Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

[Hallo girl]

I couldn’t agree more. I find that she has achieved a brilliant balance between motherhood, supporting her husband and the Queen and finding her niche as very much her own person. You laid it all out beautifully.

I agree, she took her time to settle into the role, be with her children when they were very young, Regardless of your status in life could there be a more important role than being with your children at such a young age. I was always disappointed in fellow posters who viewed her as lazy because she opted to spend the early years with her children, I know not everybody in the world has that option but she did and took it.

 

[Sandy345]

As the second in line, William had to consider not only Harry's personal happiness, but also how his marriage would impact the Royal House.

Harry's marriage to Meghan might or might not be successful in the long run (it is still early to tell), but I think it is fair to say that, even in such a short period of time, it has already proven to be negative for the Royal House at least in the UK and the major Commonwealth realms. In this sense, William's concerns were justified.

Since Harry is way down in line of succession I don't think it would in the long run have great impact. when a royal marries and there is personal unhappiness (suppose Harry decided to marry a choice of bride that would please his brother or the media instead of Meghan) then that could have bad repercussions as well.

I don't know why Harry's marriage to Meghan should be judged as being successful or unsuccessful. I don't recall any other recent marriages where there is the speculation of it not being successful. I did not see this with Bea or Eugenie for example; And Bea married someone who was just coming out of a relationship when he started dating Bea and he had a child with his ex fiancee--which arguably is more complex than Harry and Meghan's situation as far as family situations. I think for Harry and Meghan it is the best thing to hope for the best and not watch to see if it would be successful or not. They do have a child now and I think they are happy in their personal lives.

It would of course have truly serious ramifications if William did not marry and have heirs of its own then there would be huge pressure on Harry not to move to another country with his wife and child and start a new life.

As long as Harry is not close to the throne, I don't think that it should have serious negative implications. If there were another scandal of an unhappily married royal who perhaps felt pressured by his brother and the media to drop someone he loves and finds someone his brother approves of, that would be bad. And as I recall, both Cressida and Chelsy have had gotten negative press. Chelsy in particular was criticized and in the media. Perhaps anybody Harry married would get negative press.


I don't see that william is right in this regard. The couple is still together.

Down the road, it might bring more attention to the role of the spares. This would be something that would concern CHarlotte and Louis and their future roles as royals. Would they be able to pursue their own interests and not necessarily have full time work with the Firm.

If this did not happen with Harry, it may have impacted the next generation and perhaps it would have been inevitable that something like this could happen.

 

[Betsypaige]

I agree, she took her time to settle into the role, be with her children when they were very young, Regardless of your status in life could there be a more important role than being with your children at such a young age. I was always disappointed in fellow posters who viewed her as lazy because she opted to spend the early years with her children, I know not everybody in the world has that option but she did and took it.

I wasn't around then, but did posters really say that? Sad.

George, Charlotte and Louis are lucky that their parents are able to be around as much as they are for their childhoods. I've no doubt HM and Charles wished they could have done the same...

So, how dare Robert Lacey make snide remarks about Kate? Of course, he seems to be making them about everyone except Harry....

 

[Sandy345]

I think Lacey was not all that severe with Kate. She came off better than William did. He does not give anybody a complete "break" from criticism. Except perhaps Michael Middleton.

 

[AC21091968]

I wasn't around then, but did posters really say that? Sad.

George, Charlotte and Louis are lucky that their parents are able to be around as much as they are for their childhoods. I've no doubt HM and Charles wished they could have done the same...

So, how dare Robert Lacey make snide remarks about Kate? Of course, he seems to be making them about everyone except Harry....

I think Lacey was not all that severe with Kate. She came off better than William did. He does not give anybody a complete "break" from criticism. Except perhaps Michael Middleton.

I cannot really determine the overall opinion of The Royal Forum. However, from reading through the social media, the "Lazy Kate" mostly come from some Republicans (anti-monarchist), Meghan supporters and feminists. Some Meghan fans and 3rd/4th wave feminist have criticised Kate for not having a career before marriage and being "submissive" (i.e. by following protocol and keeping her head down) to the "archaic" "old, pale, stale, male" monarchy.

 

[TLLK]

I wasn't around then, but did posters really say that? Sad.

George, Charlotte and Louis are lucky that their parents are able to be around as much as they are for their childhoods. I've no doubt HM and Charles wished they could have done the same...

