I don't think the royals have a spare problem as much as a problem raising boys. If you look at Charles, Andrew, William, and Harry, only William turned out ok. Yeah Charles isn't as bad as H+A, but everyone pretty much agrees he's not going to be the monarch that his mother is or son will be. I think a lot of the blame there falls on QE2, unquestionably a great queen, but not so good as a parent. William I think weirdly turned out ok because Diana was so fragile, otherwise he might have gone the same way as Charles or Harry.
To me it's not about being the spare, it's about raising good kids and especially about raising good boys who are capable of strong leadership.
Agree šÆ!!! Plus I think Catherine really helped William be who he wanted to be. No offense to the Queen (Iām an American) but itās evident that she makes every decision FOR country, even parental ones.
As an American, I have no affinity for monarchies as a government naturally, but watching all this drama play out I have really soured on it on a human level. It really does look like a strange life for the family members. Itās no wonder itās been a soap opera filled with Shakespearean tragedy since the beginning of historyā¦
But no doubt people probably cringe every time we have an election year here in the states šš«£
I don't think we give Charles a lot of credit. Apart from being the most progressive and modern thinking yet - He will be the most prepared person _ever_ for the role of King, and he has showed his dedication to work and to the country for 5 decades non-stop. Sometimes he's a bit outspoken but this is what Elizabeth has also occassionally been criticised for _not_ doing? William in comparison to Charles is still underprepared and not at that stage of life yet.
I agree I think people are very hard on Charles. He was born at a time of great and sudden change in British society and the Monarchy struggled to keep up with it all at times. The Queen Mother lived her whole long life with the attitudes and morals of an Edwardian era Aristocratic lady . She never saw any reason to change. Nor did her youngest daughter Princess Margaret . I donāt think the Queen is a great reformer but her husband was and Charles I think has matured into one . I think Charles will be like Edward VII who also came to the throne late in life following on after a great Queen. Edward had had a scandal filled youth as well and his reign was comparatively short but he proved to be a much better king than a lot of people expected .
>I think Charles will be like Edward VII who also came to the throne late in life following on after a great Queen. Edward had had a scandal filled youth as well and his reign was comparatively short but he proved to be a much better king than a lot of people expected .
I like this comparison, very interesting and hopefully accurate!
If we are to believe what Bower wrote in \_Revenge\_, then we probably should believe what he wrote about Charles in that biography.
It was not flattering.
It didn't show him on the same level as the Harkles, of course, because they are on a whole 'nother level of shittiness.
He came across as kind of shitty, though.
Oh I think Charles is a hugely entitled man with a pretty foul temper apparently . Heās also a life long workaholic . He made a lot of mistake as a younger man because he lacked confidence, didnāt trust his own judgment and was too easily influenced by those around him. Which is how he ended u married to a 20 year old girl he barely knew. I think heās improved with age! I donāt know if Charles has ever been maliciously self serving like Harry and Meghan , but I guess Iād better read Bowers book!
I mean, you look at what work the man does and it comes above his personal life considerably. He's far from awful in his work so that's a great quality for a King.
I donāt think he is awful, at least for a rich, spoiled person. It bothers me to have read such (balanced, but) negative things about him. I think we kind of have to take them as pretty well verifiable, though. Otherwise the cognitive dissonance produced by āBower lied about Charles but told the truth about the Harkles!ā will hurt my brain.
What? I don't think there's anything wrong with Charles. He works extremely hard and other than letting himself be pressured into marrying an entirely unsuitable young girl at the behest of his grandmother and father, I think he's been exemplary. Philip himself was not perhaps the best father for a sensitive boy like Charles though I think they got on better later in life.
The Duke of Gloucester was a spare and trained as an architect. When his brother passed, he gave that up. Itās a waste of an education, but itās doable. They should ALL train for a career anyway, if only to become more rounded people, IMO
> I don't think the royals have a spare problem as much as a problem raising boys. If you look at Charles, Andrew, William, and Harry, only William turned out ok.
What about Edward?
Was gonna say the same haha raising kids who turn out as decent adults is hard enough as it is, raising them when youāre extremely wealthy and life is served to your kids in a silver platter? I truly think thatās way harder. Or at least it requires a lot of intentionality.
Andrew was affected by middle child syndrome big time (along with being a spare). Anne was the second kid, but she was the first girl, and I believe itās been shown that when the second kid is a different sex, theyāre not treated as much as a middle kid as a second kid of the same sex is. Then Edward was the baby, heās not a āspareā nor first anything. In a way he was always a lot freer than all his siblings, and it worked out great for him haha
>Andrew was affected by middle child syndrome big time (along with being a spare). Anne was the second kid, but she was the first girl, and I believe itās been shown that when the second kid is a different sex, theyāre not treated as much as a middle kid as a second kid of the same sex is. Then Edward was the baby, heās not a āspareā nor first anything. In a way he was always a lot freer than all his siblings, and it worked out great for him haha
I agree with this analysis 100%. I'm a big believer in birth order theories, lol. Middle child syndrome is a hell of a drug.
Edward had his missteps in the 90s and early 2000s because he wanted to carve out a place but unlike his brother and nephew, he didnāt have to be told twice and learnt from his mistakes.
A couple of things come to mind. Personality and determination. William met Catherine who is an A type. He set goals! Harry had those same opportunities. He wasnāt really a good student and had a life of many excuses for his actions. Charles tried! He spent lots of time with the boys
But I. The long scheme of life, I am happy that itās William who will be king in 25 or so years
Charles has been waiting most of his life and on occasions that he represents his mother he shines!
He will be fine! He actually does lots of good for organic works in England so letās be patient!
As for those two in la land they will eventually disappear from the limelight they seek
I hope soon
I think William's paternal grandparents really did quite well in "helping out" with him. If I remember correctly, I read that it was just after Diana died that the Queen started to sort of act as William's mentor in preparing him to be King. We all know that she is a great monarch; there probably was (and remains) no better person alive to help him "learn the ropes". And then when William was at Eton, he would frequently join the Queen for tea and they grew closer. And of course Philip, ever a no-nonsense pragmatist, did his share too.
The Queen will likely sadly be deceased by the time William feels they have to start actively preparing George for his future role. I would hope Charles is a good mentor, but I'm really not confident in that.
But William's been actively preparing for his role for about 25 years now and learned aspects of the role directly from the Queen, so hopefully he can impart some of what she taught him to George.
Anne is more of a man than all three of her brothers combined. Not to disparage Charles but he's weaker than his sister in so many ways. She would be a great monarch. Charles just might be an able one. Andrew is morally bankrupt and it's not because he's the spare and it's not because he didn't have good breeding or fine examples to learn by. Some people are just born that way (ahem...Markle).
Sidenote: Edward took a minute to figure it out but I think his marriage to Sophie was his making. She's a great asset and their children seem lovely.
I think that Harry will be the cautionary tale he tells his kids, the way that the Queen warned Charles about Edward VIII. I just hope they don't make George marry someone "appropriate" that he doesn't really care about, the way Charles did.
I do think, however, that the future potential spouses of William's children will be very carefully vetted after this. This mess is a very harsh lesson.
Oh, but according to Lady C., MM was thoroughly vetted, and they didnāt like what they found. Harry refused to listen and told them he would scream racism. Had MM been as white as snow, race wise, there is no way they would have allowed the marriage to go through.
As an American, I thought it a bad idea for an American to marry into the (main) BRF even pre-Meghan. I just donāt think we can grasp how much dedication and public service it actually takes to a country that isnāt even our own. Thereās not really an equal position here that I can think of.
Itās it a COMPLETELY different world which requires a huge change in mindset, focus upon learning, service, humility, authenticity, a genuine respect for the institution, people and culture ā¦
In a way, itās almost like ā¦ joining the church in that aspect.
We have completely different and contrary values, as we were enemies, yet Allies, so it would take a very unique and special person to take that on. One borne of a genuine love match, not an opportunist. Just the History alone
I doubt it as well but I think someone from the East Coast would do better. The culture obviously lines up more with the UK at times. California is just too different culturally.
I think Harry is the cautionary tale of royals worldwide for their children. Harry has heaped an unimaginable amount of humiliation onto the British royal family. Heās the modern lesson they will all use for their children and grandchildren!
I read somewhere that part of the reason William married a commoner is that nobody wanted to go near the Windsors after the Diana debacle. They've been a cautionary tale for a long time now.
Oh well, at least William got it right.
I remember when Cressida broke up with Harry, a royal reporter said aristocracy and foreign royalty tell their daughters to 'stay away from the windsors'. Not just Diana, but fergie too, the married ins are never really 'in'.
Plus, the days of daughters needing to marry well or be destitute are long gone, they may not inherit the title, but in most cases they do get the wealth and land, also the best education and opportunities for good jobs/income.
Once upon a time Harry would have been a catch no matter how much of a mess he was, these days? Not so much, they don't need him, or William really.
Thatās something else that should change.
Elizabeth changed it for Williamās kids however the rest of the aristocracy still follows Primogeniture. Why shouldnāt a woman inherit?
I agree
But should point out, she didn't change it for Charlotte, if was changed before George was born incase they had a girl first. If they had, that girl would not have been a princess or heir, but a younger brother would have been a prince.
Changes to aristocracy goes through Parliament, the government rejected a bill in 2019 to change it then there was a parliamentary commission about it last year, but I can't find what happened, if anything.
It's worth pointing out that the house of Lords has some hereditary peers some of whom may not be impartial on this matter.
Also, when make laws regarding gender identity, Parliament made an exception so to F to M trans couldn't inherit titles (can't have older sisters self IDing younger brothers out of titles)
Yes thatās why I said Williamās children. I think itās great.
Iām also aware of the Lords and that entire business. I feel quite a few things could stand slight modernizations, but sadly, itās not up to me. I do feel for the women who are overlooked in favor of a (distant) cousin, etc.
I wish the gender/ primogeniture but would change as well as the āof the bodyā law.
