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!).

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

To be honest, I don't really know what public opinion on this is anymore!

Originally, before I started to pay more attention to the anti-Meghan stuff - I assumed most people felt like the people I know in real life: good on H&M to make choices for themselves but not that interested/ disgusted by Andrew, more likely to make reference to it on Twitter etc

Now it does seem, from other threads here and some really horrible stuff in other parts of the media that people are disproportionately invested in Meghan and her actions. So I agree It's a sad reflection on our shallow, spiteful and bitter society but I'm just not sure how widespread that disproportionate feeling is.

I am disgusted by the view that Meghan's actions are in anyway similar to Andrew's abhorrent behaviour, and how the media coverage.

I was initially supportive until I saw their (original) website. I felt they had really shafted boring and ordinary people and tedious and inconvenient events. They were all for representing the Queen abroad and doing prestigious stuff in or near London, but wanted to dump all the workaday crap. Who wouldn't?! But life isn't like that, no matter who you are.

Yes, Graceful- I agree with your point there too!

Enclyo: I don't think the need to be lauded at every turn, but because they are being slammed and criticised at every turn I feel the need to stick up for them a bit.

But fair criticism should be allowed. If she did break protocol - no matter what we think of that protocol and how ridiculous it is to us - then it should be up for criticism. Presumably the Queen doesn't think the minor things are ridiculous or she'd change them. It's not for M or us or anyone but the RF to decide what the protocol is. You marry into it you get on with it or you petition the queen over breakfast to change it. You don't take it upon yourself to change it without getting permission first (just had a thought was that the thought process with what was done with the statement saying they were leaving? i.e. do it and seek permission after).

I do wonder how much the sticking up for her over things that she shouldn't necessarily be stuck up for strengthened the resolve of people that could see some problems. Those that don't want to hear anything bad about her dug their heels in, defended stuff in the face of all logic, got the backs up of others that wanted to make a point but not belabour it and who then make their point harder in response to disengenuous responses from defenders. End result no one is listening to anyone.

Roussette does acknowledge above though that they didn't always handle things right and they made some clangers! Progress

Ah, because that seemed to be related to the statement you made earlier that there was no scandal attached to J P Morgan. So when you said ' If the queen herself endorsed them, I’m not sure what you’re looking for' that seemed to mean that her endorsement negated any criticism of them as an organisation. Glad to see that's not what you think.

I'm happy to apply the same standard to both the Queen and the Sussexes and say that neither should really be associating themselves with big banks that have engaged in questionable practices. I suppose we could ask, though, to what extent awards made in the Queen's name reflect her personal judgement, or where they are an administrative consequence of her role as monarch?

Yet on this thread everything they do is lauded.

I do know that they aren't perfect. No one is. This thread and its predecessor were started as a modest antidote to the negativity elsewhere, so yes, there has been more attention to viewing Meghan and Harry in a more positive light.

Every I think actually everyone is happy for them to have a happy lucrative life outside the royal family IF they truly are outside of the RF! This means NO money from the taxpayer, including security, and no use of titles. I don’t think this is an unfair expectation. You wouldn’t leave a job and expect to keep your company car for example

Laurie: All those interested in painting JP Morgan as a dreadful business that no royal would have any associations with might be interested to learn that the Queen honoured it with an award.

Haha, but she's given PA loads of awards too which shows her judgement isn't always spot on. She also knighted Mugabe (although I think that was removed)!. Looking deeper, JP Morgan is a bank. The queen is rich. She's also reportedly stingy. The RF needs lots of money to run. Some kind of connection here possibly for the award?

The RF seems to lie down with dogs sometimes.

The idea that they didn't always handle things right has been acknowledged often from myself and other posters, from the very beginning you'll be overjoyed to hear! I don't think there's be any shortage of criticism allowed either!

You have a very definite view of what should be allowed with relation to the protocols with the Royal Family, Annie, so it's understandable that you're upset. Everyone has their own views, and I think change is inevitable and it won't be up to just the Royal Family to decide.

I suppose we could ask, though, to what extent awards made in the Queen's name reflect her personal judgement, or where they are an administrative consequence of her role as monarch?

Isn’t the whole point that those two functions are to some degree one and the same?

