Does anyone want a thread for people who are happy for Harry and Meghan?

[DaveCoaches]

Just seeing if there’s any interest. I think they have their faults but I think this may turn out to be a good thing long term. Anyone want to join in?

I think he's best off keeping silent .It's clear that anything he does say will be picked apart ,reported out of context ,misrepresented.

Totally agree perdito.

Neither of them can do right for doing wrong at the moment. They could give everything up, go and live in a hut somewhere remote, give everything away and lead a simple life and they'd be accused of attention seeking. They can't win so silence is golden AFAIC

Agree, dignified silence.

Hi, all. I've joined Mumsnet specifically for this thread! So thanks, DaveCoaches.

I have been very alarmed by the other threads, not least the detachment from reality which is in evidence. I personally am a big fan of MM but that is by the by - no-one without an agenda could say that she has been fairly treated by the press, or not treated any worse than other royal wives (although that is a very low bar indeed). The framing of the whole story, by the wider media, not just printed and online newspapers, is also problematic and unfair. And it has raised much bigger issues than the misery of two individuals.
Harry has been ambivalent about being a member of the RF for years - that is well documented. Meghan has endured vilification that would have broken me, all without support except from Harry. They (especially MM) have contributed a lot in a couple of years, not least the success of the Oceania tour which will benefit the rest of the Royal Family for years to come, but no one should have to work in those conditions, much less bring up a child. So I applaud their decision. As we now now, the news wasn't a bombshell, it was just the timing of going public with it that was rushed because their plans were leaked to the Sun and they wanted to try and control the presentation. I will miss them, I think a "part-time" model could have been worked out, but hey.
Anyway, thanks again to the OP for providing a vitriol-free space to chat about this.

I have been thinking about this for a bit. What would cause adults to become so wrapped up an issue they know nothing about and proceed to make some of the most viscous posts I have ever seen.

The demonising of this young family clearly goes beyond the simple “concern” for the monarchy.

SeasideChloe Welcome! And yes kudos to DaveCoaches for starting the thread.

So agree with your analysis. That is just how I feel. I honestly think MM is a huge loss to our country, such a shame that it had to be this way.

And yes... it wasn't ideal how they broke the news, their hands were tied as it were.

The demonising of this young family clearly goes beyond the simple “concern” for the monarchy

I agree. And god forbid anything happens to the Queen or PP in the not too distant future because H&M will be vilified even more.

Roussette I was thinking the same thing! Please don let the Queen or the DofE die anytime soon. The headlines will all screech “Meghan Markle blamed for death of beloved Queen”

I think 2 years would be safe. Surely no one can blame them 2 years on...
On second thoughts...

Seaside oh I didn’t know the press were threatening them. Bloody hell.

And my tuppence on money issues...

1. Public money =/= taxpayers' money

The Sovereign Grant and the revenues from the Privy Purse/Duchy of Lancaster are used to discharge the Queen's official duties - the public engagements, travel, staff, etc. Both these sources of funding are the profits of businesses, properties, mines etc, NOT from the taxpayer. Any other royals carrying out engagements on the Queen's behalf get those expenses paid for. The Queen holds the Crown Estate (a multi-billion pound portfolio of land and businesses) in trust for the nation and is under a legal duty to use the Sovereign Grant (a proportion of the revenue from that portfolio) to maintain royal properties which are part of the Crown Estate, which includes all of Windsor Great Park and of course Frogmore Cottage. So there is no need for H&M to repay the money spent refurbishing it. If they do, it won't go back to taxpayers anyway, because that's not where it came from. It would just be spent by the Queen on refurbishing somewhere else, or on travel expenses. But I can see why they would choose to repay it, just to shut people up. The allowance they (and William & Kate) get from the Duchy of Cornwall (Prince Charles) is private wealth - not from the taxpayer or public funds.

1. Taxpayers are only funding their security - like everyone else in the RF and all sorts of other people including Cameron, Blair, etc.

