Prince Harry appointed Captain General Royal Marines

Prince Harry appointed Captain General Royal Marines

Prince Harry has been appointed Captain General Royal Marines, taking over for Prince Philip.

Prince Philip’s association with the Royal Marines dates back 64 years to June 2, 1953, when he was appointed Captain General in succession to the late King George VI.

Yesterday, it was announced that The Queen has given her formal approval to the appointment of Prince Harry as Captain General as the retired Philip has stepped down.

Philip carried out his last official duty as Captain General – receiving Major General Robert Magowan, Commandant General Royal Marines, and Major General Charles Stickland, Commandant General Royal Marines Designate. Harry was also present.

Also yesterday, The HALO Trust released a video message from Harry for the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Mine Ban Treaty. He says in the video:

“Twenty years ago this year, my mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, walked through a cleared minefield in Angola. She witnessed first hand the pain and suffering of those whose lives had been destroyed by landmines. As she comforted children waiting patiently for their prosthetic legs, parliaments, non-government organizations, and campaigners around the world came together to find a way to stop the killing and maiming for good. The result was a treaty designed to rid the world of landmines forever.

“Some of the children who she met in that clinic are now parents themselves. It is unbearable to think that their children are still forced to live with the legacy of a war that finished decades ago. Only this October, a fourteen year old boy called Sapalo lost both his legs in an explosion in Moxico in Angola – one of the countries my mother visited two decades ago.

“Together, the states, donors, and non-government groups gathered here in Vienna have made huge progress towards achieving a world free of mines. To date, twenty-nine states have been declared mine free – a tremendous achievement and a testament to the treaty’s ambition and vision. But millions of people are still affected by mines, and there is so much more which still needs to be done.

“The Mine Ban Treaty includes a commitment from the international community to clear the world of landmines by 2025. With just eight years to go, we must stiffen our resolve and redouble our efforts if we are to stand any chance of achieving this goal. I am delighted that the British Government has taken the lead by increasing its funding to clear these terrible legacies of war, but without similar commitments across the world, the 2025 goal will not be achieved.

“It is incredible to think that if we clear some of those countries most affected, then we can free over 60 million people from the threat of landmines for good, and bring back transport, development, agriculture, and the ability for future generations of children to play without fear.

“My mother also visited Bosnia twenty years ago, where she promised two young boys coming to terms with life-changing injuries that they would never be forgotten. These young boys are now men, and it falls to me and all of us to uphold her promise.

“So on behalf of them and the children she met in Angola, let us recommit today to the Maputo deadline of 2025. Let us not meet again in another ten years and hear that a new generation of children face being killed or maimed through innocent play.”

Photo: The Royal Family @RoyalFamily

116 thoughts on “Prince Harry appointed Captain General Royal Marines

  1. I really like the Mine Treaty 20th Anniversary video. Very well-spoken, on message. It is hard to believe that 20 years later, these landmines still pose a problem. SHAME. I thought Harry was patron of the Halo Trust, but I did not see it listed among his patronages.

    MMR, thank you for transcribing Harry’s speech on the video.

  2. I loved this speech. It has a lot of emotional appeal.
    Is it just me or is Harry stepping up more? Of is it the end of year scramble?
    It feels like I see him everywhere.

    1. I don’t think Harry has ever scrambled to double his year end numbers like his brother and sister-in-law or if he has, it hasn’t been as drastic.

      I think he is stepping up more.

    2. Prince Harry, well done continuing this important cause started by your mother. Putting some action towards one of her important causes is especially vital if they are going to meet the deadline. Meghan is the same age as Diana when she died. It really reminds us of how very young she was when she left us.

      Good speech. I hope Meghan joins him on this worldwide issue.

    3. No he’s seems to be stepping up more. Since Charles’ line will be the most prominent faces of the monarchy once Her Majesty passes, it seems they are slowly promoting him to take over for certain things. Honestly I’m surprised that William as the future king isn’t seen doing more. Harry now has this and the Prince’s Trust too? Correct me if I’m wrong.

  3. The video is quite moving and the fact that he is continuing the important work of his Mother is to be applauded.

    By the way, I must say, Leah, that I appreciate your tenacity. Everyone deserves to have their opinion. Bullying is wrong. The combined efforts to get you to leave this site or to be banned when others have clearly written more divisive posts is so very wrong. Moreover, I commend KMR for seeing through the nonsense.

    1. I agree, On Second Thought. The personal animosity directed at Leah is shocking. I try not to respond as I believe the people (or person) are trolls, but their constant churning is making this and KMR unenjoyable, which is their intention IMHO.