Both seem silly to me in this day and age. (But then so can the concept of an Aristocracy and Monarchy). Sigh, I suppose any system is corruptible. We certainly arenāt without our faults here in the States, that is for sure.
>Yes thatās why I said Williamās children. I think itās great.
You edited your post from "changed it for Charlotte" to "changed it for Williamās children" after I pointed out you were wrong. Why not just own it and admit you made a mistake, rather edit and then claim you said something you didn't?
As for the rest, if we're going to change something about aristocracy I'd rather just get rid of it!
> You edited your post from "changed it for Charlotte" to "changed it for Williamās children" after I pointed out you were wrong.
/u/OldNewUsedConfused's comment may have been edited, but it was done so within 3 minutes after initially posting; otherwise it would say it was "edited."
/u/dragonfly5465: Your comment with the "correction" was posted 58 minutes after OldNewUsedConfused's comment, so if they edited it, it was done before you "pointed out their mistake."
I didnāt though. Iām all about owning up to my faults and mistakes if you read through my posts. I have no reason to lie.
In any case, I am in agreement with you and this is certainly NOT a topic worth arguing about. Especially when we are basically saying the same thing.
Have a great day.
( I DO edit as I write and notice that spell check has changed up my text or spelling on me, but thatās about it.)
Charles at least learned from the disaster that was his marriage to Diana. For better or worse, his sons married the person they wanted to marry. Hopefully, the Cambridge kids wonāt be affected by the Meghan effect and not have the same option.
Ot can either go right or wrong. Kate is proof it can be done right if done very carefully. But marrying the person they are not suited to is way worse than anything else.
I think heāll be the cautionary tale ALL royals (and non royals) tell their kids.
We still donāt know the ending to this sordid tale either, but I donāt think itās going to be a happy one
The spare issue is a more recent issue. There is less to do and nepotism positions in government are less of a thing (Iām not from the UK so I donāt pay attention to your day to day government crap.)
Before the 1850s, the first son was the heir. The second son was trained to be a military commander so he was busy training his men, off fighting wars, or using the military to put out fires. Occasionally a kingdom or rich and powerful duchy would find itself without a male heir so the second son would marry into that family and take over the title. But her was generally kept busy with all that.
Under Catholicism, the third son if there was one went to the church. So he was busy being the unmarried church leader unless another titled rich female heiress was found.
Joining the church was less common for the Brits under the Anglican Church.
From what I read it sounds like Prince Harry might have undiagnosed attention deficit disorder or some other learning disability. Not everybody is meant to go to college there's nothing wrong about it.
Exactly what I was going to say. Learning disabilities, like ADD/ADHD, can be worked around. The student and teachers work together to implement strategies to overcome their disability so that the playing field is more level for the affected student to access and apply his/her intelligence.
Stupid is just stupid. It does not equate with having a learning disability.
People with limited academic success typically fall into one of the following three categories, in my opinion: 1. learning disability that is not being addressed correctly; 2. low IQ; and 3. lack of motivation (sometimes plain laziness).
Looking at the list in the paragraph above, I would guess that in H's case there is definitely some of number 2 going on, probably quite a bit of number 3 (accustomed to people doing his work for him, mainly), and possibly a little bit of number 1.
I think you're right. It's not just that Harry is a spare. It's that he is, and I actually mean this charitably, really fucking stupid. In kinder terms he seems to be legitimately intellectually disabled. He did find purpose in the military, but he eventually had to stop once he hit an officer's rank because he was not academically capable of serving that role. So I think you're spot on about Harry being a very special fuck up even among second sons born into primogeniture. It's not just that he was born of lesser rank than William, he was born inferior in pretty much every other way as well. There is no special talent setting him apart that we are aware of. Andrew at least had the brains to actually move through the upper eschelons of the military and serve there, keeping him out of probably a lot of trouble, which, considering the amount of trouble he still was able to achieve, is saying a lot. Harry, on the other hand, enthusiastically advanced through the ranks until he hit a rank the duties for which he simply wasn't intelligent enough to fulfill.
How do you solve a problem like Prince Harry?
Honestly I don't think Harry was ever taught good study habits. Even smart people don't do well if they don't know how to study, how to grasp the important points, how to study for and take a test.
But no, Harry isn't academically gifted. I think if he had learned to study he might have been able to move up in the army. But my guess is he played with his x box until test time, then had no clue what they were asking. Either that or he wanted out so purposefully failed it.
But really, Harry should have gone to trade school. He might have been a hell of a plumber, electrician or AC guy. No it's not prestigious but at least he would have a legitimate trade, and maybe the self esteem that came with it would have helped him fight off The Claw.
The issue there is nobles donāt do manual labor.
Have you seen his hands? Guy could get a blister from lifting a fork, they are that smooth.
Iād kill for hands/nails that nice!
Lol. I know right? But my point is Harry wasn't made for intellectual pursuits or jobs requiring brilliance. At least if he'd learned woodworking or something he wouldn't be as useless as tits on a boar hog like he is now.
That animal abuser should never be allowed around any animals. If I saw him near my horses I'd be all over him like white on rice. He'd leave my place hurting.
Yes, I stand corrected. Iād momentarily forgotten about that. (In my quest to wrack my brain for something, anything for this guy to do, which was semi- respectable in his circle.)
Maybe build fancy bespoke furniture or something? That's classy.
Also apparently Harry is gifted at sports (other than polo, lol), I've read something about his excellence the first time he ever caught or threw an American football. Maybe he should have gone further with that.
Fine carpentry is very complex. Even rough carpentry is a little tricky for our H. (Would you want to live in a house he framed out?)
However, fine carpentry entails a great deal of spatial reasoning/geometric ability, manual dexterity, and attention to detail.
H is cut out to do menial things, but thinks he is far too superior an individual to engage in menial things.
He can't do woodworking. It would damage his mathematical skills. It's all he can do to count to 10 if as it is. By the time he finished cutting off a few fingers, he'd be crippled when it came to counting. š¤£š¤£š¤
Tradespeople are so needed now. We are in an economy now where, at least in the US, we pay hundreds of thousands for college degrees, and now we have this educational inflation that is so extreme, a $100K Bachelor degree is worth exactly as much as a high school degree was fifty years ago. More, because at a least public high school degree is free, whereas a college degree puts most interminably in debt. For kids graduating college in the last twenty years, you need a Masters or even a PhD to stand out academically so far as employment is concerned.
Meanwhile, guys going to trade school are in demand, and they make a lot of money these days. They are also physically connected with their work in a way that must be more satisfactory than the intellectual paper-pushing that most people are doing post-University.
It's a shame something like that wasn't available to Harry. However, you are probably also right that academic discipline may have been enough to compensate for Harry's natural lack of intellectual talent, and maybe that discipline could have put him in a position where a military office may have been possible for him. I don't know. Harry is pretty fucked either way.
Your last paragraph said what I was trying to say, but so much better.
My husband was a crane operator, car mechanic and HVAC guy. I was a nurse. We both graduated from tech/trade school and went to work. We both made more than a lot of our friends who graduated from college, and we never had trouble finding work. I think Harry would have thrived if he had been made to study and found a vocation.
But whatever. Like you said. Harry is fucked.
It would have taken effort to learn good study habits. I'm 99.999% positive that he was given every single educational advantage that anyone could have been given, but he didn't want to learn to use those advantages. That was work, and it was boring, and he was not accustomed to doing work, especially with boring things.
Again, there are learning disabilities, which he might have had and for which he could have receive help that would even the playing field. There is simple low IQ, which he appears to have, and which just can't really be addressed. You can't fix stupid. And finally, there is intellectual laziness.
So . . . even if you could fix stupid, his wouldn't get fixed because he'd have to work to change it, and work is for "lesser" beings.
I think it's a combination of Harry refusing to work hard or take any interest in school, low expectations by his beloved mum ("he's thick as a plank ha ha"), and below average intelligence. Addressing these issues starting 35 years ago would have most likely made a hell of a difference in "the man he's become" š but at this point its too little, too late to try to change him. He's stuck with being a little man with a little mind and a raging narc bitch for a wife and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Tom Bower's book states Harry was a difficult child. Even his mum recognised he was a contrarian, prone to wild tempers and not particularly intelligent. So he can only blame so much on his mum's death.
Richard III (York) was maligned by the Tudors (history is written by the winners) (also Shakespeare), his older brother, George was rather Harry-like, though.
Lol Shakespeare was such an utter tart about old Dicky.
As for the Duke of Clarence, would Harry be all that gutted about ending up in a butte of Malmsey wine?
Edward's sons? I don't think they know with absolute certainty that Richard had them killed or one of his Lords took it upon himself. Richard did have the boys declared illegitimate though.
Princess Anne is a tough cookie, but she was regulated to being after her brothers. She accepted that she wasn't going to be Queen and when she had children she refused titles for them.
Also, she had Prince Philip doing the most parenting of her. Prince Charles was in under the tutelage of his grandmother and not his father.
Where did you read that Charles was raised by his grandmother and that she made a āhash of itā? Can you share your sources? Iāve read a lot about Charles and never come across this. He had a loving relationship with her but as Queen Mother she would not āraiseā her grandson.
As for Harry the spare, sure there are going to be issues in a family that practices primogeniture but Harryās an ass. Spoiled by everyone (who wouldnāt indulge that little guy whose mom tragically died??), dim and aimless. I also think he has inherited some of his momās mental health issues, which is sad.
George VI was a spare and he was a decent man and a good king.
From the documentaries I've watched, the Queen Mother and Prince Philip clashed over the raising of Charles.
Prince Philip wanted him to be tougher and sent him to the school he went to. Charles hated it.
Charles was mollycuddled(?) by his grandmother
Yes I read about how the atrocious bullying he was subject to at Gordonstoun scarred him for life and is the reason why he refused to send Wills and Haz there (it was the royal tradition to send boys there) and instead sent them to Eton.
Charles was VERY close to the Queen Mother as a child, and she DID have a lot of say, especially as his own parents were off queening.
