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 know where H is staying whilst in the UK without M?
Would guess with family - but whom?

Dowser to respond to your post earlier today, it's possible you may be on the right lines there. There was a view by some commentators that Meghan spent a lot of time fraternising with rich men and was purposefully out to 'get' a rich & famous man to help increase her own riches and fame.

I can't comment on what she wanted from a man.

But her pattern before Harry came along does show imo that she wanted fame, period - for its own worth and not just as a by-product of being really good at her craft.

I don't want UK taxes to be spent on security for M&H who can well afford to pay for it themselves if they deem it necessary.

That money (£20M?) could be spent on the homeless, mental health charities or any one of M&H's favoured charities.

Or on more policing for the rest of us!

I don't think it should go on their charities (although I know that's not what's being said as such), it is not money they are saving us.

It's money they want to take from the public pot without batting an eye lid.

It's an unprecedented expense and it needs to be properly considered, particularly in light of Brexit. It's such a bad move for them not to have indicated that they'd pay for some of it at least.

how wonderfully pragmatic the Swedes are

That was my reaction too Waspie

To be fair it's a bit more nuanced than I posted. I can't remember the exact info Lunde posted but I think she's still on these threads and can clarify.

From memory (though happy to be corrected) when someone is going to be married in a "curriculum" is created for them.

It might take 6 months or 18 months depending on their prior experience/skills and also who they are marrying. For example someone marrying the heir to the throne will need more training than someone marrying the person 8th in line.

That said it sounded fascinating - they study constitutional law, international/diplomatic relations, languages, protocol, security (eg defensive driving/self defence/what to do in a kidnap situation etc) and so on. Personally, I'd love to "attend" Princess to be or not!

Sorry I've cross posted with Lunde.

Thanks for the update/explanation!

FizzyLimes - Does princess Madeleine of Sweden have security; or is the gated community the extent of it

I'm not sure if she has permanent security - certainly nothing like H&M. She doesn't get any public funding at all so any security is paid by the King or her husband.

The Swedes are pretty pragmatic and society emphasizes education and training.

There was an article just before Christmas that Princess School had already started for Princess Estelle (then aged 7) to gradually prepare her for her future role as Queen.

P "What speeches and statements ?"

H's Sentable speech and the most recently issued statement following the announcement that they can no longer use the word "royal".

Both have been (imho) quite rightly criticised for their tone not just on this thread but by reputable commentators/press (by which I mean not just the tabloids).

Obviously you are at liberty to listen/read and draw your own conclusions as to the content but in my opinion (and I am far from alone) their was more than a whiff of petulance and peevishness that was both unnecessary and to their detriment (especially when contrasted with the very measured and even loving statements issued by the Palace).

I still think the basic conflict is that Harry and Meghan want to be "progressive cultural influencers" in the vein of, say, Michelle Obama or Angelina Jolie, and not staid old ribbon cutters as the royals are really required to be.

I don't think they can be the former and represent the monarchy, which for good or for ill, has to be above party politics and represent every citizen of the country, regardless of their social, cultural and political opinions. They have to support causes than bring everyone together, boring as these often are.

There's a reason Charles got into trouble for the spider memos. A constitutional one. And it also applies to Meghan and Harry whose proposed "foundation" is probably a better fit in North America than it is here.

he is royal by virtue of his birth

Until now, this idea has been generally accepted by the public as a truth, but when you stand back and consider it ... what does it actually mean?

Zara Phillips is royal by virtue of her birth ... only she's not, is she? Princess Anne decided to unroyal her and her brother. If that can happen, then Harry can be unroyalled too.

For "by virtue of his birth" verges into divine right territory, a kind of "ordained by destiny into extraordinary privilege and power" aspect. We had a civil war and beheaded a King over these kinds of claims 400 years ago. The only reason why we are not still a Commonwealth is because after Cromwell died, we hadn't developed a new non-monarchical, non-hereditary system of replacement for a Head of State so we had to ask Charles II to come back and fill in, and things just carried on from there with the occasional disaster that has repercussions to this day (ahem William of Orange).

This sort of muddle of monarchial models is why we've just had a few pages of discussion about what exactly members of the Royal Family think being royal is versus what the public think it is.

I’ve said it before but I don’t mind paying my £1 a year or 55p or whatever it is for H&M’s security. I think they’re targets and I don’t want ‘em dead. I don’t even want them shouted at. I saw a horrible video of a woman shouting something very personal and aggressive at her when she was going from her highly publicised hotel to her car on her baby shower weekend. I can’t remember what was said but I winced.

Harry will have booked his £12k train carriage to avoid the criticism of taking a flight. Should have booked a whole standard class carriage to himself to reduce DM moaning. I don’t know what else they wanted him to do though. Drive? Apparate? Walk?

