Meghan and Harry Debacle part 2

[RosesandIris]

New thread

Has anyone seen that Lady Colin Campbell has written a book on Harry and Meghan using insider information. Apparently she’s has members of the Markle family to stay. She’s brave!

@ButteryPuffin a couple of PR professionals have commented on these threads that they seem to be the kind of clients who ask for advice, then ignore it.

Trump made it clear that America would not be paying for their security so it is being privately funded

How so? I believe the couple said something about "no longer being reliant on public funds", but frankly I'd like a bit more reassurance than their own word

It's my understanding the UK government has not commented on the funding, stating that security issues are never commented on. So, it appears to me, you don't truly know if the British taxpayer is still funding H&M's security in full, or in part.

I suppose my question is: why don't H & M do this?

That it, indeed, a great question. Why don't they do this? I suspect it’s because Meghan came into the marriage as an activist. She wanted to be provocative, to make changes and to disrupt the systemic status quo. She didn’t have Fergie’s problem - wanting to fall in with the system but not knowing how, thus needing agency help. M did not want to toe the line to begin with. She wanted to disrupt the line.

Meghan never wanted to fit into the RF. She wanted the RF to fit into her.

I always got the impression she was a bit embarrassed of the institution, it is the opposite of the 'woke' and 'feminist' ideology of her Hollywood idols. Imagine lecturing people on feminism etc while being seen sharing a balcony with Andrew so she settled for being the revolutionary instead, knowing that rebelling against the traditions would appease the hollywood lefties. I don't think she cares about the British public's opinion or whether the RF like her, I think she always wanted to move back to the States so we are not her target audience.

Winterlife - I was referring to the Royal family rather than other newspaper articles, but I suppose the same could apply. If it's in the public interest fine, but whilst it may be true that MM touched her baby bump, it makes no différence to anyone else how many times she did it. The same back in 1980s with Sarah Ferguson, yes it was true she'd put on weight but it should never had been used as a "news" story, especially with the brutal headline that was printed.

Mamamia, if people weren't interested, tabloids wouldn't print those stories. They print them because they sell newspapers/get clicks.

I just don't think newspapers should be told what they can or cannot print. Who gets to decide "what's in the public interest"?

I lived in a country that did decide what could be printed or disseminated. The end result is always repression and jailing of those who "think" differently.

I don't think she cares about the British public's opinion or whether the RF like her

Oh she cares alright, there’s a compulsory need to be adored and revered there. It’s just that when that doesn’t happen there’s some mental gymnastics (didn’t need you anyway, sour grapes style ), and a massive flounce with metaphorical door slam and a YOUR LOSS shout.

It's my understanding the UK government has not commented on the funding, stating that security issues are never commented on. So, it appears to me, you don't truly know if the British taxpayer is still funding H&M's security in full, or in part

I seem to recall reading the same, Winterlife, and thinking "how convenient"
Obviously I get that they won't comment on details of the security itself, but I see no reason to conceal what it costs and suspect the real cause of this is RF pressure

I raised the question, though, because Mamamia insisted they're privately funded now, and I wondered where that came from

I agree with Winterlife that press censorship isn't a direction we should be heading.

In the past the press have been party to agreements with the RF that involved some give and take. They seem to work, but it needs compromise and good faith on both sides. When one side is all about the taking, the relationship is bound to be less successful.

Looking at the past few years of H&M, I can honestly believe that the RF are extremely worried about H and have been for a long time. One of the things that came out of one of H's speeches was that he has been in therapy for many years now, predating the arrival of M and indeed William was apparently the one to encourage him to do that.

It's also become tragically obvious how fragile he is and consumed by the feeling he has no proper purpose in life. Again, that predates M and is connected to leaving the military. It was no secret that he desperately wanted to find a wife and have a family, another way to find purpose and then M appears into his life.

