Harry and Meghan what they’ll do next

[PelicanPie]

Let’s strive to keep on topic and not engage with posts designed to disrupt.

Does anyone have definitive info as to how much protection for H&M in the UK actually cost ?

6 full time officers at £100kmeach
£600k pa.

Very thoughtful posts, @Packing and @Bygaslight.

we badly need a national conversation about the Royal Family and what the definitions and parameters actually are
...And, for it to be fair, it needs to happen without all the heat and outrage. It needs to not focus on the institution and not one couple

Probably a couple of the most insightful posts so far, recognising that what may have worked when the peasants could be ignored and the RF could hush up whatever they chose simply doesn't "fit" our current times

It's a huge subject and nobody pretends it would be easy, but despite the Queen's much-quoted remark that "we'd go quietly", let's not imagine that they wouldn't fight to keep every last privilege

Oh, they'd fight like hell ...

I’m wondering how many protection officers Harry has to fill a first class carriage? Bloody ridiculous

* Does anyone have definitive info as to how much protection for H&M in the UK actually cost ?

6 full time officers at £100kmeach
£600k pa.*

Plus travel and accommodation costs and the costs of back up. No idea what that would be.

Absolutely agree with Packing and DateLoaf.

PelicanPie

I’m wondering how many protection officers Harry has to fill a first class carriage? Bloody ridiculous

The hypocrisy of that, following the preachy preachy stuff at other people, is breathtaking.

Incidentally, re a previous post, feeling outraged and heated is a natural reaction to this utter profligacy.

I agree that this whole business, coupled with Andrew's shenanigans has put the RF under a microscope. A lot of people are now questioning the whole institution, looking at the costs and the privilege in much more detail. I know I am. W and K and PC are all over the place at the moment, trying desperately to claw back some positive opinion and press coverage.
Really, in the modern day the whole system is inexcusably expensive and indulgent. It is a total anachronism. Somehow in the past we might have noticed a couple of items in the news, enjoyed the Royal weddings, and not thought too much about it. Those days are gone.

Totally agree pelican. I mean Charles and William seem a safe pair of hands but imagine if Andrew had been the heir 😱

Great posts from Packing, Date and others. This should start a national questioning.

Delurking to say this thread is interesting! I didn’t know about this board until a few days ago, I came looking for some opinions given recent events. I couldn’t quite figure out what was going on by looking at the headlines and the odd statement. I mostly look at the pictures as I rather like Megan’s clothes.

I became a bit confused at the time of the Canada House appearance which just seemed to me (from photos) overly exuberant and grateful as I thought it was a private holiday. The when they said they wanted to step back I kind of understood they wanted to have more of a connection with Canada and live a quiet life as a family there.

But the more recent reports seem to suggest something still quite high profile and ambitious. What is the plan then?!

Please keep posting the differing opinions I’m intrigued!

Yes, as DateLoaf says, we are being presented with three competing models for the monarchy.

1. "Inherited by divine right": royal life can be lived as the inheritor sees fit with status and support never lost, aka. I do what I want.
2. It's a job with T&C, boundaries and a kind of "salary" in state funding.
3. It's a vocation ordained by God and to be "suffered".

The Queen seems to go for 3, along with possibly Charles, and maybe William and Kathryn.

Beatrice, Eugenia, Anne, Zara, Edward and Sophie seem to go for 2.

Harry, Andrew, Margaret (to some extent) and the old Duke of Windsor (until his rude awakening that he never quite accepted) seemed to think it was 1, as did the Queen Mother (with said suffering eased through plenty of help from Dubonnet and gin).

The weird thing here is that I don't think Megan thought it was any of those models. I suspect she thought it was more like a version of the US presidential model, just larger, with bits of responsible celebrity thrown in. A bit like a cross between a former FLOTUS and Oprah, where she'd be a kind of modern Betty Ford figure, using her personal experiences to advocate for cultural and social change.

