Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on January 08, 2020, 07:32:07 PM
-
Not a fan of the idea of royalty but in part the reasoning here is part of that
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51040751
-
I don't blame them. You don't have to be a fan of royalty to see how the media turned against this couple when previously they were feted. It makes sense for them to take the initiative as the Prince of Wales wants to scale back the monarchy.
They are financially independent and will have more freedom to pursue projects and interests abroad; I'm sure they'll still come back here regularly.
I just hope they are happy, that's what I wish for any couple with children.
-
Agreed.
-
I'll look forward to seeing whether or not he gives up all the titles and privileges of his protected species status: after all, given his reported stance, it would be highly cynical of him not to.
Perhaps we should help him by just disenfranchising the lot of them, so as to slim down the monarchy to the extent that it no longer exists.
-
I don't suppose he'll give up his title, that wouldn't achieve much. If he and his family move to Canada they won't need so much security and if they did want it, they'd pay for it themselves. My belief is they can lead a useful and fulfilled life more easily abroad with far less press intrusion and criticism about the least thing. They've not been married that long and around the time of the wedding, the press were all over them.
-
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex withdrawing from royal duties - without even informing the queen? Becoming responsible for their own income?
THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED!!!!!
They would be dragging the monarchy into the 19th century ...
-
I think it would have been more polite of them to mention it to their family before announcing it to the media. However, good for them, especially if they are hoping to support themselves financially.
-
The real reason
https://www.suffolkgazette.com/news/prince-harry-to-run-for-us-present/?fbclid=IwAR38WuUVNDOAB0KBQCtx7p-ECcDLq5FNthFHOLLpVcCPdVvolOO279u_0tE
-
;D
-
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex withdrawing from royal duties - without even informing the queen? Becoming responsible for their own income?
THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED!!!!!
They would be dragging the monarchy into the 19th century ...
What a terrible state of affairs. Boris and Trump should both resign immediately.
Harry is ineligible for the presidency but Meghan has what it takes and should start the campaign asap!
-
I have not read Harry and Meghan's statement so maybe I haven't grasped the mechanics of what will happen.
But I would like to focus on what "work to become financially independent" means. If Harry wasn't the Queen's grandson and if his mother hadn't been Princess Diana by marrying into the Royal Family (RF), he would make limited money from the celebrity circuit as no one would be interested in hearing him speak, interviewing him, having him endorse anything or buying things that have the Sussex logo pasted on them. Nobody would care who he married or what his baby looked like. His mother dying in a car crash caused by her boyfriend's drunk driver speeding dangerously in a tunnel in Paris probably increased his earning potential on the speaking and endorsement circuit.
The reason he has access to any wealth is due to his connection to the RF - his mother would not have had the wealth she bequeathed to him if she had not married Prince Charles and Harry would not get his allowance from the Duchy of Cornwall if the RF came to an end.
To me it seems the RF is a bit like a company, in that it has a culture and rules and responsibilities its "employees" (the Royals) needs to follow in order for the RF to keep generating income and to try to justify it's obscene privilege and wealth. Unfortunately, unlike in a company, the shareholders can't vote the members of the RF out at an Annual General Meeting.
In return for access to that RF wealth and the potential for future high earnings from being connected to the RF, Harry is required to follow the RF culture and its rules. That goes for anyone who marries him.
If he is walking away from his inheritance from the RF via his mother and his income from his father and not exploiting his RF connection to earn money, and is therefore living a more modest lifestyle in keeping with his non-RF related skills, attributes and qualifications, then I am happy for them - they have chosen integrity and freedom over wealth and privilege.
But given the sudden requirement for private jets and expensive holidays since he got married and had a child, I doubt this is what Harry and Meghan are intending.
So if Harry and Meghan are trying to hang onto the RF credentials to earn money to keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, while dictating the terms with which they will be part of the RF corporation - to me they seem to be just like any another employee who adopts a mercenary outlook e.g. asking for a 3 day-week, the ability to work from home, less supervision by his managers, and the chance to produce less output without taking a significant cut in salary.
If that is what they are trying to do, then Harry and Meghan are not the first employees to see things only from their perspective and put their needs first, rather than prioritising the business in order to ensure the business remains viable.so that there continues to be a source of income for the business-owner and other employees. They are not the first employees to try to get more out of their employer while giving as little in return as possible and feeling entitled to do so. They are not the first employees to ignore the fact that their income is only possible through the hard work of others, who will continue to shoulder their responsibilities and work the hours to keep the RF going so that Harry and Meghan can earn an income from their connection to the RF.
I doubt there is much the rest of the RF key players can do about it - while it continues to exist, large sections of the public will be interested in the RF and so Harry and Meghan will be onto a nice little earner.
-
I think the royal family can be compared to a company but I think it's stretching the analogy to regard H&M as employees too far since people aren't born into a company, nor do they marry into it.
-
This is still the lead story on most media sites like the BBC: inexplicably so given what other events are going on.
Perhaps the media should all get together and agree to simply ignore this pair and deny them all publicity, which would presumably give them the anonymity they desire, and all they need do then is keep to themselves and avoid trading on family links, ideally by renouncing their silly titles, and then get used to being nobodies.
I'm sure all the wee sheep who studiously follow the fortunes of this family will find some other similarly useless and anachronistic targets to fixate on: after all, there seems to be no shortage of so-called 'celebrities' who serve no useful purpose other than entertaining the easily entertained.
-
Another distraction from the activities of our disgraceful government. I bet the BBC news editors are relieved, they might have had to report yesterday's parliamentary votes if not for this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/08/mps-vote-to-drop-child-refugee-protections-from-brexit-bill
and for people who don't believe the Guardian tells the truth
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/child-10-dies-in-undercarriage-of-plane-as-british-mps-vote-down-child-refugee-protections-974325.html
The Queen's upset about Harry and Meghan apparently. She didn't feel the need to make a statement about disappointment in her son for associating with a convicted sex offender, then trying to excuse his inexcusable behaviour on TV. It's good to know our Head of State has her priorities in order.
-
Gabriella
I like your post. I think I am right in saying that Diana was wealthy in her own right because of her family, but am not sure about that.
Christine
I hope you don't think anybody actually knows what the Queen might have said! the press are always saying what she felt, but she does not speak out to them on that.
-
Christine
I hope you don't think anybody actually knows what the Queen might have said! the press are always saying what she felt, but she does not speak out to them on that.
Fair enough. There was an official statement from Buckingham Palace saying there were "complicated issues" to deal with. Reports of the Queen's hurt and distress were from "aides". I withdraw my remarks about the Queen.
-
Or in some cases in the article, how sad we list the cheeky chappy dressing as a Nazi
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/09/prince-harry-meghan-two-most-spoiled-brats-in-history-pundits-provoked-by-royal-rupture?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_News_Feed&fbclid=IwAR0NCGOvGGiphVAyjLbtkNG7zSJauI9tLBerbt45fqjTX_I3xCMHtJJrw4w
-
I think the royal family can be compared to a company but I think it's stretching the analogy to regard H&M as employees too far since people aren't born into a company, nor do they marry into it.
True - no one can choose the circumstances they are born into, whereas an employee can to some extent choose to switch jobs depending on their ability and qualifications or give up work and live on state benefits.
I'm just looking at whether H&M have adopted a financially shrewd strategy of getting what they can from 'the Firm' as Diana used to refer to it, while giving the bare minimum back. Similar to others in their generation who seem very mercenary and switched on when it comes to the earning potential from publicity despite having limited skills in anything other than being social-media savvy. By stepping away from the control of the RF, they get more control over their visibility and therefore more control over how much they can earn from that visibility. It would be pretty naive to think this has not been carefully planned from the start. I think it's been many years since Harry stopped being the innocent poor little rich boy forlornly walking behind his mother's coffin - but that is how the certain sections of the public like to remember him and it's certainly a lucrative way to be perceived.
But it's not just their generation that is canny about money - the Queen Mother made a series of wise investments with the loot she pocketed and her great-grandchildren managed to get out of paying inheritance tax on any loot she left them because she lived longer than 7 years after transferring a large portion of her wealth into trust for them. Apparently Harry did quite well out of that - he got a larger portion than William from the £14m left to them in trust by their great-grandmother - compensation apparently for not becoming Prince of Wales and then the sovereign.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/apr/03/queenmother.monarchy2
Also, Queen Elizabeth, who inherited an estimated £70m estate from the Queen Mother, did not have to pay IHT. Apparently inheritance from a 'sovereign to sovereign' or the consort of a sovereign to a reigning monarch is exempt from the 40% tax, above a £250,000 threshold.
This was agreed with former Conservative Prime Minister John Major in 1993. He accepted it in recognition of the need for the sovereign to avoid erosion of the Royal Family's wealth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1993665.stm
-
Similar to others in their generation who seem very mercenary and switched on when it comes to the earning potential from publicity despite having limited skills in anything other than being social-media savvy.
I think that is a little unfair.
You seem to forget that Meghan had forged a successful career for herself long before she met Harry. In that respect she is unlike most of the other Royals (including Diana and Kate) who never had anything approaching a 'career' (let alone a successful one) prior to becoming part of the firm.
-
Gabriella
I like your post. I think I am right in saying that Diana was wealthy in her own right because of her family, but am not sure about that.
Thank you Susan.
I am not sure if Diana inherited from her father - I believe they follow the male-preference primogeniture rule of it all going to the son, her brother. There was a Private Members Bill introduced in the House of Lords called the Equality (Titles) Bill, known colloquially as the "Downton Law" and "Downton Abbey Law", which tried to end this male-preference rule and had lots of support in the Commons but was rejected at the House of Lords committee stage.
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/equalitytitles.html
-
Some info on Diana's estate.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-does-princess-diana-s-will-say-3505096
-
I think that is a little unfair.
You seem to forget that Meghan had forged a successful career for herself long before she met Harry. In that respect she is unlike most of the other Royals (including Diana and Kate) who never had anything approaching a 'career' (let alone a successful one) prior to becoming part of the firm.
No, I had not forgotten that she is estimated to be worth about £4m from her job as an actress and from her blog. I agree that she had done well from acting.
I was referring to her potential for earning a substantial amount of money by exploiting her connection to the RF through self-publicity on social-media and engagements as a RF celebrity. That would be a separate source of income and one that is not based on any discernible skill unlike the income she derived from being an actress.
-
..... It would be pretty naive to think this has not been carefully planned from the start.....
Not really sure what you mean by 'this' or 'start' here
-
No, I had not forgotten that she is estimated to be worth about £4m from her job as an actress and from her blog. I agree that she had done well from acting.
I was referring to her potential for earning a substantial amount of money by exploiting her connection to the RF through self-publicity on social-media and engagements as a RF celebrity. That would be a separate source of income and one that is not based on any discernible skill unlike the income she derived from being an actress.
Sure - but I think the important point here is that Meghan has experience of forging her own independent career and the ability to do so once provides a level of confidence that she can do it again. And that may not be on the publicity circuit (indeed it would seem odd for her to want to do this as it would catapult her straight back into the media junket that she seems to want to get away from).
To my mind they have the opportunity to forge a new direction where they permanently relocate to (probably) Canada, effectively establish (or re-establish) a proper career, safe in the knowledge that they are financially OK from legacy etc. The whole media issue is symbiotic (or parasitic) - it feeds on itself. If the two of them disappear from the limelight the media will get bored and move onto new targets.
-
Sure - but I think the important point here is that Meghan has experience of forging her own independent career and the ability to do so once provides a level of confidence that she can do it again. And that may not be on the publicity circuit (indeed it would seem odd for her to want to do this as it would catapult her straight back into the media junket that she seems to want to get away from).
To my mind they have the opportunity to forge a new direction where they permanently relocate to (probably) Canada, effectively establish (or re-establish) a proper career, safe in the knowledge that they are financially OK from legacy etc. The whole media issue is symbiotic (or parasitic) - it feeds on itself. If the two of them disappear from the limelight the media will get bored and move onto new targets.
Agreed - the inherited wealth will certainly be handy if they want to lead a life of luxury while they consider their options. £4m wealth and an income from Suits and a blog would not have afforded the luxuries they have recently accessed.
And I think it was odd to lecture people about environmental issues while flying back and forth across the Atlantic for frivolous reasons, especially by private jet.
If they do not exploit their RF connection to earn money, but solely rely on their other skills and qualifications, as I said before, good for them - it shows integrity. But the legacy they will be living off comes from their RF connection - so I neither despise them, nor feel sorry for them, nor do I applaud them - they would be just another privileged, wealthy young couple (with a child) and a mercenary mindset.
-
This is all pathetic and that 66 pence per head per year, or thereabouts, that lot cost us I'd rather burn the 66p than give it to them or anyone else so dismissively useless.
'Thomas Paine', quote: 'Why don't we have hereditary mathematicians', makes as much sense to me as having this existing senseless, irrational system.
ippy
-
Agreed - the inherited wealth will certainly be handy if they want to lead a life of luxury while they consider their options.
If they do not exploit their RF connection to earn money, but solely rely on their other skills and qualifications, as I said before, good for them - it shows integrity. But the legacy they will be living off comes from their RF connection - so I neither despise them, nor feel sorry for them, nor do I applaud them - they would be just another privileged, wealthy young couple (with a child) and a mercenary mindset.
How could they avoid the effect of the royal family connection? And as part of that 'legacy' they will need security, possibly even more so than now.
-
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex withdrawing from royal duties - without even informing the queen? Becoming responsible for their own income?
THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED!!!!!
They would be dragging the monarchy into the 19th century ...
I thought it'd be some time before we had anyone living off of this planet, which one H H?
ippy
-
How could they avoid the effect of the royal family connection? And as part of that 'legacy' they will need security, possibly even more so than now.
I agree that they can't avoid it completely. Presumably though, if Meghan goes back to acting and Harry goes back to flying helicopters and they earn a salary from those activities rather than speaking engagements and endorsements and posting on Twitter as members of the RF, they would not be financially exploiting their connection to the RF as much as they could have?