He also looks extremely trim these days!

Someone said earlier that MM made Kate cry on her wedding day. She didn’t. The report at the time said that Kate was in tears at one of Charlotte’s flower girl dress trying on sessions. At the time, it was said she was just very emotional as she had literally just given birth. It wasn’t that MM made her cry.

I can’t wait til April 1st. Let them please go and give us some positive column inches on Princess Anne and Sophie working their socks off in various damp muddy locations.

Not happy to pay for their security whilst they coin it charging huge fees for appearances and interviews. They wanted to be free, let 'em go. Daddy Chuck can keep fronting them money and we always hear how hard-working Meghan is, she can get grafting.

That is so interesting Lunde, thanks for repeating your post for us late arrivals to these threads.

Perhaps with some slight tweaking of the curriculum it could be offered to the wider world (by wider world I really mean the UK)?

@Winterlife
@perdito So you don't read their statements, yet you post that they "didn't say X or Y'. OK.

That's a bit of a spin .I said I don't read Instagram.You'll know from my previous posts that I read their website and listen to their public speeches .

I've disagreed that H&M have been "so public and vocal about hating their royal life" and asked where on the website ( because that's where I was told to look ) were they making demands .

I don't know anything about Instagram but I presume ,as no one has copied the barbed statements that show them to be pissed off,that it's not possible to reproduce examples on here ,

Packing good post .

This sort of muddle of monarchial models is why we've just had a few pages of discussion about what exactly members of the Royal Family think being royal is versus what the public think it is.

I also agree that if they have the money they should pay for their own security. Everyone in the UK has to pay for their care if they have the money, selling their only asset which is their home. Harry didn’t choose to be a prince, but no-one chooses to need care. He does on the other hand have choices. I think it’s obvious Meghan did one the fame and the money. This isn’t a criticism, some people are money motivated. Maybe it’s the environment she was brought up in with both her parents having been declared bankrupt.

I don't want to pay for their security.

It will only cost me a quid a year? That's too vague and simplistic and I don't believe it. I pay enough taxes already thanks.

Princess Anne decided to unroyal her and her brother.

Not really. Her children are not royal because of the inherent sexism in the way titles are passed down. The children of her brothers are all HRHs (inlcuding Edward's although they don't use their royal titles). In the British RF a princess cannot generally pass a title to her children, but a prince can. George VI had to issue special Letters Patent so that Charles and Anne were HRHs when born to then Princess Elizabeth.

Yes I’m also not buying £1/year. Think that doesn’t take account all the “soft” costs associated with monarchy such as the tax breaks. Also, why should this one family have £1 from everyone ... why don’t we instead set up a charitable trust. Would be better and achieve more good in the world!

As a bit of light relief, here's an excerpt from Celebrity Watch by Caitlin Moran in the Times. As far as I'm aware, she's always written very positively about H&M, so I assume this is a gentle tease rather than a "bash" as any criticism seems to be called:

Always ready to be useful, I have compiled a list of alternative descriptors the duke and duchess* could use. "Regal" is more of a vibe than an actual status; likewise "noble" - they just suggest you have very good posture and slender ankles, rather than a claim to the throne.
To be more modern, relaxed and truthful about being a member of the aristocracy, you could use "Sussex Rich", "Sussex Posh" or "Sussex Fancy", which would bring a bit of fun to the proceedings.
Were I them, though, I'd go for "Sussex Lah-Di-Dah", which would look great on a line of cupcakes or underwear, for example.

*Lower case t's and d's are Ms Moran's.

Phew! Bloody Times paywall - would've been so much easier to post a link.
Still, Mr LaM is watching the rugby, so this whiled away the time...

I've always been a monarchist. I don't begrudge paying £1 a year, or whatever it is, in the slightest. I wouldn't mind paying more, actually, to fund the Royal Family for what they bring to this country/Commonwealth.
But do I fuck want to pay for Harry & Meghan to piss off abroad and make millions for their own benefit.

But the Queen offered Anne titles for her then husband and, when born, the children. She declined. They could have had the full Monty. In comparison, we have recently seen it reported that the Queen offered the opposite choice to Harry and Meghan so that they could live without titles, and they declined that.

There's no way it will be as low as £1 a year with overseas living, and in any case it should be properly costed. It would also have done them some good, in that statement about the 'transition' to have said that part of their aim for financial independence was to relieve the public of as much of their security costs as possible.

peridito the Instagram statement is also on their website at
sussexroyal.com/spring-2020-transition/
You said you'd read the website, so I think this comes down to you interpreting it very much in your preferred direction, while many other people see it differently. I think it's unlikely anyone will really shift on that, so there we are.