This explains why she may not have understood how stepping down from royal duty changed the landscape, because that kinda doesn't happen to former First Ladies. People still want to see and hear from Michelle Obama, for example, and being a former FLOTUS didn't stop Hilary doing what she wanted to do.

It also explains why she apparently thought it an idea to discuss the issue with the Obamas, because that kind of model of former public figure is possibly her only reference. Add the unique Diana situation to that, and you can see how she may have misunderstood her predicament.

And it also explains why the couple seem to think that Harry is "always going to be Royal", much like a former POTUS is always going to be a former POTUS. There's a monumental misunderstanding of the situation going on.

The thing is that the Queen and her aides should have nailed this all down years ago. After all, they had the Duke of Windsor situation right at the beginning of her reign, and it was clear the problem was still there, albeit in a different form with Margaret (who the Queen seems to have played hardball with).

And we got it again with Andrew and now with Harry. The problem needs fixing; otherwise the Monarchy may very well not survive.

Just been looking at the footage of Harry's day with Bon Jovi etc. He looks happy and relaxed . The cameras don't appear to be bothering him during the Abbey Road shots, so why when he's with Meghan does he always look so utterly miserable?

packing totally agree. I've thought this all along. Harry is always being accused of being thick. However, at times I wonder if it's actually M who is thick. The evidence was all around her. She only had to observe and use some common sense.

Well it’s Friday and the sun is way over the yard arm so Packing’s talk of Dubonnet and gin is making me thirsty. Chin chin!

www.tastingtable.com/drinks/national/gin-dubonnet-queens-favorite-cocktail

The thing is that the Queen and her aides should have nailed this all down years ago. After all, they had the Duke of Windsor situation right at the beginning of her reign, and it was clear the problem was still there, albeit in a different form with Margaret (who the Queen seems to have played hardball with).

To be fair, I think PC did try and address the issue.

It was reported after H&M's announcement that H had discussed this "concept" with his father.

PC's reaction was to say OK why don't you think about it further and come back with a detailed plan that we can discuss.

The idea being that this would allow H&M to fully understand the ramifications of what they were requesting and it's limitations before arriving at a final decision.

The problem was that H&M jumped the gun so those private discussions were never had.

As such it's all been played out in public.

Had it not been it's hard to say if H&M would have chosen this path knowing what they do now. But it's a very hard position to row back from both emotionally and as a matter of pride now it's in the public domain.

Had they taken PC's lead, all these issues of titles, security, funding etc could have been talked through and whatever H&M decided could have been presented in a positive light.

Fundamentally they didn't grasp the consequences of what they were demanding because they didn't talk to anyone other than each other and their inner circle.

They chose not to engage with people who could help them understand the limitations (and freedoms) of an ex-royal life - because they never fit one minute assumed "stepping down as senior royals" had to mean relinquishing being royal altogether.

They over reached because they didn't understand the game and now they are left without their best cards and are frantically trying to work out how to make that into a winning hand.

Great summary @Packingsoapandwater

It would appear that the 2nd in line seem to be the problem:
Margaret; Andrew and Harry.

I thought Harry had been given a very interesting role. Commonwealth youth Ambassador and Meghan was given a complementary one.
Given Harry’s long term interest in Africa, and meghan's purported interest, they should have given them status and meaning, and was in line with the “boots on the ground” and commonwealth they discussed in their engagement interview.

The pair of them have been impulsive, and for whatever reasons have not heeded advice.

Great breakdown Packing. I think the UK should decide which model makes sense for them should they choose to continue with a royal family. I can only see option 2 as feasible and capable of justifying the huge public expense and benefits. But would be curious if the general sentiment also went this way.