-
I agree that they can't avoid it completely. Presumably though, if Meghan goes back to acting and Harry goes back to flying helicopters and they earn a salary from those activities rather than speaking engagements and endorsements and posting on Twitter as members of the RF, they would not be financially exploiting their connection to the RF as much as they could have?
What about exploiting their connections in terms of 'good causes'?
-
Not really sure what you mean by 'this' or 'start' here
By "this" I mean taking control of the lucrative opportunities available from their marriage and parenthood as members of the RF.
By "start" I mean when they discussed their potential brand as a couple within the RF while considering whether they should continue to get more romantically involved and get married.
-
And I think it was odd to lecture people about environmental issues while flying back and forth across the Atlantic for frivolous reasons, especially by private jet.
Yes - it was stupid. But this is all part of the nonsense of the RF - why on earth should we be particularly interested in the views of someone, whose sole reason for being given the oxygen of publicity is that they are the son of the heir to the throne. Sure, if they are particularly passionate about an issue, that's fine. But in most cases there seems to be no real passion, not real commitment to an issue. They are merely a famous mouthpiece for a cause. And that is always going to backfire one way or another.
If they do not exploit their RF connection to earn money, but solely rely on their other skills and qualifications, as I said before, good for them - it shows integrity. But the legacy they will be living off comes from their RF connection - so I neither despise them, nor feel sorry for them, nor do I applaud them - they would be just another privileged, wealthy young couple (with a child) and a mercenary mindset.
I genuinely hope this is what they are planning and that the 'stepping back' and 'sharing time between UK and North America' statements is merely softening the blow to the RF. I hope they will start a new life, somewhere out of the fiercest media glare (Canada seems the current option), establish independent careers (like other Royals have done with greater or lesser success) and no longer be part of the anachronistic 'Royal Engagement' junket.
-
What about exploiting their connections in terms of 'good causes'?
Yes - they might need to work on that a bit more. I edited a previous post to say "And I think it was odd to lecture people about environmental issues while flying back and forth across the Atlantic for frivolous reasons, especially by private jet."
They were doing some good work on raising awareness of mental health issues I believe, or at least Harry was. I have not kept up with Meghan's championing of good causes and if her marriage has had a positive impact on these causes.
But regarding mental health - I thought William and Kate were capable of doing a fairly solid job without Harry, but then again maybe Harry, when he spoke about his own mental health issues, was easier for the ordinary person to relate to? I have no idea if people still find him easy to relate to now though.
-
By "this" I mean taking control of the lucrative opportunities available from their marriage and parenthood as members of the RF.
By "start" I mean when they discussed their potential brand as a couple within the RF while considering whether they should continue to get more romantically involved and get married.
Then you need to evidence that more than simply stating that anyone who doesn't believe that is what happened is being naive.
-
By "this" I mean taking control of the lucrative opportunities available from their marriage and parenthood as members of the RF.
By "start" I mean when they discussed their potential brand as a couple within the RF while considering whether they should continue to get more romantically involved and get married.
I think that is a little cynical.
My reading of this is that Meghan (like most of the others who marry into the RF) had no idea what she was letting herself in for. As someone from the US she was probably far less aware of the level of control and scrutiny/media attention that was about to be unleashed.
I see no evidence of some pre-agreed plan from their earliest relationship that their recent announcement is part of. I think she didn't realise what she was getting herself into and now wants out.
-
Then you need to evidence that more than simply stating that anyone who doesn't believe that is what happened is being naive.
No I don't think I need to provide evidence as I am not trying to convince anyone else to agree with my opinion. I am stating my opinion based on my interpretation of their actions and words since they got together. I can't be bothered to look for and link to evidence to support my opinions on M&H - they are not worth the effort. So it's fine if you are unconvinced by my opinion on M&H or what I think it would be naive to believe about them.
I think their financial strategy may have evolved and more detail added, including the launch of their Instagram page, Twitter account, a SussexRoyal website and register of copyright to control their image, but I think that neither of them were so clueless as to not be aware of their potential brand when they continued to pursue their romance and decided to get married.
Call me cynical but I am not buying this "love story" with no financial incentive - I do not think they are exceptional, altruistic human beings who do not exploit a financial opportunity when they see one. They appear to enjoy the luxury lifestyle and choices and opportunities that goes with their RF connections and do not appear to want to be held accountable by the RF for their choices or the way they spend money.
-
That's a lot of words for 'I have no evidence'
-
I think that is a little cynical.
My reading of this is that Meghan (like most of the others who marry into the RF) had no idea what she was letting herself in for. As someone from the US she was probably far less aware of the level of control and scrutiny/media attention that was about to be unleashed.
I see no evidence of some pre-agreed plan from their earliest relationship that their recent announcement is part of. I think she didn't realise what she was getting herself into and now wants out.
My reading is different. Harry's previous girlfriends have publicly stated that the press intrusion was one of the main reasons for not committing to the relationship. Harry's mother publicly complained about press intrusion and when she died in an accident, it was initially blamed on press intrusion. Meghan has been in the public eye, she would have done her research on her boyfriend before agreeing to marry him.
I think they are just going after what they want - the money and a particular lifestyle - on their terms.
-
That's a lot of words for 'I have no evidence'
Let me help break it up for you.
The first part was "I have no evidence". The second part was me continuing to state my opinions about the subject matter of this thread.
-
My reading is different. Harry's previous girlfriends have publicly stated that the press intrusion was one of the main reasons for not committing to the relationship. Harry's mother publicly complained about press intrusion and when she died in an accident, it was initially blamed on press intrusion. Meghan has been in the public eye, she would have done her research on her boyfriend before agreeing to marry him.
Sure Meghan was more streetwise and media savvy than Diana when preparing to join the royal family. But that in no way prepares you for the controlling influence of the RF and the media, which happened from day 1. She wasn't prepared, she tried to play along, she's had enough. And I think the key point in this journey is her becoming a mother.
I think they are just going after what they want - the money and a particular lifestyle - on their terms.
No - I think they are trying to extricate themselves from what they don't want - there is a difference.
-
It is quite comical to see the tabloids ranting and raving, and then asking, what could possibly be wrong with their lives? 17 pages in the Daily Mail, for starters. We pay them, we own them.
-
Let me help break it up for you.
The first part was "I have no evidence". The second part was me continuing to state my opinions about the subject matter of this thread.
For which you have no evidence. I will give you credit for adding a false dichotomy.
-
Sure Meghan was more streetwise and media savvy than Diana when preparing to join the royal family. But that in no way prepares you for the controlling influence of the RF and the media, which happened from day 1. She wasn't prepared, she tried to play along, she's had enough. And I think the key point in this journey is her becoming a mother.
No - I think they are trying to extricate themselves from what they don't want - there is a difference.
I think they were both aware that substantial wealth they have not earned (inherited wealth or wealth through marriage) and a luxurious lifestyle and status comes at a cost. Harry said in the past that it was difficult to find a girlfriend who was willing to pay that price and put up with the control and media intrusion that would go with marrying him.
He seems to have found a girlfriend/ wife who has helped him figure out how to keep the status and lifestyle and wealth and luxury at a reduced cost. It remains to be seen how well it will work out for them but not very surprising they are attempting to break free and get the wealth, luxury, status, high-profile branding etc on their terms. Which high-profile celebrity couple wouldn't want all that without having to be held accountable for their choices?
-
For which you have no evidence. I will give you credit for adding a false dichotomy.
Sure. You can copy and paste that comment on every post I write on this topic if you like. If you are waiting for evidence, it will be a long wait.
-
Sure. You can copy and paste that comment on every post I write on this topic if you like. If you are waiting for evidence, it will be a long wait.
I'll just reiterate the false dichotomy this time.
-
Ha!
https://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2020/01/09/unemployed-couple-emigrate-for-better-quality-of-life/
-
They would be able to live independently without doing anything if they wanted to, as long as they invested well. They both have money, Harry inherited a lot from his mother who, before him, had inherited from her father and received a handsome divorce settlement. Before she was married her father bought her the mansion apartment which she shared with a couple of friends and sold on her engagement so she was well set up. However I think they will become involved in projects dear to their hearts and try to live privately apart from that.
People do inherit from their parents whether it's a grandfather clock, £10,000, £100,000 or £2m. So what? I'm more than content with my lot and not bothered about what other people have. At least the press aren't interested in me and waiting to pounce every time I make a mistake, to me that's worth millions.
We don't know that the couple hadn't told their family of their decision, I imagine it was talked about if not finalised but that's nobody else's business. It gives the press something to witter about & imo they've press have been mean.
None of it will impact on our lives and there are far more important news items at the moment: Australian bush fires, USA and Iran, who will be next Labour leader....an endless list.
I can't be bothered to think about this any more, I wish them well whatever they do & will get on with my life.
-
Marina Hyde on the stushie
https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2020/jan/09/meghan-and-harrys-story-is-quite-the-drama-but-its-no-abdication-crisis?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
-
Marina Hyde on the stushie
https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2020/jan/09/meghan-and-harrys-story-is-quite-the-drama-but-its-no-abdication-crisis?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
Brilliant, as is usual for her.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the headlines in the Mail or Express (two brands of toilet paper) tomorrow read: 'Harry and Megan: who gives a fuck'.
Not I.
-
They would be able to live independently without doing anything if they wanted to, as long as they invested well. They both have money, Harry inherited a lot from his mother who, before him, had inherited from her father and received a handsome divorce settlement. Before she was married her father bought her the mansion apartment which she shared with a couple of friends and sold on her engagement so she was well set up. However I think they will become involved in projects dear to their hearts and try to live privately apart from that.
People do inherit from their parents whether it's a grandfather clock, £10,000, £100,000 or £2m. So what? I'm more than content with my lot and not bothered about what other people have. At least the press aren't interested in me and waiting to pounce every time I make a mistake, to me that's worth millions.
We don't know that the couple hadn't told their family of their decision, I imagine it was talked about if not finalised but that's nobody else's business. It gives the press something to witter about & imo they've press have been mean.
None of it will impact on our lives and there are far more important news items at the moment: Australian bush fires, USA and Iran, who will be next Labour leader....an endless list.
I can't be bothered to think about this any more, I wish them well whatever they do & will get on with my life.
I don’t know - I am interested in if they ever figure out how to escape the press while retaining their titles and also becoming financially independent. Other royals with titles have tried and failed. Maybe they would have more luck if they renounced the titles and the bulk of the privileges.
The reality seems to be that they inherited the wealth, the status, the privilege, the benefits of the tax breaks and it looks like these benefits come wrapped up with a large serving of press intrusion. Unless there is some other way to persuade the public to retain the RF while not intruding on their privacy or wanting to read news about them and their dysfunctional extended families and in-laws, including fabricated news.
Also, I dispute Harry’s perception that the press intrusion killed his mother and he needs to protect his wife and child from the press. For their sakes I hope he makes sure when they relocate that he and Meghan wear seat belts and the baby is in a suitable baby seat and they or their driver does not drive at excessive speeds while drunk as that is likely to be a much bigger contributor to death than a few paps on mopeds.
Lots of celebrities deal with paps without dying and have to accept it as the price to be paid to generate interest in their causes, activities and pronouncements and in ticket and merchandise sales income from the public. The flak H&M are getting from the press for trying to beat the system and disappear with both wealth and privilege intact wasn’t exactly a surprise, was it? It must have increased traffic on news websites - the media need to whip up the hysteria and generate as much mileage as they can out of it - they exploit the public as much as the RF does.
I don’t know how much wealth Diana inherited - is there a link to that? Did her flat have a mortgage on it? A lot of people who appear wealthy operate from overdrafts and credit and have few liquid assets. The bulk of her father’s wealth was tied up in Althorp, which was running an annual loss when he died as upkeep was expensive, and Althorp would have gone to Diana’s brother. Did she get an inheritance from some other source? She was relying on Dodi to pay for and organise security once she left the protection of the RF - if she had the money to pay for own security detail, who knows, she may not have died in Paris. Maybe a £17m divorce settlement from Charles (apparently he had to borrow money from the Queen to pay Diana) is still not enough to pay for security year after year if you continue to maintain a visibly high profile.
If H&M are expecting security to continue to be funded from taxes (as has been reported) it could save the tax payer some money if they just stayed in Britain and shared accommodation and security with other members of the RF rather than commuting back and forth with a security detail. It would also be more environmentally friendly.
-
The media are portraying this a hugely controversial issue of major significance. I don't understand that at all - it seems like no biggie to me and (quasi-anecdotally) public opinion seems to back me up.
Last night there was a news piece on the issue on the local London news, topped by the newscaster talking about major differences of opinion. Yet everyone they interviewed was, effectively, of one mind - which was (to paraphrase):
It's a shame because Meghan in great/a breath of fresh air/adds relevance and diversity to the RF (delete as applicable), but it is entirely up to them and none of our business.
OK you might say - London bubble view. Well straight after the news Question Time was from Oxford, and the audience (again) were pretty well unanimous in their view (which were exactly as above). Fiona Bruce specifically asked whether anyone in the audience was critical of H&M - not a single audience member put their hand up.
So this is a non-story - bizarrely whipped up by the media, with it would appear, no major disagreement in public opinion that what they do in their lives is up to them.
And the use of the terms 'shocking' and 'bombshell' by the media is totally inappropriate - it is neither shocking (a couple taking a decision about their future lives) nor a bombshell, this has been obviously on the cards for months. Indeed I said this was likely to be the long-term outcome for them before they got married. Anyone surprised by this simply hasn't been watching or it too blinkered to see the real people beyond the media-generated soap opera.
-
I am so fed up with this.
This mornings news stated Meghan had returned to Canada after three days following a six week holiday there that the couple had enjoyed. I repeat SIX WEEK HOLIDAY.
I would suggest that the people of this country have a great deal more to worry about than the fate of a couple of over privileged young people who enjoy a rather splendid lifestyle.
Oh yes and I know some are going to come back with all the caveats about "not free to live their lives", "always in the spotlight" etc.