      1. How are the people calling Leah out, trolls, when most of them have been regulars (like over it)?
        The website owner has chastised very respectfully this commenter multiple times and it took weeks for this commenter to stop doing what KMR asked her (matress and name calling)
        So I guess KMR & all the regulars who have called this commenter out are trolls? KMR could’ve been like Celebitchy and deleted anything she didn’t like but she didn’t.
        If you make a comment people are going to comment on it. Leah has her opinions and people can challenge it. Just like she challenges people’s opinions on Meghan. Just like she tells people they hate Meghan. So she can do that but when someone challenges her then they are trolls? KMR has said multiple times how she felt about the site and the commenters. She didn’t mention one side being a problem she mentioned both.
        Also this person has shown no respect to KMR & her wishes at first. People seem to ignore whatever KMR says unless it agrees with whatever narrative they want.
        I don’t wish to talk further and make this into an fight.
        Kmr is fair. She won’t delete her comments because it’s not what she does, even though this commenter has not been fair to her.

        1. Challenging a comment is one thing, but to continuously challenge a commenter is something that KMR/MMR has specifically asked us not to do. The unnecessary hostility boiled over at the bottom of a previous thread, so much so that I myself was called names and “Maybe you are a child,” was hurled in Leah’s direction over a critique of the Daily Mail commentary.

          This obsession over Leah’s comments particularly is disturbing to say the least.

    2. On the subject of Leah. Leah, I mean this in the friendliest of terms. I believe you are a defender of people when they are wronged. All the incredibly ugly things I have read about Meghan, especially at what is a happy time in the couples lives, is quite sad to read.

      How can people write on other sites that she is pregnant, a stripper, Harry is gay, telling Harry to run, that HM is not thinking straight, what the BRF must be thinking about this engagement to this awful woman,… and on and on the nasty comments continue.

      I have said it before and I will continue to say it. If anyone likes Harry, how can people think he is being blindsided by a manipulative woman who is out only for herself. I think Harry is smarter than that and I like that he has stuck up for her and her family during their dating period.

      The nasty comments have made me want to defend Meghan and Harry. She deserves a honeymoon period. Kate seemed to get her time of grace.

      I think Leah is reacting to all the nasty comments floating around all over the place about Meghan.

      1. G. that is exactly it. I have followed the royals for years. The amount of vitriol directed at Meghan is awful. Much it has to do with her race. People are upset that Harry is not marrying a white woman, an English rose.

        Haters are incensed Meghan has a past, that she is an actress, which they equate with being a stripper or hooker. They also hate that she is American, divorced, had her own social media site. They hate she has a mind of her own and don’t celebrate she is self made.

        I have seen trolls say the engagement is not real, that Meghan is demeaning the family and the Daily Fail, with their race-baiting is not helping.

        It’s sickening. I will ALWAYS root for Meghan, period.

      2. Wheatherby,

        The scrutiny shown towards Leah on Kate blog is one reason why I turned my attention to Meghan blog, hoping to find something more jovial and perhaps less reactionary to posters’ licence to express their thoughts. It is amazing the same is repeating here too. On Kate blog, some went as far as inciting others to simply scroll past any of Leah’s comment and by the tone of the objections thrown at her, there was little to prevent me from wondering if the blog had turned tribal. One time I can recall, I objected to KMR’s point of view and, suddenly, some posters were at my throat if one can say, with some calling me names. people would come onto a blog in search of a community, and settle in. That is not me. I like history as a whole and many people here and on Kate blog have tremendous knowledge of British Royal History.
        Regarding the brooch outcry, there is nothing to suggest Princess Kent wore it in an attempt to embarrass Meghan in front of the whole royal family. Why would she do such a cruel thing to her soon-to-be in-law? Now, the blackamoor face is an emblem to a few European nations (Corsica, Sardinia for instance) and is also associated with certain royal or aristocratic coats-of-arms. If I am not mistaken, the blackamoor face rather points towards the Black Nobility, to which almost the entire European royal houses are related to. Princess Kent has connections to many European royal houses and aristocratic families, it is said. A blackamoor could have a different meaning to her; and she could have just be wearing it as an emblem/jewel which has a specific significance to her!
        Meghan looked beautiful. She and Harry will do well. All she needs now is learn the royal protocol and know her place. She has what it takes to succeed in her forthcoming duties and role.

  4. I’ve been noticing on the Times publication of the Court Circular Harry is listed yet online not as often. He’s been doing more meetings as of late, which is good; but we don’t hear about it or if we do it’s not really publicized. So he’s working a bit, thankfully.

