The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -

[Hallo girl]

Hey, I made that same exact point in an earlier post (that many people would deal with Prince Harry solely because he's part of the British Royal Family regardless of his relationship with them), but another poster stated that only HM The King and HRH The Prince of Wales were seen as special, and everyone else were seen as normal people (at least to the British public). Since they're British, I assumed that they would know more about their monarchy and how they're viewed a lot more than I, an American, would.

Harrys role within the organisation was an important one, it would be really important just now as the second adult in line to the throne. He would be part of the inner circle, part of the conversation, a voice within the decision making. So IMO as the second son of the King he would be significant, but he did not want that. So now within the organisation he is an outsider, still the second son of the King, brother of the future King, uncle of the next in line ,nobody can ever take that away from him ,but with very little significance because he is out of the circle.
So I would suggest that people who appreciate the hierarchy know where Harry stands, others just like to mix with the title. It will still open doors for him but it is what he does once he walks through the door that counts. His departure has identified his weaknesses, unfortunately his strengths have been diminished without the back up of the palace.

 

[Durham]

Thank you for clearing a lot of things up.

So the current monarch and maybe their direct heir are seen as significant, at least in Great Britain. Everyone else are just regular people who just so happen to be related to one or two people who are generally significant.

Harry's just a regular guy who happens to be the son of the King of the United Kingdom. Since he's neither the king himself nor his direct heir, how he carries himself and whom he associates with isn't reflective on anything beyond himself and his own causes since only HM The King's (and to a lesser extant, HRH The Prince of Wales) only really matter in the eyes of the British public.

So the people who claimed that Harry was only getting invited to things because of the BRF are incorrect, because that would imply a significance with regards to being a part of said family that doesn't exist. That argument could be made if he was his father (the king) or his brother (the heir), but he's neither. Harry, therefore, is being invited to places like Nigeria, Colombia, and the UN General Assembly for his own merits since no members of the BRF are significant outside of monarch and heir.

Also, as a normal guy, he's free to continue looking out for his, his family's, and his organizations' best interest without regards to institutions he wasn't a significant part of in the first place. He can also champion causes and people and political beliefs that he believes because doing so only reflects on him.

Thank you once again for the clarity. I often forget that the opinions within this forum are often not reflected in real life.

Gosh, where to start?

Once again, it would be very difficult to find anyone in Britain who thinks that members of the rf are “special”. We don’t. No one mentioned significant. Significant is not “special”. This is not semantics either.

He was invited to Nigeria because of Invictus, to Columbia because their VP likes Netflix fluff. The UN? Because of Archewell? Isn’t that why he’s there? Come on now, it’s not because he’s special is it?

And the point still stands that you’d be hard pushed to find anyone who actually thinks the rf are “above all others”, That sort of sentiment would have sounded bizarre in the 1950’s, at the very height of what historians have called monarchy as the British Shintoism. Today the very idea is just preposterous & so unbelievably out of touch with contemporary Britain.

And again, there is an important historical context to all this. What the brf is, what it’s for, who matters within it is not static. It is evolving & changing. Any student of monarchy knows this, it is not a secret.

And to return the complement, thank you for reminding us all that understanding what a post actually means can sometime elude the best of us.

 

[Durham]

Hey, I made that same exact point in an earlier post (that many people would deal with Prince Harry solely because he's part of the British Royal Family regardless of his relationship with them), but another poster stated that only HM The King and HRH The Prince of Wales were seen as special, and everyone else were seen as normal people (at least to the British public). Since they're British, I assumed that they would know more about their monarchy and how they're viewed a lot more than I, an American, would.

I would suggest that it is some foreigners not Britons who see members of the rf as "special". And some of these are American.

Which is kind of ironic don't you think?

 

[Mbruno]

Many of the married-in royals have accomplishments prior to even marrying their spouses, and even if some of them were not married to their royal spouses some would still be remarkable people in whatever they pursue.

I am sure Maxima would have had a great career in investment banking and that Mary Donaldson might have been successful in the career she would have chosen in Australia (advertising or whatever). But would they ever have been famous or made a significant impact on society? Honestly, I don't think so.

Camilla, on the other hand, left a blank space in the "Profession" field in her marriage certificate to Prince Charles as she obviously never had a profession herself. Neither did Sarah as far as I know. Kate might be working today with her parents, but, most likely, she would have married a banker or someone else who is upper middle-class and wealthy, and then become a full-time mom/housewife.

