To think Harry/Meghan are coming out of this worse than the Royal Family?

[Bassarid]

Is it just me?

@ohforarainyday

If you represent the monarchy in any way you are categorically not allowed to be political or promote brands of any kind.

Except for all the times senior royals have been political.

And all the times they've sold their own branded items, or accepted money to promote other brands.

Remember when Meghan was accused of rule-breaking and being political by releasing a PSA asking people to vote? Then it came out the Queen had once given a near-identical speech during a visit to the Welsh Assembly lobbying people to vote?

One rule for Meghan, a different rule for everyone else.

I can't think of a single Royal that has taken sides politically or promoted a product whilst being a working Royal and receiving an income from that.

Maybe, maybe not - though they can certainly do "trades" and offer up what they want in return for silence elsewhere

Of course they do, they allow access or certain stories to keep them at bay. Other celebs do it as well hence why so many Tiger Wood stories were sat on because he agreed to give a story in a sister magazine.

Prince Andrew "supports both of his daughters financially from his private income," according to his website.

So what? Lots of rich parents support their children financially. And not so rich parents, come to think of it.

So why aren't they trading away the shit show that's happening now?

Because it's depends upon the cooperation of the media outlets and they tend not to be cooperative unless it's in their best interest, which means the RF has absolutely no control over whats published.

Reporters have written about the fact Andrew's finances are "shrouded in mystery" and that no one knows where his money comes from

Yep the 13m ski chalet, the 7m refurb, the 400k on flights in 1 yr. He's great at making that salary stretch!

How do we only have 1 version? Until the OW we had 1, now we have 2. We don't know which version is correct however when we had the first 1 it was accepted & no one was lying. Now we have 2 versions, Meghan must be lying because of 'X' or 'Y'.

We have one version told to us by someone involved, Meghan. Who in the same interview was economical with the truth about other matters. Nobody knows what happened and I can't see that either variation of the story is more believable than the other, really.

ohforarainyday

The Firm is utterly toxic and corrupt. Nothing Harry or Meghan do as individuals can possibly compare to institutional corruption that treats immediate family and children as disposable tools to prop up an institution.

The entire system exists to support the Monarch and the Heir at all costs - everyone else is dispensable - and the RF exist in an uneasy alliance with the British tabloid press (Buckingham Palace regularly giving secret unlisted parties just for tabloid editors) where they have an unspoken agreement to cooperate with the tabloids.

The real scandal has nothing to do with one basically unimportant whiner going on a podcast to talk about his mental health issues, but corruption that goes to the very deepest parts of how our country is run, which is basically government corruption and the lack of a free press. The RF exist as a prong of the corrupt relationship between the press and the government.

For example, when Matt Hancock was found guilty, the BRF released some trivial story about Harry and Meghan, and the obedient Tory press made sure that story was the one plastered all over the front pages, and not Matt Hancock. Clearly a major British MP who is directly responsible for the UK's COVID response being found guilty of breaking the law and engaging in corruption that killed thousands is a FAR more important news story than "some random celeb kid mouthed off again". It's sheer corruption and proof we have no free press. The BFR were asked to provide a distraction and obediently provided one, and the Tory press agreed to downplay the Matt Hancock story in exchange for being given the splashy royal story instead. That's the deal. That's always the deal.

It's a fact that the RF have given negative stories about Harry to the press in exchange for covering up negative stories about William literally since Harry was an underage teenager. Multiple journalists have confirmed it. The Spare exists only to support the Heir and that means being a sacrificial lamb when needed.

The entire reason the BRF launched such a smear campaign against Harry and Meghan in the first place was to sweeten the press and keep the press on their good side, after William's overly aggressive behaviour and extreme legal threats to cover up his (alleged) affair with Rose Hanbury and prevent the British press from covering it

The BRF DO have the power to muzzle the press when they want to. Look at the Queen publicly complaining about Sophie's treatment after Sophie tried to sell access to royals - she literally issued a press release asking the press to leave Sophie alone. Look at Kensington Palace issuing official press denials and complaints over stories about Kate's hair and beauty treatments, and the extreme rage and legal threats KP issued over the Kate-bashing Tatler article (threats that resulted in only one paragraph being removed, a paragraph about Rose Hanbury). Look how the Queen made a public show of support for Andrew, and how other scandals (Kate being exposed as never having visited several of her patronages even once since she became patron, royals breaking Covid rules, Beatrice starting a relationship with a man right after he dumped his fiancee who's just given birth leaving her homeless) have been kept out of the press.