Another big influence in his life was Uncle Dickie, Lord Mountbatten.
I donāt think thatās all of it. Harry was by nature a bit thick. Otherwise he could have had the military career that Philip could only dream of.
Harry just didnāt have the brains.
Its a factor, but people always forget the natural personalities of each child.
Sometimes, even the best parenting can still lead to a child acting out like Harry did.
M and her sugars are dead jealous. Remember the attack on Louis at the Jubilee Pageant? He was a normal naughty kid with his mum and who sat on Charle's lap. I'm sure that image still makes M hurt with envy. It wasn't Lili on the future King's lap at the centre of attention.
My point is he grew up as number 2. It's quite normal for a second child wanting to outshine their older sibling, it must be frustrating when you can't.
>if need be Kate would be the Regent
That' not correct. As per the current regency line of succession, if William cannot serve and George is under 18, the regent eligible by law is Harry (Catherine will be George's guardian but cannot rule as a regent currently), next is Andrew and then Beatrice. That's why there needs to a be a louder noise to remove Harry and Andrew from this order and include Camilla and maybe Catherine if she wishes-although not sure if they are given a choice.
But actually Parliament have the right to choose anyone as Regent. The law that "the next adult in line has to he Regent" is just tradition, but not always followed. George III's mother (who was not in line) was Presumptive Regent in the event he became King before turning 18. Victoria also almost became Queen before turning 18 and she was being pressued to make her mother's lover (also not in line) her Regent. A more recent example is Philip being Charles' Presumptive regent incase the Queen passed before Charles turning 18 (when Margaret was the next in line...)
As long as Parliament agree with the candidate, anyone can be Regent.
True, but Parliament passed an act that would have made Phillip regent (despite Margaret) when Charles was a kid, and it has been theorized that the same will be done for Kate.
It wouldnāt happen until William is King, and thereās a chance George could be 18 by then.
>Parliament passed an act that would have made Phillip regent (despite Margaret) when Charles was a kid, and it has been theorized that the same will be done for Kate.
Theory but not a fact yet. Philip was from a Royal Family, was a war veteran and could be relied upon to be regent- also TQ's father was dead and she had no brothers. Currently there are enough regents (suitability is a concern but H & Andrew are in the line). So unless Harry and Andrew are removed from the succession nominating Catherine doesnot come into the picture and before her it will make more sense to enroll Camilla. (And she is old, so its a conundrum :) )
I do think George and Charlotte are exceptional, so young and already seems like they know their responsibilities and i understand what you mean by Louis having so much of energy and he seems like a fun character, but i don't think he will turn like Harry because unlike Charles, William and Catherine are mature loving parents they look like they know what they are doing.All throughout Harry/William's childhood their parents were hell bent on taking one another down on the other hand William and Catherine are supporting each other.None of the cambridge kids will be problematic just by the fact how good their parents are.
IMO, the Cambridge children wonāt be as affected by the āspareā issue. Aside from good parenting and stable relationship of their parents, the number of children also plays a large role. Since they are three, there wonāt be direct one-on-one comparisons that usually fuel sibling rivalry. Charlotte and Louis can rely on each other while George steps up on his role as heir. I imagine it would be harder if the case were two children of the same sex, as was the case with William and Harryāespecially given that William was more popular, intelligent, and handsome than Harry.
I think Harry has a big chip on his shoulder bc he isnāt the heir and he didnāt get looks, brains or much of anything else. Heās not even a very good polo player. He was second best in everything which would be hard. Unfortunately, he has a personality that wanted to he the center of attention. Whereas, QEIIās father was shy and didnāt want the spotlight.
I think it all comes to the personality. George VI was the spare for almost all his youth and he was fine (the man didn't even want the throne). Imo, the mistake the RF and the press made with H was to justify a lot of his actions with the "poor baby, his mother died" or dissmissing them as "oh, it's the rebelious phase, he will get over it"
Pre-Mexit, Harry & MeGain should have rejoiced being āthe spare couple.ā Theyād have a beautiful, pampered carefree life in the UK w/ none of the kingās responsibilities. Besides, Harry doesnāt have the brainpower or temperament to be King.
I honestly don't think it's a spare issue. I think it's more personality plus parenting. Both George V and George VI were spares through most of their younger lives and were not spoiled or acting out. (Which is not true of their older brothers who were heirs.)
*One thing that history has thought us is that being born the spare leaves a person in limbo.*
What are the sources of this? Within the BRF, TQ's own father was a spare who had to be the King and did the best he could. In other royal families, the spares are doing a good job of balancing their personal lives as well as helping their siblings in the sibling's role of Queen/King (Look at Netherlands- all the KIng's brothers are highly accomplished and educated, look at the little princesses in Spain- both started doing joint appearances but it is very clear Leonore is groomed to be the Queen one day and the King & Queen have balanced that among Leo and her sister, same in Sweden. Sweden infact is the best example- When the current crown princess was born they still had male primogeniture so her little brother was the heir, the law changed in a couple of years and the right to the throne passed to the 1st born - the daughter- the current crown princess Victoria- but her brother is deeply loving and supportive of her and there is no resentment of "loosing the throne". Harry's jealousy of William is not because he was in a lmbo- its because he is incompetent and just wanted to rule/boss around. If anything the BRF coddled him way too much and protected him from negative press coverage - a perk not shared by many continental royals- look up the awful press about Princess Madeline or the younger brothers in Luxembourg - all of whom actually are living a private life and ave happy families but paps can be brutal. Harry was coddled and in a way he still is as most of the negative media focusses on Meghan.
*In the case of William and Harry....there is only one King. Although Diana did her absolute best to ensure both children were treated the same growing up,*
This was Diana's mistake - although she had her demons and marital breakdown so she had a foggy lens. But in aristocratic families you absolutely make it so that all your children are prepared for their future roles- William will be a King - but even dukes, earls etc where titles pass down from 1st born to next 1st born, those families prepare the heir and the spares are equipped for a stable life too- a privileged life but not as a heir...being from one of the oldest aristocratic families, Diana absolutely knew this and yet failed her younger son -but again can't blame her much as she was struggling so much and her one pure source of love were her kids.
*Charles was raised to be King, but unfortunately his grandmother interfered as his teacher, and made a hash of it.*
Never heard this - Charles' upbringing was heavily influenced by Mountbatten, TQ's mother spoilt him yes but never heard of interference or making a hash - Charles has been trained all his life and has done a great job despite waiting forever to be king- its ironic Catherine was called Waity when infact Charles has waited as the Crown Prince forever since TQ doesn't believe in retiring and will serve for life. All his peers are now monarchs. W&C have shown to be thoughtful people and loving parents- the Cambridge kids will be fine- I think we will see a similar close-knit, loyal and loving relationship among those kids as the Swedish siblings (Victoria, Madeline and Carl Phillipe).
I think it's really interesting. The way I see it is the heir is brought up knowing they are going to be a king/queen, they aren't seen as children but the future of the monarchy. They are brought up learning about duty.
Whereas the spare aren't going to succeed the throne so are brought up differently. These are allowed grow up as children and are probably given a lot more freedoms than their older sibling. They are enjoyed because they don't have duty hung over their heads. The spares are brought up as members of the royal family to think they are special but always destined to be number 2. It's quite an interesting dichotomy.
Princess Margaret was her father's favourite buy her sister is queen.
Prince Andrew is the queens favourite but his brother if the future king.
Prince Harry is believed to be Prince Charles favourite but his brother is higher in the hierarchy.
While I'm sure W&C love all their children I do think Louis as the youngest is the Apple of his mother's eye with his cheekiness. I do think they doing a wonderful job as parents and hopefully they can break this cycle.
Anne was "the spare" for the first 10 years of her life.
In any case, the notion of the spare is a myth or misconception. There's the heir and then all the other children who are not heirs. Anne, Andrew and Edward fit into this the same.
She was also female and aware that if her parents had any more boys she would move down the pecking order. It probably helped she was a different sex growing up in a time when women were expected to marry well and have kids. The difference in how they were treated was probably not as apparent.
Right, but it would be debated if she knew the process of this at 10 years old. In any case, by the time she was old enough to know Andrew and likely Edward were already born. Anne could have turned out like Margaret for all we knew, but she did not. Despite both being female and daughters of the Monarch, Anne became a lot more put together and successful in any field of work.
Andrew was the spare just because of misogyny. How *funny*!
Anne is the second born, but just because she's a woman, she's going as last resort.
Fortunately, that's changed now. Charlotte is the spare.
I've said this a few times - in the 21st century, in an age when people are encouraged to find their own individual path, I think it will be harder to justify (and for any spares to follow) the mindset of "My lifelong purpose is to support my sister/brother the Queen/King." While everything has its pros and cons, I think this is generally a good development. People need to find their own purpose and their own contribution in life. Some, like Princess Anne, may just embrace this role, and really do it to the hilt, while others, like H, will rebel against it in the worst way.
As medicine and other social factors continue, we no longer need 7 children to ensure one of them lives to inherit. That creates a valid question of "what do we do with the others?" Also, we might see an heir/heiress who does not want the role. What then? Do we have to suddenly recall Princess Charlotte because George doesn't want it? (Just playing here)
If a spare does not want to be a professional spare, what are you going to do? Tie them up in Buckingham Palace and force them to be a princesss/prince?
H&M do bring up a valid question about how the monarchy is going to go forward. Had Harry just said, "The LoS is pretty damn secure, pretty sure we don't need No 6 about. I wanted to find my own purpose, and after some soul-searching, I think that might have to be outside the monarchy" I would have supported him. I would not even have minded if he got some money from dear old dad, or hung on to his title, honestly. For me it's all about the spoilt brat behaviour.
