General Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search


  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Duchess of Sussex.

Page 0 + 1 of 5

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date


Dermot Report 9 Aug 2019 18:53

Why is the media giving this lady such a regular bashing?

The honeymoon is well & truly over already. :-|


Rambling Report 9 Aug 2019 18:55

Because people make money out of it.

also IMHO it's because she's not white, not an "English Rose and...because an awful lot of people have the compassion and intellect of a dead flea.


JoyLouise Report 9 Aug 2019 19:23

A lot think she's a bit airy-fairy but, worse, what was Harry thinking or repeating when he said two children was enough?

It surprised me that he said that because his brother already has three. It's a good job that William and Kate can keep their own counsel in public but that remark won't have gone unnoticed.

If H and M want to save the world surely they can do it without having a pop at family members? It's quite sad when I think of how close the 'boys' were in the past. I would have expected full support between the brothers.


RolloTheRed Report 9 Aug 2019 20:44

She is just what the Royals need. So is Harry.


SylviaInCanada Report 9 Aug 2019 20:44

I think it's because she's now being seen as spending a lot of money ............. the media always says how much her outfits cost (and most of them are designer and expensive) while she doesn't seem to wear them more than once, then the cost of renos at their new home. Add in the Baby Shower extravaganza ......... not over-the-top for Hollywood stars, but she isn't one now.

If you add it all up as the media have been doing, it comes to a lot of money, and seems now to be annoying people when they don't have that much spare cash (if any).

It's also at odds with a lot of what she says.

I'm hoping that it isn't as Rambling says, because of her colour, though it might be because she's an American and a starlet.

EDIT:- correction of who said what :-)


SylviaInCanada Report 9 Aug 2019 20:47

Joy ...............

I don't think Harry even thought about the fact that his brother has 3 children, or that his grandmother had 4 ................. he doesn't seem to be a very deep or far-looking thinker at times. He just says what is in his head at that moment without considering the repercussions.


JoyLouise Report 9 Aug 2019 21:01

I think you're wrong, Rollo.

I think you're right, Sylvia.


Rambling Report 9 Aug 2019 21:02

But he's not wrong is he? Whether he thought or not about who might be offended. it is just maths, 'we' cannot expect the planet to sustain an ever growing population unless there are massive changes to life style, one of the rather minor changes might be to decide that one or two children is enough.


SylviaInCanada Report 10 Aug 2019 04:22

He might be right or he might be wrong ...................

I read something the other week that suggested that the birth rate in the developed world is falling below the 2 children per couple, and that it might also be falling in what we call the Third World ................. this was followed by the suggestion that more than 2 children per couple might be required before too many years have passed.


JoyLouise Report 10 Aug 2019 07:37

Again, you're right, Sylvia.

When China ceased it's one-child policy poor country dwellers found themselves still under the control of - let me call them - local bigwigs, who enforced the policy on the rural poor quite some time after enforcement was eased on city dwellers. It was detrimental to country peasants who relied on their children for support in later life.

It was certainly too much of a controlling trait that many in the wider world would have railed against.

It raises the question 'who is empowered to decide on issues such as fertility', especially so when the difference between birth control and population control is glaringly obvious, where the former refers to the rights of individuals (couples and/or women) to control their own childbearing and the latter, control by another (outsider).

Why would any person put up with such interference? It could be the start of the slippery slope to control what we spend our money on, over what type of car we choose, where we go for holidays, or control over what shopkeepers can stock etc., the beginning of what could so easily become dictatorial - governments already have enough control.

We are individuals, only here once, and as such why should we relinquish control over issues that are ours alone to decide upon?

And here comes Harry piping out his pearls of wisdom. He whose grandparents, great-grandparents and his brother have all decided for themselves on this issue so may I ask whether you think that Harry believes that it's OK for wealthy people and people 'of status' to make their own decisions on family numbers but we, 'mere peasants', are too under-informed or dense to decide for ourselves.

How many of us swan around in Rollers, Bentleys, helicopters to ferry us between appointments, etc, without, seemingly, any regard for our planet? If I were doing so, I'd make damned sure I did not pass comment on how the rest of us should behave. It is arrogant and uncalled for. A life of privilege does not mean one lives in a dictatorship.

If I were cynical, I'd wonder whether he wanted a larger 'upper class' who would be well-equipped to control its diminishing lower class more easily.


Allan Report 10 Aug 2019 09:52

JoyLouise, I totally agree, but it's not just the wealthy. :-|

Here in Oz we have Vegan Activists trying to dictate what we eat; they have caused major disruptions in many city centres as well as invading individual farms.

Then there are the Climate Control activists doing the same thing. Even more worrying is that many teachers are encouraging their pupils to take part in these activities by actually taking them to the rallies, etc. in school hours.