It's no wonder that William was concerned and asked him if he was rushing things. W&K would have known about his vulnerability and worried, plus he really did rush into marriage. I also now think that after meeting M and getting a sense of her, W&K must have quickly worried about her dominant personality and how far gone for her H was. I wonder if they were worried about him having an unhealthy dependence on her so quickly.

I'm not trying to suggest that H is some poor victim, he's had a life of privilege, protected at every turn and given the freedom to follow charitable interests that he wanted and carve out the role he wanted (W had less freedom in that respect), so I think he has walked away from what could have been a successful life of duty and reward amongst family and friends, with a public that really liked him. In many ways he had his destiny in his own hands with advantages we will never experience but he walked away and complained about it all.

Anyway, just some ''lockdown'' musings on the whole sorry business.

Excellent post, Rainbunny, and while we can't always trust media reports, I've always found William "querying the rush" to be credible - in fact many would find it surprising if he hadn't, especially given how long W&K were together before marriage

As I've often said, marrying someone you barely know is a hell of a risk - and that's without their dysfunctional family backgrounds, lack of common experience and much else

Rain - you make some good points. She strikes me as somebody who wanted to prove a point or several. We’ve probably all been there (that’s what the early twenties are for) - thinking that we can change the world, change the system. She seems like a firebrand, eyes flashing, her heckles up, feeling slighted at every turn, blazing through relationships, families, scenarios. Not sure what good all that yoga did her. Isn’t it meant to calm you down?

It may well be the opposite of 'woke'

But looking at HMQ it's a little hard to say it's not feminist.

Not overtly, drum-bangingly so. But competently, determinedly and uncompromisingly so.

From being a truckie, to abolishing the male aspect of Royal primogeniture, via inviting Saudi King Abdullah for a tour of the estate and driving him herself

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/queen-best-feminist-moments-birthday-2020-a9466341.html

I had to smile over her driving the Saudi King, Winnie ... hard not to wonder what he thought of it

blushes thank you 7worfs that was indeed me:
A long time ago a PR veteran (was it yolo?) wrote a great post about how big international PR agencies always involve a local PR agency to get the culture and nuances right.
Either SS or HAM were too arrogant or stupid to not follow best practice.

Don't forget that the Queen put her foot down and insisted her dcs take her family name, not her dhs.

@BarleylemonPenguin
Not sure what good all that yoga did her. Isn’t it meant to calm you down?

Frightening thought, but maybe it does.

Watching the childhood videos of M with her DDad, gave me the impression she was very pandered to. And while she seems hardworking and driven as an adult, her expectation of getting what she wants, when she wants it, seems to have remained.

Another article by a friend aka employee about how great and inspiring MM is

people.com/royals/meghan-markles-facialist-on-how-the-former-royal-inspired-her/

Apologies - keyboard gone mad!

rainbunny

I think because the RF had been worried for H for a long time , they fell over themselves in their efforts to accommodate Meghan. Inviting her to Xmas at Sandringham, PC making special efforts to bond with her. They were all desperately hoping that this would be the making of H and at last he would be happy and fulfilled. PC gave a very loving speech at their wedding. Now unfortunately they have even more cause to worry as H has become isolated, angry and bitter, far from home and adrift from all he once held dear. He is only listening to one person, and she’s leading him towards the rocks.

And a further note on feminism and the causes the current working Royals espouse - this is what the Countess of Wessex has been up to;

In the weeks before the pandemic, Sophie also visited Sierra Leone to campaign for girls’ access to education. In March she became the first royal to visit South Sudan as part of International Women’s Week and her commitment with two global programmes via the Women, Peace and Security agenda and the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative.

I think an issue with Meghan is that she really saw herself as a very special person destined to change the world before she mat Harry. His job was to provide the global platform she was owed. She is clearly smart, articulate and keen to make a difference. However that alone does not make a person at the same level as the Gates, Obamas or Clooney's. You have to have the achievements too.
Love that comment of Anne that she took 10 years to observe before she felt she had the right to speak out about the work of her charities.