"A bit like a cross between a former FLOTUS and Oprah, where she'd be a kind of modern Betty Ford figure, using her personal experiences to advocate for cultural and social change." Spot on Packing

I genuinely don't blame her for not understanding the role of the Royal Family in British society, or event the wider commonwealth. She is American and they have nothing even vaguely similar. The presidents and their first ladies are not the same at all. They are, and will always be, political roles centred around effecting social change by virtue of their names and previous positions. Largely these women are intelligent, articulate and very driven. But they are nothing like our royal family which is completely apolitical, their positions are accidental by virtue of their birth and they are the puppets of diplomacy and government. We've seen them used this way so often - nasty war? Let's have a royal wedding! Austerity? Oooh the Queen's 90 let's have a street party.

I don't know if this was MM's idea of what marrying royalty would be like. I feel for her because even if she thought she understood she clearly didn't see much beyond the enormous glamourous wedding and ideas of touring the world making it a better place by hugging sick children and smiling a lot. She, and Prince Harry (although he should know better), should have been protected, educated, moulded and guided slowly into the life of being a senior royal. From PP I understand that this is what happened to Prince William and his wife.

It is the perfect time to have the conversation about the role of the monarchy once HMQ dies. It needs to be defined and very much slimmed down if it is to survive. The Norwegian royal family could be a template for this.

I'd just like to say that if in the new world order the tiara's are going begging, I'd like the girls of GB and Ireland please

The Queen had this issue with Edward and Sophie in the early days of their marriage, about 20 years ago.
She wanted to continue her work in PR and Edward wanted to run his production company.
Edward lost loads of money and Sophie had the fake sheik sting.
They gave up commercial work and became full time members of the RF.

Problem with the Sussexes is that they have been so public and vocal about hating their royal life, that without eating huge amounts of humble pie ; there is really no road back.

If they go back to the RF and public service, they will have to suck up the boring stuff; but worse, they will be criticised for years to come as they have both revealed so much of their true selves.

If they try and make a life outside the RF, they must accept that they will be “ordinary wealthy people” eg like the ex Greek RF who live in houses in Chelsea or Hampstead. Not A list billionaire rich like Oprah / Clooneys etc.

She, and Prince Harry (although he should know better), should have been protected, educated, moulded and guided slowly into the life of being a senior royal.

It's been reported that M repeatedly turned down offers of help from the Palace to help her do just this and wanted to "hit the ground running".

It's already been mentioned that due to age they didn't (if they wanted to start a family) have the same luxury of time as did W&K and indeed E&S to ease gently into the family and that's a very fair point.

That said I think no one would have batted an eyelid if after they were married it was announced that they were going to take a "sabbatical" from Royal duties (or just perform very limited duties) to allow them time/privacy to start their married life (much in the vein as HMQ did during her time in Malta and W&C did in Anglesea where their privacy was largely respected by the press and public alike).

However they didn't want this. There's no getting around the fact that they do want very much to be in the public eye. They just want that on their terms.

Rainbow,to me ,H&M remaining silent on the subject of financing their security is not the same as them demanding that tax payers do .

Cuttinggrass ,Drina, ( and alsoFizzylimes ) it's not a question of deserving ,of entitlement ,or audacity - Harry will (IMO) need security because he is not just another grandson of the Queen . He's the son and brother of future Kings and ,as others have said ,his mother died in circumstances which better protection ( and wearing a seatbelt) might have prevented .

Thanks for the figures of £600000 for protection for H&M in the UK .

So the thinking is that they will need 3 times that now .

Any savings to be factored in for no longer being required to represent the Commonwealth or carry out official duties ?

Yes he need security @peridito.

The question is if he no longer wants to be royal who should pay for it?

Moreover does that give him the right to demand security that is far in excess (from a cost perspective) that he is the recipient of already as a direct result of lifestyle choices he wants to make?

I think most people would be happy with maintaining security at current levels regardless of his Royal status because of who is is (grandson of the monarch and son/brother of future monarchs).

However the notion that the taxpayer should pay an estimated £20m rather £3m per year is frankly ridiculous.