Look at the corruption within the Palace. The Palace forced Dan Wootton's BEST FRIEND SINCE SCHOOL Jason Knauf onto Meghan as her press secretary. Jason Knauf was leaking private information to the tabloids about her the entire time, he's the one who gave the Thomas Markle letter to the press and lied that he'd co-written it (had to do an about face at the last minute to avoid perjury) and he's the one who faked the bullying allegations. He also hired his best friend Melissa Touabti for a role she'd never done before, she was fired for gross misconduct (Harry set a trap to find who was leaking, it turned out to be Melissa, and it was later discovered she'd lied on her CV) and despite being fired she immediately walked into a plum job as nanny for a Tory billionaire whose sister is a Daily Mail journalist.

Meanwhile Jason Knauf is rewarded for stabbing his employers in the back and regularly breaking his NDA by being given the plum 'top job' as CEO literally running William and Kate's entire foundation. Which strongly indicates the BRF knew and instructed him to spy on Meghan and to leak damaging info about her to the press, because Royal staff have to sign watertight NDAs - breaking an NDA by leaking private royal information is an automatic firing offence. Why would Will and Kate reward a known liar who sells Royal secrets to the press with such a plum promotion, unless he was acting under orders?

Not to mention the regularity with which private conversations (eg Kate and Meghan's argument during the dress fitting) which are leaked to the press - people seem to take it for granted that the tabloids will print this stuff because people treat the BRF as a soap opera, but no one ever questions how exactly the tabloids get this information. Look at the dress fitting argument - someone had to actually phone up a tabloid reporter and say "Meghan and Kate had an argument today" and that someone clearly was not Meghan or anyone on her team. So who was it? What's the name of the Leaker?

What is the name of the person or people who have leaked Harry's every movement to the press for the past three years? It's obviously not anyone on Harry and Meghan's side, because all the leaks have been negative and all the leaks stopped the second they left.

Then there's the fact William and Kate's own press secretary's partner was caught (copies of bank statements published in Byline Times) accepting two payments totalling £4k from a bank account belonging to the Sun, to sell stories about Meghan.

Corruption from top to bottom.

Yes, most of these have come up in press articles and documentaries.

I'm a Republican and want the whole institution shut down, but it's pretty obvious that the balance of stories in the press is Pro William and Kate and anti Harry and Meghan. (Williams affair was covered up pretty quickly as was him using an RAF helicopter to fly into his then girlfriends garden to impress her. Seriously extravagant use of MOD funds and equipment that nobody else would have got away with).

It really wouldn't matter what Harry did - the fact he is on record as having said he doesn't like the media was enough to get the black spot on him.

So why aren't they trading away the shit show that's happening now?

What the shit show about Harry? They need to protect Charles & William as it's all about the RF surviving.
I mean it became very apparent during lockdown that they don't really do much.

I'm a Republican and want the whole institution shut down, but it's pretty obvious that the balance of stories in the press is Pro William and Kate and anti Harry and Meghan. (Williams affair was covered up pretty quickly as was him using an RAF helicopter to fly into his then girlfriends garden to impress her. Seriously extravagant use of MOD funds and equipment that nobody else would have got away with).

You lost all credibility when you wrote with authority about Williams affair when you’ve no clue at all if he even had one

Reporters have written about the fact Andrew's finances are "shrouded in mystery" and that no one knows where his money comes from

Yep the 13m ski chalet, the 7m refurb, the 400k on flights in 1 yr. He's great at making that salary stretch!

And his brand new £220,000 Bentley that he had newly resprayed to his preferred colour, with private number plate.

What a shame we don't have a good independent investigative journalist to look into the lot of them.