Frankly my heart bleeds (with sarcasm)
-
I would suggest that the people of this country have a great deal more to worry about than the fate of a couple of over privileged young people who enjoy a rather splendid lifestyle.
I agree - let them go and leave them be.
-
If “leave them be” includes them actually achieving financial independence and the tax payer not having to pay for expensive security and flying back and forth and a household abroad - I agree. Good luck to them exploiting RF connections to become very rich and financially independent like countless reality celebrities with connections to someone famous before them have done. The press intrusion is an integral part of making money from being a celebrity and the Press are everywhere. Kate Middleton was photographed by the Press with a long lens while sunbathing topless abroad on a secluded balcony.
Hence I think the main reason H&M are leaving is mainly to make money and be in control of their lives, rather than Press intrusion. Any excuses such as Press intrusion and feeling sidelined from the RF, if they have cited those reasons, is just the kind of nonsensical manipulative rubbish people say when they know their reasons are illogical and they don’t want to publicly admit their real and very mercenary reasons for leaving.
There has been talk of them doing something similar to the Obamas - though H&M don’t have a comparable level of intelligence, academic qualifications, job experience, life experience, and public-speaking skills. But if the Kardashians can make money from being vacuous it should be a walk in the park for someone as pretty as Meghan.
There are people with real problems - lifelong disabilities- who do not have the money H&M have and who quietly and courageously manage and cope. IMO press intrusion and made up stories is not a good enough reason to expect the tax payer to cough up extra money for relocation and security, when that money could be spent on non-privileged people with far greater problems than the spoiled, pampered, over-privileged RF. That’s what I would have said if I was asked for my opinion as a member of the public.
I haven’t bothered discussing this with anyone except on here, but I would not think a few financially comfortable people in London and members of the QT audience are very representative. Maybe if the reporters had gone to food banks and homeless shelters and hospitals they might have got a different response.
-
... but I would not think a few financially comfortable people in London ...
Why would you assume the people they interviewed were financially comfortable. In fact the interviews were on the streets of Brixton - most people there will not be 'financially comfortable'.
and members of the QT audience are very representative.
QT audiences are selected on the basis that they are representative, politically anyhow, so why that should produce an audience where not a single person was openly critical is beyond me.
Maybe if the reporters had gone to food banks and homeless shelters and hospitals they might have got a different response.
I doubt it - I suspect they's have got exactly the same view, effectively that there are more important issues and that how they chose to live their lives is their issue.
-
I am so fed up with this. This mornings news stated Meghan had returned to Canada after three days following a six week holiday there that the couple had enjoyed. I repeat SIX WEEK HOLIDAY. I would suggest that the people of this country have a great deal more to worry about than the fate of a couple of over privileged young people who enjoy a rather splendid lifestyle. Oh yes and I know some are going to come back with all the caveats about "not free to live their lives", "always in the spotlight" etc. Frankly my heart bleeds (with sarcasm)
Wot TV said.
-
Hence I think the main reason H&M are leaving is mainly to make money ...
And your evidence for this is exactly?
... and be in control of their lives, rather than Press intrusion.
The two are inextricably linked - the only way to control their lives is to deal with the press intrusion. And that is likely to be one of the reasons why they are particularly attracted to living in Canada and LA - where the likelihood of press intrusion will diminish hugely compared to the UK. Firstly because they will drift out of the public eye, but also because LA/Holywood/Southern California has a much more mature attitude towards celebs and media intrusion. There are far more A-list celebs living there than anywhere else and there is much stronger respect of privacy there - incredibly famous and incredible rich celebs can live there will limited unwanted press intrusion.
And perhaps this is one of the reasons why the press intrusion has come as such as shock for Meghan - she was brought up in LA, surrounded by Holywood stars and A-listers who aren't subjected to the horrible press intrusion you get here. She, not unreasonably, perhaps assumed that although she may become an A-lister (arguably) by marrying Harry that the intrusion she would get would be what she saw in LA for A-listers. It hasn't been, so who can blame her for wanting to relocate for the sake of herself and her baby.
-
Why would you assume the people they interviewed were financially comfortable. In fact the interviews were on the streets of Brixton - most people there will not be 'financially comfortable'.
WHy would you assume that the people who were interviewed in Brixton were not financially comfortable? My friends and I were in Brixton quite a lot when I was at uni in London as my halls were in Camberwell and Brixton had a good vibe and the Fridge - we were all financially comfortable, middle-class students. Later, I had friends who lived in shared flats in Brixton - either working in the City in IT or finance or as students. People buy property in Streatham because they can't afford Brixton. I didn't see the interviews but look forward to the evidence that people at food banks or living on the streets or waiting 1 year for an operation on the NHS want more tax payer money spent on H&M's security.
QT audiences are selected on the basis that they are representative, politically anyhow, so why that should produce an audience where not a single person was openly critical is beyond me.
Maybe they did not want to raise their hand - I would not want to raise my hand and admit to spending time thinking about the vacuous H&M on a televised political debate programme. I don't mind discussing H&M on an anonymous forum like this.
I doubt it - I suspect they's have got exactly the same view, effectively that there are more important issues and that how they chose to live their lives is their issue.
More important issues than how the taxpayer's money is being spent on the pampered and over-privileged? I think given the huge financial inequalities in Britain, people at the bottom of the food chain are likely to have concerns. But without any actual evidence one way or the other, we'll have to agree to disagree.
-
Travel agents and promoters of holidays and tourism in theUK find the RF a very good aspect to mention, I understand, and the income to this country as a result does, I also understand, definitely outweigh the expenses. When eventually Charles is crowned King, there will be a massive influx of tourists I think.
-
WHy would you assume that the people who were interviewed in Brixton were not financially comfortable?
Err because Brixton ranks in the top 10% of most deprived neighbourhoods in the whole of England. And I said that most people in Brixton would not be 'financially comfortable', which is demonstrably a fact given that the neighbourhood ranks in the top 10% for deprivation.
-
I didn't see the interviews but look forward to the evidence that people at food banks or living on the streets or waiting 1 year for an operation on the NHS want more tax payer money spent on H&M's security.
The whole point about H&M moving towards financial independence is that overall there will be less money from the public purse being spent on them, not more. It is a bizarre argument to imply that if they go off and make their own money and become financially independent that somehow we will be paying more for them.
-
Maybe they did not want to raise their hand - I would not want to raise my hand and admit to spending time thinking about the vacuous H&M on a televised political debate programme. I don't mind discussing H&M on an anonymous forum like this.
It was the first question on QT and there were plenty of comments from the audience along the lines of 'up to them, none of our business, let them get on with it' - as all the comments from the audience were broadly identical Fiona Bruce asked the audience whether anyone was critical of their decision - no-one was.
-
And your evidence for this is exactly?
I already did this with NS. I don't need to present evidence to express an opinion - I am not trying to convince you to agree with my opinion. The reason I think they are leaving to try to make money from their status is because wealthy pampered people need money to continue to live a wealthy pampered existence - it doesn't come for free.
The two are inextricably linked - the only way to control their lives is to deal with the press intrusion
No - when I was talking about H&M being in control of their lives I meant they wanted to be free from the control of the RF and RF protocol and being held accountable for how they spend money they haven't earned. By relocating and doing the celebrity thing, which Meghan has already got some experience in and made money from, they are free from the control of The Firm. And that is likely to be one of the reasons why they are particularly attracted to living in Canada and LA - where the likelihood of press intrusion will diminish hugely compared to the UK. Firstly because they will drift out of the public eye, but also because LA/Holywood/Southern California has a much more mature attitude towards celebs and media intrusion. There are far more A-list celebs living there than anywhere else and there is much stronger respect of privacy there - incredibly famous and incredible rich celebs can live there will limited unwanted press intrusion. And perhaps this is one of the reasons why the press intrusion has come as such as shock for Meghan - she was brought up in LA, surrounded by Holywood stars and A-listers who aren't subjected to the horrible press intrusion you get here. She, not unreasonably, perhaps assumed that although she may become an A-lister (arguably) by marrying Harry that the intrusion she would get would be what she saw in LA for A-listers. It hasn't been, so who can blame her for wanting to relocate for the sake of herself and her baby.
That's not what I have seen. I have seen A List celebs constantly complaining about being harassed by paps every day they leave the house, being stalked by fans, worried about getting shot by deranged fans, getting death threats, hence they have bodyguards - I think it depends on how visible a profile they have as to how much harassment they receive. I went to see the Tarantino movie, "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood", which in the finale had the Manson family trying to murder Sharon Tate. One of it's lead actors, Brad Pitt, said he is trash mag fodder for the paps because of his "disaster of a personal life" whereas the other lead actor, Di Caprio said he was pretty much left alone by the paps - possibly because you rarely see Di Caprio being a spokesperson for any cause nor does he have a particularly dysfunctional personal life.
The British media are portraying the timing of the announcement by M&H, against the wishes of the Queen, as H&M having a dysfunctional personal life - so H&M have announced their relocation in a way that ensures they get more press intrusion and made-up stories rather than less.
I think H&M are relocating to the US because Meghan is American and feels more comfortable being dysfunctional and intruded on there than in the UK, and that's where the money is. The Yanks love rubbing shoulders with royalty - Andrew certainly got a lot of mileage out of it.
-
Err because Brixton ranks in the top 10% of most deprived neighbourhoods in the whole of England. And I said that most people in Brixton would not be 'financially comfortable', which is demonstrably a fact given that the neighbourhood ranks in the top 10% for deprivation.
I didn't see the interviews. In which part of Brixton were the interviews done - the affluent part or the deprived part? Was it at the tube station during rush hour, when all the City workers are returning home or outside the job centre during the day, interviewing people with no jobs?
-
More important issues than how the taxpayer's money is being spent on the pampered and over-privileged? I think given the huge financial inequalities in Britain, people at the bottom of the food chain are likely to have concerns. But without any actual evidence one way or the other, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I agree - which is why we should be applauding their decision to become financially independent and wean themselves off reliance on public funding. That's what they have said they plan to do and surely you and I should both be supporting them in that direction.
Less money spent on the bloated entourage of minor royal hangers-on is surely a good thing. And it requires a precedent to be set - Harry is Andrew a generation down. Charlotte is the next generation down again. So if Harry and Meghan set the precedent that the 'spare' needs to find their own path and live financially independently, then that drives down to Charlotte recognising that she cannot simply waft through life with out a proper job funded from the tax payer.
-
Travel agents and promoters of holidays and tourism in theUK find the RF a very good aspect to mention, I understand, and the income to this country as a result does, I also understand, definitely outweigh the expenses. When eventually Charles is crowned King, there will be a massive influx of tourists I think.
Quite possibly - if there is a good financial argument for keeping the RF, then it makes sense to do so. I do not have anything against the RF on principle - it would purely be a financial argument. If H&M make more money for the UK economy by relocating abroad than is spent by the British taxpayer on them abroad, great.
-
The whole point about H&M moving towards financial independence is that overall there will be less money from the public purse being spent on them, not more. It is a bizarre argument to imply that if they go off and make their own money and become financially independent that somehow we will be paying more for them.
It's a simple business argument - if a business is paying someone the business wants something in return for their money.
If H&M are receiving money from the taxpayer they are accountable to the taxpayer for what they do with that money. If they are financially independent and are not receiving money from the public purse then they are not accountable.
-
It was the first question on QT and there were plenty of comments from the audience along the lines of 'up to them, none of our business, let them get on with it' - as all the comments from the audience were broadly identical Fiona Bruce asked the audience whether anyone was critical of their decision - no-one was.
Ok - but clearly there are people who were not in that particular QT audience who do think how taxpayer money is spent is their business and are expressing that on social media.
-
It's a simple business argument - if a business is paying someone the business wants something in return for their money.
If H&M are receiving money from the taxpayer they are accountable to the taxpayer for what they do with that money. If they are financially independent and are not receiving money from the public purse then they are not accountable.
Which is exactly what they have said they plan to do - currently we pay a load for them to have no proper job. Ideally I'd prefer them to get proper jobs and for the taxpayer to pay nothing. However, as a half way house I think it is better that they are largely responsible for their own finances, through their own earning, even if there remains some public money, but clearly far less than they currently get.
And the precedent is important - we will only slim down the royal family if there is a clear expectation that all, bar the current monarch, and the direct line to the throne (in this case Charles, William, George) are expected to pay their own way.
-
I didn't see the interviews. In which part of Brixton were the interviews done - the affluent part or the deprived part? Was it at the tube station during rush hour, when all the City workers are returning home or outside the job centre during the day, interviewing people with no jobs?
Straw clutching in the extreme.
Brixton is in the top 10% for deprivation in the whole of England, so most people will not be financially comfortable, which is exactly what I said.
Interviews looked to be held in the middle of the day (it was light), probably Brixton high street - I think nearly all the interviewees were black which was likely why another major theme was that Meghan had brought diversity and breath of free air to the RF - hence the sadness she wouldn't be around albeit a clear view that it was entirely up to them to make the decision on how to live their lives.
-
Which is exactly what they have said they plan to do - currently we pay a load for them to have no proper job. Ideally I'd prefer them to get proper jobs and for the taxpayer to pay nothing. However, as a half way house I think it is better that they are largely responsible for their own finances, through their own earning, even if there remains some public money, but clearly far less than they currently get.
And I would still want to know why they are being paid anything at all and what the British taxpayer gets in return for the money spent on them.
And the precedent is important - we will only slim down the royal family if there is a clear expectation that all, bar the current monarch, and the direct line to the throne (in this case Charles, William, George) are expected to pay their own way.
Agreed.
-
And I would still want to know why they are being paid anything at all and what the British taxpayer gets in return for the money spent on them.
Well the main issue seems to be security costs - in effect that isn't them being paid at all, but a cost to the tax payer for keeping them safe. We all, in our various ways benefit from the tax payer paying for security that helps keep us safe. Sure the security risk to them is greater due to their profile and therefore so is the cost, but it isn't really them being paid, is it really.