    I want to know more about this captain stuff. Is it an honorary colonel in chief position? I don’t think so, but a girl can dream, he should be given such a thing so he can participate in the TRooping the Colour.

    I’ve read about Diana’s landmine stuff and how a lot of it was posturing for the photographers who were with her. Show up for two seconds, pose with kids, leave. Walk through a landmine field when they told her not to because, uh, dangerous. It did good stuff, but it was purely egotistical of her and got in the way of the real people doing the real hard work…

    1. No I don’t agree with you. It got her, and therefore the cause, on the front page of newspapers around the world. If knowledge is power, then we need to give people the knowledge – and I for one learned a lot more about the issues of landmines after the Diana photo because I was interested to find out more. I think she also talked to – and yes charmed – a number of influential people, who were persuaded by her at the very least to sit down and talk about the issues.

      1. Ellie, I have to respectfully disagree. Point is, Diana got eyeballs on the cause and press. She helped a lot just by being there.

        But Ellie, I do agree with you that I want to know more about what Harry’s new role is with this appointment.

    2. Yeah, I get really annoyed that Harry’s activities are not always considered “official.” I think his numbers would be much higher if everything that he did was counted in the Court Circular!

      Could there be any other reason that this is done other than to not show up William?? Do any other royals do lots of work that isn’t counted?

      I’m also with Birdy that Diana’s landmine efforts were meaningful and brought much needed attention to the issue. I’ve never read anything about her saying – that any kind of charity events – that she was only “on” for the cameras or only staying for two seconds. If anything, I’ve read that she would often show up to hospitals and the like without any press at all, but to just spend time with people in need.

    3. I believe it is the equivalent to a Colonel in chief position. What is interesting is that prior to Prince Phillip, the other men in this position were George V and VI. I wonder why this was given to Harry and not William.

      1. We may never know the real reason, but it seems Harry is much more devoted to the military than William, so this was a good choice. I hope Meghan will join him in that effort. Then Meghan can do the St. Patrick’s day visit.

        1. Harry’s affection for the military is real. William really has naught to do with them, which is why that Marine appointment should not have gone to him.

    4. Ellie. There is a philosopher who discusses that if you do something good but for selfish reasons, is it still a good deed? I forget which philosopher this was unfortunately (does anyone know?) but I would argue that if the outcome is good (Diana showcased the dangers of landmines) then it doesn’t matter if the intent was selfish/bad (she did it only to get attention for herself).

  5. Shouldn’t this be Edward? Isn’t he going to be the D.o.E. when Phillip passes away? Edward has militarily service, doesn’t he?

    1. I don’t really consider Edward as having military “service” because apparently he did not even finish the Royal Marines training course. But, somehow, apparently this still entitles him to dress up in a Royal Marine uniform…which kind of seems wrong to me. I could totally be wrong (that he didn’t finish training), but this is what I read yesterday.

      I have no problem with this going to Harry, because a) Charles’s line is going to be more prominent when the queen dies, and b) Harry was in the military for a decade and has the trust and respect of other soldiers. I think he’ll do a great job and the Royal Marines will embrace him.

      Also, I don’t think this appointment is in any way related to the Edinburgh title, so I don’t think it needs to go to Edward just because he’ll get the Edinburgh dukedom when Philip dies.

      1. Gudgeon, you are correct. Edward dropped out of the marines during basic training, causing a huge scandal at the time. I think the uniform he now sports is the one of which he is honorary colonel. Usual bad optics by the BRF and doting Queen to put him in uniform at all.

      2. “…..I have no problem with this going to Harry, because a) Charles’s line is going to be more prominent when the queen dies, and b) Harry was in the military for a decade and has the trust and respect of other soldiers. I think he’ll do a great job and the Royal Marines will embrace him……”

        YES! My thoughts exactly! I think Harry is at his best when undertaking engagements with the armed services. Every bit the soldier, our Captain Wales.

        I’m happy to see him find meaningful military work after retirement from enlisted service. And as another poster said, I hope this means that the St. Patricks Day shamrock event goes to Meghan. I think that would be a better option for all involved, including Kate and William.

          1. William is the honorary Colonel of the Irish Guards. (QEII is Colonel in Chief) This is why the St Patrick’s Day event falls to him and Kate, when she feels like doing it. For that reason, I can’t see Harry and Meghan ever doing it.

      3. “I have no problem with this going to Harry, because a) Charles’s line is going to be more prominent when the queen dies, and b) Harry was in the military for a decade and has the trust and respect of other soldiers. I think he’ll do a great job and the Royal Marines will embrace him.”