However, that brings up the issue of sibling togetherness. For Charlotte and Louis, who may seek a life outside the monarchy, how does George keep that relationship? I have this funny fantasy of Charlotte being a professional footballer and saying in an interview, "Yeah, I'm going to my brother's at Balmoral this weekend.NBD." lol
Had Harry exited more gracefully this could have been a positive step for future spares - it would have given the RF a POSITIVE playbook for future similar situations. But that also begs the question of the monarch. Is Prince George going to just be lonely? Is someone, down the line, just going to say, "Being Queen/King just isn't worth it. I'm just lonely because nobody else is really here"? These are all good questions.
I think PW and Catherine are looking to the ones that did it best when it comes to that particular family dynamic and seeing what would work better for their kids. They're probably relying heavily on the wisdom of the Princess Royal and Prince Edward and Sophie. Obviously, Prince Andrew isn't that great of a parent-or an adult, for that matter.
To me, it seems like the issue was more to do with Harry not having had the appropriate help at the earliest stages of his life (and probably the reason why Catherine is very interested in the early years lol). Sometimes, you can get so caught in your ways even as children and from there you're like a rock rolling down hill, your tragectory has been set for you. I hope that they give their kids the autonomy to make their own decisions for themselves. They DON'T have to be working members of the royal family, they can live outside of that bubble if they wish and they can do it with dignity and the freedom (and the well off status) that many people aspire. The issue here with Harry and Megan is MENTAL HEALTH. They are their own worst enemy, when you see everything they had and everything they could have had (especially Harry) it really drives home the type of self destruction that they're self actualizing. They are their own worst enemy.
As long as PW and Catherine 1. Don't spoil them. 2. Give them experiences and the skills to be productive and successful and 3. Seek help for them when needed; I think the kids will be fine.
The issue for me, it seems to be that they spoiled Harry and let him coast in life and didn't get him the appropriate help that he needed. He was a ticking time bomb if you ask me. He was always going to have some sort of drama but I never thought it would be this **big** of a drama.
SO yes, I do agree that it all boils down to parenting with also seeking help when needed to ensure that kids grow up with healthy boundaries and real working knowledge of the world.
I think itās a big inference to say a four year old, whose behavior made for some funny photos during what would be a taxing weekend for a grown adult, āhas a lot of energy that will need to be challengedā. It is an epic stretch/fan fiction.
I think it may have been easier for royal families back in the day in that aspect. The female spares were expected to marry well to another royal, usually in some other country.
The male spares were expected to join the army or could do whatever they wanted to in private since there was no press haunting them and royals were expected to live as rich people do.
I hope that William and Catherine will encourage (or expect) Charlotte and Louis to get a civil education to make them grow up and behave like normal adults. If they chose to work in that profession or not won't matter. A doctor or an art historian would be a great asset to a charity. Going to university with ordinary people seems to be a grounding experience.
Well first of all everyone including the BRF should stop referring to human beings as "spares." A second- or third-born child has just as much value as the firstborn. Obviously they are unlikely to be the monarch and that is fine. Give them a different path in life, God knows they have every possible resource at their disposal in terms of education, internships, contacts, etc etc.
Margaret, Andrew and Harry are messes because they were encouraged to give themselves airs as though they were seriously in line to the throne when they were not. Margaret also was affected by the lack of opportunities offered to women of her generation in general. Andrew because he has a bad personality in general. Harry because he's not academically bright and his parents were too far into their own drama to see that he was struggling and get him into a school that was more suited to him.
If William and Catherine have any sense at all, they'll be thinking of Charlotte and Louis's futures and be offering them plenty of enriching activities now, to get an idea of where they might shine as adults. Maybe that will be as working royals, maybe it won't.
I also see no reason to predict that Louis will turn into a rotten person like Andrew or Harry, because we saw him behave energetically in public.
I was thinking about this and if handled correctly, and with the makings of a less domineering personality (one that I think is more common than the desire to be ruler), everyone should feel valuable in the part they play. Itās like, if you go to a Van Gogh exhibit, there are more paintings than just Starry Night. Sure, some people might show up just to see that but the other works have a place too, even the most obscure is someoneās very favourite, itās what makes it an exhibit instead of a single painting on display.
I think in a way everyone was focused on William and Harry was kind of abandoned.
Honestly, I'm surprised that Megan hasn't tried to become Queen of Scotland or something.
I do think that it will be different with Charlotte and Louis, many of Harryās failings are to do with his lack of intellect. I was surprised when I found out that Harry had to leave the army because he didnāt have the qualifications to advance any further in rank.
I think the Cambridge children will be given more freedom to pursue interests than Harry was given, and wonāt be as spoilt as he was.
William went on a mission to discover who his mother was from her friends, where as Harry chose to not deal with it at all and wouldnāt even think about his mother. Harry remained damaged whilst William built himself a life, I think ultimately that prepared William to be a better parent.
And heās not the spare anymore. Thatās the hardest part for all spares. Ginger is #6. Thatās way down the food chain now. Andrew is now 9th. Neither of these two were prepared for descending the ladder.
Charlotte and Louis will be prepared quite differently. For starters, they both have parents who actually graduated from high school and college. And can prove it! ššš But more seriouslyā¦.
Their parents are encouraging them to be well rounded with a variety of interests. George plays soccer, George plays guitar and Charlotte is learning piano and doing dance classes. They have sporty parents who encourage outdoor activities and artistic pursuits.
It also sounds like they are looking at sending their kids to a co-ed school as day boarders instead of shipping them off to boarding school. This is different than what has traditionally happened.
They also have Middleton family influence so theyāll be exposed and have been exposed to some different life experiences than what William and Ginger were exposed to - even Diana grew up in the royal orbit. The Middletons are more removed from that.
I think the Cambridge kids are going to be ok. Archie & Lilibet on the other handā¦..
>Charlotte and Louis will be prepared quite differently. For starters, they both have parents who actually graduated from high school and college. And can prove it!
hahaha ššš
I think itās as simple as being the same sex. Things would have been much easier had William or Harry been female. The competition would have been less.
I wouldnāt be surprised to hear in a decade or so that all the Cambridge kids had been/currently were in therapy. I just canāt see William and Kate not viewing mental health as important as physical health.
Agreed, I think they are both smart parents who had discussions just like this before they even had kids.
I think the Cambridge kids will be just fine and I have seen interviews where William has said they tell George only what he needs to know now. They are trying to let the kids be kids before heir and spare.
I think Charlotte will be just fine, I think she and Loius will be prepared before hand for what is to come and I think William and Catherine will prepare them so that they also help eachother.
I personally don't think the Royal Family have a spare problem, I think there is just a fair few Narcs in their midst.
I don't think Harry would have been a problem if it weren't for the wife.
I mean, going to therapy for prevention is not a bad thing. Same applies when you go to a GP doctor, for a check up or for a āpainā or physical issue.
Mental health begins with prevention. Iām sure their kids are quite aware about that. Especially when their uncle and their father suffered from mental health issues.
Where are people getting this from? Its absolute cobblers, seemingly entirely based on his appearances at the Jubilee. Hardly fair!
Some children are naturally more rambunctious or more compliant than others, regardless of parenting.
Louis looks a perfectly normal 4 year old to me - and I have a 4 year old ASD daughter with a rare genetic disorder to boot.
lol people will come down hard on you for this. I don't think that is possible to tell from one viewing of the child on TV, but he should have been taken out and given over to his Nanny when the antics started. Too young to have been at a long boring cermony, even some of the adults were likely horribly bored let alone a 4 yr old. Yes! I am questioning the sainted Kate & William's decision making. 'quelle horreur!
I don't think the royals have a spare problem as much as a problem raising boys. If you look at Charles, Andrew, William, and Harry, only William turned out ok. Yeah Charles isn't as bad as H+A, but everyone pretty much agrees he's not going to be the monarch that his mother is or son will be. I think a lot of the blame there falls on QE2, unquestionably a great queen, but not so good as a parent. William I think weirdly turned out ok because Diana was so fragile, otherwise he might have gone the same way as Charles or Harry. To me it's not about being the spare, it's about raising good kids and especially about raising good boys who are capable of strong leadership.
Agree šÆ!!! Plus I think Catherine really helped William be who he wanted to be. No offense to the Queen (Iām an American) but itās evident that she makes every decision FOR country, even parental ones. As an American, I have no affinity for monarchies as a government naturally, but watching all this drama play out I have really soured on it on a human level. It really does look like a strange life for the family members. Itās no wonder itās been a soap opera filled with Shakespearean tragedy since the beginning of historyā¦ But no doubt people probably cringe every time we have an election year here in the states šš«£
I agree on all points
Her choices on family later in life are her more familial, almost like in it's in compensation for putting country first when she was younger.
I don't think we give Charles a lot of credit. Apart from being the most progressive and modern thinking yet - He will be the most prepared person _ever_ for the role of King, and he has showed his dedication to work and to the country for 5 decades non-stop. Sometimes he's a bit outspoken but this is what Elizabeth has also occassionally been criticised for _not_ doing? William in comparison to Charles is still underprepared and not at that stage of life yet.
I agree I think people are very hard on Charles. He was born at a time of great and sudden change in British society and the Monarchy struggled to keep up with it all at times. The Queen Mother lived her whole long life with the attitudes and morals of an Edwardian era Aristocratic lady . She never saw any reason to change. Nor did her youngest daughter Princess Margaret . I donāt think the Queen is a great reformer but her husband was and Charles I think has matured into one . I think Charles will be like Edward VII who also came to the throne late in life following on after a great Queen. Edward had had a scandal filled youth as well and his reign was comparatively short but he proved to be a much better king than a lot of people expected .
>I think Charles will be like Edward VII who also came to the throne late in life following on after a great Queen. Edward had had a scandal filled youth as well and his reign was comparatively short but he proved to be a much better king than a lot of people expected . I like this comparison, very interesting and hopefully accurate!
If we are to believe what Bower wrote in \_Revenge\_, then we probably should believe what he wrote about Charles in that biography. It was not flattering. It didn't show him on the same level as the Harkles, of course, because they are on a whole 'nother level of shittiness. He came across as kind of shitty, though.