You lost all credibility when you wrote with authority about Williams affair when you’ve no clue at all if he even had one

Well, for sure I wasn't there, but the action taken by him to suppress the story even being published kind of gives a taste of 'please look away now*.

I can't think of a single Royal that has taken sides politically or promoted a product whilst being a working Royal and receiving an income from that

In 2012, during the pressure for Charles's "black spider" letters to be released, the attorney general Dominic Grieve, said “they would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king” ... which begs the question of why they'd worry about a lack of neutrality being revealed if it didn't exist

I wouldn't know where to start over his more dubious business dealings, but we have a useful piece here on the types he's prepared to associate with: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47441113 and another on what can happen to his much-vaunted "charities": www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/23/duchy-originals-forced-to-buy-back-shares-from-prince-charless-charitable-foundation

How useful to be able to claim that so much is done "for charity" - and how much it can potentially be used to cover up

The traumatised by horses hooves is bullshit. Not stopped him playing polo.

You lost all credibility when you wrote with authority about Williams affair when you’ve no clue at all if he even had one

I don't have any idea if he had one or not but there were certainly rumours & gossip which is why it was strange that the media were so quiet.

Even though Prince William was said to have denied the rumors, he didn't stand idly by as the press reported them. The rumors about Prince William and Rose Hanbury had become vicious enough that his lawyers threatened legal action against the media outlets spreading them. The Daily Beast reported that, after the press broke the news of the alleged affair, at least one British publication was served a warning by Harbottle and Lewis, a law firm working on behalf of the royal family. The warning said that "in addition to being false and highly damaging, the publication of false speculation in respect of our clients' private life also constitutes a breach of his privacy pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention to Human Rights."

If only Harry could have got career advice from Andrew then he wouldn't have any problems funding security or a lavish lifestyle!

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I can't think of a single Royal that has taken sides politically or promoted a product whilst being a working Royal and receiving an income from that

In 2012, during the pressure for Charles's "black spider" letters to be released, the attorney general Dominic Grieve, said “they would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king” ... which begs the question of why they'd worry about a lack of neutrality being revealed if it didn't exist

I wouldn't know where to start over his more dubious business dealings, but we have a useful piece here on the types he's prepared to associate with: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47441113 and another on what can happen to his much-vaunted "charities": www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/23/duchy-originals-forced-to-buy-back-shares-from-prince-charless-charitable-foundation

How useful to be able to claim that so much is done "for charity" - and how much it can potentially be used to cover up

Jesus, they're allowed an opinion privately just not publicly.

I doubt they leaked that conversations were unproductive to Gayle King. I imagine this is what might worry Charles and William.

This is exactly the double standard I'm talking about. The BRF and Cambridge household leak like a sieve for years, and leak in the most sneaky and underhand - reveal entire private conversations, release information with the intention of smearing a family member, lie, pretend to be on someone's side then sell them out to the press. Use family members as pawns to protect more 'valuable' family members.

For years.

Harry says one single sentence to Gayle - openly and on the record, no leaks or sneakiness or underhandedness - and suddenly he's painted as this awful leaker.

Expenses incurred whilst representing the RF. Security Beatrice and Eugenie wouldn't need if they weren't royals and homes that would otherwise lie empty and are safer by being inside a royal compound.

I hope this post gets copied and pasted every single time someone says Harry and Meghan didn't deserve security because they weren't high up enough, or froth about Frogmore's essential structural work.

If you look in the dictionary under the word "hypocrite" you see this post.

Eugenie would not have needed £2 million of taxpayer money on security if she and her dad hadn't insisted on a big splashy Royal Wedding with a huge carriage drive. The argument that it's fine for Andrew, Fergie and the York girls to get free/very cheap housing because "otherwise they'd be empty" ignores the fact hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money is spent ensuring those properties are well-maintained and decorated. If the Yorks didn't live there, they would not be empty; they'd be used as offices or staff headquarters. Anyway you can't pretend the Yorks don't profit from their royal status then turn around and say they're entitled to millions of taxpayer-funded security and free/cheap housing simply for being minor royals. It's unbelievably hypocritical.