        Gudgeon +1

    1. Thank you for both links Gudgeon. I chuckled at the caption on one of the pics “Harry waves at reporters and photographers”, no he wasn’t waving, silly!! 🙂 🙂 The guy is shielding his eyes from the blinding camera flashes, he probably can’t even drive with these blinding bright lights!!

          1. @Leah – at today’s rates, 300 GBP (AKA quid) = 401 USD. So, not cheap, but very affordable!

            So far (okay, only three instances since the engagement), I am loving Meghan’s fashion decisions. I don’t care for this dress’s nude lining or lace top, but I love the silhouette and length. And price. I also love how she’s chosen several UK designers – even the handbag was semi-affordable (again, not cheap…but not thousands of pounds either!).

          2. p.s. Leah – the link to the Telegraph article says that the dress is only 180 GBP, not 300. The 300 reporting must have been in US dollars. So, even better and definitely affordable for a holiday, need-to-meet-the-in-laws dress 🙂

    2. Weatherby, in 10 february 2011, Prince Willian become royal colonel of the Irish Guardes. Since 2012, attend the St. Patric’s Day and give the shamerocks is a royal function of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

      1. Yes, but couldn’t it be possible for Harry as Captain General to take up this event? Meaning that the passing of the shamrocks falls to his wife, Meghan?

        I am asking because I don’t actually know. But I do know that Kate and William have chosen to be derelict in this duty on a number of occasions, and it would therefore make more sense to hand it over to someone who takes an interest in it.

        All things military related are events where Harry shines. I could see the palace PR recognising this.

        1. @Weatherby,
          Wouldn’t that look like stripping the DoC of something and giving it to prince Harry? I wouldn’t like that, and i don’t think Harry would be very happy with that either!! I think there’s plenty of responsibilities and work to go around, prince Harry and his soon-to-be-wife can take over some duties and the Cambridges take over some. That’s at least how I’d do it.

        2. @Weatherby – I agree with Masamf that “stripping” that from William (especially after just a few years) wouldn’t be a good look. And, it seems that the handing out of shamrocks goes along with the Irish Guard. So, unfortunately, I don’t see this falling to H&M (even though Meghan would slay at it).

          However, there may be other wonderful things associated with the Royal Marines. E.g. in the US, the US Marine Corps are associated with the annual Toys for Tots holiday toy drive. If the Royal Marines have something similar, that would be an AWESOME thing for Meghan to get involved with — toy drives for kids in need at the holidays 🙂

          It also seems that the DoE did a lot of traveling to visit with Marines in other countries, so this could be something Harry (and maybe Meghan) could do. I’d also expect/hope that Meghan will get her own honorary military appointments (like Sophie has) and then we’d see doing things for “her” soldiers as well – observing training and the like.

  6. Thanks MMR for this thread. Harry is a gem and its really nice that these organizations continue to use him as a face for these causes because he has both the charisma and the charm to bring people to one table to discuss these issues and to find resolution to said issues, kudos prince Harry, you doing both yr parents proud. I’m sure POW is swelling with pride every time his son is shown on screens around the world championing such causes.
    IRT this captain of marines appointment, I believe Harry deserved this appointment, he has proven himself through both his service to his country and through his commitment to servicemen and women not only of his country but also those in the entire world. The BRF is moving into modernity and its time they start appointing people in whatever positions, based on merit rather than on anything else.
    Regarding princess Diana, I know how she is not a big favourite on these boards but can we please focus the attention on the good that came out of her work rather than nit picking the whys she did this and did that? IMVHO, the criticism at this point, the “she did this for photo ops”, the “she did that for this or that reasons” the “the reason she did it was because she was egotistical” all is unnecessary. As they say, if you have nothing nice to say, please don’t say anything.

  7. I am not sure why Diana is not a favorite. I have and always will love her. I think she did much good and dragged the BRF into the modern age.

    1. Leah, Diana is not very much loved on this site but that was not meant to be the bottom line of my comment. I just felt it was not appropriate to rain on and dismiss all her efforts, and Harry’s as well, as PR stunts when awareness is the most needed at this time and I apologize if my comments came across as otherwise.
      A lot of times people on here are quick to dismiss one’s charity contributions as PR stunts etc when in all honesty these people genuinely give their time to call attention to these causes. I’m not sure what the feelings behind that but it has happened on here many times so I felt I should say something.

    2. Leah, maybe Hera can give you the full run-down sometime. Here’s the abbreviated version: much of her behavior in the last few years of her life was seen as attention grasping. Apparently she was being openly ridiculed regularly in the press. Then overnight with her death that was all recast, with Tony Blair’s help, as the People’s Princess.