There is an argument that it isn't their fault, but the fault of the UK establishment system, that means they need this security. And again this is where the precedent setting is important. If we move to a position where the 'spare' is expected to pay their own way and largely live an ordinary life and not part of the 'royal duties' junket - then the only reason why they are of interest to the media and therefore a potential security risk vanishes.
I doubt the 'spares' in many of the other countries with monarchs (e.g. Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway etc) need significant public funded security to go about their day to day business. I am a republican, so I'd prefer to get rid of the monarchy altogether. But I realise that I'm in a minority position in that view so it isn't likely to happen. However to move toward a monarchy more like those in other European countries is achievable and desirable surely for everyone (cheaper for the tax payer, less intrusion into the royals etc etc).
-
Straw clutching in the extreme.
No it's not. They are valid questions - who was interviewed is important if you are trying to claim their views are representative of the wider general public's views. And if you are not claiming that, then ok some people interviewed in Brixton are not critical of H&M relocating and their security costs still being funded by the taxpayer. That was the statement H&M issued - that their security will continue to be paid by the taxpayer.
Brixton is in the top 10% for deprivation in the whole of England, so most people will not be financially comfortable, which is exactly what I said.
Any evidence that the people interviewed were not financially comfortable? By financially comfortable, I don't mean rich - I mean people with a job who can afford to eat and pay their bills and have a roof over their heads and eat out/ socialise.
Interviews looked to be held in the middle of the day (it was light), probably Brixton high street - I think nearly all the interviewees were black which was likely why another major theme was that Meghan had brought diversity and breath of free air to the RF - hence the sadness she wouldn't be around albeit a clear view that it was entirely up to them to make the decision on how to live their lives.
Ok so are you saying that some black people being supportive of H&M, as M is black like them (sounds a bit race-biased but ok), but who did not comment on any taxpayer funding concerns, is representative of wider public opinion?
-
Agreed.
I which case I really don't understand your position.
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn't be getting tax payer funding (I agree), yet also arguing that it is wrong to look to become financially independent for example using their image as a 'brand' to generate income (best example is perhaps Posh & Becks, not the Obamas) - so what exactly do you think they should do - you seem to want them to be financially independent of the tax payer yet not to be allowed to do the things that would allow them to be financially independent of the tax payer.
-
Well the main issue seems to be security costs - in effect that isn't them being paid at all, but a cost to the tax payer for keeping them safe. We all, in our various ways benefit from the tax payer paying for security that helps keep us safe. Sure the security risk to them is greater due to their profile and therefore so is the cost, but it isn't really them being paid, is it really.
There is an argument that it isn't their fault, but the fault of the UK establishment system, that means they need this security. And again this is where the precedent setting is important. If we move to a position where the 'spare' is expected to pay their own way and largely live an ordinary life and not part of the 'royal duties' junket - then the only reason why they are of interest to the media and therefore a potential security risk vanishes.
I disagree. I think even if they do not do royal duties, if they continue to maintain a high media profile by trading on the RF name on the celebrity circuit, then media interest will remain and their high profile will make them a target requiring security. Most of the celebrities in the US who have bodyguards need them because they pursue celebrity and a public profile in which to generate revenue, air their opinions and try to influence the public, not because they are members of any famous family. In this case, if M&H trade on their RF connections to make money by maintaining a high public profile, I do not see why their security needs to be funded by the British tax payer, unless the British taxpayer is getting a benefit from their publicity.
I doubt the 'spares' in many of the other countries with monarchs (e.g. Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway etc) need significant public funded security to go about their day to day business. I am a republican, so I'd prefer to get rid of the monarchy altogether. But I realise that I'm in a minority position in that view so it isn't likely to happen. However to move toward a monarchy more like those in other European countries is achievable and desirable surely for everyone (cheaper for the tax payer, less intrusion into the royals etc etc).
Agreed.
-
I which case I really don't understand your position.
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn't be getting tax payer funding (I agree), yet also arguing that it is wrong to look to become financially independent for example using their image as a 'brand' to generate income (best example is perhaps Posh & Becks, not the Obamas) - so what exactly do you think they should do - you seem to want them to be financially independent of the tax payer yet not to be allowed to do the things that would allow them to be financially independent of the tax payer.
Where did I say it was wrong to become financially independent? What I actually said was "If “leave them be” includes them actually achieving financial independence and the tax payer not having to pay for expensive security and flying back and forth and a household abroad - I agree. Good luck to them exploiting RF connections to become very rich and financially independent like countless reality celebrities with connections to someone famous before them have done."
and "There has been talk of them doing something similar to the Obamas - though H&M don’t have a comparable level of intelligence, academic qualifications, job experience, life experience, and public-speaking skills. But if the Kardashians can make money from being vacuous it should be a walk in the park for someone as pretty as Meghan."
Yes I agree - they could model themselves on Posh & Becks. If H&M get themselves a good tax accountant, they can make sure they minimise their tax liabilities as well. Though apparently that cost Becks a knighthood.
My position is that this relocation is a mercenary move to exploit their RF connections for their personal financial gain, because they lead a wealthy pampered lifestyle and want to continue their wealthy pampered lifestyle on their own terms without being dictated to by the RF. And the whining about British press intrusion and their feelings of being bullied is them trying to justify why they should continue their wealthy, pampered, celebrity existence in the US rather than in the UK. I think what M&H are doing is normal behaviour for wealthy, pampered, entitled individuals - so good luck to them in exploiting whatever they have going for them and if they manage to pull it off. If, on the other hand, they actually do fade into obscurity and don't try and maintain a profile as celebrities, good luck to them for that too.
But as a taxpayer, if they continue to get funded for security for a celebrity lifestyle, then I intend to criticise that ....unless of course the lifestyle brings a financial benefit to the British public.
-
Where did I say it was wrong to become financially independent?
My point is that while you may claim that it is fine for them to become financially independent you have constantly criticised the means by which they are most likely to achieve that independence, i.e. using their 'brand' status (here are just a few examples:
'So if Harry and Meghan are trying to hang onto the RF credentials to earn money to keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, while dictating the terms with which they will be part of the RF corporation - to me they seem to be just like any another employee who adopts a mercenary outlook e.g. asking for a 3 day-week, the ability to work from home, less supervision by his managers, and the chance to produce less output without taking a significant cut in salary. '
'But the legacy they will be living off comes from their RF connection - so I neither despise them, nor feel sorry for them, nor do I applaud them - they would be just another privileged, wealthy young couple (with a child) and a mercenary mindset.'
'I was referring to her potential for earning a substantial amount of money by exploiting her connection to the RF through self-publicity on social-media and engagements as a RF celebrity. That would be a separate source of income and one that is not based on any discernible skill unlike the income she derived from being an actress.'
'By "start" I mean when they discussed their potential brand as a couple within the RF while considering whether they should continue to get more romantically involved and get married.'
There are plenty of others, but your negativity towards them on this thread is rather depressing as I continue to read their posts.
I think the Posh&Becks analogy is apt here. They developed a brand based on their being a celebrity couple, but also on the celebrity routes that brought them to that position. So your criticism of H&M exploiting their royal connections in a H&M brand is a bit like saying Psoh&Becks cannot create a fantastically successfully brand for themselves (financially and otherwise) as it is exploiting the Spice Girls (and Simon Fuller) and Manchester United (and Alex Ferguson) as without them there would be no celebs and no Posh&Becks brand.
Their RF connections have helped them become global superstars (just as Man U and Spice Girls helped Posh & Becks become global superstars) but that doesn't mean they cannot use that superstardom (now obtained) to generate interest and cash completely separately from the RF.
Good example - Meghan was a fashion influencer before she met Harry - she has enhanced that with the profile the RF has brought. But were she to no longer be performing royal duties why would people cease to be interested in what she wears and therefore why would fashion companies not use her profile to promote their clothing (as they do right now).
Virtually every superstar couple brand (whether Posh&Beck, the Obamas, George/Amal Clooney, Brangelina before they split etc etc) are only superstars due to their earlier activities or connections. That doesn't mean it is illegitimate to create their own new brand and exploit it for financial gain.
-
Travel agents and promoters of holidays and tourism in theUK find the RF a very good aspect to mention, I understand, and the income to this country as a result does, I also understand, definitely outweigh the expenses. When eventually Charles is crowned King, there will be a massive influx of tourists I think.
France doesn't seem to be having any particular problems with it's tourist trade, not that I'm recommending topknot removal for our lot, I'd settle for a nice clearly defined boot print on their rear ends.
Just think whatever would those super intelligent O K magazine readers do without their regular diet of stupid, empty minded royal soap stories and photo shoots.
Regards, ippy.
-
France doesn't seem to be having any particular problems with it's tourist trade, not that I'm recommending topknot removal for our lot, I'd settle for a nice clearly defined boot print on their rear ends.
Just think whatever would those super intelligent O K magazine readers do without their regular diet of stupid, empty minded royal soap stories and photo shoots.
Regards, ippy.
That's true - and France gets more tourists than the UK, Paris gets more tourists than London and Versaille gets more tourists than Buckingham Palace.
Their lack of a Royal Family seems to do them no harm at all in tourist terms.
-
Travel agents and promoters of holidays and tourism in theUK find the RF a very good aspect to mention, I understand, and the income to this country as a result does, I also understand, definitely outweigh the expenses. When eventually Charles is crowned King, there will be a massive influx of tourists I think.
The tourists would still come though after we get rid of the monarchy : after all, the existing history and heritage that currently attracts them would remain as now.
-
The tourists would still come though after we get rid of the monarchy : after all, the existing history and heritage that currently attracts them would remain as now.
True
-
My point is that while you may claim that it is fine for them to become financially independent you have constantly criticised the means by which they are most likely to achieve that independence, i.e. using their 'brand' status (here are just a few examples:
'So if Harry and Meghan are trying to hang onto the RF credentials to earn money to keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, while dictating the terms with which they will be part of the RF corporation - to me they seem to be just like any another employee who adopts a mercenary outlook e.g. asking for a 3 day-week, the ability to work from home, less supervision by his managers, and the chance to produce less output without taking a significant cut in salary. '
'But the legacy they will be living off comes from their RF connection - so I neither despise them, nor feel sorry for them, nor do I applaud them - they would be just another privileged, wealthy young couple (with a child) and a mercenary mindset.'
'I was referring to her potential for earning a substantial amount of money by exploiting her connection to the RF through self-publicity on social-media and engagements as a RF celebrity. That would be a separate source of income and one that is not based on any discernible skill unlike the income she derived from being an actress.'
'By "start" I mean when they discussed their potential brand as a couple within the RF while considering whether they should continue to get more romantically involved and get married.'
There are plenty of others, but your negativity towards them on this thread is rather depressing as I continue to read their posts.
I am just stating my opinion based on my observations. As far as I know M&H are fairly normal people therefore, given that normal people are fairly mercenary, it is to be expected that their behaviour would be commented on - not because Meghan is beig bullied because she is black as Harry likes to claim about legitimate observations and comments - but because they are normal people with normal weaknesses who live their lives in the public eye, for which they accept the privileges and revenue that goes with living your life in the public eye.
For example, in my experience, most employees are mercenary - I remember when I went for job interviews at a Japanese bank and an American bank in my mid-twenties and both offered me a job, I took the Japanese bank as it paid more, even though the other bank offered me a manager title. And when the Japanese bank was closing I was offered a large pay rise to stay on until the end, while others were made redundant. And after a while there wasn't really anything left to do at work so I spent a lot of time reading magazines and getting paid for it. I could have offered to go do something else to try and justify the money they were paying me or offered to take a pay cut as I was doing maybe 2 hours of actual work per day, but I didn't offer any of this - I just took the money and said thanks and read a lot of magazines. As I was not in the public eye and nor was I getting paid and generating income by being in the public eye, the newspapers did not write a story about my mercenary behaviour, whereas they do for H&M. As an employer I see all kinds of mercenary behaviour from employees. I don't see H&M as any different.
I think the Posh&Becks analogy is apt here. They developed a brand based on their being a celebrity couple, but also on the celebrity routes that brought them to that position. So your criticism of H&M exploiting their royal connections in a H&M brand is a bit like saying Psoh&Becks cannot create a fantastically successfully brand for themselves (financially and otherwise) as it is exploiting the Spice Girls (and Simon Fuller) and Manchester United (and Alex Ferguson) as without them there would be no celebs and no Posh&Becks brand.
Not at all. I wish Posh & Becks and H&M the best of luck in being mercenary and exploiting whatever they can get away with exploiting. Though I would think it was stupid if Posh and Becks earned lots of money, status and privileges from the public by being in the public eye, and then expected me to feel sorry for them because the press criticised their behaviour or because Simon Fuller expected Posh to show up to promo events or concerts and perform while she was still under contract. I understand why M&H are moving - most of these celebrities want more control and a bigger slice of the pie, and so I don't blame H&M for going after more money and more control.
Their RF connections have helped them become global superstars (just as Man U and Spice Girls helped Posh & Becks become global superstars) but that doesn't mean they cannot use that superstardom (now obtained) to generate interest and cash completely separately from the RF.
Agreed. My point was that, if any of the money they get comes from the taxpayer, the public has a legitimate right to comment and ask how the money spent on H&M benefits the taxpayer.
Good example - Meghan was a fashion influencer before she met Harry - she has enhanced that with the profile the RF has brought. But were she to no longer be performing royal duties why would people cease to be interested in what she wears and therefore why would fashion companies not use her profile to promote their clothing (as they do right now).
True. She would have realised just how much more money she would get paid as a member of the RF, than as an actress. The RF got something out of it too. And now she has decided she wants to call the shots, rather than the RF limiting her earning potential. She wants more control of how much money she has the potential to earn - I can understand that.
Virtually every superstar couple brand (whether Posh&Beck, the Obamas, George/Amal Clooney, Brangelina before they split etc etc) are only superstars due to their earlier activities or connections. That doesn't mean it is illegitimate to create their own new brand and exploit it for financial gain.
I agree - and as I said I wish H&M all the luck in the world exploiting whoever and whatever they can for financial gain - there is nothing abnormal about exploiting for financial gain. I just don't feel sorry for them about the press intrusion - they need it to keep people interested enough in them to generate the money they need to keep them in the luxury they have become accustomed to. I just hope they make enough to cover the security expenses.