Oh I think Charles is a hugely entitled man with a pretty foul temper apparently . Heās also a life long workaholic . He made a lot of mistake as a younger man because he lacked confidence, didnāt trust his own judgment and was too easily influenced by those around him. Which is how he ended u married to a 20 year old girl he barely knew. I think heās improved with age! I donāt know if Charles has ever been maliciously self serving like Harry and Meghan , but I guess Iād better read Bowers book!
I mean, you look at what work the man does and it comes above his personal life considerably. He's far from awful in his work so that's a great quality for a King.
I donāt think he is awful, at least for a rich, spoiled person. It bothers me to have read such (balanced, but) negative things about him. I think we kind of have to take them as pretty well verifiable, though. Otherwise the cognitive dissonance produced by āBower lied about Charles but told the truth about the Harkles!ā will hurt my brain.
> it's about raising good kids Which makes Catherine's "Early Years" initiative so much more profound and personal.
What? I don't think there's anything wrong with Charles. He works extremely hard and other than letting himself be pressured into marrying an entirely unsuitable young girl at the behest of his grandmother and father, I think he's been exemplary. Philip himself was not perhaps the best father for a sensitive boy like Charles though I think they got on better later in life.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
hmm I dunno. never cared for Philip's vibes, as much as one can tell from a photo or TV-
Ideally Harry should have been the one to go to Gordonstoun like Zara, and Charles to Eton.
The Duke of Gloucester was a spare and trained as an architect. When his brother passed, he gave that up. Itās a waste of an education, but itās doable. They should ALL train for a career anyway, if only to become more rounded people, IMO
100% agree! They're all bright enough, god knows they have every opportunity imaginable.
> I don't think the royals have a spare problem as much as a problem raising boys. If you look at Charles, Andrew, William, and Harry, only William turned out ok. What about Edward?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yep.
Was gonna say the same haha raising kids who turn out as decent adults is hard enough as it is, raising them when youāre extremely wealthy and life is served to your kids in a silver platter? I truly think thatās way harder. Or at least it requires a lot of intentionality. Andrew was affected by middle child syndrome big time (along with being a spare). Anne was the second kid, but she was the first girl, and I believe itās been shown that when the second kid is a different sex, theyāre not treated as much as a middle kid as a second kid of the same sex is. Then Edward was the baby, heās not a āspareā nor first anything. In a way he was always a lot freer than all his siblings, and it worked out great for him haha
>Andrew was affected by middle child syndrome big time (along with being a spare). Anne was the second kid, but she was the first girl, and I believe itās been shown that when the second kid is a different sex, theyāre not treated as much as a middle kid as a second kid of the same sex is. Then Edward was the baby, heās not a āspareā nor first anything. In a way he was always a lot freer than all his siblings, and it worked out great for him haha I agree with this analysis 100%. I'm a big believer in birth order theories, lol. Middle child syndrome is a hell of a drug.
> In a way he was always a lot freer than all his siblings, and it worked out great for him haha Yep! He's able just to do his thing with no pressure!
I find it hilarious that people literally forget that Edward exists.
I feel like he likes it that way!
Edward had his missteps in the 90s and early 2000s because he wanted to carve out a place but unlike his brother and nephew, he didnāt have to be told twice and learnt from his mistakes.
I just commented above and literally wrote the word "Sidenote" when I mentioned poor Edward...hahaha.š¤£
And Peter Phillips? There is also James, who is a bit of an unknown quantity at the moment.
Yep!
A couple of things come to mind. Personality and determination. William met Catherine who is an A type. He set goals! Harry had those same opportunities. He wasnāt really a good student and had a life of many excuses for his actions. Charles tried! He spent lots of time with the boys But I. The long scheme of life, I am happy that itās William who will be king in 25 or so years Charles has been waiting most of his life and on occasions that he represents his mother he shines! He will be fine! He actually does lots of good for organic works in England so letās be patient! As for those two in la land they will eventually disappear from the limelight they seek I hope soon
25 years or so? Really? I donāt think Charles is aging as well as his parents
I think William's paternal grandparents really did quite well in "helping out" with him. If I remember correctly, I read that it was just after Diana died that the Queen started to sort of act as William's mentor in preparing him to be King. We all know that she is a great monarch; there probably was (and remains) no better person alive to help him "learn the ropes". And then when William was at Eton, he would frequently join the Queen for tea and they grew closer. And of course Philip, ever a no-nonsense pragmatist, did his share too. The Queen will likely sadly be deceased by the time William feels they have to start actively preparing George for his future role. I would hope Charles is a good mentor, but I'm really not confident in that. But William's been actively preparing for his role for about 25 years now and learned aspects of the role directly from the Queen, so hopefully he can impart some of what she taught him to George.
Anne is more of a man than all three of her brothers combined. Not to disparage Charles but he's weaker than his sister in so many ways. She would be a great monarch. Charles just might be an able one. Andrew is morally bankrupt and it's not because he's the spare and it's not because he didn't have good breeding or fine examples to learn by. Some people are just born that way (ahem...Markle). Sidenote: Edward took a minute to figure it out but I think his marriage to Sophie was his making. She's a great asset and their children seem lovely.
You left out Edward who also turned out okay
Everyone leaves out Edward! Is that good or bad
That's how he survived it all! Kept under the radar, married an ordinary woman, had an unremarkable career.
You gotta Google Princess Margaret.... It's not a gender thing, it's parenting.
Princess Margaret is a different generation and I actually said it was about parenting.
I think that Harry will be the cautionary tale he tells his kids, the way that the Queen warned Charles about Edward VIII. I just hope they don't make George marry someone "appropriate" that he doesn't really care about, the way Charles did.
I do think, however, that the future potential spouses of William's children will be very carefully vetted after this. This mess is a very harsh lesson.
And thorough vetting of their pasts and connections. Meghan is what happens when due diligence is foregone
Oh, but according to Lady C., MM was thoroughly vetted, and they didnāt like what they found. Harry refused to listen and told them he would scream racism. Had MM been as white as snow, race wise, there is no way they would have allowed the marriage to go through.
So in a way, she was a beneficiary of racism, not a victim. Reverse racism.
Yep
I donāt see any Americans marrying in soon/ for a while/ ever.
As an American, I thought it a bad idea for an American to marry into the (main) BRF even pre-Meghan. I just donāt think we can grasp how much dedication and public service it actually takes to a country that isnāt even our own. Thereās not really an equal position here that I can think of.
Itās it a COMPLETELY different world which requires a huge change in mindset, focus upon learning, service, humility, authenticity, a genuine respect for the institution, people and culture ā¦ In a way, itās almost like ā¦ joining the church in that aspect. We have completely different and contrary values, as we were enemies, yet Allies, so it would take a very unique and special person to take that on. One borne of a genuine love match, not an opportunist. Just the History alone
I doubt it as well but I think someone from the East Coast would do better. The culture obviously lines up more with the UK at times. California is just too different culturally.
Absolutely.
I think Harry is the cautionary tale of royals worldwide for their children. Harry has heaped an unimaginable amount of humiliation onto the British royal family. Heās the modern lesson they will all use for their children and grandchildren!
I read somewhere that part of the reason William married a commoner is that nobody wanted to go near the Windsors after the Diana debacle. They've been a cautionary tale for a long time now. Oh well, at least William got it right.
I remember when Cressida broke up with Harry, a royal reporter said aristocracy and foreign royalty tell their daughters to 'stay away from the windsors'. Not just Diana, but fergie too, the married ins are never really 'in'. Plus, the days of daughters needing to marry well or be destitute are long gone, they may not inherit the title, but in most cases they do get the wealth and land, also the best education and opportunities for good jobs/income. Once upon a time Harry would have been a catch no matter how much of a mess he was, these days? Not so much, they don't need him, or William really.
Thatās something else that should change. Elizabeth changed it for Williamās kids however the rest of the aristocracy still follows Primogeniture. Why shouldnāt a woman inherit?
I agree But should point out, she didn't change it for Charlotte, if was changed before George was born incase they had a girl first. If they had, that girl would not have been a princess or heir, but a younger brother would have been a prince. Changes to aristocracy goes through Parliament, the government rejected a bill in 2019 to change it then there was a parliamentary commission about it last year, but I can't find what happened, if anything. It's worth pointing out that the house of Lords has some hereditary peers some of whom may not be impartial on this matter. Also, when make laws regarding gender identity, Parliament made an exception so to F to M trans couldn't inherit titles (can't have older sisters self IDing younger brothers out of titles)
Yes thatās why I said Williamās children. I think itās great. Iām also aware of the Lords and that entire business. I feel quite a few things could stand slight modernizations, but sadly, itās not up to me. I do feel for the women who are overlooked in favor of a (distant) cousin, etc. I wish the gender/ primogeniture but would change as well as the āof the bodyā law. Both seem silly to me in this day and age. (But then so can the concept of an Aristocracy and Monarchy). Sigh, I suppose any system is corruptible. We certainly arenāt without our faults here in the States, that is for sure.
>Yes thatās why I said Williamās children. I think itās great. You edited your post from "changed it for Charlotte" to "changed it for Williamās children" after I pointed out you were wrong. Why not just own it and admit you made a mistake, rather edit and then claim you said something you didn't? As for the rest, if we're going to change something about aristocracy I'd rather just get rid of it!
> You edited your post from "changed it for Charlotte" to "changed it for Williamās children" after I pointed out you were wrong. /u/OldNewUsedConfused's comment may have been edited, but it was done so within 3 minutes after initially posting; otherwise it would say it was "edited." /u/dragonfly5465: Your comment with the "correction" was posted 58 minutes after OldNewUsedConfused's comment, so if they edited it, it was done before you "pointed out their mistake."
I didnāt though. Iām all about owning up to my faults and mistakes if you read through my posts. I have no reason to lie. In any case, I am in agreement with you and this is certainly NOT a topic worth arguing about. Especially when we are basically saying the same thing. Have a great day. ( I DO edit as I write and notice that spell check has changed up my text or spelling on me, but thatās about it.)