      Additionally, her relationship with her boys was massively dysfunctional. She used William as emotional support and a sounding board from the time he was a little boy. And she used the press to push the narrative that Charles was an inadequate father. In reality the boys were off at school and rarely saw either parent but Charles tried very hard in the ways he knew how. I think that William probably bought more into his mom’s narrative than Harry, hence the distance and hostility for Charles.

      1. @Em there are also reports that all what you said was a narrative that was pushed by PoW PR machine in efforts to “white wash” PoW, so the argument can go both ways.
        I don’t think any of us will ever know what really happened, that is why I continue to state on here that none of us really knows these people enough to state any of our assumptions (or just gossip) as facts. We really don’t know what Diana’s motives were (nor Charles’ for that matter), we really don’t know what exactly the relationship was between Diana and her sons nor do we know exactly what the relationship between Charles and his sons is like. What we do know for sure is that both Diana and Charles admitted to having had multiple affairs on each other but that’s all we know. Having said that, whatever happened doesn’t negate Diana’s efforts in shining light on the devastation of land mines on innocent people and on the stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS. It is not right to continuously harp on what reasons people think was why PssoW did whatever she did, the bottom line is she did it and the outcomes were very positive and lots of people have testified to the benefits of her efforts. Thats all the focus should be on, not on whether Diana was egotistical or whatever.

        1. Some of that, yes. But Diana using William to support her came from her conversations with Andrew Morton and as well as friends who observed it. And the information about Diana not seeing them regularly came from staff at Eton.

          Additionally, the first paragraph about her perception in the press all comes from Herazurus, who was engaged in a profession that regularly saw all of the information coming out. That part is not conjecture at all.

          1. Thank you for explaining. What I think is that the boy’s grief over Diana’s death was real and I think she loved them very much and judging from their comments, they adored their mother.

          2. @Em, I don’t think Diana said specifically that she used her son, these were inferences made by people from listening to her interviews. As I said, whatever was said after Diana passing and therefore unable to defend herself can be argued either way. Nobody said anything when Diana was alive because they all knew she could easily have disputed anything, but I’m not getting into any Diana arguments right now. I already said my piece and that’s that.

          3. @Leah I totally agree with you. Diana loved her kids, whatever people say, she did love her boys. And Charles DOES love those boys to death, don’t matter what people say, those boys were and are very much loved by both their parents. The parents both made mistakes along the way, and I said before (and was bashed for it BTW) that Charles stepping out on his family was a very tacky thing to do, but Charles has paid his price and I’m sure he will carry the regret to his grave. None of the parents’ mistakes negate the fact that they love(d) their boys more than anything else in this world.

          4. Every story of little William comforting Diana or promising to protect her came directly from Diana herself.

            These were stories she told in order to cast herself as the victim of a husband so cold and heartless that only their small child could understand.

            She had no self-awareness to realise how awful these stories reflected on her as a mother. That she placed such burden on little William.

            And each story was a bid for sympathy as well as a dagger to Charles.

            Any rational adult is horrified by these stories because no child should be burdened with their parents’ emotional wellbeing.

          5. Diana’s bad press was self inflicted. Charles didn’t get started until long after her bad press started, and his efforts were completely ineffectual given how good Diana was at PR herself.

            However, when Diana ghost wrote that Morton book, thus invading her own privacy, it opened the door to the media beast.

            She thought she could control it by supplying the stories herself, but that backfired on her spectacularly.

            The panorama interview was the red flag to a media bull.

            After that, her press was vicious and terrible. Her charity efforts routinely mocked. People forget that her landmines campaign was not well received nor was it welcomed. She was called a loose canon in parliament and most people mocked her for meddling her in things too complex for her.

            It was only after her death when the media harangued the govt to make a lasting legacy that the landmines were finally banned. The difference in public reaction to the campaign before and after her death was as different as night and day. Before, she was a meddler and afterwards, a compassionate saint.

            I can not stress enough how much her public image had fallen. The fact that Julia Carling was able to publicly call her out for her affair with Julia’s husband and be greeted with applause by all media was a sign of how much her image had fallen.

            She was even heckled at a dinner to NYC to receive a humanitarian award. Something unthinkable ten years earlier.

            She was routinely mocked for self-styling herself Queen of hearts.

            Private eye ran a weekly pull out page to be given to hospital patients saying they didn’t want to be visited by Diana.

            Here is a sample article from that era

            The best thing to happen to her reputation, as unfortunate as it was, was death.

            In death she has achieved a sainthood for the ages. And poor mother Theresa, who died a week later, is forgotten.

