'Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals'

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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)

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

... 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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.