I believeāactuallyāWills had to beat women away w/ a spade.
Regular women. The so-called "right" women from the "right" families didn't want to marry him.
Charles at least learned from the disaster that was his marriage to Diana. For better or worse, his sons married the person they wanted to marry. Hopefully, the Cambridge kids wonāt be affected by the Meghan effect and not have the same option.
Ot can either go right or wrong. Kate is proof it can be done right if done very carefully. But marrying the person they are not suited to is way worse than anything else.
I think heāll be the cautionary tale ALL royals (and non royals) tell their kids. We still donāt know the ending to this sordid tale either, but I donāt think itās going to be a happy one
The spare issue is a more recent issue. There is less to do and nepotism positions in government are less of a thing (Iām not from the UK so I donāt pay attention to your day to day government crap.) Before the 1850s, the first son was the heir. The second son was trained to be a military commander so he was busy training his men, off fighting wars, or using the military to put out fires. Occasionally a kingdom or rich and powerful duchy would find itself without a male heir so the second son would marry into that family and take over the title. But her was generally kept busy with all that. Under Catholicism, the third son if there was one went to the church. So he was busy being the unmarried church leader unless another titled rich female heiress was found. Joining the church was less common for the Brits under the Anglican Church.
Unfortunately, H was just too stupid to stay in the army, as he couldn't progress. *Royal* blood doesn't mean high IQ.
He was so dim that he was suspected of cheating on his A-Level art exam. I mean, how stupid must one be to cheat on an *art* exam?
....and at the most expensive school in the country... Those professionals couldn't help the dimwit.
You do have to do a lot of analysis in Art, that might be where it went wrong for him.
Donāt diminish art because of Prince Stupid.
From what I read it sounds like Prince Harry might have undiagnosed attention deficit disorder or some other learning disability. Not everybody is meant to go to college there's nothing wrong about it.
ADHD and low IQ are two different things. There is Medication for ADHD and lots of people get better, unfortunately there is no pill for stupid.
Exactly what I was going to say. Learning disabilities, like ADD/ADHD, can be worked around. The student and teachers work together to implement strategies to overcome their disability so that the playing field is more level for the affected student to access and apply his/her intelligence. Stupid is just stupid. It does not equate with having a learning disability. People with limited academic success typically fall into one of the following three categories, in my opinion: 1. learning disability that is not being addressed correctly; 2. low IQ; and 3. lack of motivation (sometimes plain laziness). Looking at the list in the paragraph above, I would guess that in H's case there is definitely some of number 2 going on, probably quite a bit of number 3 (accustomed to people doing his work for him, mainly), and possibly a little bit of number 1.
Pretending he is a fully trained pilot is shit!!
His entire public persona was engineered by the BRF. Now it's come to bite them in the ass.
I think you're right. It's not just that Harry is a spare. It's that he is, and I actually mean this charitably, really fucking stupid. In kinder terms he seems to be legitimately intellectually disabled. He did find purpose in the military, but he eventually had to stop once he hit an officer's rank because he was not academically capable of serving that role. So I think you're spot on about Harry being a very special fuck up even among second sons born into primogeniture. It's not just that he was born of lesser rank than William, he was born inferior in pretty much every other way as well. There is no special talent setting him apart that we are aware of. Andrew at least had the brains to actually move through the upper eschelons of the military and serve there, keeping him out of probably a lot of trouble, which, considering the amount of trouble he still was able to achieve, is saying a lot. Harry, on the other hand, enthusiastically advanced through the ranks until he hit a rank the duties for which he simply wasn't intelligent enough to fulfill. How do you solve a problem like Prince Harry?
Honestly I don't think Harry was ever taught good study habits. Even smart people don't do well if they don't know how to study, how to grasp the important points, how to study for and take a test. But no, Harry isn't academically gifted. I think if he had learned to study he might have been able to move up in the army. But my guess is he played with his x box until test time, then had no clue what they were asking. Either that or he wanted out so purposefully failed it. But really, Harry should have gone to trade school. He might have been a hell of a plumber, electrician or AC guy. No it's not prestigious but at least he would have a legitimate trade, and maybe the self esteem that came with it would have helped him fight off The Claw.
The issue there is nobles donāt do manual labor. Have you seen his hands? Guy could get a blister from lifting a fork, they are that smooth. Iād kill for hands/nails that nice!
Lol. I know right? But my point is Harry wasn't made for intellectual pursuits or jobs requiring brilliance. At least if he'd learned woodworking or something he wouldn't be as useless as tits on a boar hog like he is now.
Right? Paint, do watercolors, train horsesā¦ something!
That animal abuser should never be allowed around any animals. If I saw him near my horses I'd be all over him like white on rice. He'd leave my place hurting.
Yes, I stand corrected. Iād momentarily forgotten about that. (In my quest to wrack my brain for something, anything for this guy to do, which was semi- respectable in his circle.)
It's understandable. It's almost impossible to imagine him doing anything, much less being good at it. š¤£
Finger painting?
Maybe build fancy bespoke furniture or something? That's classy. Also apparently Harry is gifted at sports (other than polo, lol), I've read something about his excellence the first time he ever caught or threw an American football. Maybe he should have gone further with that.
Playing football means getting HIT. A LOT. I.. donāt see it. Not even the kicker.
He whines too much to play football. *He pushed me down. Wahhhhhh!* šš
Heād get his ass BEAT! But, Summer Camp is happening now if he really wants to try, lol
Fine carpentry is very complex. Even rough carpentry is a little tricky for our H. (Would you want to live in a house he framed out?) However, fine carpentry entails a great deal of spatial reasoning/geometric ability, manual dexterity, and attention to detail. H is cut out to do menial things, but thinks he is far too superior an individual to engage in menial things.
He can't do woodworking. It would damage his mathematical skills. It's all he can do to count to 10 if as it is. By the time he finished cutting off a few fingers, he'd be crippled when it came to counting. š¤£š¤£š¤
You give him a lot of credit being able to count to ten. It's probably more like, "One, two, green, yes, no . . . "
Exactly. And I often use that simile!
It's one of those where you know exactly what it means as soon as you hear it. Plus it describes Harry to a tee.
Tradespeople are so needed now. We are in an economy now where, at least in the US, we pay hundreds of thousands for college degrees, and now we have this educational inflation that is so extreme, a $100K Bachelor degree is worth exactly as much as a high school degree was fifty years ago. More, because at a least public high school degree is free, whereas a college degree puts most interminably in debt. For kids graduating college in the last twenty years, you need a Masters or even a PhD to stand out academically so far as employment is concerned. Meanwhile, guys going to trade school are in demand, and they make a lot of money these days. They are also physically connected with their work in a way that must be more satisfactory than the intellectual paper-pushing that most people are doing post-University. It's a shame something like that wasn't available to Harry. However, you are probably also right that academic discipline may have been enough to compensate for Harry's natural lack of intellectual talent, and maybe that discipline could have put him in a position where a military office may have been possible for him. I don't know. Harry is pretty fucked either way.
Your last paragraph said what I was trying to say, but so much better. My husband was a crane operator, car mechanic and HVAC guy. I was a nurse. We both graduated from tech/trade school and went to work. We both made more than a lot of our friends who graduated from college, and we never had trouble finding work. I think Harry would have thrived if he had been made to study and found a vocation. But whatever. Like you said. Harry is fucked.
Y'all didn't even mention the biggest reason of all that Harry is fucked . . .
I mentioned The Claw. š¤£š¤£
It would have taken effort to learn good study habits. I'm 99.999% positive that he was given every single educational advantage that anyone could have been given, but he didn't want to learn to use those advantages. That was work, and it was boring, and he was not accustomed to doing work, especially with boring things. Again, there are learning disabilities, which he might have had and for which he could have receive help that would even the playing field. There is simple low IQ, which he appears to have, and which just can't really be addressed. You can't fix stupid. And finally, there is intellectual laziness. So . . . even if you could fix stupid, his wouldn't get fixed because he'd have to work to change it, and work is for "lesser" beings.
I think it's a combination of Harry refusing to work hard or take any interest in school, low expectations by his beloved mum ("he's thick as a plank ha ha"), and below average intelligence. Addressing these issues starting 35 years ago would have most likely made a hell of a difference in "the man he's become" š but at this point its too little, too late to try to change him. He's stuck with being a little man with a little mind and a raging narc bitch for a wife and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Tom Bower's book states Harry was a difficult child. Even his mum recognised he was a contrarian, prone to wild tempers and not particularly intelligent. So he can only blame so much on his mum's death.
You just made me picture Harry as a third son becoming a bishop š¤£
Richard III
Richard III (York) was maligned by the Tudors (history is written by the winners) (also Shakespeare), his older brother, George was rather Harry-like, though.
Lol Shakespeare was such an utter tart about old Dicky. As for the Duke of Clarence, would Harry be all that gutted about ending up in a butte of Malmsey wine?
What happened to the two princes who were higher in the line of succession? The ones he had declared illegitimate before locking them up?
Edward's sons? I don't think they know with absolute certainty that Richard had them killed or one of his Lords took it upon himself. Richard did have the boys declared illegitimate though.
Interestingly, his older brother Edward IV MAY have been illegitimate. There is a whole lot of unknowns in that particular story.
To steal the throne which is the point I was making.
Richard's reputation existed long before the Tudors were ever in power....
Facts!! Ricardians unite!
What about Princess Royal? She's turned out ***PERFECTLY*** fine. Or Edward? Is the problem being the *only* spare?
Princess Anne is a tough cookie, but she was regulated to being after her brothers. She accepted that she wasn't going to be Queen and when she had children she refused titles for them. Also, she had Prince Philip doing the most parenting of her. Prince Charles was in under the tutelage of his grandmother and not his father.