-
... not because Meghan is beig bullied because she is black as Harry likes to claim about legitimate observations and comments ...
This was shared with me on Facebook, so can't provide the link with the actual Daily Mail page heading etc - but they are identical in the page positioning etc:
'Not long to go! Pregnant Kate tenderly cradles her baby bump while wrapping up her royal duties ahead of maternity leave - and William confirms she's due any minute now'
'Why can't Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: Is it pride, vanity, acting - or a new age bonding technique?'
You have to ask why exactly the same action - a pregnant woman holding her bump - is treated so differently by the same paper when the woman is Meghan rather than Kate.
-
I am just stating my opinion based on my observations. As far as I know M&H are fairly normal people therefore, given that normal people are fairly mercenary, it is to be expected that their behaviour would be commented on - not because Meghan is beig bullied because she is black as Harry likes to claim about legitimate observations and comments - but because they are normal people with normal weaknesses who live their lives in the public eye, for which they accept the privileges and revenue that goes with living your life in the public eye.
For example, in my experience, most employees are mercenary - I remember when I went for job interviews at a Japanese bank and an American bank in my mid-twenties and both offered me a job, I took the Japanese bank as it paid more, even though the other bank offered me a manager title. And when the Japanese bank was closing I was offered a large pay rise to stay on until the end, while others were made redundant. And after a while there wasn't really anything left to do at work so I spent a lot of time reading magazines and getting paid for it. I could have offered to go do something else to try and justify the money they were paying me or offered to take a pay cut as I was doing maybe 2 hours of actual work per day, but I didn't offer any of this - I just took the money and said thanks and read a lot of magazines. As I was not in the public eye and nor was I getting paid and generating income by being in the public eye, the newspapers did not write a story about my mercenary behaviour, whereas they do for H&M. As an employer I see all kinds of mercenary behaviour from employees. I don't see H&M as any different.
Not at all. I wish Posh & Becks and H&M the best of luck in being mercenary and exploiting whatever they can get away with exploiting. Though I would think it was stupid if Posh and Becks earned lots of money, status and privileges from the public by being in the public eye, and then expected me to feel sorry for them because the press criticised their behaviour or because Simon Fuller expected Posh to show up to promo events or concerts and perform while she was still under contract. I understand why M&H are moving - most of these celebrities want more control and a bigger slice of the pie, and so I don't blame H&M for going after more money and more control.
Agreed. My point was that, if any of the money they get comes from the taxpayer, the public has a legitimate right to comment and ask how the money spent on H&M benefits the taxpayer.
True. She would have realised just how much more money she would get paid as a member of the RF, than as an actress. The RF got something out of it too. And now she has decided she wants to call the shots, rather than the RF limiting her earning potential. She wants more control of how much money she has the potential to earn - I can understand that.
I agree - and as I said I wish H&M all the luck in the world exploiting whoever and whatever they can for financial gain - there is nothing abnormal about exploiting for financial gain. I just don't feel sorry for them about the press intrusion - they need it to keep people interested enough in them to generate the money they need to keep them in the luxury they have become accustomed to. I just hope they make enough to cover the security expenses.
You keep making out that their decision to relocate and step back from front line royal duties is all about money - yet you have no evidence for this whatsoever.
It seems likely that they will be walking away from huge income from the RF into an uncertain financial future. They'd be pretty stupid to do that if their concern was that they can't make enough money in the RF.
-
You keep making out that their decision to relocate and step back from front line royal duties is all about money - yet you have no evidence for this whatsoever.
It seems likely that they will be walking away from huge income from the RF into an uncertain financial future. They'd be pretty stupid to do that if their concern was that they can't make enough money in the RF.
Gabriella has frequently declared here that she doesn't care about evidence.
-
Gabriella has frequently declared here that she doesn't care about evidence.
Strange isn't it - and her argument is so poorly thought through.
Think of it this way - if all you care about it money and are completely mercenary and you had married the grandson of a women with private wealth estimated at about £500million (plus his grandfather with a wealth of £30million). Your husband is apparently her favourite grandson. The grandmother is 93, her husband 98.
You already receive a fortune every year for doing virtually nothing.
Would you:
A. Make sure you don't rock the boat - ensure the money keeps piling in in the short term while you do very little and in a few years inherit an absolute fortune, beyond anything you would imagine making from your own hard work.
Or
B. Tell the family you are in effect divorcing them, clearly piss off the grandmother (just about the richest woman in the world) - move to another country and refuse to do your duty to that family, thereby likely ending up with substantially reduced income in the short term and (more importantly) jeopardising the likelihood of receiving a massive windfall inheritance in a few years time.
You'd have to sell one hell of a lot of your new Markle's Sparkle range of lingerie and perfume for plan B to make sense if all you cared about was the money.
-
You keep making out that their decision to relocate and step back from front line royal duties is all about money - yet you have no evidence for this whatsoever.
Actually what I said was that it was about money to continue in the luxury lifestyle they are accustomed to and control rather than being dictated to by RF protocol.
It seems likely that they will be walking away from huge income from the RF into an uncertain financial future. They'd be pretty stupid to do that if their concern was that they can't make enough money in the RF.
I thought you just said they would be making money from their celebrity status - like Posh and Becks and there was nothing wrong with that?
I agree with you - it seems likely to me that they will walking away from their huge income from the RF and into huge income from their celebrity status.
I also agree they are pretty stupid - they should have waited, had the meetings with the RF and worked out the finer details before walking out. Maybe that's just their immaturity leading to impatience and impetuous poorly thought through decisions, rather than listening to their advisers. Sorry - if you're looking for evidence, I didn't tape their private meetings with their advisers so can't provide any and can only base it on reports in the media, which could all be lies.
Charles and William apparently wanted to slim down the RF - again I am basing this on media reports and can't provide any evidence of taped conversations - so M&H could have disappeared quietly without all this drama during the slimming down process - given the baby and grand-parents a chance to bond, and the great grandmother before she dies in the next few years - what with being 93. Maybe Meghan decided it was more important for the baby to bond with her mother and friends.
-
This was shared with me on Facebook, so can't provide the link with the actual Daily Mail page heading etc - but they are identical in the page positioning etc:
'Not long to go! Pregnant Kate tenderly cradles her baby bump while wrapping up her royal duties ahead of maternity leave - and William confirms she's due any minute now'
'Why can't Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: Is it pride, vanity, acting - or a new age bonding technique?'
You have to ask why exactly the same action - a pregnant woman holding her bump - is treated so differently by the same paper when the woman is Meghan rather than Kate.
There could be lots of reasons. Maybe Meghan was cradling her bump more often in public than Kate, maybe she looked more stupid than Kate when she did it or people thought it look more staged because she is an actress.
I don't automatically assume that if someone doesn't like the way I do something but they like it when someone else does it, that it must mean that it's racism because I have brown skin - that would be kind of dumb. I would need more information before I started playing the race card. I have heard relatives comment about a white person wearing a sari at weddings - and how they weren't wearing the sari as well as someone else, who happened to be brown. That could be racism or it could just be they had a preference about who they thought looked better in a sari.
There were actually blatant racist comments made on Twitter against Meghan, such as her tainting the RF by joining it, spoiling the blood line etc. so not sure why you picked the newspapers reporting on her bump as an example of racism.
-
Strange isn't it - and her argument is so poorly thought through.
No, actually my argument is not poorly thought through.
Think of it this way - if all you care about it money and are completely mercenary and you had married the grandson of a women with private wealth estimated at about £500million (plus his grandfather with a wealth of £30million). Your husband is apparently her favourite grandson. The grandmother is 93, her husband 98.
You already receive a fortune every year for doing virtually nothing.
Would you:
A. Make sure you don't rock the boat - ensure the money keeps piling in in the short term while you do very little and in a few years inherit an absolute fortune, beyond anything you would imagine making from your own hard work.
Or
B. Tell the family you are in effect divorcing them, clearly piss off the grandmother (just about the richest woman in the world) - move to another country and refuse to do your duty to that family, thereby likely ending up with substantially reduced income in the short term and (more importantly) jeopardising the likelihood of receiving a massive windfall inheritance in a few years time.
You'd have to sell one hell of a lot of your new Markle's Sparkle range of lingerie and perfume for plan B to make sense if all you cared about was the money.
As I said, what I think they want is to live the luxury lifestyle they have become accustomed to, but on their terms rather than being dictated to by the RF. In which case it makes perfect sense to walk away from the RF, retain their titles, think they can be part-time royals and do the celebrity circuit, public speaking engagements, promotions etc in the US to exploit their royal connections and make lots of money but on their own terms.
Yes I agree that the way they went about it was stupid - that's what other people have commented on - the stupid way they are going about trying to be financially independent. But being mercenary doesn't stop people from doing things in a stupid way.
ETA - also I think they will still get a substantial inheritance even if they go. I think it will be a similar situation to their titles. If the RF strip them of their titles, they can play the sympathy card and evoke Diana's predicament and death after losing her HRH status. So they are probably banking on the RF wanting to protect their image by not looking vindictive by cutting M&H out of the will.
-
No, actually my argument is not poorly thought through.
It is if (as you keep implying) the whole thing is about H&M making more money.
-
No, actually my argument is not poorly thought through.
As I said, what I think they want is to live the luxury lifestyle they have become accustomed to, but on their terms rather than being dictated to by the RF. In which case it makes perfect sense to walk away from the RF, retain their titles, think they can be part-time royals and do the celebrity circuit, public speaking engagements, promotions etc in the US to exploit their royal connections and make lots of money but on their own terms.
Why do you think they want to live the luxury lifestyle - I've seen no evidence for this at all. Actually I suspect Meghan hates the lifestyle she's inherited by marrying Harry. It must be completely alien to her if you have any understanding of her upbringing, background and heritage. I'm sure she wants to live comfortably, but I think what we are seeing is a couple recognising that there are far more important things than money and the luxury lifestyle and they want those things even if it means turing their back on the excesses they've been used to over the past few years.
I'm not convinced Harry is a natural luxury-lifestyle lover either. Of all the royals (this generation and previously) he seemed to be the most comfortable and at home in that most egalitarian and lacking of luxury existence - in the army.
I suspect Meghan is also terribly home-sick and (as is so often the case for new mothers) wants her own mother close. Again nothing to do with money.
-
It is if (as you keep implying) the whole thing is about H&M making more money.
No it's not, It's a well thought through argument based on my opinion that M&H are stupid and impetuous and also want to make money on their own terms, without being dictated to by the RF.
-
No it's not, It's a well thought through argument based on my opinion that M&H are stupid and impetuous and also want to make money on their own terms, without being dictated to by the RF.
None of which is based on any evidence (although I gather you aren't interested in evidence anyway). You think it is all about the money and the luxury lifestyle (see your endless post to that effect) and if so the last thing they'd do is walk away from ... well ... the money and the luxury lifestyle. It is a poorly thought through argument, based on thin air.
-
Why do you think they want to live the luxury lifestyle - I've seen no evidence for this at all. Actually I suspect Meghan hates the lifestyle she's inherited by marrying Harry. It must be completely alien to her if you have any understanding of her upbringing, background and heritage. I'm sure she wants to live comfortably, but I think what we are seeing is a couple recognising that there are far more important things than money and the luxury lifestyle and they want those things even if it means turing their back on the excesses they've been used to over the past few years.
That's possible. I guess we'll see whether they fade into obscurity or keep their titles and do the celebrity-speaking thing.
I'm not convinced Harry is a nature luxury-lifestyle lover either. Of all the royals (this generation and previously) he seemed to be the most comfortable and at home in that most egalitarian and lacking of luxury existence - in the army.
People can change due to time or circumstances.
I know someone who did not care about money or luxury and then got married, still didn't care about money and luxury, then had a kid and suddenly started focusing on making money (for his family apparently), bought a big house, expensive car, paid for the luxury flights and holidays etc - his wife almost divorced him because she was so frustrated by his sudden obsession with money and luxury and because he was working long hours to fund their new life that she never asked for. I have no evidence for this story - up to you whether you want to believe it or not.
-
None of which is based on any evidence (although I gather you aren't interested in evidence anyway). You think it is all about the money and the luxury lifestyle (see your endless post to that effect) and if so the last thing they'd do is walk away from ... well ... the money and the luxury lifestyle. It is a poorly thought through argument, based on thin air.
No - it's not a poorly thought through argument for the reasons I have already given. It's a well thought-through argument. You are of course free to not accept the reasons and keep repeating your own opinion though.
-
I know someone who did not care about money or luxury and then got married, still didn't care about money and luxury, then had a kid and suddenly started focusing on making money (for his family apparently), bought a big house, expensive car, paid for the luxury flights and holidays etc - his wife almost divorced him because she was so frustrated by his sudden obsession with money and luxury and because he was working long hours to fund their new life that she never asked for. I have no evidence for this story - up to you whether you want to believe it or not.
And the relevance of the 'I know a person' anecdote is exactly - I guess if there is one, it would be of a girl brought up in fairly modest circumstances, then because well known and comfortably off (during her time as an actress), then through the chance of marriage entered a culture and luxury lifestyle completely alien to her, and then recognised after a while that she didn't want this lifestyle and that there were more important things in life than the astonishing lifestyle afforded to the senior royals.
What Harry and Meghan are doing is almost certainly likely to result in their wealth decreasing, not increasing. If it was about the money then they wouldn't do it - but I don't believe it is.
-
And the relevance of the 'I know a person' anecdote is exactly -
. I thought that was obvious - you said Harry wasn't into luxury as he was in the army and I said people can change when they go from being a bachelor to marriage and parenthood.
I guess if there is one, it would be of a girl brought up in fairly modest circumstances, then because well known and comfortably off (during her time as an actress), then through the chance of marriage entered a culture and luxury lifestyle completely alien to her, and then recognised after a while that she didn't want this lifestyle and that there were more important things in life than the astonishing lifestyle afforded to the senior royals.