          6. Herazeus, I still maintain that the argument can go both ways, for those that believe your narrative, they will argue exactly what you say, but for others that believe that Diana was more than what you claim she was (and there are as many of us on this side as there are on the your side), we can safely argue the other way. There is a saying in my tribe that interpreted like one person can not be loved or hated by everybody, there will always be people that love Diana as much as there will be some that hate her, c’est la vie. No one really knows why Diana confided in her son and/or to what extent, some can say it was to the extent of some damage to the boy, while others will say otherwise. What has come to light with the boys speaking out recently is that they both loved their mother to pieces and they still love and miss her dearly. But again since Diana is not here to defend herself, whatever we argue here is moot, no one can convince the other.
            As I said, I already said my piece, Diana efforts brought lots of awareness to land mines and to stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS. Her efforts helped a lot and were very influential in starting the movement towards working to eliminate land mines and stop the killing and maiming of innocent people. Her efforts were very instrumental in the reduction and elimination of the stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS, these are disreputable facts and her boys continuing her legacy is a very good thing. Peace out.

          7. I think that she was a perfect example of doing the best you can with what you’ve got. I think she genuinely adored her boys and would have done or given them anything that she could. And losing her so early surely underscores that for them. As someone who lost a parent very early in life I can attest that time does not dull the longing to have them there with you, seeing both the day to day and all of the big, grand moments.

          8. Masamf: i’m not purposely arguing an anti-diana bias. I am stating facts as they unfolded when i was privy to this information.

            It’s true that some of the public loved her despite these revelations about her, but the media had most definitely fallen out of love with her and were framing all her efforts as negatively as that article i’ve posted.

            Here is an example of how her angola / landmines trip was reported on:

            Though she was doing a good thing, it was framed as her meddling.

            And that is what i am talking about. The landmine campaign was posthumously successful, but she was seen as meddling before she died.

            For the first 10yrs of her public life, her media was 95% positive. Some snarky articles about her being moody or cold or a shopaholic especially when compared to Fergie, but for the most part ‘good diana’ stories were the ones published the most.

            When the media fell out of love with Fergie, they created a tabloid narrative that sold more ‘good Diana vs bad Fergie’ stories.

            My boss used to say that it was very profitable to print good stories about Diana and bad stories about Fergie.

            After the panorama interview, her media dropped to about 30-40%. Whilst Fergie was written off as an incorrigible disaster, bad diana stories started to shift copy. Suddenly it was increasingly profitable to run ‘bad diana’ stories. Every negative thing that she had carefully concealed in her Morton hagiography started to leak out. That’s when her other affairs were exposed, her charity work mocked etc.

            During the timeframe that i worked for this lady, it was my job to collect media articles about all our clients and to help my boss to de-construct / repair any negative stories. We worked with newspapers and went to many behind the scenes sources.

            As a direct result, i read more about Diana than i ever care to remember. I talked to so many people who would colloborate / debunk most of it.As i said on KMR during the summer of Diana 2017, for good or bad i was effectively Diana poisoned which i freely admit because of reading daily updates on her and knowing where or who the source of the information.

            And that was the first time i realised that Palace PR was a real thing. I can easily spot it now, but i guess in my naivety back then before i got that job, i assumed the palace merely reacted to stuff when pushed and that Charles and Diana were not active participants in their tabloid war.

            It remains amazing to me what people take as gospel and or do not realise is rewritten history, a good example being Charles – Camilla love story.

            My personal opinion of Diana is that was a disaster in desperate need of a support system. I sympathise with some of the actions she took because of her circumstances and history whilst disapproving other actions because they offend my idea of good interpersonal relations eg slapping her father because he dared to marry someone she didn’t approve of or pushing her stepmother down the stairs. However, i will never fault her for her working life, whether it was effective during her lifetime or posthumously. And i am always offended on her behalf when William and Kate apologists downplay her work in order to justify their poor work ethic, their lack of generosity and general poor performance.

            Finally, i tend to push back when people insist that certain things were / are true when in actual fact they are merely repeating PR narratives. And Diana was an absolute genius at PR even if she never thought through the consequences of some of it. It remains a blot on her record that the Morton book is taken to be 100% accurate when it was a hagiography designed to cast her as a sacrificial lamb and Morton was forbidden from doing any investigative work on the information she supplied to him. The timing of it was genius and Charles can never offer a correction that doesn’t reflect badly on him even if it’s the truth.

            If she had never married Charles, she would have been phenomenon at PR. Then again, she might have married a nice Norfolk farmer and nought heard about her at all outside of her family.

