Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Does anyone want a thread for people who are happy for Harry and Meghan? Thread 2

999 replies

DaveCoaches · 23/02/2020 21:26

I wimped out of the other thread title I planned as I thought it might look goady.

But please let’s keep it as the reality-and-let's-avoid-idle-speculation-and-reliance-on-dodgy-sources thread (thanks Seneca!).

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
katiegoestoaldi · 26/02/2020 08:43

Cerseirys you're assuming HM would have known who her middle aged son was hanging out with

LaurieMarlow · 26/02/2020 08:43

you're assuming HM would have known who her middle aged son was hanging out with

The whole world knew Grin

Cerseirys · 26/02/2020 08:44

@katiegoestoaldi Surely she couldn't have missed the photo taken of her son with Epstein after his conviction for sex crimes?

PerfPower · 26/02/2020 08:45

Laurie - I'm sure the royals will have hobnobbed with them before

I wonder if this is the first time they had to pay for the honour though?

katiegoestoaldi · 26/02/2020 08:45

It wasn't widely known until after Epsteins second arrest

GracefulHippo · 26/02/2020 08:50

I think most big institutions were Epstein linked. Barclays was as well. And Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.

My personal issue with JP Morgan is their aggressive structuring and sales. They were at the very forefront of the collateralised lending meltdown, their structuring departments ran in circles around the rating agencies and their sales people seemed to get a lot off the books - and then we had the massive financial crisis Sad

katiegoestoaldi · 26/02/2020 08:50

And anyway, PA and Epsteins relationship wasn't a commercial one, they wouldn't have been doing business together (publicly) in the Royal name

I certainly think with H&M the Queen was much more aware of how wrong things could go and disallowed the use of Royal

Or she might have just been being a spiteful granny, but then they'd hardly be pleased to see each other and be playing happy families while H is on British soil as someone claimed previously

CanIHaveATiaraPlease · 26/02/2020 08:51

I’ve not been on these threads but I’m now homeless Grin & I hope it’s in to say the below. If not please ask for it to be deleted.

Prince Andrew’s behaviour is abhorrent. Even if he didn’t know about Epstein before his conviction there is no excuse to hang around with him after. However HM has effectively ensured he’s been sacked but she should have done that before imo.

Also I used to work for my uncle in the family legal firm. At work he was my boss & I was an employee, out of work my uncle & I was back to being his niece. He would protect the Firm if I’d done wrong & wouldn’t have allowed the Epstein thing to get so far.

The Queen is the boss of the Firm & out of it mum/gran.

LaurieMarlow · 26/02/2020 08:52

I wonder if this is the first time they had to pay for the honour though?

So? Their money their choice.

Anyway for those concerned about the dodgy credentials of JP Morgan, they have sponsorship links with Lords Cricket Ground, The US Open, National Portrait Gallery, Barnardos, and that's just a handful.

So if it’s okay for those organisations, I don’t see why H&M should have thought better of the association.

LaurieMarlow · 26/02/2020 08:55

It wasn't widely known until after Epsteins second arrest

Oh all the points being argued in this thread and others like it Your suggestion that H&Ms association with JP Morgan is somehow more problematic than PAs with Epstein himself is by far the dumbest

GracefulHippo · 26/02/2020 09:09

Laurie, I think a lot of the big banks are dodgy and have done very questionable things. They also have departments for charity and are doing good things - and get good PR in the process. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I do think that as an institution, which gets taxpayers money, the royal family should stay out of it.

I think that is why it is great that H&M are not using their titles and being active members. The royal family can be outside it and they can work with any bank they want. And again, I think they can use any relationship with banks and bankers for good causes and get money for charity Smile

katiegoestoaldi · 26/02/2020 09:10

Where on earth did I say that Laurie?

IrmaFayLear · 26/02/2020 09:10

The thing is that H&M had a bit of bad timing, following the PA debacle. Perhaps a year or two ago associations with banks, wealthy individuals and various brands would have been more acceptable, but now the Palace has woken up and clamped down in case an associate turns out to be dodgy. Even the most well-meant collaboration could go sour or end in disaster if someone suddenly turns out to be a crook or have a less than savoury past.

LaurieMarlow · 26/02/2020 09:13

Where on earth did I say that Laurie?