So, how dare Robert Lacey make snide remarks about Kate? Of course, he seems to be making them about everyone except Harry....

Yes there were some people on royal discussion forums, social media and tabloid comment sections that said that about Catherine.

 

[Betsypaige]

I cannot really determine the overall opinion of The Royal Forum. However, from reading through the social media, the "Lazy Kate" mostly come from some Republicans (anti-monarchist), Meghan supporters and feminists. Some Meghan fans and 3rd/4th wave feminist have criticised Kate for not having a career before marriage and being "submissive" (i.e. by following protocol and keeping her head down) to the "archaic" "old, pale, stale, male" monarchy.

This is probably getting too off topic, but I’ll just say that I have little - actually, I have no- patience for people who judge others’ decisions negatively just because these decisions wouldn’t have been their own.

TLLK:

Yes there were some people on royal discussion forums, social media and tabloid comment sections that said that about Catherine.

Sigh. Well, they sound like mighty unhappy people. In the meantime, Kate is clearly happy with the choices she’s made and the life she lives..and that’s all that matters

 

[Claricecolin]

Yes there were some people on royal discussion forums, social media and tabloid comment sections that said that about Catherine.

That was being said well before Meghan came on the scene. I remember defending Kate saying that she and William were enjoying their "reverse retirement" at that time. I felt they were being given time to be as private and normal as they could before they lost that ability . I am still glad Kate had that choice to do so.

 

[Somebody]

That was being said well before Meghan came on the scene. I remember defending Kate saying that she and William were enjoying their "reverse retirement" at that time. I felt they were being given time to be as private and normal as they could before they lost that ability . I am still glad Kate had that choice to do so.

I love the idea of 'reverse retirement' because indeed, for royals that do not abdicate (although I'm not sure that is the case for William), there is no retirement, so any prolonged time off needs to be taken when younger; before the highest duty calls.

 

[Betsypaige]

I love the idea of 'reverse retirement' because indeed, for royals that do not abdicate (although I'm not sure that is the case for William), there is no retirement, so any prolonged time off needs to be taken when younger; before the highest duty calls.

I love “reverse retirement” also, and you’re exactly right. Being the monarch, or heir, sadly often means putting duty ahead of family, no matter how much you love your family. I’m sure it killed a very young HM to be away from her Charles and Anne for so long - and it obviously affected him deeply. He couldn’t spend as much time with William and Harry as he’d I sure he’d have liked - it’s been William who’s encouraged him not to be such a workaholic. The fact that he and Kate can do things differently is wonderful...

 

[Hallo girl]

I love “reverse retirement” also, and you’re exactly right. Being the monarch, or heir, sadly often means putting duty ahead of family, no matter how much you love your family. I’m sure it killed a very young HM to be away from her Charles and Anne for so long - and it obviously affected him deeply. He couldn’t spend as much time with William and Harry as he’d I sure he’d have liked - it’s been William who’s encouraged him not to be such a workaholic. The fact that he and Kate can do things differently is wonderful...

Exactly, and IMO the queen would have supported them in the private time they had before stepping out into the bigger stage. How often have royal watchers commented on Charles upbringing because his parents were away so much . I also believe Harry and Meghan would have been given the same opportunity if they had wished.

 

[Betsypaige]

Exactly, and IMO the queen would have supported them in the private time they had before stepping out into the bigger stage. How often have royal watchers commented on Charles upbringing because his parents were away so much . I also believe Harry and Meghan would have been given the same opportunity if they had wished.

I agree, she absolutely would - I have no doubt that the Queen, Philip and Charles are all thrilled that Wiiliam and Kate have this precious time together. George VI’s tragic early death was devastating to his family for obvious reasons, but one effect is that it meant the new Queen didn’t have the time to be the kind of mother she wanted to be. This job is a demanding and difficult one, and very sadly HM’s ascension to the thrown deeply affected Charles. However, she has lived an extremely long, interesting life - and because she has, it means that her son and grandson won’t see the throne as very young men. As a result, it’s allowed Charles the ability to step back and enjoy his son and his family - and it’s allowed William, who had a fraught childhood, the ability to sort of relive that ideal childhood with his own kids.

 

[Denville]

I love “reverse retirement” also, and you’re exactly right. Being the monarch, or heir, sadly often means putting duty ahead of family, no matter how much you love your family. I’m sure it killed a very young HM to be away from her Charles and Anne for so long - and it obviously affected him deeply. He couldn’t spend as much time with William and Harry as he’d I sure he’d have liked - it’s been William who’s encouraged him not to be such a workaholic. The fact that he and Kate can do things differently is wonderful...