          9. Herazeus – I am LIVING for your comments these days! Please, one day write a novel.

            The information in your head could entertain society for a lifetime.

  8. Maybe the Queen let Philip decide who would take over the Royal Marines, and just honored his decision. It could be that Philip is closer to Harry than to William, and because he doesn’t have the opportunities to publicly show favor unlike the Queen, this was his chance.

    1. In all honesty, (this is coming from a person that adores both William and Harry) of the 2 princes prince Harry deserves this appointment, and IMO, the appointment was based on Harry’s merit. If DoE chose Harry to carry on DoE duties in this position from now onwards, he couldn’t have made a choice better than Harry and Harry is going to do him proud. I’m just sad that PoE won’t be around for very long to see this but Harry’s dedication to the military or any other service people is very palpable and he takes everything service men/women very seriously. Harry, of all the royal men, deserved this appointment and I say, go Harry go.

      1. +1 Masamf (except, I’m not a William fan). I’m also so curious to see what other patronages of DoE’s that Harry and Meghan get.

        I’m also really hoping that Harry and Meghan will get the management of The Prince’s Trust, from Charles. There are so many arts-related pieces from the Trust that I could see Meghan being a great fit for!!

        1. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 @ Gudgeon, William is alright. Is Harry interested in Princes trust at all? I’m thinking that once PoW ascends the throne, whoever gets to work with the prince’s trust will depend on their interest in it. From what I’ve seen prince Harry has a genuine interest in uplifting youth (Barack and Michelle Obama anyone?) as leaders of tomorrow so this prince’s trust is right up his alley. Meghan too has expressed her desire to work with youths and especially young girls so this might be something they both might want to sink their teeth into.

        2. Charles publicly said a few years ago that William and Harry had flatly turned down The Princes Trust.

          Over the years Harry has done some work for the duchy, but The Princes Trust will carry on without Charles or his sons after he becomes King. Steps have been taken accordingly.

      2. Oh, I agree that Harry deserves this appointment, but I do think that Philip’s affection for him made the decision even sweeter. Of all the royal adult males–Charles, Andrew, Edward, William and Harry–I suspect that Harry is the most like Philip.

        1. Oh? Lizzie, why do you think that Harry is the most like DoE? I have heard though how of all Harry is most close to prince Phillip, but I don’t know how far that is true. I do believe however, that all titles Harry has so far were given to him based on merit. All minus the “prince” title which he was born into.

  9. Meghan’s hair, makeup and jewellery are lovely.
    I especially like her earrings.
    Her dress, not so much.

    1. @Spectator, I can’t render any judgment for a dress I just got a sneak peek of, are there any pics of her in full or just the drive by pics, Im curious. I think all the guests looked lovely (from the drive by pics of course, and all the men looked real dapper.

      1. I don’t like the combination of white, brown and black.
        And I don’t like the pattern.

        1. The actual skirt is nice, but I agree with The Spectator, I don’t like the top. I don’t know if that is lace or not, but it looks itchy. I will agree that it is a tad fashion forward and it is different.

        2. @Spectator and @Leah, there is a close up pic that shows its kinda lacey. Also, I believe the nude colour fabric inside will protect her from the itchy part of the lace so i think she has that covered. I would have loved to see her full figure in the dress, sometimes a person can rock a dress so well it changes people’s minds about said dress.

    2. Yes – I agree – I saw a photo on RD of the whole dress – but it is not of Meghan actually wearing it. The skirt looks OK but I’m not a fan of short sleeved lace bodices with other fabric skirts. I guess at least it was not all lace . . . . grrr. On the plus side it did not cost thousands.

    3. I’m with you on the dress, as I am sooo over any lace, but I do like that she wears tea length skirts. I sure hope the wedding dress is not a lace extravaganza.

    1. @EM, @Leah, I think this Ingbal thing was just a red herring meant to send people on some kind of wild goose chase if I may. With whats happening with Jerusalem/Palestinians/Israel, I’m not sure the BRF wants to be caught in any positions that may even remotely implies that they are taking any sides. Ingbal is out is my guess.

      1. That makes sense and hallelujah! It didn’t seem to fit with what I’ve seen of her style trends but I had a moment of “Oh my gosh really?!”

  10. Oh, I saw it, the calculating heifer. She has no shame, just as racist as the day is long. I hope the press DRAGS her and I hope she does NOT go to the wedding. I hope someone in the family had a word.

    1. Some folks are saying it might be a St Balthazar brooch, which ok, fine. Even if that is true, the style of this brooch is too similar to the offensive blackamoor fashions.

      She obviously didnt think this through and its a little too coincidental.