I have no doubt that both these issues are worthwhile causes, but please let us have rational debates about them.

The thought that giving impressionable youngsters the idea that protest is ok if sanctioned by 'official' action doesn't sit easily with me.

Yes, back in my day at high school many of us held views which alternately swung from the extreme right to the extreme left, depending on the issue, but if we did do anything about them it was in our own time and was not encouraged by teachers


Rambling Report 10 Aug 2019 10:39

Surely it's not "interference" if it's personal choice?

No one is saying, and I don't think Harry was, that everyone should be made to just have 2 children.

Being aware of what that will mean if the population increases beyond the resources to sustain it is hardly a crime is it?

In Japan "The decreasing birthrate is projected to have an impact on the pension benefits, with the shortfall expected to further widen in the future."...

Is that not the reasoning behind the comments that we 'need' more than 2 children in the west?

I give up now.


Dermot Report 10 Aug 2019 11:12

Only the poor can afford to have many children. :-S


AnninGlos Report 10 Aug 2019 12:12

Dermot to answer your original question. I think it is the media giving the bashing (as you say)which encourages the people to think 'OK yes they are right', and then the people write letters etc about her clothes, their spending etc. And it is a vicious circle because the media can then say 'see the people believe this'! Unfortunately the media is partly right. She is used to having a lot of money to spend on clothes as an actress/celebrity she will have needed to dress well/over the top to impress people and to stay in the public eye. she doesn't really seemed to have grasped the fact that to endear herself to the people she needs to share their problems of not having lots of money to spend on things. She must know that the country and its people have financial restraints. It would have been sensible for her to emulate Kate and to have worn the same outfit more than once instead of dressing up in new outfits every time. (whether or not she is spending her own money on the outfits, people see this as rubbing their noses in the fact that she has money and the rest of us don't). and quite honestly Harry should have advised her of that fact.


Pippyn Report 10 Aug 2019 12:40

I agree AnnG, but I think Harry is so besotted with this lady that he seriously agrees with everything she says and wants! I don't think that he was having a pop at his brother or anyone else, I don't actually think he's bright enough!!!! I think he was trying to be trendy, modern and on the celeb band wagon of 'caring'!! Things he'd never even thought about before taking up with his new 'tacky' friends! Poor Meghan cannot seem to understand that being a royal is not about being a soap star, it's opening things, talking to excruciatingly boring people, it's being photographed, smiling, accepting gifts, planting trees, it's appearing to care about everyday folk, and so on and so on! If you don't, people won't like you, they will then resent you and republic here we come!! Someone needs to tell them both that the facts of royal life is a partnership with the general public, ie: We'll support YOU and your privileged life, but in return you have put up with and support US! If you don't,you'll be gone!! Mind you perhaps neither of them would care!!!


AnninGlos Report 10 Aug 2019 12:47

pippyn you put that so much better than me. I agree with you. :-)


RolloTheRed Report 10 Aug 2019 13:29

Flying an Apache helicopter requires quite a lot more than average intelligence. The missions Harry flew - as an Apache commander - also demanded traditional courage.

The House of Hanover has never been short on courage or brains though it is true they have not been the best at PR over the centuries. As a family - including the current sovereign - they are more than fond of the finer things in life. They especially like handsome/pretty spouses. This has never gone down well with the press and probably never will.

Why people are for ever picking at them I have no idea.


Rambling Report 10 Aug 2019 14:02

Would a marriage of convenience like ma & pa had have been approved by the press, look how well that turned out. But it didn't buck that's alright then.

Pippyn "I think he was trying to be trendy, modern and on the celeb band wagon of 'caring'!! Things he'd never even thought about before taking up with his new 'tacky' friends! "

If you remember, Harry was "caring" long before he met Meghan, eg Sentebale ( 2006) , the Invictus games ( 2014) , supporting wounded soldiers, mental health....


Pippyn Report 10 Aug 2019 14:04

No one has said Prince Harry isn't courageous! But it is a fact that with his exam results had he not been who he is, he wouldn't have got near Sandhurst, flown anything or even got a Commission in any of the services!
The Hanovarians were never renowned, unlike the Tudors, for their intellectual prowess. George 11 was particularly stupid, (Caroline had the brains) Individually they are artistic, musical and not without certain talents, but intellectual they are not, at best moderately intelligent, no more than that!


Pippyn Report 10 Aug 2019 14:12

Prince Harry is very easily led, manipulated even. While he was under Army influence that was a good thing and brought out the best in him. His wife doesn't!
No, of course he shouldn't have married for convention like his father. However as he is the spare and not the heir, this was never an issue. It's just unfortunate, that he didn't fall in love with someone with a better understanding of what being a royal entails!