I dont think that Charles is any less of a workaholic now than he ever was.. he may see a bit more of the grandkids but he's still devoted to his work, unless illness slows him down. The queen too IMO was always devoted to her work, and she did put that ahead of family duties and prioritised being with Philip at times ahead of "being with Charles, Anne and Philip"...

Will and Kate had a chance to spend time as a couple with their kids, for a few years, since they weren't the heirs. They could spend time in private -though I think both of them could have done a bit more public work..during that time. However, they have both taken on more work, in the last year or 2 and I think that Kate is growing into a more active royal role and enjoying it. And indeed compared to being lectured by Harry and Meghan, its possible to prefer Will and Kate coming slowly up to the mark at public duties.

 

[Denville]

Exactly, and IMO the queen would have supported them in the private time they had before stepping out into the bigger stage. How often have royal watchers commented on Charles upbringing because his parents were away so much . I also believe Harry and Meghan would have been given the same opportunity if they had wished.

Im really not sure about this. I think if Harry and Meg had asked for a few years to play themselves in, the queen would have agreed to it but I think she was expecting them to start their royal life on marriage and take on teh full time job. William was different, when he married, the queen was younger and she and Philip were both working.. but now, Philip's retired, and she is very old.. and I am not sure if she really felt it was necessary/ a good idea for her second grandson to go in slowly...to his life of royal duty. I think that as a young woman she accepted that she had to give up any years of private life to help her father and then take over as queen.. and she's still partly of that mindset.. that if the Crown needs you, you take up the job. I think she might have agreed to Meghan being played in a bit more slowly, letting Harry take on the bulk of royal duties for the couple when they got married.. but Meg could start her family and have couple of years of private life. However I think Meghan was eager to get into the job and so the queen OKe'd it.. then when tension began to arise, it seems that there was a suggestion that the 2 of them might go ot S Africa for a year or 2... and have that time as a private couple.. but it came to nothing.

 

[Claire]

hmm - dont know how to say this.
I think that wouldn't have played well into Meghan and Harry's hand. It does look like H& M spoke to the palace before the wedding about how they wanted their role in the family to look like. But it is not said who they spoke to - or how that role differs from what they eventually demanded. They are the ones who made a running start to their royal careers and essentially that was Meghan wanting to show the world that she was fully committed to her role. Of course we can look at it now and say that it also was a snub to the palace by pointing about a greater perceived work ethnic and popularity against the Cambridges and other royals. I also think they knew they needed to do more to get their name as well known as possible - so when they left the name recognition would carry forward.

 

[solinka]

As the second in line, William had to consider not only Harry's personal happiness, but also how his marriage would impact the Royal House.

Harry's marriage to Meghan might or might not be successful in the long run (it is still early to tell), but I think it is fair to say that, even in such a short period of time, it has already proven to be negative for the Royal House at least in the UK and the major Commonwealth realms. In this sense, William's concerns were justified.

But, but...I keep reading how Harry and Meghan are irrelevant, 7th in the line for the throne, etc..

How come they are hurting monarchy that much?

 

[Claire]

In the short time - it is just negative press also they did accuse them of been insensitive and racist. But Diana and Sarah did the same - didnt really have a last impression

In the long run - wont make a difference at all.

 

[Denville]

hmm - dont know how to say this.
I think that wouldn't have played well into Meghan and Harry's hand. It does look like H& M spoke to the palace before the wedding about how they wanted their role in the family to look like. But it is not said who they spoke to - or how that role differs from what they eventually demanded. They are the ones who made a running start to their royal careers and essentially that was Meghan wanting to show the world that she was fully committed to her role. Of course we can look at it now and say that it also was a snub to the palace by pointing about a greater perceived work ethnic and popularity against the Cambridges and other royals. I also think they knew they needed to do more to get their name as well known as possible - so when they left the name recognition would carry forward.

I assume that you mean the idea that H and Meg might spend a year or 2 in Africa, rather than be working royals? I agree that I dont think that would have suited Meg at all, I increasingly feel that she never intended to be a full time royal in the usual sense and saw it as a job she could dip in and out of, but that yes she needed a year or so of royal work to give her the exposure to let her go back to the US and do some kind of business or acting work.
I dont know if Harry was aware of this idea of his wife's until a while after they married. But I think its possible that not too long after the marriage they approached the queen, claimed to be stressed out, not sure if they could do the job etc etc -. and the queen to try and placate them suggested that they take a year off and go to Africa where H had been happy and live a private life there.. but tehre may have been security concerns and it wasn't what Meghan had in mind at all and so the idea fell through..

