theory.

Basically, the Marquess of Cholmondley is gay. He cultivated an image of a womaniser playboy, but he met François-Marie Banier in the early 1980s as a young man and fell for him. François-Marie is an openly gay photographer and artist who had been best buddies with Yves Saint Laurent, and he has a giant house on the Rive Gauche in Paris that the Marquess is constantly staying at (which is also shared by the French actor Pascal Greggory in no doubt a highly European set up, as Pascal was also going out with the openly gay opera director Patrice Chéreau - the building was apartments, and François-Marie had gradually bought more and more of them until he owned the whole building). He also owns a couple of Riads in the Medina of Marrakech (one of which is "Pascal's") and in the mid 20th century Marrakech was a gay celeb hotspot.

In the late 1980s the Marquess and François-Marie bought a Palladian villa together in Brouzet-lès-Quissac in the south of France, which they used to host elaborate soirées (Johnny Depp met Vanessa Paradis there, and François-Marie is their daughter's godfather). However François-Marie had been scamming/manipulating Liliane Bettencourt, the L'Oréal heiress and the richest woman in the world, in a sort of Truman Capote swans way, and had managed to become the sole beneficiary to her entire estate besides her L'Oréal shares (and received gifts from her in excess of a billion euros, and was also made the beneficiary of her life insurance policy). Liliane's daughter went to court in 2007 citing an abus de faiblesse, essentially that her mother had been exploited and as investigations continued it was decided that it would be brought to trial in September 2009. This meant François-Marie (and by extension, the Marquess, who was frequently described as one of the most eligible bachelors and yet at 49 had never married) were going to be under the microscope as this trial began gaining momentum. Mater Cholmonldey (who unusually for a dowager, had refused to vacate the Castle Cholmondley, although they did have another country pile in the form of Houghton Hall) would never have stood for the scandal of a gay heir.

None of that's actually a conspiracy theory beyond the Marquess having a gay lover - they do own that villa together, and they have been cited to be "inseparable", and by all accounts the Marquess does stay with François-Marie all the time and isn't about that much. The conspiracy theory is the other bit. Basically Rose Hanbury and William had been hooking up, supposedly because he loved getting pegged and Kate wouldn't do it. Wills and Kate's relationship broke down in 2007, but the firm wouldn't approve of the Wills/Rose pairing because she'd been a political staffer for Conservative politician Michael Gove, and the royals want to project an image of political impartiality, so worried that a future Queen having worked for the Conservative party would be toxic. So him and Kate got back together but he carried on secretly philandering... and oh no! He got Rose pregnant.

So the theory is that the firm, seeing a happy accident, decided that Rose would marry the Marquess (who was the Lord Great Chamberlain and so had an important role in royal affairs). That way, the Marquess would throw off scrutiny about his criminal gay lover and Wills wouldn't face problems about conceiving a child out of wedlock. Sure enough, the Marquess and Rose announced their engagement two days before they got married in June 2009 and she gave birth to twins four months later in October 2009. When Wills and Kate got married, the Queen said as a wedding gift she'd gift them any estate in the UK, and Wills picked out Anmer Hall in Norfolk (two miles from Houghton Hall, the place that Marchioness Rose lives, kinda like how Charles bought Highgrove, which was twenty minutes from Camilla's home of Bolehyde Manor).

Rose got the sweet deal of having a massive country house and loads of money (supposedly the Marquess is worth far more than William) and a gay husband who spends most of his time abroad while still getting to see her lover. The Marquess got the veneer of respectability and a beautiful young bride to show off, who was completely fine with him maintaining his gay relationship and life in France (indeed François-Marie is the children's godfather), but Will got sloppy and got Rose pregnant again in 2015 shortly after Kate had given birth, at which point Wills and Kate decamped to Adelaide Cottage in Windsor (which is now their primary residence outside of London, despite having the freshly renovated Anmer Hall just sitting there).
 
Last edited:
I'm almost certain it's this. He probably has bad cancer, like pancreatic cancer or something similarly grim, and is trying to treat it by drinking boiled acorn tea or seaweed infusions.
So what happens, realistically, if The King dies? Do we get another spectacular-tier funeral and coronation or what? It's a bit too soon for another grand party.
 
i'd expect charles funeral to be rather modest, but williams coronation to be a pretty big event.
My hope is that the next Coronation brings back the King's Champion.
1280px-The_Third_and_Last_Challenge_by_the_Champion_during_King_George_IV's_Coronation_Banquet...jpg
If any person, of whatever degree soever, high or low, shall deny or gainsay our Sovereign Lord George, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, son and next heir unto our Sovereign Lord the last King deceased, to be the right heir to the imperial Crown of this realm of Great Britain and Ireland, or that he ought not to enjoy the same; here is his Champion, who saith that he lieth, and is a false traitor, being ready in person to combat with him, and in this quarrel will adventure his life against him on what day soever he shall be appointed.
 