Well no I was actually talking about Harry's possible change of attitude to wealth. It was fairly obvious that joining the RF was a tough gig, hence Harry's previous girlfriend turned down marriage and Harry publicly stated it was difficult to find someone who was willing to put up the media circus that would go with being his wife.
There are plenty of examples of what the media do to wives who marry into the RF - the stories about Diana, the criticism of Fergie and Kate. Maybe M&H thought that given M's job as an actress she could handle it, or H thought he could order the Press to back off, or maybe he and his wife got together on the basis that they would have the option to bolt to another country if they didn't like the RF gig as he was the spare, not the heir, and William had had kids. It's not like they had a lot of time to think it through from when they started dating to when he proposed. They were also having a long-distance relationship.
What Harry and Meghan are doing is almost certainly likely to result in their wealth decreasing, not increasing. If it was about the money then they wouldn't do it - but I don't believe it is.
We'll see - if they keep their titles and go on the celebrity circuit then it would be about money and control and getting to have money while not being dictated to by the RF, which is what I believe it is about. And you were the one who said they should model themselves on Posh and Becks and make money exploiting their RF connections.
-
. I thought that was obvious - you said Harry wasn't into luxury as he was in the army and I said people can change when they go from being a bachelor to marriage and parenthood.
Indeed that the most likely comparison to the case at hand is that Meghan (largely) when becoming a mother has recognised there are far more important things in life than a luxury lifestyle (which she'd not been used to anyway in her upbringing and early adulthood). Those more important things being family (her family), being in control of your future and your child's future and privacy.
-
We'll see - if they keep their titles and go on the celebrity circuit then it would be about money and control and getting to have money while not being dictated to by the RF, which is what I believe it is about.
But that isn't going to happen without massively risking major future wealth. Currently they are on the naughty step as far as the RF are concerned, but probably not to the extent of being disowned and (critically) disinherited. Were they to engage in commercial activity that directly undermined the RF - e.g. spilling the beans on all the secrets, then they might earn fortune (people would pay for that), but the flip side would be the Queen ringing the RF lawyers for a swift change in her will (remember that £500million private wealth).
And I think you are over-egging how lucrative the celeb circuit is - while there are a few 'winners' there are plenty of loser, including members of the RF themselves (Fergie anyone).
And you were the one who said they should model themselves on Posh and Becks and make money exploiting their RF connections.
When I said they might model themselves on Posh and Becks that was largely about approach to earning, but there is a huge difference. Posh and Becks recognised that there was no future in approach to earning in their early career - Becks football career would necessarily end and Posh was never the talented one (if that isn't an oxymoron) from the Spice Girls and their star was on the wane. They needed to forge a new direction as the old one was over. That is completely different to H&M - were they to chose to play nicely according to the RF playbook they'd be guaranteed income to support a luxury lifestyle until they died.
-
There are plenty of examples of what the media do to wives who marry into the RF - the stories about Diana, the criticism of Fergie and Kate. Maybe M&H thought that given M's job as an actress she could handle it, or H thought he could order the Press to back off, or maybe he and his wife got together on the basis that they would have the option to bolt to another country if they didn't like the RF gig as he was the spare, not the heir, and William had had kids. It's not like they had a lot of time to think it through from when they started dating to when he proposed. They were also having a long-distance relationship.
No I suspect Meghan genuinely thought that the British media would act towards A-list celebs in the way the LA media do - effectively working with them for mutual benefit while respecting their need for privacy.
You and I might see things through the prism of the British media but she wouldn't have, having never lived here and with experience of life almost exclusively seen through the prism of the LA approach to celebrity.
-
Indeed that the most likely comparison to the case at hand is that Meghan (largely) when becoming a mother has recognised there are far more important things in life than a luxury lifestyle (which she'd not been used to anyway in her upbringing and early adulthood). Those more important things being family (her family), being in control of your future and your child's future and privacy.
Possibly - and exploiting the RF connections in another country while simultaneously claiming to be stepping back from the RF, in order to gain financial independence abroad might be the way to go to achieve that control.
-
Charles and William apparently wanted to slim down the RF
Which is why this is all so bizarre - surely the rest of the RF should be thinking 'great - they've just helped us achieve our overall goal of a slimmed down RF' - it is the equivalent of restructuring a company department and having the key person come up to you and say - 'sure, I'll take the voluntary severance package'.
I think what this speaks to, however, is that Meghan is desperate - she feels trapped, she feels that she has no control over her life, she is in an alien culture, she is a young mother, thousands of miles away from her family. She wants out, not of her marriage but of her in-laws, in other words the establishment that is the RF. And in a way, although the specifics are pretty well unique, the basic story is universal and old as the hills. Meghan is Stacey, married to Gavin and stuck living in Essex when she is desperate to be in Barry.
-
Possibly - and exploiting the RF connections in another country while simultaneously claiming to be stepping back from the RF, in order to gain financial independence abroad might be the way to go to achieve that control.
That will never give control, as there will never be true independence from the RF.
I suspect (but may well be very wrong) that her route forward is as an activist (check out her early life) and influencer. In that role she will be Meghan, being Meghan - she wont be being Meghan, member of the RF. All the RF will have done is make her more famous than she otherwise would have been. But what she will be doing is what she did before the RF - e.g. influencing fashion and style etc and promoting her views and projects. The RF will have helped her move from C-list celeb to A-list celeb, but what she will do will have nothing to do with the RF.
-
But that isn't going to happen without massively risking major future wealth. Currently they are on the naughty step as far as the RF are concerned, but probably not to the extent of being disowned and (critically) disinherited. Were they to engage in commercial activity that directly undermined the RF - e.g. spilling the beans on all the secrets, then they might earn fortune (people would pay for that), but the flip side would be the Queen ringing the RF lawyers for a swift change in her will (remember that £500million private wealth).
Who said M&H were going to spill the beans on all the secrets? They would damage their brand and their meal ticket - they're stupid, but not that stupid. No, they just need to make sure they are photographed by the press while showing up for certain events, give a few after-dinner speeches, wear certain brands of clothing in public events, be seen driving certain brands of cars - the usual paid celebrity endorsements and freebies. That should afford them the lifestyle they want. Their rich friends will fund the private jet travel or lend them their private jet, the holidays on yachts, the luxury holidays away from prying eyes in remote locations because those friends will value the connection with the RF, and they will no longer have to answer to the RF for taking all the freebies.
And I think you are over-egging how lucrative the celeb circuit is - while there are a few 'winners' there are plenty of loser, including members of the RF themselves (Fergie anyone).
We'll see - I said I would be interested to see if they fade into obscurity or keep their visibility high and exploit their RF connections. I was also interested to see if they pull it off if they do use their RF connections and titles - and I mentioned that Fergie hadn't managed it.
When I said they might model themselves on Posh and Becks that was largely about approach to earning, but there is a huge difference. Posh and Becks recognised that there was no future in approach to earning in their early career - Becks football career would necessarily end and Posh was never the talented one (if that isn't an oxymoron) from the Spice Girls and their star was on the wane. They needed to forge a new direction as the old one was over. That is completely different to H&M - were they to chose to play nicely according to the RF playbook they'd be guaranteed income to support a luxury lifestyle until they died.
That's my point - I think they don't want to have to play nicely and be dictated to by the RF on following RF protocol. I think they want to use their RF connections to make money through speaking engagements and brand endorsements on their own terms without having to check with the RF first before they express an opinion or accept a freebie from their celebrity friends or go on holiday or support a cause.
-
That will never give control, as there will never be true independence from the RF.
I suspect (but may well be very wrong) that her route forward is as an activist (check out her early life) and influencer. In that role she will be Meghan, being Meghan - she wont be being Meghan, member of the RF. All the RF will have done is make her more famous than she otherwise would have been. But what she will be doing is what she did before the RF - e.g. influencing fashion and style etc and promoting her views and projects. The RF will have helped her move from C-list celeb to A-list celeb, but what she will do will have nothing to do with the RF.
I don't know - I guess we'll see how much she uses the RF connection to promote things - and whether she will be introduced by her title, will the RF be mentioned, will her intro mention she is married to Prince Harry, who is the Queen's grandson, whether she and Harry will give paid interviews, whether she will name-drop in those interviews, whether the money made is spent on charity or M&H's lifestyle.
-
Who said M&H were going to spill the beans on all the secrets? They would damage their brand and their meal ticket - they're stupid, but not that stupid.
But's that's what would earn them the mega bucks.
No, they just need to make sure they are photographed by the press while showing up for certain events, give a few after-dinner speeches, wear certain brands of clothing in public events, be seen driving certain brands of cars - the usual paid celebrity endorsements and freebies. That should afford them the lifestyle they want. Their rich friends will fund the private jet travel or lend them their private jet, the holidays on yachts, the luxury holidays away from prying eyes in remote locations because those friends will value the connection with the RF, and they will no longer have to answer to the RF for taking all the freebies.
Nope it wont do that - the celebs you speak of get all that money for those endorsements etc, but it is based on the 'day job' so-to speak. H&M are proposing walking away from the day job, they don't have anything like enough kudos on the celeb circuit to keep them going financially for years and decades without creating a new 'day job'.
After dinner speeches - hmm - well Obama can keep this going for years, because he will talk about being President (spill the beans as it were) and that will always be of interest. But if H&M aren't going to be able to spill the beans on the RF (which I think we both agree would be a mistake) then why would anyone pay to see them, not in 2020, but in 2030 - they wont. They need a new day job.
-
I don't know - I guess we'll see how much she uses the RF connection to promote things - and whether she will be introduced by her title, will the RF be mentioned, will her intro mention she is married to Prince Harry, who is the Queen's grandson, whether she and Harry will give paid interviews, whether she will name-drop in those interviews, whether the money made is spent on charity or M&H's lifestyle.
No idea - but she is, and will remain, the Duchess of Sussex so is perfectly entitled to use this in an introduction. It isn't linked to being a 'working royal' - HRH is a different matter, I believe, but I don't think there is much kudos in the USA of being introduced as HRH.
But actually her title isn't the key - outside of the UK (and indeed inside the UK) her 'brand' is Meghan, not Duchess of Sussex. She has no need to use her title. The brand is Harry and Meghan not Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and the good new for them is that the key brand has nothing to do with the RF (beyond Charles having decided to call his second son Henry).
-
But's that's what would earn them the mega bucks.
It would also inflict a lot of damage to the RF brand, which they are relying on - so like I said they won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Plus I don't think they are that heartless as to inflict that much pain on Harry's relatives.
Nope it wont do that - the celebs you speak of get all that money for those endorsements etc, but it is based on the 'day job' so-to speak. H&M are proposing walking away from the day job, they don't have anything like enough kudos on the celeb circuit to keep them going financially for years and decades without creating a new 'day job'.
After dinner speeches - hmm - well Obama can keep this going for years, because he will talk about being President (spill the beans as it were) and that will always be of interest. But if H&M aren't going to be able to spill the beans on the RF (which I think we both agree would be a mistake) then why would anyone pay to see them, not in 2020, but in 2030 - they wont. They need a new day job.
What beans do the Obamas spill in their speeches - they may have anecdotes about their own immediate family life but usually their speeches are inspirational stuff that may include anecdotes about interesting challenges. H&M can tell stories about their own domestic life if they want. Anyway, H&M's plan is to be part-time royals according to their statement. So they will turn up for some RF engagements to keep the royal connections going as one of their 'day jobs'.
-
No idea - but she is, and will remain, the Duchess of Sussex so is perfectly entitled to use this in an introduction. It isn't linked to being a 'working royal' - HRH is a different matter, I believe, but I don't think there is much kudos in the USA of being introduced as HRH.
But actually her title isn't the key - outside of the UK (and indeed inside the UK) her 'brand' is Meghan, not Duchess of Sussex. She has no need to use her title. The brand is Harry and Meghan not Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and the good new for them is that the key brand has nothing to do with the RF (beyond Charles having decided to call his second son Henry).
Nope - the key brand is Harry and Meghan, the Queen's grandson who married the descendant of a former slave. Without the connection to the RF, there would be significantly less potential earnings, and certainly not enough kudos to run with the A-list celebs in the US.
-
What beans do the Obamas spill in their speeches
They talk about being President and FL of the USA - that's what people will pay to see. There are millions of 'motivational speakers' in competition - the Obamas unique selling point is that they will tell you how they (or arguably he) ran the most powerful country on the planet.
I don't think M&H are going to be able to compete with that unless they spill the beans.
And of course most of the speeches made by celebs, including I suspect the Obamas, are made entirely for free, part of their process of 'giving back', but that of course isn't going to earn you a penny.
As an example we had Bill Gates talk with us last year - richest man on the planet (ish) - one of the most famous people on the planet - amount earn from his fascinating talk about developing Microsoft and the future of IT/data etc - exactly zero. We did give him a glass of wine though.
-
Nope - the key brand is Harry and Meghan, the Queen's grandson who married the descendant of a former slave. Without the connection to the RF, there would be significantly less potential earnings, and certainly not enough kudos to run with the A-list celebs in the US.
So what - if they brand themselves as Harry and Meghan the RF has no claim on that brand whatsoever, rather less than Simon Fuller has over Posh and Becks as he could justifiably claim that Posh was his invention.
And you cannot change the connection - everyone knows it - it is in the past. H&M can brand themselves as just that Harry & Meghan (the back story is rolled in) - guess what, we didn't feel the need to market Bill Gates as the founder of Microsoft - it comes with the territory. If Bill Gates hadn't a connection with Microsoft he would also have significantly less earning potential on the 'talks' market - not that we were charged a penny.
-
Which is why this is all so bizarre - surely the rest of the RF should be thinking 'great - they've just helped us achieve our overall goal of a slimmed down RF' - it is the equivalent of restructuring a company department and having the key person come up to you and say - 'sure, I'll take the voluntary severance package'.