 

[Claire]

The one thing that seems obvious in this book is that Lacey expects the monarchy, in this case - embodied by William to act it has never before acted before. Why is that and what did he want William to do?
It is almost like Lacey places the unhappiness of all lesser royals firmly at the doorstep of the crown and other sibling to inherit. Margaret's unhappiness was all the Queen. Andrew, Edward and Anne is all Charles and the Queen and Harry is all William, Charles and HM.
Is it the crown's job to make a role for the lesser royals - even if it not something they want or ill suited. They made a role for Andrew - trade envoy. Did they think while Anne little niche works, okay - edward can do the scraps that okay - move on.
William isn't even the King yet - what was he supposed to do for Harry. Offer a joint monarchy? I don't think William has any power to determine anything yet and Harry doesn't have the patient to wait around for what might be.
But unfortunately I very much agree with Lacey that the issue of lesser royal to the main branch will need to be sorted out - before we have the same thread going to Louis and Charlotte.

 

[Denville]

But, but...I keep reading how Harry and Meghan are irrelevant, 7th in the line for the throne, etc..

How come they are hurting monarchy that much?

Because it is unprecedented for a working royal to decide to leave. ANd it came on top of hte scandal of Andrew having to be dropped.. It does not look good when 2 people take on a working royal's role whihc is usually for life unless illness intervenes, and within a year or so they not only leave but do so in a very dramatic way, hinting at tension and dispute within the family....

 

[Betsypaige]

But, but...I keep reading how Harry and Meghan are irrelevant, 7th in the line for the throne, etc..

How come they are hurting monarchy that much?

I personally don’t think H and M’s departure has hurt the monarchy/BRF at all. They’ve all done brilliantly during this crisis...and, frankly, moved on, doing their duties and not moping about the absence of the Sussexes.

 

[AC21091968]

But, but...I keep reading how Harry and Meghan are irrelevant, 7th in the line for the throne, etc..

How come they are hurting monarchy that much?

Currently the 3rd, 4th and 5th in-line to the throne are not over 18 (or 21) yet. Harry at one point is considered to be the Charles' version of the slimmed down monarchy, as he will be the future King's son. He was expected to continue as Senior working royal in his lifetime, especially after The Duke of Edinburgh retired in 2017. The Queen, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Duke and Duchess of Kent and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy are not getting any younger. Naturally, Harry would have to pick up more engagements or even patronages in the future if any of them does go into semi- or full retirement (I am not hoping or wishing retirement BTW).

There is also uncertainty about the Counsellors of State in the Privy Council, because Harry and Archie are still relatively high up in the line of succession and thus could be eligible to become a Counsellor, unless they are not included for not "domiciled" in the UK.

"Councillors of State must be at least 21 years old (except the heir apparent or presumptive, who need only be 18 years old), they must be domiciled in the United Kingdom, and they must be a British subject."​

Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (9 October 1956 – 26 August 1965), Princess Alexandra of Kent (25 December 1957 – 18 December 1962) and Prince Richard of Gloucester (26 August 1965 – 14 November 1966) were Councillor of state once they reached 21. Of course during this time, the Queen's children were still under 21. Prince Charles actually replaced Prince Richard of Gloucester on 14 November 1966.

 

[Betsypaige]

The one thing that seems obvious in this book is that Lacey expects the monarchy, in this case - embodied by William to act it has never before acted before. Why is that and what did he want William to do?
It is almost like Lacey places the unhappiness of all lesser royals firmly at the doorstep of the crown and other sibling to inherit. Margaret's unhappiness was all the Queen. Andrew, Edward and Anne is all Charles and the Queen and Harry is all William, Charles and HM.
Is it the crown's job to make a role for the lesser royals - even if it not something they want or ill suited. They made a role for Andrew - trade envoy. Did they think while Anne little niche works, okay - edward can do the scraps that okay - move on.
William isn't even the King yet - what was he supposed to do for Harry. Offer a joint monarchy? I don't think William has any power to determine anything yet and Harry doesn't have the patient to wait around for what might be.
But unfortunately I very much agree with Lacey that the issue of lesser royal to the main branch will need to be sorted out - before we have the same thread going to Louis and Charlotte.