Basically Rose Hanbury and William had been hooking up, supposedly because he loved getting pegged and Kate wouldn't do it.
I just love the idea that people think Will and Katie are so happy, so perfect a couple that Wills wouldn't be tapping someone outside his marriage to Katie.

Dude is the future King of England (I was hoping the people of England would wise up and get rid of the monarchy before that happened, but whatever...). Royals don't live by the same rules as the rest of us because they don't have to.

It also wouldn't surprise me if this were yet another case of "can't marry the person I really want to because the rules are unabashedly stupid".

That said, I think even if Liz weren't as astute as she needed to be directly with all things Meghan Markle, surely, she must have an investigative team that knew what her deal was, and Harry is too dim (and not nearly valuable enough to be motivated) to play the same political game as everyone else in his family, so why did anyone think that Harry marrying Megs was a good enough idea that they let it fly? Was it just a token to keep Harry from doing/saying things that were generally stupid?
 
That said, I think even if Liz weren't as astute as she needed to be directly with all things Meghan Markle, surely, she must have an investigative team that knew what her deal was, and Harry is too dim (and not nearly valuable enough to be motivated) to play the same political game as everyone else in his family, so why did anyone think that Harry marrying Megs was a good enough idea that they let it fly? Was it just a token to keep Harry from doing/saying things that were generally stupid?
My main beef is that Queen Elizabeth's reign had seen Britain go straight down the drain and just didn't seem to care, even if she couldn't legally do anything about it...so Harry marrying a mystery-meat foreigner is right in line with the values of a deteriorating nation.

That is a good question otherwise--marrying some mulatto American thot is somewhat scandalous and it's unlikely that Harry's handlers would've just waved that through without juicy backstory and/or compromise.
 
some are reporting flags are at half mast in the UK
Without knowing much about it, I figured I'd share what Bing had to say about the flag rules in the UK.
1710714941732.png

If she died, it would apply, but I'm not sure how specific the word "funeral" is. Would they fly it as half mast upon being informed of the death, or during the official funeral period?
 
so Kate REALLY died a year ago?
She did, and now Meghan or Harry is wearing her skin as a disguise to sneak back into the royal family.

The only source I can find for this flag claim is a sourceless article on a pakistani news website at thenews.com.pk, written by someone called "Wells Oster". He writes lots of stories about Harry and Meghan, spinning them in the most favourable way he can. I'm not sure he exists.
 
I was hoping the people of England would wise up and get rid of the monarchy before that happened, but whatever...
I really don't get why everyone wants the royalty dead. they function as a cultural ambassador, a role model for the people to emulate and a lynchpin to hold the nation together. America had role models like Disney princesses and the Kardashians and have generations of girls that grew up to be horrible women.
 
(I was hoping the people of England would wise up and get rid of the monarchy before that happened, but whatever...)
I'm not a Royalist, but my main issue with deposing the royals is what replaces them. Functionally speaking the royals don't do anything but smile and wave, and there's plenty of arguments to be made about what they represent... but it would cost an awful lot of money to remake the state for no benefit other than symbolism. Every aspect of the state operates at the behest of "The Crown" which is a sort of legal fiction completely divorced from the royal family at this point, so most aspects of the British state would have to be rewritten by lawyers and civil servants. We'd also inevitably end up replacing the King with a president but maintaining a parliamentary democracy (so still with a Prime Minister, so kind of like France) and then there'd be all this political psychodrama about who gets to be president and we'd probably end up with the honking pudding Boris Johnson being the ceremonial figurehead. I'd take the shitty royals over that.
some are reporting flags are at half mast in the UK
Flags are flown at half mast whenever a head of state that the UK cares about dies. In December they flew at half mast over the death of the Amir of Kuwait, and I feel like there might have been another one more recently but I can't remember - a half mast flag doesn't inherently tie to the royal family. That being said it is significant, so if it's true (I'm not near a flagpole) I'm intrigued to learn more.
 
I really don't get why everyone wants the royalty dead. they function as a cultural ambassador, a role model for the people to emulate and a lynchpin to hold the nation together. America had role models like Disney princesses and the Kardashians and have generations of girls that grew up to be horrible women.
It made more sense to want them out of the picture when they had real power, but that power is a shadow of it's former self these days.
 
Back