No -that's not how it works. Even if I wanted to restructure the company, I would want to do it in a planned way. I would want to work out the new strategic goals figure out the resources I needed to achieve them, figure out the handover process, ensure there was sufficient continuity and training and information-sharing, ensure the brand was not damaged. I would definitely not want a key member of staff coming up to me and handing in their resignation with no notice and none of the details worked out. I would be very pissed off with them if they did that, and think they were stupid, selfish and had no loyalty to the company or the people in it.
I think what this speaks to, however, is that Meghan is desperate - she feels trapped, she feels that she has no control over her life, she is in an alien culture, she is a young mother, thousands of miles away from her family. She wants out, not of her marriage but of her in-laws, in other words the establishment that is the RF. And in a way, although the specifics are pretty well unique, the basic story is universal and old as the hills. Meghan is Stacey, married to Gavin and stuck living in Essex when she is desperate to be in Barry.
Well she should show the maturity that a mother needs to have and exit responsibly with a properly thought through exit plan or she and Harry can choose to walk out of the business on a whim and get the flak they deserves for being unreliable. She's not that young - she is a mature woman of 38. What happened to equality of the sexes? Though in this case both sexes seem equally impetuous and immature.
-
This lot's not worth ten pence of a discussing why can't they just go and join the rest of them and go along to the Foreign Office.
Once gone we as a country could rid ourselves of the present system and find a far more sensible way of selecting our head of state by some more rational form of public consent, it would be far better than relying on luck as the arrangement is now.
ippy.
-
Well she should show the maturity that a mother needs to have and exit responsibly with a properly thought through exit plan or she and Harry can choose to walk out of the business on a whim and get the flak they deserves for being unreliable.
There you go again - in what way have they done this on a whim - this has been building throughout 2019. Have you actually read their statement - it is very carefully written and judged with a clear statement of support for Harry's Grandmother, while stating their need to change things.
I wonder whether you were equally scathing of the Queen's decision to give her Xmas message next to a set of family photos that would obviously be picked up by the media (and even a completely uninterested hoary old republican such as myself).
She's not that young - she is a mature woman of 38. What happened to equality of the sexes? Though in this case both sexes seem equally impetuous and immature.
What are you on about - what they have chosen to to seems pretty carefully thought out and exactly the kind of thing you may expect from new parents in their 30s - a resetting or priorities.
I have to say that your lack of empathy for a new mother in a completely unequal marriage where her family is entirely sidelined while she is expected to align completely with the expectations of his family is rather worrying. This isn't a unique story (far from it) but usually couples resetting their lives aren't required to release a statement to the public (thankfully).
-
They talk about being President and FL of the USA - that's what people will pay to see. There are millions of 'motivational speakers' in competition - the Obamas unique selling point is that they will tell you how they (or arguably he) ran the most powerful country on the planet.
How is talking about being President and FL spilling the beans. What damaging secrets are they revealing - I haven't actually heard most of their speeches so if they are sharing damaging secrets do you have any links?
I don't think M&H are going to be able to compete with that unless they spill the beans.
My definition of spilling the beans is revealing damaging secrets. I don't think the Obamas spill the beans. I don't think M&H will spill the beans if it will damage their RF brand as they need the brand to survive.
And of course most of the speeches made by celebs, including I suspect the Obamas, are made entirely for free, part of their process of 'giving back', but that of course isn't going to earn you a penny.
Obama was supposedly worth $40 million back in 2018 - he apparently made a lot of money writing books and he has signed a very lucrative deal with Netflix and gets money for speaking gigs - According to CNBC, Obama reportedly earned $800,000 for two speeches and a minimum of $1.2 million for three talks on Wall Street.
https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/alist/barack-and-michelle-obama-net-worth-2019-how-much-is-the-former-us-president-worth-along-with-his-a4178561.html
As an example we had Bill Gates talk with us last year - richest man on the planet (ish) - one of the most famous people on the planet - amount earn from his fascinating talk about developing Microsoft and the future of IT/data etc - exactly zero. We did give him a glass of wine though.
Was it an interesting talk? Bill Gates seems like a nice guy - he is reported to have given away $45 million to charity.
-
This lot's not worth ten pence of a discussing why can't they just go and join the rest of them and go along to the Foreign Office.
Once gone we as a country could rid ourselves of the present system and find a far more sensible way of selecting our head of state by some more rational form of public consent, it would be far better than relying on luck as the arrangement is now.
ippy.
I'm a republican - I agree with you.
I am discussing them as people, rather than as an institution. I think it is possible to believe that the monarchy should be abolished (as I do) while also recognising that members of the RF are people and are actually members of the RF without their own consent (which is part of the argument for republicanism).
-
Obama was supposedly worth $40 million back in 2018
The Queen is worth 10 times that much and even Harry's grandfather is worth a similar amount in private wealth. If the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh distribute their wealth equally amongst their grandchildren then Harry instantly becomes more wealthy than Obama - why would you rock that boat if the issue is money.
I rest my case.
- he apparently made a lot of money writing books and he has signed a very lucrative deal with Netflix and gets money for speaking gigs - According to CNBC, Obama reportedly earned $800,000 for two speeches and a minimum of $1.2 million for three talks on Wall Street.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Harry/Meghan and Obama are in different leagues in terms of their marketability. Just to remind you, Obama was Head of State of the most powerful country in the world, H&M aren't. Harry (let alone Meghan) is sixth in line to be Head of State of the UK and has exactly zero change of ever becoming Head of State.
-
There you go again - in what way have they done this on a whim - this has been building throughout 2019. Have you actually read their statement - it is very carefully written and judged with a clear statement of support for Harry's Grandmother, while stating their need to change things.
I found their statement to be a bit thin on details of how they were going to pull off being part-time royals. I'm also going by the reaction of the business, The Firm, which appears to have been caught by surprise and who were expecting them back to work after their long holiday, and who did not know they were even going to be missing the Firm's Christmas party until November.
I wonder whether you were equally scathing of the Queen's decision to give her Xmas message next to a set of family photos that would obviously be picked up by the media (and even a completely uninterested hoary old republican such as myself).
What's scathing about disagreeing with your opinion that it's a good thing if a key employee resigns without a proper handover? I didn't see the Xmas message but did she suddenly quit and have someone else deliver the Xmas message or take on extra duties, and what was the burden to the taxpayer by having her Xmas message next to some photos?
What are you on about - what they have chosen to to seems pretty carefully thought out and exactly the kind of thing you may expect from new parents in their 30s - a resetting or priorities.
I have to say that your lack of empathy for a new mother in a completely unequal marriage where her family is entirely sidelined while she is expected to align completely with the expectations of his family is rather worrying. This isn't a unique story (far from it) but usually couples resetting their lives aren't required to release a statement to the public (thankfully).
Your patronising need to worry about Meghan and me is even more worrying. Having been a new mother, without all the wealth and nannies at Meghan's disposal, it's probably difficult but not something a person with a mature, level-headed outlook could not handle. I actually had TB while being a first-time mother and going back to work full-time at JP Morgan when my eldest daughter was 5 months. This was despite having had the BCG vaccination at school. When I was eventually diagnosed with TB I got a call from the doctor at my desk at work and was told to leave work immediately. My daughter was 7.5 months old at the time. I'd lost 1 stone from my pre-pregnancy weight due to the TB and I was only a little over 8 stones when I first got pregnant. It was the toughest time I have ever experienced because I was constantly dead-tired and had a bad cough that meant I slept badly and was looking after a baby after work without the help of parents or a nanny - but it wasn't that hard compared to the problems some people have to go through.
Yes I can understand Meghan wants to escape being told what to do by the RF - that was probably the reason some of Harry's friends and family warned him against marrying her - because they probably didn't think she would cope with the relocation from the US to the UK. I don't mind what H&M actually do - I am just expressing the opinion that I think they are looking to make money from their RF connections by being part-time royals, that they want to be able to get the freebies that come from the RF connections without being under the control of the Firm, and I just wondered what it will cost the taxpayer, and what the taxpayer gets in return.
-
The Queen is worth 10 times that much and even Harry's grandfather is worth a similar amount in private wealth. If the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh distribute their wealth equally amongst their grandchildren then Harry instantly becomes more wealthy than Obama - why would you rock that boat if the issue is money.
I rest my case.
Why would the Queen distribute her wealth equally among her grandchildren? What about her children? And what about most of it going to the next monarch? Are you suggesting she is goung to start distributing all her land and buildings and jewels etc amongst the grandchildren?
Putting aside the question of exactly how much Harry will inherit, as I keep saying the issue is control of wealth without being dictated to by the RF. And they fully intend to be part time royals and I haven't seen any sign of them being disinherited. I rest my case.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Harry/Meghan and Obama are in different leagues in terms of their marketability. Just to remind you, Obama was Head of State of the most powerful country in the world, H&M aren't. Harry (let alone Meghan) is sixth in line to be Head of State of the UK and has exactly zero change of ever becoming Head of State.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I was disputing your claim that Obama doesn't make money from his speaking engagements.
-
I'm a republican - I agree with you.
I am discussing them as people, rather than as an institution. I think it is possible to believe that the monarchy should be abolished (as I do) while also recognising that members of the RF are people and are actually members of the RF without their own consent (which is part of the argument for republicanism).
Why not get yourself into some of the plentiful amount of soap that's on offer, I can't say I wish these people any ill but would rather not recognise them of any special merit worth knowing about, imo conversing about them lends them more recognition than these two and the rest of them warrant.
ippy.
-
Which is why this is all so bizarre - surely the rest of the RF should be thinking 'great - they've just helped us achieve our overall goal of a slimmed down RF' - it is the equivalent of restructuring a company department and having the key person come up to you and say - 'sure, I'll take the voluntary severance package'.
I think what this speaks to, however, is that Meghan is desperate - she feels trapped, she feels that she has no control over her life, she is in an alien culture, she is a young mother, thousands of miles away from her family. She wants out, not of her marriage but of her in-laws, in other words the establishment that is the RF. And in a way, although the specifics are pretty well unique, the basic story is universal and old as the hills. Meghan is Stacey, married to Gavin and stuck living in Essex when she is desperate to be in Barry.
I think you should stop speculating about how Meghan feels. You could just as easily build a case that it is Harry who feels trapped. After all, he wasn’t allowed to be a proper soldier in case he got targeted.
Meghan is Stacey? FFS.
-
I think you should stop speculating about how Meghan feels. You could just as easily build a case that it is Harry who feels trapped. After all, he wasn’t allowed to be a proper soldier in case he got targeted.
True, I suspect neither are happy with the current situation and also recognise that they will have less and less of a role as time moves one, even more so in a slimmed down monarchy.
Meghan is Stacey? FFS.
As in the point at which, having married Gavin, she recognises that she cannot live in Essex anymore, and needs to move back to the place, people and culture she feels comfortable in.
Frankly all I was trying to do was to get Gabriella to recognise there may be more motivation behind their decision than a desire to earn more money, which seem continually fixates on.
-
I found their statement to be a bit thin on details of how they were going to pull off being part-time royals. I'm also going by the reaction of the business, The Firm, which appears to have been caught by surprise and who were expecting them back to work after their long holiday, and who did not know they were even going to be missing the Firm's Christmas party until November.
What's scathing about disagreeing with your opinion that it's a good thing if a key employee resigns without a proper handover?
Harry and Meghan aren't employees so none of this is relevant. As far as I'm aware the only 'contract' Meghan has signed is a contract of marriage with Harry.
-
Once gone we as a country could rid ourselves of the present system and find a far more sensible way of selecting our head of state by some more rational form of public consent, it would be far better than relying on luck as the arrangement is now.
I don't disagree. However, a word of caution. Selecting a head of state does not always provide a suitable person for that position. Just sayin #Trump #Putin etc. Now in western democracies there is generally a time constraint to presidential appointments, but it is quite easy to foresee a situation where those circumstances change. If Trump gets a second term it would not be a surprise to me if he tried to get rid of the two term restriction currently applying. If global instability increases so called strong men in power will use peoples insecurities to increase their own power.
-
I don't disagree. However, a word of caution. Selecting a head of state does not always provide a suitable person for that position. Just sayin #Trump #Putin etc. Now in western democracies there is generally a time constraint to presidential appointments, but it is quite easy to foresee a situation where those circumstances change. If Trump gets a second term it would not be a surprise to me if he tried to get rid of the two term restriction currently applying. If global instability increases so called strong men in power will use peoples insecurities to increase their own power.
Our current constitution is structured with the Head of State is largely a ceremonial position, separated from Government with the PM as head of that Government. If we became a republic I see no reason why that would change - Boris wouldn't become President, he'd still be PM and there would be an elected Head of State in a broadly ceremonial position.
This is how it works in many countries, perhaps the nearest example being Ireland.
-
Our current constitution is structured with the Head of State is largely a ceremonial position, separated from Government with the PM as head of that Government. If we became a republic I see no reason why that would change - Boris wouldn't become President, he'd still be PM and there would be an elected Head of State in a broadly ceremonial position.
This is how it works in many countries, perhaps the nearest example being Ireland.
Yes. I was thinking more of the way things are operating in the presidential US system. I still think there are dangers within a presidential system that need careful planning to guard against the possibility of unintended consequences.
-
Yes. I was thinking more of the way things are operating in the presidential US system. I still think there are dangers within a presidential system that need careful planning to guard against the possibility of unintended consequences.
Agree. It's hard to build in an attitude of what the public think the role is. It's easy to think that David Attenborough might get elected but also possible Nigel Farage would. Arguably we don't need one at all but that has its own issues.
-
I'd have to say that I don't see the point of having a ceremonial Head of State: after all, it would be a position without meaningful power, responsibility or accountability - nothing more than a bit of theatre for those that like that sort of thing. Do we really need someone to cut ribbons, unveil plaques, have regular banquets or inspect troops?
If we do then why not select a citizen randomly on an annual basis so we could have Trump met by, say, 'big Shuggie' (who I feel sure would acquit himself superbly in that role).
-
Yes. I was thinking more of the way things are operating in the presidential US system. I still think there are dangers within a presidential system that need careful planning to guard against the possibility of unintended consequences.
I know, but I doubt we'd go down that route if we became a republic as it would a far greater constitutional change than just changing the mode of selection of the head of state.