Lacey apparently thinks very little of Charles, so much so that he’s saying in interviews that William and Kate are the “golden couple” and no one really cares about Charles and Camilla. So, aside from the fact that Lacey seems to think W is responsible for everything that H has ever done, it seems he wants to W to take on all the responsibility that his father now has (Charles, who?). It’s just one more reason for me to hate this book.

I do think we have to be careful in assuming every “non-heir” is going to wind up just like Harry...

 

[Mbruno]

The one thing that seems obvious in this book is that Lacey expects the monarchy, in this case - embodied by William to act it has never before acted before. Why is that and what did he want William to do?
It is almost like Lacey places the unhappiness of all lesser royals firmly at the doorstep of the crown and other sibling to inherit. Margaret's unhappiness was all the Queen. Andrew, Edward and Anne is all Charles and the Queen and Harry is all William, Charles and HM.

I don't think Edward or Anne are or have ever been unhappy with the assignments they are/ were given. I think they are pretty comfortable with their positions in the Royal Family. Maybe Andrew wanted more (after all, he was second in line for quite some time), but I don't think he ever had the kind of overblown expectations that Harry and Meghan have/had for example. Furthermore, by the time Andrew became an adult (in his 20s), Charles had already married and had two sons, so Andrew's position in the family was already naturally fading.


I can't comment on Margaret because most of what I know about her is from books or films (the latter normally fictional to a large extent). For a long time, she was, however, the most senior female adult in the RF after the Queen and the Queen Mother, so, relatively to her position, I think she was "underused" probably because the courtiers and the Queen thought she was not reliable, but that is only my superficial impression.

 

[Erin9]

But, but...I keep reading how Harry and Meghan are irrelevant, 7th in the line for the throne, etc..



How come they are hurting monarchy that much?

They were relevant imo. They were supposed to be a support to William (and Charles really) as the only working royals of their generation besides William and Catherine. It will be a long time before W/K’s kids are able to help. The RF can and will adapt, but their loss plus Andrew’s obviously hurts imo.

In terms of the succession, barring an utter tragedy, no, it’s not a big issue imo.

 

[Erin9]

I do think we have to be careful in assuming every “non-heir” is going to wind up just like Harry...

THIS. Charlotte and Louis may be just fine. (Things may change by the time they’re adults regarding how the BRF operates, but no need to assume the worst either.)

They also might marry people suited to the job. Clearly Meghan was not. It was a professional fail.

 

[Curryong]

And Charlotte and Louis will both immediately go into fulltime royal duties in their late twenties without either of them considering a career on the way? I consider that extremely unlikely myself, considering the royal Houses of Europe.

 

[Denville]

if they dont go into royal duties, it wont really matter...I think that the odds are that only George will be required for royal work, and so his siblings will be left to lead a fairly normal life...

 

[Betsypaige]

They were relevant imo. They were supposed to be a support to William (and Charles really) as the only working royals of their generation besides William and Catherine. It will be a long time before W/K’s kids are able to help. The RF can and will adapt, but their loss plus Andrew’s obviously hurts imo.

In terms of the succession, barring an utter tragedy, no, it’s not a big issue imo.

Yup...Only Harry and Meghan thought they were irrelevant because they - really, especially he - were jealous of William’s position. They actually would have been quite important in the scheme of things, but they couldn’t get past HM and Charles refusing to give them a separate office at Windsor. They wanted more than their positions warranted...and since they didn’t get it, they split.

THIS. Charlotte and Louis may be just fine. (Things may change by the time they’re adults regarding how the BRF operates, but no need to assume the worst either.)

They also might marry people suited to the job. Clearly Meghan was not. It was a professional fail

Again, I agree. Also, if those two decide they’d like to take different paths in life, I’m sure they would discuss it with their parents...and something would be worked out. The Queen and Charles were willing to do that with Harry, but his impatience led him to make a rash and hasty decision. Megxit is on he and Meghan; it is not up to us, IMO, to assume that every other “non-heir” will feel as H did and behave as H did.

 

[Denville]

by the time Will is King the odds are that it will not be expected that younger children do any royal duties and they'll be told from an early age that they are not going to be working Princes/esses and that they should find themselves something to do. so the present rather awkward situation where the children are all expected/intended to do a spell in the military's and then eventually go into royal duties to some extent, wont arise.