    2. I hope the brooch will be correctly identified. If it is the blackmoor brooch, I hope her wedding invite somehow gets lost in the post.

  11. Now you know, there is no way in the world that is a St. Balthazar brooch. That woman meant to offend, hurt and shame Meghan. You know something I just realized-one of the royal reporters said Meghan and Harry left that Xmas lunch early. I wonder if that brooch is why. Does anyone know if Princess Michaeal stayed much later?

    1. @Leah, You now I love you dearly but please, not everything is done to slight Meghan, c’mon now! It could very well be a st. Balthazar brooch, give other people the benefit you always want others to give Meghan, not everyone in the world is racist and out to hurt Meghan.

      1. Princess Michael has a long history of being racist though so I doubt it is a mere coincidence. Just like when she told group of people, to go back to the colonies, and they all happened to be black. I don’t believe that it is a coincidence that she is wearing a broach like that.

  12. I read that Meghan left with everyone else and that she got on famously with the extended future in-laws. And from the little I know about Meghan, she would not leave that party and embarrass herself and her fiancé and their hosts (HM and DoE) just because of a brooch or because she thought someone was racist towards her. Meghan as a POC who grew up in a country where its almost a sin to be a POC is immune to all that by now; she would just brush that off and continue with her life.

  13. MASAMF, I get you, but this is Princess Michael. She has a history of racist behavior and this is too coincedental. You do know she told some black tourists in NYC to go back to the colonies, right?

        1. Leah, on Richard Palmer twitter page some are reporting that others left early too. Not sure what went on behind the scene. One commenter said those that had no kids came out earlier than others because they had no kids to deal with. I think it could have been shorter than usual.

  14. Oh and, I keep replying because for some reason, you can’t edit posts on this blog, it was noted by Richard Palmer, a royal reporter for years, that Meghan and Harry did not stay long. They left early and they didn’t leave with everyone else.

    1. Oh I read the “they left with everybody” from the DM. I believe they were saying how she was nervous in the beginning but relaxed etc and got on well with the family members, I don’t know.

  15. Princess M of K’s father was a SS officer. I am not surprised at how tone-death she continues to be. Her daughter-in-law is actress. Thus, she should not have a problem with Ms Markle.

    Thanks to all for this very interesting and civil thread. Upthread, I was accused of being hypocritical: that is hardly the case. Again, we are entitled to our own opinions. FIFI, I cannot agree with you more, “the personal animosity has indeed been shocking.”

    Finally, G. and Leah perfectly summed up my thoughts regarding Ms. Markle. That fact that some on-line forums have been forced to close because of all the hate should give us all pause. She is a brilliant, educated woman who continues to be marginalised as some sex worker forced from the streets. From fake nude pictures on the web to racist stereotypical names, the lies and “miss-truths” continue. How must her parents feel to (helplessly) witness their daughter being treated in this manner? It is most vile!

    Until I witness a valid reason to dislike Ms Markle, I will be pulling for this, yes, love match all the way. Further, I congratulate the BRF and most especially the Queen, for moving her family firmly into the 21st century.

    1. I actually thought Princess Sparkle was a really cute nickname until I saw people using it disparagingly.

  16. Re: the Blackamoor brooch. This is what i meant several threads ago about thoughtless racism. She may genuinely like this brooch and didn’t give it more thought, but it has the capacity to offend. Not to mention it’s unfashionable now.

    And for those claiming this is a religious representation of St Balthazar, one of the 3 wise men at the manger, balderdash!!

    Blackamoor art specifically depicts very black skinned figurines, full or part body, in servant poses decorated in a rich arab style outfit which has been gilded to be as decorative as possible. Whether or not it reflects an accurate Arab costume is not considered. The black person is ALWAYS a servant in this scenerio, and he is the human personification of his master’s wealth. Thus he is richly dressed in all his depictions. And it’s always males in these blackamoor depictions.

    There is no other reason for this style of art and those who seek to excuse it are uninformed.

    While we are hear, i hope the Cambridges have removed their blackamoor painting at KP.

  17. Engagement photos are out – they are so cute! I will be interested to hear other people’s opinions, but I love them.

  18. I’m sorry, but I dislike the dress. It seems something for a red carpet event not an engagement fhotos. You can see her in the dress in USAtoday site. Despite the dress, the photos are lovely. H&M seem very in love with each other and happy. I like that this photos show they low key personalities and are not very formal.

  19. The dress choosed by Meghan is a Ralph and Russo gown couture that costs about £56.000. KP explained that this was a privately purchased. As I said, it’s a night gown event.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top