-
I'd have to say that I don't see the point of having a ceremonial Head of State: after all, it would be a position without meaningful power, responsibility or accountability - nothing more than a bit of theatre for those that like that sort of thing. Do we really need someone to cut ribbons, unveil plaques, have regular banquets or inspect troops?
If we do then why not select a citizen randomly on an annual basis so we could have Trump met by, say, 'big Shuggie' (who I feel sure would acquit himself superbly in that role).
The question there is whether any of the theoretical powers of the monarchy need to be apportioned in some way. I think they can be sorted e.g. the loyalty of troops is to the country rather than an individual but it needs to be thought out.
I don't see why the meeting of those like Trump isn't just effectively done by the PM.
Some of the big Shuggies I know might not be as competent in such matters as other bug Shuggies.
-
I'd have to say that I don't see the point of having a ceremonial Head of State: after all, it would be a position without meaningful power, responsibility or accountability - nothing more than a bit of theatre for those that like that sort of thing. Do we really need someone to cut ribbons, unveil plaques, have regular banquets or inspect troops?
If we do then why not select a citizen randomly on an annual basis so we could have Trump met by, say, 'big Shuggie' (who I feel sure would acquit himself superbly in that role).
I think the idea is that the ceremonial Head of State provides continuity, even with elected ones the term tends to be longer than that for head of government.
Secondly they tend to be a more unifying force within the country rather than a highly politicised president who will always be politically partisan.
Thirdly there is valuing in having someone to meet and great other heads of state and political leaders who sits above the major political issues of the day - in that way you can be more welcoming as a state to other leaders even if politically your countries are at it like cats and dogs.
-
I think the idea is that the ceremonial Head of State provides continuity, even with elected ones the term tends to be longer than that for head of government.
Secondly they tend to be a more unifying force within the country rather than a highly politicised president who will always be politically partisan.
Thirdly there is valuing in having someone to meet and great other heads of state and political leaders who sits above the major political issues of the day - in that way you can be more welcoming as a state to other leaders even if politically your countries are at it like cats and dogs.
I don't see how you can guarantee the second.
-
I don't see how you can guarantee the second.
You can't of course, but as the role is not political those putting themselves forward tend to do so on the basis of their ability to stand above the hurly burly of political debate. So I think the reality of elected, but ceremonial, presidents is that they tend to be a more unifying figurehead for the country than an elected head of government, whether PM (e.g. Boris) or President (e.g Trump).
-
I think the idea is that the ceremonial Head of State provides continuity, even with elected ones the term tends to be longer than that for head of government.
Secondly they tend to be a more unifying force within the country rather than a highly politicised president who will always be politically partisan.
Thirdly there is valuing in having someone to meet and great other heads of state and political leaders who sits above the major political issues of the day - in that way you can be more welcoming as a state to other leaders even if politically your countries are at it like cats and dogs.
I suspect identifying someone with an existing public profile, but who is crucially non-political, but who knows the order of which knives/forks/spoons to be used in banquets and be proficient in using scissors and waving, and who would embody a sense of national allegiance and inspire patriotism (which isn't necessarily a good thing) is an impossible (and possibly undesirable) mix.
I'd have thought that the elected head of government would be the only sensible option, since they at least have some form of public mandate and of course they can be got rid of and replaced, either if they are useless or divisive (or both), or if political/constitutional conditions change - although, as the current political situation illustrates, they are unlikely to be unifying figures that inspire loyalty: mind you, the current RF aren't either.
-
You can't of course, but as the role is not political those putting themselves forward tend to do so on the basis of their ability to stand above the hurly burly of political debate. So I think the reality of elected, but ceremonial, presidents is that they tend to be a more unifying figurehead for the country than an elected head of government, whether PM (e.g. Boris) or President (e.g Trump).
I think that's a very rose coloured view. Countries are different and they don't all have a straight path to certain solutions. As noted in my replies to Gordon, there is an issue here about how you deal with residual theoretical powers. We maintain a polite fiction about the monarchy currently and it isb't clear that could be done with an elected head of state.
Any move needs to be part of a carefully considered redrawing of the constitution.
-
I think that's a very rose coloured view. Countries are different and they don't all have a straight path to certain solutions. As noted in my replies to Gordon, there is an issue here about how you deal with residual theoretical powers. We maintain a polite fiction about the monarchy currently and it isb't clear that could be done with an elected head of state.
Any move needs to be part of a carefully considered redrawing of the constitution.
That is a good point: the presumption, I think, is that there is some ineffable 'something' that is embodied by successive generations of this family - so what is this 'something' and could, or should, it be embodied in some other form?
Any revised arrangements for this 'something', or its abandonment, would require some revision of current arrangements.
-
I think that's a very rose coloured view. Countries are different and they don't all have a straight path to certain solutions.
True - all I was doing was putting forward the main arguments that are used for a ceremonial elected head of state.
As noted in my replies to Gordon, there is an issue here about how you deal with residual theoretical powers. We maintain a polite fiction about the monarchy currently and it isb't clear that could be done with an elected head of state.
Any move needs to be part of a carefully considered redrawing of the constitution.
I agree - were we to move to being a republic there would need to be careful consideration of the constitution. You are correct that the Queen retains certain powers but does not use them largely because she has no democratic mandate. Were we to have an elected head of state they would have a mandate to use those powers. We'd need a debate about whether (possibly) we might think those powers are reasonable and should be used. Alternatively we'd need to remove those powers.
-
Harry and Meghan aren't employees so none of this is relevant. As far as I'm aware the only 'contract' Meghan has signed is a contract of marriage with Harry.
It is very relevant. You brought up the comparison of a company restructure and said the RF should be happy if H&M suddenly resigned and I pointed out why sudden resignations of key employees cause all kinds of headaches and logistical, continuity and reputational problems for company restructures.
H&M are treating this as a business if they are hoping to make money from their royal titles. If they are not, fine. Their statement suggests they keep their 'day job' but be part-time royals. Their statement says the taxpayer should continue to pay for their security.
In your Gavin and Stacey comparison - I've never seen it so I don't know - did they set up with a nice little side earner promoting goods and services off the back of Gavin's family name and get the people of Essex to continue to pay for some of their living costs before running away from Essex?
-
Thinking about this a little further I wonder whether there is a large dollop of sexism in all this as there is precedent for the spouse of the 'spare' to be happily allowed to continue with their previous career once they'd married into the RF. But interestingly only for men.
So when Margaret married Antony Armstrong Jones, not only was she much closer to the throne than Harry (she was 4th in line I think, he is 6th), but he simply continued with career as photographer and film maker as if nothing had happened.
Same with Princess Anne and Mark Phillips (she was 4th in line at the time).
Perhaps it is just a change over time, but you have to ask why it is perfectly OK for a man marrying into the RF to carry on being a photographer and film maker and earn money from that career, but not for a woman to effectively be allowed any kind of career or outside earnings.
-
It is very relevant.
It isn't relevant because H&M aren't employees.
I only used the restructure line to indicate that it would appear that H&M's plans and Charles and William's plans align well as they both are consistent with a slimmed down RF.
-
Thinking about this a little further I wonder whether there is a large dollop of sexism in all this as there is precedent for the spouse of the 'spare' to be happily allowed to continue with their previous career once they'd married into the RF. But interestingly only for men.
So when Margaret married Antony Armstrong Jones, not only was she much closer to the throne than Harry (she was 4th in line I think, he is 6th), but he simply continued with career as photographer and film maker as if nothing had happened.
Same with Princess Anne and Mark Phillips (she was 4th in line at the time).
Perhaps it is just a change over time, but you have to ask why it is perfectly OK for a man marrying into the RF to carry on being a photographer and film maker and earn money from that career, but not for a woman to effectively be allowed any kind of career or outside earnings.
I agree.
Antony Armstrong Jones seems to have got flak from the Press in the 1960s and apparently questions were asked about his job in the House of Commons.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/incoming/lord-snowdon-a-royal-rebel-12451930
Hope Meghan can cope with the press intrusion and the questions while earning money as a member of the RF. It seems to go with the role.
-
It isn't relevant because H&M aren't employees.
It's relevant - they don't need to be employees or self-employed or have a contract in order to grasp the idea that if they suddenly make a public statement saying they are resigning their royal duties without giving any notice and without working out a handover and without making a jointly agreed statement with the RF, it is disruptive, makes them look unprofessional and unreliable and is gossip-fodder against the RF brand for the media to exploit.
I only used the restructure line to indicate that it would appear that H&M's plans and Charles and William's plans align well as they both are consistent with a slimmed down RF.
No they don't align well because apparently H&M did not sit down and have a professional discussion with Charles and William to identify what would align well with their plans, before H&M released their statement.
-
I'd have to say that I don't see the point of having a ceremonial Head of State: after all, it would be a position without meaningful power, responsibility or accountability - nothing more than a bit of theatre for those that like that sort of thing. Do we really need someone to cut ribbons, unveil plaques, have regular banquets or inspect troops?
If we do then why not select a citizen randomly on an annual basis so we could have Trump met by, say, 'big Shuggie' (who I feel sure would acquit himself superbly in that role).
Why not have a bit of theatre? As long as the person providing the theatre has no real power, it seems fine to me.
-
Why not have a bit of theatre? As long as the person providing the theatre has no real power, it seems fine to me.
It is theatre - but in normal circumstances you have to opt-in to see the show, and pay admission accordingly, whereas when it comes to the Windsors we are quietly charged by default, and then we have the 'performance' rammed under our noses via excessive media coverage irrespective of whether or not we are interested.
-
I'd have to say that I don't see the point of having a ceremonial Head of State: after all, it would be a position without meaningful power, responsibility or accountability - nothing more than a bit of theatre for those that like that sort of thing. Do we really need someone to cut ribbons, unveil plaques, have regular banquets or inspect troops?
If we do then why not select a citizen randomly on an annual basis so we could have Trump met by, say, 'big Shuggie' (who I feel sure would acquit himself superbly in that role).
I could be that person. I'd take heads of state to the pub for a piss up and maybe somewhere for a bit of pie and mash or a ruby. I'd be good at that.
-
It is theatre - but in normal circumstances you have to opt-in to see the show, and pay admission accordingly, whereas when it comes to the Windsors we are quietly charged by default, and then we have the 'performance' rammed under our noses via excessive media coverage irrespective of whether or not we are interested.
It’s the same as any state supported show. E.g anything on the BBC or Channel 4 or anything supported by the Arts Council.
And nobody forces you to follow the Royal Coverage.
-
It’s the same as any state supported show. E.g anything on the BBC or Channel 4 or anything supported by the Arts Council.
And nobody forces you to follow the Royal Coverage.
I don't, any more than I follow football, and I know where the 'off' switch is - in both cases there is often the presumption in the media that we are all in some way interested, and that pisses me off.
I realise I'm a carnaptious old grump - but the RF stuff is especially nauseating.
-
One of the (many) problems with the Windsor soap opera is the way their actors are brought up to expect the audience to defer to them. I cite an experience a friend of mine had in the Dumfries house estate last month. He and his friend were walking their dogs (on leads) when a flunky told them to go elsewhere. Knowing their legal right to roam here, they ignored him....and bumped into Chairlie and Camilla out for a stroll. The chappie paused, expecting some kind of acknowledgement. My friend sais "Aye, son, you're there". Silence. "Do you know to whom you're speaking?" "Aye...mind, they say senility come tae us a;!" Chairlie, apparently, turned red.... Camilla was heard to say "Bloody oiks". Later, flunkey caught up with them and tried to give them a lesson on etiquette. My friend Sandy takes lessons from no-one. In other words, Chairlie must have been miffed at the lack of deference, and asked flunkey to teach oik a lesson. Aye, right.
-
I don't think Harry and Meghan's problems can be resolved until she has sorted things out with her Dad.
-
Guardian opinion today:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/15/meghan-markle-mail-on-sunday-courage-media
Last week's Question Time kicked off with questions about Meghan and Harry and was very balanced (imo). Max Hastings and Clive Lewis were on the panel.
Last night's QT didn't start with these royals but there was some good discussion later on about them including questions & comments from the audience. Sharmi Chakrabarti was on.
No tittle tattle or hearsay which for me was a result!
-
The only aspect of this that interests me is whether the excessive press/media criticism of Meghan, and it certainly has been worse than for others, is due to deliberate or institutional racism or reaction to her as a foreign intruder - because there doesn't seem to be any justification for it.
-
I don't know Udayana. I've not heard anyone say anything about her ethnicity but then I wouldn't. She hasn't personally said anything and certainly Harry's father and grandparents were very welcoming to her. However I did read some of the racial abuse she received on Twitter - I don't do twitter but it was reported somewhere - and it was vile. We have some very devious right wing racist organisations here in the UK which have become more prominent in recent times, so that doesn't surprise me one bit.
However I believe the media build people up and then tear them down by whatever means they can, we've seen it before but this is definitely the worst I've seen. What gets me is that people believe the media.
-
Looks as though it's nearly all over now. The nastiness will die down. It's good that an agreement has been made, a relief for everyone. Quite honestly, being a royal has never sat well with Harry, he was happiest as an army officer but he did try and many of trappings of royalty he couldn't escape. Now he has a partner on the same page and a son, he is stronger. I sincerely hope the marriage lasts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51163865
I don't know why but reading the Queen's statement made me weepy.
-
I don't know Udayana. I've not heard anyone say anything about her ethnicity but then I wouldn't. She hasn't personally said anything and certainly Harry's father and grandparents were very welcoming to her. However I did read some of the racial abuse she received on Twitter - I don't do twitter but it was reported somewhere - and it was vile. We have some very devious right wing racist organisations here in the UK which have become more prominent in recent times, so that doesn't surprise me one bit.
However I believe the media build people up and then tear them down by whatever means they can, we've seen it before but this is definitely the worst I've seen. What gets me is that people believe the media.
I suspect the papers come up with stories to get peoples attention then racists piggy back on those. Don't know to what extent journalists or columnists take these considerations into account beforehand.