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

[DaveCoaches]

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!).

But did she charge them lottery winnings type money to tell them how she felt when her father died?

The point being made was about ‘association’. If the Queen can give them a reward, what’s so terrible about H&M ‘associating’ themselves with the bank.

As fir the payment, their money their choice. No one held a gun to their head.

I think for the general public (who ultimately decide whether the RF stays or not) H&Ms actions are having equal impact to PA..

I know you're not endorsing this view at all, but I'm not sure it's true. I think there's a bubble created where it seems they're having an equal impact because in terms of social media, Meghan often seems a more attractive target and with the press, they know that pushing anti-Meghan stories sells (and is 'frothier' rather than wading into ongoing investigations of paedophiles).
I think a lot of the people who see Andrew's behaviour as the most damaging, are just less visible and vocal.

People in their 90s are going to pass away within a few years because that's how the human body works. It can't be laid at the door of family members. And while some people are severely affected by stress, others are immensely resilient to it. Nothing to relate to the Sussexes there.

That does come across rather as if no evidence would ever be good enough!

If the queen herself endorsed them, I’m not sure what you’re looking for.

And how do we know how stressed Queenie is? She is in her 90s for god's sake, she could go at any time and it will have nothing to do with H&M. It will be because her time has come.

I think for the general public (who ultimately decide whether the RF stays or not) H&Ms actions are having equal impact to PA.

This may well be true and is an appalling reflection on human behaviour.

The British public wanted H&M out.

Now that they are out everyone is furious that they might actually get to have a happy, lucrative life away from the tabloids.

The comment about no one having jurisdiction to prevent the use of the word "royal" overseas might just have been in response to false reports that the queen or anyone else had forbidden them to use it. Not necessarily a dig at the queen.

Maybe the queen should focus on Andrew and what he's been up to?

Roussette: Yes to all of that. Embarrassing. And only weeks ago there's Peter Phillips advertising milk on Chinese TV. I wonder what in god's name made him think this was an OK thing to do? It doesn't surprise me that H&M feel a bit miffed that these sort of shenanigans can go on, but their every move is criticised.

The queen needs to nip all that in the bud. Peter Phillips is an indulged embarrassment also. Luckily though he's 15th in line and very low key - rarely in the press, so can't cause much embarrassment even though the milk thing was grubby and shouldn't have been done and was embarrassing for the queen. Imagine though the embarrassment the sixth in line - as we've just been reminded - can cause to the queen, someone who is never out of the press. Grubby deals like the milk thing shouldn't be done by any of them and the Queen should get a handle on that. I think she's trying with H&M thankfully, especially given their higher profile than Peter Phillips so opportunity to do more damage.

i think the idea that H&M will anyway be linked in with PA as causing the early demise is sick (IMO)\they have just left. he is believed to have done really bad stuff( being vague deliberately)
how people can even link the 2 is beyond me.

So the Queen's award negates any other criticism of the company from any other source?

TheMustress: I am, however, surprised that Harry and Meghan seem to be the only members of the RF who (most) people on this thread approve of wholeheartedly.
Nobody is perfect and their behaviour has not always stood up to scrutiny.
Yet on this thread everything they do is lauded. Why?

That's a good point. Always good to turn things around and look at things from another angle. Applies to us all.

annielouse agree with your post

Laurie, I think most banks have good and bad sides. Barclays did an amazing initiative employing army veterans and giving them work experiences. Barclays also currently has a CEO with links to Epstein and four previous bankers under criminal investigation for the fundraising during the crisis. The charitable parts of the big banks can be amazing and should definitely be rewarded. If they had a social mobility program, great that this was recognised!

I just think that they total family (all working royals) should avoid being in any situations where they can be seen as supporting the banks themselves or being thought to accept money (or transport) from the banks.

A private individual does not have those constraints and can have joint programmes, accept charitable donations (or fees) and I don’t think anyone would say that is wrong. Prince Harry (as non working royal, not using his title cooperate in any way), no problem at all. Good for him!! Prince Charles (on sovereign grant), speaking privately at a Barclays/JP Morgan/Deutsche dinner after travelling to another country to get there, opening himself up for criticism.

It's how it came across to me aswell Mustress. It was a real wtaf moment. They'd not thought it through at all

If the people who see Andrew's behaviour as more damaging are less visible and vocal, then surely it isn't as damaging?

The H&M story has caused much more media (including social media) furore than Andrews. Ultimately this is what counts.

It's a sad reflection on our shallow, spiteful and bitter society.

I dislike the whole institution and cannot abide H&M lecturing me on their pet issues btw. That doesn't justify their treatment however.

everyone is furious that they might actually get to have a happy, lucrative life away from the tabloids

I'd actually be very pleased if they managed that. However, the 'lucrative' bit should come from their own efforts and, if necessary, Charles's or other family members' private funds. It shouldn't be achieved at a cost to British residents.

A wider perspective would be good. Had anyone googled 'JP Morgan scandals' before? Its great if it's raising awareness but it would be wrong to just do it to target one couple. Same with climate change and hypocrisy. Yes there's an impact but focusing on one couple isn't effective- it distracts from the rest of the 1% and ordinary people's impact, and lots of companies and their green washing. There's a lot of outrage, that deployed differently, could be a force for good.

Katie: I still doubt they're playing happy families even though HM wasn't being spiteful. They were banking (ha!) on using the term Royal, now they can't and have to be busy rebranding they must be frothing. The statement on their website read like they were stamping their feet at the unfairness

yes, that's how I read it too - that they're not happy and that the queen is being harsh. Is she though? I don't think so. Has the pendulum swung the other way too far - she didn't do enough about PA so has gone the other way with H&M. Then again a lot was out of her hands and seemed to be the government's decision on the brand name etc.

placemarking

Poppy: equally one could choose to be blind to shortcomings if they don’t fit the chosen narrative...

Now that is a good way of putting things.

Rocking, I agree with you!!

I think Prince Andrew’s behaviour (if established) will have a far worse impact. I think that H&M attract a lot of social media discussion, similar to Jeremy Corbyn maybe (praying nobody is offended by the comparison). Then you have a large majority of people who sit at home, no social media, waiting to see what happens, who already quietly finds PA appalling and who would be much more vocal should the investigations prove indecent behaviour.

I agree that their security should be privately funded once they no longer carry out royal duties.

Many of the comments aren't about the funding though. People seem to think that they have a duty to this country and see their departure as a snub. They should hang around, be hounded and eventually "earn" our respect when we decide.

There was a big fuss made about them having registered trademarks for product endorsement etc. This is standard to senior royals and the Cambridges have the same.

So the Queen's award negates any other criticism of the company from any other source?

Nope. Never said that.

This comment from upthread is where the discussion began...

H&M just don't have the team (or sense) to do due diligence about what firms and charities to work with

Yet the company in question was given an honour by the Queen. So okay for her to ‘work with’ them and even honour ... but not okay for them?

It’s ridiculous.

I think people's problem with H&M working with certain companies is that they've been so vocal about certain issues like environmental issues etc.

I don't think the queen has done that. I'm happy to be corrected though.

Harry happy in Edinburgh...