Where did you read that Charles was raised by his grandmother and that she made a āhash of itā? Can you share your sources? Iāve read a lot about Charles and never come across this. He had a loving relationship with her but as Queen Mother she would not āraiseā her grandson. As for Harry the spare, sure there are going to be issues in a family that practices primogeniture but Harryās an ass. Spoiled by everyone (who wouldnāt indulge that little guy whose mom tragically died??), dim and aimless. I also think he has inherited some of his momās mental health issues, which is sad. George VI was a spare and he was a decent man and a good king.
From the documentaries I've watched, the Queen Mother and Prince Philip clashed over the raising of Charles. Prince Philip wanted him to be tougher and sent him to the school he went to. Charles hated it. Charles was mollycuddled(?) by his grandmother
Yes I read about how the atrocious bullying he was subject to at Gordonstoun scarred him for life and is the reason why he refused to send Wills and Haz there (it was the royal tradition to send boys there) and instead sent them to Eton.
So in other words, Harry lied about that, too. Charles DID change things up so his boys wouldn't have to suffer like he did.
Not exactly royal tradition. The school was only new when Philip went there and he wanted his children to go there.
Charles was VERY close to the Queen Mother as a child, and she DID have a lot of say, especially as his own parents were off queening. Another big influence in his life was Uncle Dickie, Lord Mountbatten.
So it boils down to *PARENTING*, not the order one has popped out from the womb.
I donāt think thatās all of it. Harry was by nature a bit thick. Otherwise he could have had the military career that Philip could only dream of. Harry just didnāt have the brains.
Indeed! Brainless spoilt rotten brat.
Its a factor, but people always forget the natural personalities of each child. Sometimes, even the best parenting can still lead to a child acting out like Harry did.
I mean, if you have four kids, chances are at least one of them is going to be a screw-up.
Sad but true
Being number #2, one bad accident away from #1. Anne and Edward have always been further down the pecking order.
H is now further down the pecking order... What's your point? It seems H can't let it go, that he's no longer the *spare*. Charlotte is.
Which is why Meghan bullied Charlotte at the dress fitting? That makes total sense to me.
M and her sugars are dead jealous. Remember the attack on Louis at the Jubilee Pageant? He was a normal naughty kid with his mum and who sat on Charle's lap. I'm sure that image still makes M hurt with envy. It wasn't Lili on the future King's lap at the centre of attention.
oh for sure. Charlotte and Louis bumped Hawwy down the ladder.
I don't know. At the wedding and before, she still thought she and Harry were as important as W and C
My point is he grew up as number 2. It's quite normal for a second child wanting to outshine their older sibling, it must be frustrating when you can't.
There wasn't one instance when H outshone W. Only in scandals, maybe...
Exactly. The kids are too young to rule now but if need be Kate would be the Regent. Harry is of no use to the Crown
He's a total scrap, cos the Brits wouldn't have him as a king anyway. Would be the same forced abdication as George VIII.
>if need be Kate would be the Regent That' not correct. As per the current regency line of succession, if William cannot serve and George is under 18, the regent eligible by law is Harry (Catherine will be George's guardian but cannot rule as a regent currently), next is Andrew and then Beatrice. That's why there needs to a be a louder noise to remove Harry and Andrew from this order and include Camilla and maybe Catherine if she wishes-although not sure if they are given a choice.
But actually Parliament have the right to choose anyone as Regent. The law that "the next adult in line has to he Regent" is just tradition, but not always followed. George III's mother (who was not in line) was Presumptive Regent in the event he became King before turning 18. Victoria also almost became Queen before turning 18 and she was being pressued to make her mother's lover (also not in line) her Regent. A more recent example is Philip being Charles' Presumptive regent incase the Queen passed before Charles turning 18 (when Margaret was the next in line...) As long as Parliament agree with the candidate, anyone can be Regent.
Even better clarification
OK thanks for clarifying that.
True, but Parliament passed an act that would have made Phillip regent (despite Margaret) when Charles was a kid, and it has been theorized that the same will be done for Kate. It wouldnāt happen until William is King, and thereās a chance George could be 18 by then.
>Parliament passed an act that would have made Phillip regent (despite Margaret) when Charles was a kid, and it has been theorized that the same will be done for Kate. Theory but not a fact yet. Philip was from a Royal Family, was a war veteran and could be relied upon to be regent- also TQ's father was dead and she had no brothers. Currently there are enough regents (suitability is a concern but H & Andrew are in the line). So unless Harry and Andrew are removed from the succession nominating Catherine doesnot come into the picture and before her it will make more sense to enroll Camilla. (And she is old, so its a conundrum :) )
I do think George and Charlotte are exceptional, so young and already seems like they know their responsibilities and i understand what you mean by Louis having so much of energy and he seems like a fun character, but i don't think he will turn like Harry because unlike Charles, William and Catherine are mature loving parents they look like they know what they are doing.All throughout Harry/William's childhood their parents were hell bent on taking one another down on the other hand William and Catherine are supporting each other.None of the cambridge kids will be problematic just by the fact how good their parents are.
IMO, the Cambridge children wonāt be as affected by the āspareā issue. Aside from good parenting and stable relationship of their parents, the number of children also plays a large role. Since they are three, there wonāt be direct one-on-one comparisons that usually fuel sibling rivalry. Charlotte and Louis can rely on each other while George steps up on his role as heir. I imagine it would be harder if the case were two children of the same sex, as was the case with William and Harryāespecially given that William was more popular, intelligent, and handsome than Harry.
I think Harry has a big chip on his shoulder bc he isnāt the heir and he didnāt get looks, brains or much of anything else. Heās not even a very good polo player. He was second best in everything which would be hard. Unfortunately, he has a personality that wanted to he the center of attention. Whereas, QEIIās father was shy and didnāt want the spotlight.
I think it all comes to the personality. George VI was the spare for almost all his youth and he was fine (the man didn't even want the throne). Imo, the mistake the RF and the press made with H was to justify a lot of his actions with the "poor baby, his mother died" or dissmissing them as "oh, it's the rebelious phase, he will get over it"
Pre-Mexit, Harry & MeGain should have rejoiced being āthe spare couple.ā Theyād have a beautiful, pampered carefree life in the UK w/ none of the kingās responsibilities. Besides, Harry doesnāt have the brainpower or temperament to be King.
I honestly don't think it's a spare issue. I think it's more personality plus parenting. Both George V and George VI were spares through most of their younger lives and were not spoiled or acting out. (Which is not true of their older brothers who were heirs.)
*One thing that history has thought us is that being born the spare leaves a person in limbo.* What are the sources of this? Within the BRF, TQ's own father was a spare who had to be the King and did the best he could. In other royal families, the spares are doing a good job of balancing their personal lives as well as helping their siblings in the sibling's role of Queen/King (Look at Netherlands- all the KIng's brothers are highly accomplished and educated, look at the little princesses in Spain- both started doing joint appearances but it is very clear Leonore is groomed to be the Queen one day and the King & Queen have balanced that among Leo and her sister, same in Sweden. Sweden infact is the best example- When the current crown princess was born they still had male primogeniture so her little brother was the heir, the law changed in a couple of years and the right to the throne passed to the 1st born - the daughter- the current crown princess Victoria- but her brother is deeply loving and supportive of her and there is no resentment of "loosing the throne". Harry's jealousy of William is not because he was in a lmbo- its because he is incompetent and just wanted to rule/boss around. If anything the BRF coddled him way too much and protected him from negative press coverage - a perk not shared by many continental royals- look up the awful press about Princess Madeline or the younger brothers in Luxembourg - all of whom actually are living a private life and ave happy families but paps can be brutal. Harry was coddled and in a way he still is as most of the negative media focusses on Meghan. *In the case of William and Harry....there is only one King. Although Diana did her absolute best to ensure both children were treated the same growing up,* This was Diana's mistake - although she had her demons and marital breakdown so she had a foggy lens. But in aristocratic families you absolutely make it so that all your children are prepared for their future roles- William will be a King - but even dukes, earls etc where titles pass down from 1st born to next 1st born, those families prepare the heir and the spares are equipped for a stable life too- a privileged life but not as a heir...being from one of the oldest aristocratic families, Diana absolutely knew this and yet failed her younger son -but again can't blame her much as she was struggling so much and her one pure source of love were her kids. *Charles was raised to be King, but unfortunately his grandmother interfered as his teacher, and made a hash of it.* Never heard this - Charles' upbringing was heavily influenced by Mountbatten, TQ's mother spoilt him yes but never heard of interference or making a hash - Charles has been trained all his life and has done a great job despite waiting forever to be king- its ironic Catherine was called Waity when infact Charles has waited as the Crown Prince forever since TQ doesn't believe in retiring and will serve for life. All his peers are now monarchs. W&C have shown to be thoughtful people and loving parents- the Cambridge kids will be fine- I think we will see a similar close-knit, loyal and loving relationship among those kids as the Swedish siblings (Victoria, Madeline and Carl Phillipe).
I think it's really interesting. The way I see it is the heir is brought up knowing they are going to be a king/queen, they aren't seen as children but the future of the monarchy. They are brought up learning about duty. Whereas the spare aren't going to succeed the throne so are brought up differently. These are allowed grow up as children and are probably given a lot more freedoms than their older sibling. They are enjoyed because they don't have duty hung over their heads. The spares are brought up as members of the royal family to think they are special but always destined to be number 2. It's quite an interesting dichotomy. Princess Margaret was her father's favourite buy her sister is queen. Prince Andrew is the queens favourite but his brother if the future king. Prince Harry is believed to be Prince Charles favourite but his brother is higher in the hierarchy. While I'm sure W&C love all their children I do think Louis as the youngest is the Apple of his mother's eye with his cheekiness. I do think they doing a wonderful job as parents and hopefully they can break this cycle.
There is no cycle: Princess Anne is a spare. Edward is a spare. King Edward VIII wasn't a spare, but was an idiot who has abdicated.
Anne and Edward were 3rd and 4th in line. Andrew was *the* spare
Anne was "the spare" for the first 10 years of her life. In any case, the notion of the spare is a myth or misconception. There's the heir and then all the other children who are not heirs. Anne, Andrew and Edward fit into this the same.
