'Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals'

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ippy]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[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).

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.

 

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.