I said you suggested it.

Why else go into all the semantics about whether the Queen knew or not?

peridito · 26/02/2020 09:16

katie you may find that there is a protocol in threads about H&M whereby it's ok to respond to someone not for what they've said but for what you think they've implied .

peridito · 26/02/2020 09:20

Although re protocols and implications IME on some threads what is NOT ok ,is coming back and arguing that you didn't imply something .

That is seen as derailing and trying to get a thread deleted .

We do really need a special set of rules for some threads .

annielouise · 26/02/2020 09:21

Seneca: There is a lot of confusion around the order of precedence and the notion of who bows and curtsies to whom, most of which has been promulgated by erroneous articles in the tabloid media. Meghan does not have to curtsy to anyone other than the Queen. The order of precedence has to do with who enters the room first, who arrives at a function first or last, etc. HRHs don't bow and curtsy to other HRHs. Kate has been seen to bob slightly to the DoE out of respect, I assume, but that is her choice; it's not demanded by protocol.

Can we have a source for this, please?

It's not just in the tabloid media I've found that there is a hierarchy and that the wife's position is validated by her husband in terms of curtsying but also the Independent and Telegraph.

I can find no source for what you say though - nothing at all.

Having your position validated by your husband must have felt terrible for a stated feminist like Meghan. I would not have married H even based on that expectation, if it is correct. So it would be good for you to share your source so we can debunk that myth at least. Thanks in advance.

LaurieMarlow · 26/02/2020 09:22

Perhaps a year or two ago associations with banks, wealthy individuals and various brands would have been more acceptable

The Royal Family is really going to struggle if they’re forced to limit their contact with wealthy individuals. It’s all they do.

JP Morgan is a perfectly legitimate business with no known scandal attached to it. Suggesting that H&M have been behaved improperly in this association is just further example of finding fault with everything they do.

peridito · 26/02/2020 09:23

yawn 🥱

peridito · 26/02/2020 09:25

not yawning at you Laurie obvs Smile

LaurieMarlow · 26/02/2020 09:25

I knew that Grin

annielouise · 26/02/2020 09:30

Even so, Seneca, you say this: The order of precedence has to do with who enters the room first, who arrives at a function first or last, etc.

Again, there's a hierarchy at play here. So M wasn't supposed to enter a room before H? Certainly not before W&K and C&C.

This must have been hard for her to reconcile in her mind, I'd have thought. An independent woman that has always worked to get where she is having to be told she's basically lower in some respects than some others. How do you go from a feminist where all are equal to biting your lip on that? Although then again she was also seemingly elevated above millions of others by accepting a title - the Duchess of Sussex.

I would find the first hard as a feminist - no one is better than me or should be treated better - but I would also find the second hard, if not harder - I accept I am no better than anyone else and to be so elevated would embarrass me and I would basically feel a fraud as it would go against everything I stood for.

Luckily for H though it was true love and M was able to make these compromises in her mind and behaviour because he was worth it.

annielouise · 26/02/2020 09:34

Roussette: That's your perception and not the view of those on this thread AFAIC.

I don't think there is a hive mind on this thread Roussette, and nor should there be.

Poppy is entitled to her opinion and should not be slammed down (sorry for the hyperbole) for having that.

There might be something in what she says.

annielouise · 26/02/2020 09:40

It seems Thomas Markle has got stopped and has been asked to give his view. It's not positive, unfortunately so most might want to ignore. Just thought I'd warn in case you read the news. It's in a video and opened automatically. Heads down if you don't want to see it.

annielouise · 26/02/2020 09:47

Roussette: I have no idea about her breaking protocol under the guise of feminism??

I think, not sure, Poppy might be talking about M seeming to go ahead of H in various clips while working especially. She did stay behind K at Wimbledon though so does seem to conform at other times.

The hierarchical stuff like curtsying is a load of nonsense, I agree. Not something I could put up with. I doubt Camilla will be bothered if it goes after the Queen dies but I'm not sure about Charles. C has had to wait a long time to get to the 'plum' job, if you could call it that, not sure what else to call it (especially as it will be tinged with the death of someone most dear to him) so he might want to keep a lot of the pomp and ceremony and the fussy little bits that haven't, as yet, kept up with the times of women being equal to men.