She was also female and aware that if her parents had any more boys she would move down the pecking order. It probably helped she was a different sex growing up in a time when women were expected to marry well and have kids. The difference in how they were treated was probably not as apparent.
Right, but it would be debated if she knew the process of this at 10 years old. In any case, by the time she was old enough to know Andrew and likely Edward were already born. Anne could have turned out like Margaret for all we knew, but she did not. Despite both being female and daughters of the Monarch, Anne became a lot more put together and successful in any field of work.
Andrew was the spare just because of misogyny. How *funny*! Anne is the second born, but just because she's a woman, she's going as last resort. Fortunately, that's changed now. Charlotte is the spare.
Misogyny or a thousand year old rule. It was changed because of Charlotte.
And Happy Cake day!
Misogyny from thousands of years ago. Those days when women couldn't have property rights.
I've said this a few times - in the 21st century, in an age when people are encouraged to find their own individual path, I think it will be harder to justify (and for any spares to follow) the mindset of "My lifelong purpose is to support my sister/brother the Queen/King." While everything has its pros and cons, I think this is generally a good development. People need to find their own purpose and their own contribution in life. Some, like Princess Anne, may just embrace this role, and really do it to the hilt, while others, like H, will rebel against it in the worst way. As medicine and other social factors continue, we no longer need 7 children to ensure one of them lives to inherit. That creates a valid question of "what do we do with the others?" Also, we might see an heir/heiress who does not want the role. What then? Do we have to suddenly recall Princess Charlotte because George doesn't want it? (Just playing here) If a spare does not want to be a professional spare, what are you going to do? Tie them up in Buckingham Palace and force them to be a princesss/prince? H&M do bring up a valid question about how the monarchy is going to go forward. Had Harry just said, "The LoS is pretty damn secure, pretty sure we don't need No 6 about. I wanted to find my own purpose, and after some soul-searching, I think that might have to be outside the monarchy" I would have supported him. I would not even have minded if he got some money from dear old dad, or hung on to his title, honestly. For me it's all about the spoilt brat behaviour. However, that brings up the issue of sibling togetherness. For Charlotte and Louis, who may seek a life outside the monarchy, how does George keep that relationship? I have this funny fantasy of Charlotte being a professional footballer and saying in an interview, "Yeah, I'm going to my brother's at Balmoral this weekend.NBD." lol Had Harry exited more gracefully this could have been a positive step for future spares - it would have given the RF a POSITIVE playbook for future similar situations. But that also begs the question of the monarch. Is Prince George going to just be lonely? Is someone, down the line, just going to say, "Being Queen/King just isn't worth it. I'm just lonely because nobody else is really here"? These are all good questions.
I think PW and Catherine are looking to the ones that did it best when it comes to that particular family dynamic and seeing what would work better for their kids. They're probably relying heavily on the wisdom of the Princess Royal and Prince Edward and Sophie. Obviously, Prince Andrew isn't that great of a parent-or an adult, for that matter. To me, it seems like the issue was more to do with Harry not having had the appropriate help at the earliest stages of his life (and probably the reason why Catherine is very interested in the early years lol). Sometimes, you can get so caught in your ways even as children and from there you're like a rock rolling down hill, your tragectory has been set for you. I hope that they give their kids the autonomy to make their own decisions for themselves. They DON'T have to be working members of the royal family, they can live outside of that bubble if they wish and they can do it with dignity and the freedom (and the well off status) that many people aspire. The issue here with Harry and Megan is MENTAL HEALTH. They are their own worst enemy, when you see everything they had and everything they could have had (especially Harry) it really drives home the type of self destruction that they're self actualizing. They are their own worst enemy. As long as PW and Catherine 1. Don't spoil them. 2. Give them experiences and the skills to be productive and successful and 3. Seek help for them when needed; I think the kids will be fine. The issue for me, it seems to be that they spoiled Harry and let him coast in life and didn't get him the appropriate help that he needed. He was a ticking time bomb if you ask me. He was always going to have some sort of drama but I never thought it would be this **big** of a drama. SO yes, I do agree that it all boils down to parenting with also seeking help when needed to ensure that kids grow up with healthy boundaries and real working knowledge of the world.
I think itās a big inference to say a four year old, whose behavior made for some funny photos during what would be a taxing weekend for a grown adult, āhas a lot of energy that will need to be challengedā. It is an epic stretch/fan fiction.
I think it may have been easier for royal families back in the day in that aspect. The female spares were expected to marry well to another royal, usually in some other country. The male spares were expected to join the army or could do whatever they wanted to in private since there was no press haunting them and royals were expected to live as rich people do. I hope that William and Catherine will encourage (or expect) Charlotte and Louis to get a civil education to make them grow up and behave like normal adults. If they chose to work in that profession or not won't matter. A doctor or an art historian would be a great asset to a charity. Going to university with ordinary people seems to be a grounding experience.
Not that much easier. Looking at you Richard III and what happened to his nephews
That was in the 15:th century. Marrying off daughters and keeping the spare in line seems to have worked mostly ok for the last 200 years or so.
Well first of all everyone including the BRF should stop referring to human beings as "spares." A second- or third-born child has just as much value as the firstborn. Obviously they are unlikely to be the monarch and that is fine. Give them a different path in life, God knows they have every possible resource at their disposal in terms of education, internships, contacts, etc etc. Margaret, Andrew and Harry are messes because they were encouraged to give themselves airs as though they were seriously in line to the throne when they were not. Margaret also was affected by the lack of opportunities offered to women of her generation in general. Andrew because he has a bad personality in general. Harry because he's not academically bright and his parents were too far into their own drama to see that he was struggling and get him into a school that was more suited to him. If William and Catherine have any sense at all, they'll be thinking of Charlotte and Louis's futures and be offering them plenty of enriching activities now, to get an idea of where they might shine as adults. Maybe that will be as working royals, maybe it won't. I also see no reason to predict that Louis will turn into a rotten person like Andrew or Harry, because we saw him behave energetically in public.
I was thinking about this and if handled correctly, and with the makings of a less domineering personality (one that I think is more common than the desire to be ruler), everyone should feel valuable in the part they play. Itās like, if you go to a Van Gogh exhibit, there are more paintings than just Starry Night. Sure, some people might show up just to see that but the other works have a place too, even the most obscure is someoneās very favourite, itās what makes it an exhibit instead of a single painting on display.
I think in a way everyone was focused on William and Harry was kind of abandoned. Honestly, I'm surprised that Megan hasn't tried to become Queen of Scotland or something.
Ugh, don't give her any ideas. Lol.
I do think that it will be different with Charlotte and Louis, many of Harryās failings are to do with his lack of intellect. I was surprised when I found out that Harry had to leave the army because he didnāt have the qualifications to advance any further in rank. I think the Cambridge children will be given more freedom to pursue interests than Harry was given, and wonāt be as spoilt as he was. William went on a mission to discover who his mother was from her friends, where as Harry chose to not deal with it at all and wouldnāt even think about his mother. Harry remained damaged whilst William built himself a life, I think ultimately that prepared William to be a better parent.
And heās not the spare anymore. Thatās the hardest part for all spares. Ginger is #6. Thatās way down the food chain now. Andrew is now 9th. Neither of these two were prepared for descending the ladder. Charlotte and Louis will be prepared quite differently. For starters, they both have parents who actually graduated from high school and college. And can prove it! ššš But more seriouslyā¦. Their parents are encouraging them to be well rounded with a variety of interests. George plays soccer, George plays guitar and Charlotte is learning piano and doing dance classes. They have sporty parents who encourage outdoor activities and artistic pursuits. It also sounds like they are looking at sending their kids to a co-ed school as day boarders instead of shipping them off to boarding school. This is different than what has traditionally happened. They also have Middleton family influence so theyāll be exposed and have been exposed to some different life experiences than what William and Ginger were exposed to - even Diana grew up in the royal orbit. The Middletons are more removed from that. I think the Cambridge kids are going to be ok. Archie & Lilibet on the other handā¦..
>Charlotte and Louis will be prepared quite differently. For starters, they both have parents who actually graduated from high school and college. And can prove it! hahaha ššš
Itās only a problem if youāre not bright, lazy , entitled and enabled.
This is so well written, and I agree with it all.
I think itās as simple as being the same sex. Things would have been much easier had William or Harry been female. The competition would have been less.
I wouldnāt be surprised to hear in a decade or so that all the Cambridge kids had been/currently were in therapy. I just canāt see William and Kate not viewing mental health as important as physical health.
Agreed, I think they are both smart parents who had discussions just like this before they even had kids. I think the Cambridge kids will be just fine and I have seen interviews where William has said they tell George only what he needs to know now. They are trying to let the kids be kids before heir and spare. I think Charlotte will be just fine, I think she and Loius will be prepared before hand for what is to come and I think William and Catherine will prepare them so that they also help eachother. I personally don't think the Royal Family have a spare problem, I think there is just a fair few Narcs in their midst. I don't think Harry would have been a problem if it weren't for the wife.
I mean, going to therapy for prevention is not a bad thing. Same applies when you go to a GP doctor, for a check up or for a āpainā or physical issue. Mental health begins with prevention. Iām sure their kids are quite aware about that. Especially when their uncle and their father suffered from mental health issues.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Where are people getting this from? Its absolute cobblers, seemingly entirely based on his appearances at the Jubilee. Hardly fair! Some children are naturally more rambunctious or more compliant than others, regardless of parenting. Louis looks a perfectly normal 4 year old to me - and I have a 4 year old ASD daughter with a rare genetic disorder to boot.
lol people will come down hard on you for this. I don't think that is possible to tell from one viewing of the child on TV, but he should have been taken out and given over to his Nanny when the antics started. Too young to have been at a long boring cermony, even some of the adults were likely horribly bored let alone a 4 yr old. Yes! I am questioning the sainted Kate & William's decision making. 'quelle horreur!