So what? Lots of rich parents support their children financially.
Yet more hypocrisy. When it's Harry it's "LOL how dare a 30-something man live off his parents how pathetic and child-like Harry is grow the fuck up Harry it's embarassing to still be supported by your family!!" Please explain why it's embarassing, humiliating, immature, disgusting, pathetic, etc. etc. etc for Harry but perfectly fine and "so what" for other royals?

Just sheer, unbridled hypocrisy. One rule for Harry. One rule for everyone else. Always.

If there's anything dodgy about the DOC and their accounting then I condemn that too. But until that is evident I can't really comment, in the same way I cannot judge M&Hs foundation until they publish their accounts and whilst they could only donate 5% to charity the could also donate a lot more.

You've only just noticed!? Yes OP they're coming out of it way worse..
Let the entitled little shit carry on I say.
Maybe he'll grow up eventually or maybe he'll stay a spoilt man child forever.

@ohforarainyday

I doubt they leaked that conversations were unproductive to Gayle King. I imagine this is what might worry Charles and William.

This is exactly the double standard I'm talking about. The BRF and Cambridge household leak like a sieve for years, and leak in the most sneaky and underhand - reveal entire private conversations, release information with the intention of smearing a family member, lie, pretend to be on someone's side then sell them out to the press. Use family members as pawns to protect more 'valuable' family members.

For years.

Harry says one single sentence to Gayle - openly and on the record, no leaks or sneakiness or underhandedness - and suddenly he's painted as this awful leaker.

Expenses incurred whilst representing the RF. Security Beatrice and Eugenie wouldn't need if they weren't royals and homes that would otherwise lie empty and are safer by being inside a royal compound.

I hope this post gets copied and pasted every single time someone says Harry and Meghan didn't deserve security because they weren't high up enough, or froth about Frogmore's essential structural work.

If you look in the dictionary under the word "hypocrite" you see this post.

Eugenie would not have needed £2 million of taxpayer money on security if she and her dad hadn't insisted on a big splashy Royal Wedding with a huge carriage drive. The argument that it's fine for Andrew, Fergie and the York girls to get free/very cheap housing because "otherwise they'd be empty" ignores the fact hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money is spent ensuring those properties are well-maintained and decorated. If the Yorks didn't live there, they would not be empty; they'd be used as offices or staff headquarters. Anyway you can't pretend the Yorks don't profit from their royal status then turn around and say they're entitled to millions of taxpayer-funded security and free/cheap housing simply for being minor royals. It's unbelievably hypocritical.

So what? Lots of rich parents support their children financially.
Yet more hypocrisy. When it's Harry it's "LOL how dare a 30-something man live off his parents how pathetic and child-like Harry is grow the fuck up Harry it's embarassing to still be supported by your family!!" Please explain why it's embarassing, humiliating, immature, disgusting, pathetic, etc. etc. etc for Harry but perfectly fine and "so what" for other royals?

Just sheer, unbridled hypocrisy. One rule for Harry. One rule for everyone else. Always.

Don't take my post out of context to use for your own agenda please. They didn't get security because they CHOSE to live in the UK. If the lived here they would have continued to have their security paid for. THEIR CHOICE.

The US, they chose to live in the US. Damn it.

They're allowed an opinion privately just not publicly

Of course they are, just like the rest of us

However these particular people aren't like the rest of us, and when "opinions" turn into lobbying power, that's when I start to worry - especially when the lobbying's conveniently placed beyond the reach of the F0I Act

Archie never got security in the UK.

Harry and Meghan were told when they married that there was no money for Meghan and that she would have to continue working to support herself.

The reason they had to leave was because they had to work to finance Archie's security and they weren't allowed to do that in the UK.

Besides the entire reason I brought up security costs is because posters were screeching about how Beatrice and Eugenie don't profit in any way from being royals and don't receive a penny of royal money. Yet funnily enough when I provide proof that's all nonsense, you lot immediately change the argument and start coming up with all sorts of reasons why, actually, it's totally fine for Beatrice and Eugenie to receive royal and taxpaper money.