I don't dare to think what MM would be doing if she had not become a royal, but it suffices to say that she didn't quite have many accomplishments prior to getting married to CP Haakon. Daniel was a relatively successful businessman and would still be running his gyms today, but he would not be in any way noteworthy.

Ironically the only royal consorts I can think of (other than those who were born royal themselves like Queen Sofia) who were public figures and minor celebrities in their own right before getting married are Meghan, because she was a TV actress, and Letizia, because she was an award-winning journalist and a well-known TV news anchor in Spain.

Marrying into a reigning royal family, especially marrying a future king or queen, is, however, a unique experience. It is bigger than marrying into money or fame/celebrity.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I am sure Maxima would have had a great career in investment banking and that Mary Donaldson might have been successful in the career she would have chosen in Australia (advertising or whatever). But would they ever have been famous or made a significant impact on society? Honestly, I don't think so.

Camilla, on the other hand, left a blank space in the "Profession" field in her marriage certificate to Prince Charles as she obviously never had a profession herself. Neither did Sarah as far as I know. Kate might be working today with her parents, but, most likely, she would have married a banker or someone else who is upper middle-class and wealthy, and then become a full-time mom/housewife.

I don't dare to think what MM would be doing if she had not become a royal, but it suffices to say that she didn't quite have many accomplishments prior to getting married to CP Haakon. Daniel was a relatively successful businessman and would still be running his gyms today, but he would not be in any way noteworthy.

Ironically the only royal consorts I can think of (other than those who were born royal themselves like Queen Sofia) who were public figures and minor celebrities in their own right before getting married are Meghan, because she was a TV actress, and Letizia, because she was an award-winning journalist and a well-known TV news anchor in Spain.

My point was that fame and adoring attention or to clap back at media should never be the motive to do well in anything. Also, even if you don’t get fame, you’ll be content with life. Maxima has her accomplishments, why should being famous be important? As does Mary. Camilla’s case was at a time when lots of upper class women weren’t encouraged at getting further education or considered important and she’s content with her life. She cares little for media attention or nastiness. Kate is at least educated and is content focusing on motherhood in spite being a working royal, not fame and adoration.

Meghan has had acting roles, but she would hardly be famous on the attention she gets now if she wasn’t married to Harry, she hardly had much work lined up after suits. Respect the position and privilege you have whether a born royal or not. The Gloucesters hardly get much attention, but they’re not fussed about attention.

 

[Mbruno]

I would suggest that it is some foreigners not Britons who see members of the rf as "special". And some of these are American.

Which is kind of ironic don't you think?

I don't normally agree with the OP (and don't fully agree either in this case), but please allow me to defend all those clueless foreigners.

The British people may not see the royals as "special", but the royals are above everybody else in the country (even the prime minister) in the official order of precedence of the state (this is an objective fact). They are entitled to military honors (soldiers stand in attention at their sight and salute them. some of them even have flag days); many civilians still bow or cursty to them; they get police protection and are provided state transportation in official public events (the most senior royals get those 24/7, even in private functions); and many of them get to live in Crown Estate properties which are also protected 24/7. Royals are also in general celebrities who are covered extensively by the British press.

I suppose it is understandable that all of the above makes us foreigners see them as "special" in some sense. Maybe "special" is not the right word, but certainly they are not ordinary or common people.

 

[Durham]

I don't normally agree with the OP (and don't fully agree either in this case), but please allow me to defend all those clueless foreigners.

The British people may not see the royals as "special", but the royals are above everybody else in the country (even the prime minister) in the official order of precedence of the state (this is an objective fact). They are entitled to military honors (soldiers stand in attention at their sight and salute them. some of them even have flag days); many civilians still bow or cursty to them; they get police protection and are provided state transportation in official public events (the most senior royals get those 24/7, even in private functions); and many of them get to live in Crown Estate properties which are also protected 24/7. Royals are also in general celebrities who are covered extensively by the British press.

I suppose it is understandable that all of the above makes us foreigners see them as "special" in some sense. Maybe "special" is not the right word, but certainly they are not ordinary or common people.

Peculiar as it appears, it can be simultaneously true that all of the above happens & yet the individuals involved are not thought of as “special”.

This really does make perfect sense to British people even if it doesn’t to outsiders. Honestly it really really does.

I guess we’re just an odd lot, with layers of enigmatic cultural baggage as intriguing to ethnographers as the practises of some newly discovered Amazon tribe. An old people with eccentricities marinated over the centuries.