1. Their personal wealth is neither here nor there.

She made all her money by hard graft, he inherited his from Diana. (There's a whole different conversation to have about that, but my point is that it's not public or taxpayers' money). If they were complaining about the size of their dressing allowance, or how many nannies of holidays they get, they could sod off, but that's not the problem.

1. They never asked to do less work for the same money

The allowance from the Sovereign Grant , which covers expenses, would have reduced anyway in line with the reduced duties. IMO, they basically wanted to work in a way which would enable them not to have to live here all the time. When the Queen rejected the half-in, half-out model, they offered to work for the Queen without drawing any public funds, but that was also rejected.

Info re sources of funding taken from royal family website, other info from public statements of Queen, H&M, papers submitted to the court in Meghan's court case (via Byline Times) and Harry's speech at Sentabale dinner.

And I totally agree that the press will blame H&M if a 93-year-old woman dies, btw.

Seaside there is so much ignorance out there on the public money side of it. Those that are looking to stick the knife in just bleat on about taxpayers money. It's tedious.

And as for security, yes!

Thank you for your clear and informative post

Hi, Roussette and Autumn rose - thanks for the welcome!

Oh... and I read somewhere that the Queen had to do up Frogmore because it needed work doing on it. Wish I could find that article, unfortunately it's been superseded by the dross. It was a while ago
And also, not hearsay but fact, H&M bought all the interior fixtures and fittings themselves.

Rousette oh was that from me?

I can’t find it, but long before I even knew about Harry and MM, I had an email from a historical association- yes I’m sad - who mentioned that Frogmore was being altered. Even the, they are repaying some alteration money?

I think I mentioned it as it’s possibly one of their legal cases, printing lies about their expenditure?

Honestly, if I thought there was any appetite for a privacy law I’d be campaigning.

That said, I also recall Geoffrey Robinson QC saying that under the existing law, the raid of Cliff Richard’s house on TV should never have happened.

Bloody gutter press.

That is correct, Roussette. And morever, the renovation of Frogmore Cottage had already begun! It is in the papers which MM's solicitors submitted to the court in the M vs MoS case. Brian Cathcart of Byline Times' twitter account will get you to the source material.

According to their papers, they had a choice between Frogmore Cottage (5 bedrooms, £2.4 million to renovate) and Apartment 1A Kensington Palace (bigger, £4 million to renovate). They chose Frogmore and paid for the fittings, fixtures and furnishings. And no £5,000 copper baths or special sounproofing or orangeries - total fiction from the MoS.

Just working out how to get a name to appear in bold... @Roussette

Yay!

Done it! Or if you just want to bold something without the @ you just put a * either side of the word.

AutumnRose I can't remember where I read it but as I have a brain full of spaghetti all jumbled up, that's not surprising

So what you're both saying is... anyone can make up any old lies and people believe it.

Hi Seaside. Thanks for an informative post, so refreshing to read something that is not spouting gutter press lies
Rousette a tad off topic but I bought my wedding shoes this afternoon so I'm really buzzing

Roussette "anyone can make up any old lies and people believe it."

Precisely.

And what is so insidious about the vilification in newspapers or online, is how it affects people who are not normally interested in the RF or never read the tabloids/Telegraph. You see a negative story - the headlines of the newspapers at the checkout, the article on twitter that you scroll past - and even though sensible people take them with a pinch of salt, it still enters your consciousness and leaves a negative impression because you think, oh they have just exaggerated a bit. Whereas the story is most likely totally untrue or at best a gross misrepresentation. So the reach of the hate campaign goes well beyond the circulation of these papers. That would be the most upsetting part for me.

And brilliant post from Rockingchaircandle earlier about normalising abuse, btw.

Fab Portia !

Wear them in round the house but don't take the bins out with them on we are a sea of mud here

Exactly Seaside I've always hated the phrase 'there's no smoke without fire' because it doesn't always apply!