What is she doing if the ‘role’ endorses something she doesn’t support personally?

What I'm saying Laurie is despite an award there has been scandal attached to JP Morgan - not "no known scandal" as you said. And the queen always doesn't get it right and the RF often has its own motivations for things, including handing out awards. It's naive not to think that doesn't happen.

The idea that any bank is without scandal and questionable practices is laughable.

The idea that the royal family is without scandal and a history of exploitation is laughable.

A match made in heaven.

The RF seems to lie down with dogs sometimes.

Well exactly. Why are H&M continually held to different standards?

Seems that award was for JP Morgan's work on social mobility. I suppose it goes some way to repairing the following scandal:

"Sons and Daughters" hiring program
In November 2016, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay $264 million in fines to settle civil and criminal charges involving a systematic bribery scheme spanning 2006 to 2013 in which the bank secured business deals in Hong Kong by agreeing to hire hundreds of friends and relatives of Chinese government officials, resulting in more than $100 million in revenue for the bank."

Annie I do wonder how much the sticking up for her over things that she shouldn't necessarily be stuck up for strengthened the resolve of people that could see some problems. Those that don't want to hear anything bad about her dug their heels in, defended stuff in the face of all logic, got the backs up of others that wanted to make a point but not belabour it and who then make their point harder in response to disengenuous responses from defenders. End result no one is listening to anyone.

I certainly do not stick up for them in the face of all logic. They've made many a misstep. I just don't agree that everything should be used as a stick to beat them with, and that's what the media and other commentators have done IMO. When I see bullying and cruelty I call it out.

Why are H&M continually held to different standards? I think this is an important question.

They've made many a misstep. What are these missteps?

Buttery: not sure it's being 'interested in painting them' a certain way to look at what search results show us. That does come across rather as if no evidence would ever be good enough!

Yes, an award from the queen for something minor doesn't mean there is "no known scandal attached to them".

Isn’t the whole point that those two functions are to some degree one and the same?

What is she doing if the ‘role’ endorses something she doesn’t support personally?

Good question. Do you think the award to J P Morgan was something she supported personally? And if not, what was she doing in awarding it?

Good to see Harry hugging it out in Edinburgh!

Yes, an award from the queen for something minor doesn't mean there is "no known scandal attached to them".

Correct. I withdraw that comment about no known scandal.

annielouise You asked earlier for me to provide sources for my assertion that the HRHs don't bow and curtsy to other HRHs who are higher in the order of precedence. This is based on my knowledge of history and protocol. That article you cited is incorrect insofar as it discusses bowing and curtsying.

The best proof is observation. There are no photos or video of any of them bowing or curtsying to anyone other than the Queen, except for Kate doing a slight bob on one occasion to Philip, which I assume she did out of respect, rather than protocol.

Why are H&M continually held to different standards?I think this is an important question.

Ok, let's look at this. What are the main areas in which people feel the Sussexes are held to different standards than other Royals?

I actually think one area where there's been more parity is on the environmental crisis. The Sussexes and Charles have both taken a public position of encouraging people to change their behaviour to be more green. All of them have been criticised at points where it is felt they are not practising what they preach. But interested to see analysis and evidence showing something different.

TheNavigator: Two people in a happy marriage wanting to distance themselves from that crap is hardly the most stressful thing in Liz's life.

I have to disagree. It's not about what has been the most stressful thing in her life. She's had her stresses for sure over her reign. Probably the most stressful one in terms of the public's acceptance and grace towards the RF was the handling of Diana's death. H&M leaving is not up there for sure in the stress levels but it is a pretty big situation that reflects on the RF, especially coming after the even bigger scandal of PA. More so in this day and age when, like the Church, the RF could be seen as not being as relevant to people of the modern day.

Yes, I'm sure she's stressed. Not good for her health but she and PP have the best physician's I'm sure. It would be unfortunate for H&M if either of them died right now as there would be some parts of the press who would try to turn that around on them. People like to find someone to blame. At the least it'll be said in reports that the scandals of recent years can't have helped.

This thread just highlights how ridiculous the whole institution is in this day and age.

The H&M situation seems to have made the Cambridges more popular. What a shame when it could have gone the other way and put an end to the monarchy for good.