Harry and Meghan news

[callmeadoctor]

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1292590/meghan-markle-prince-harry-la-career-plans-latest-royal-news

If they come back, they will have to accept their place in the hierarchy. They have to accept that they can’t express political opinions, or pick and choose what they do ‘work’ wise. They need to fit into the system and keep their personal feelings personal not public. I don’t think they are able to do any of these things. They both hate the system and the restrictions it places on them. However they’re happy to take the money, houses, holidays and perks.

But they've already expressed their opinions now. The world and his wife know what the pair of them think about current affairs and politics. They've opened a can of worms and it is unlikely they can close it. There is no way they would be able to meet visiting state leaders and appear 'impartial' now.

I don't think they'll come back, it would be so embarrassing for them and I can't see them being popular with the British public. The current situation has scuppered everyone's plans but with time they'll recover or take a different route - Meghan seems quite resourceful.

I'm surprised that Harry's wedding cost so much more than William's (almost double) considering the former is 6th in line and the latter is the actual heir. I'm also surprised that Meghan's clothing cost half a million pounds, compared to Catherine's 67k, for one year. I mentioned this on another thread but when I came back to it it had been deleted, so apologies if the clothing thing has been done to death. Then there was the £350k baby shower, it wasn't exactly value for money considering they left after 18 months and spent some of that time on maternity leave.

Sorry, posted too soon. I meant to add that there should be more transparency regarding what all of the royal family cost tax payers.

@7Worfs

Lady CC is a third rate aristo really, but her previous books contained accurate gossip (confirmed years later).

I've just finished her book on the Queen Mother. She covers the rumour that the QM's biological mother was the family cook, and it does sound very convincing. It portrayed a side of the QM that I had never seen - just remember her as being a sweet old lady, whereas according to LCC she was as manipulative as they come. Was a very interesting read - would be interested in the thoughts of others as to the reliability of the various 'stories' she covered.

@EthelMayFergus

Sorry, posted too soon. I meant to add that there should be more transparency regarding what all of the royal family cost tax payers.

My understanding is that the British tax payer hands nothing over to the Crown, it's infact the other way around. But there is flexibility in the amount of money the Crown Estate hands over to HMRC (in effect tax), to ensure that the Queen has money available to cover the costs of upkeep to the Palaces, family etc.

Costs for foreign tours at the request of the Foreign Office and for security are paid directly by the tax payer.

I thought that QE1 looked a bit like her mum though, Queen Mary?

Queen Mary was the MIL of Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Thanks ajandjjmum, do you know who pays for all of their clothes? Is it Charles?

Doh! Of course she was, sorry. I don't think I've seen a picture of her mother then.

Sadly Ethel they don't pass their accounts by me for approval! I think that Charles pays for his and Camilla, the Cambridges and the Sussexes costs, from the Duchy of Cornwall. HM pays for all other royal costs (presumably including Anne, Andrew and Edward) from her income. Hope she pays the Kents/Gloucesters etc. mileage too!

Well they should!

I've tried googling but it's a bit smoke and mirrors. Thanks though, that would make sense.

@ajandjjmum

Do you understand what the Crown Estate is? And that it is actually owned by the taxpayer?

Why has the school not acknowledged the address or even put it on their website.
Certainly that is the minimum they can do.

@Viviennemary

Whether or not they'll come back is anybody's guess. Me I'm not sure. In a year or two quite possibly. The Queen is getting older and its doubtful she will be doing any more tours abroad and then Charles and Camilla and Princess Anne aren't getting any younger. And Prince Andrew cough has taken early retirement. Edward and Sophie are good workers. There was talk of Beatrice and Eugenie taking on royal duties.

I agree that I can’t see HMQ going on tours. Even ignoring her age, coronavirus is likely to be a concern for a while yet. In all honesty, Charles and Camilla, and Anne probably also don’t want to be touring.

That really leaves Edward and Sophie, and William and Kate. I wonder if Beatrice and Eugenie want to take on duties. Certainly if so, I think they will have that wish granted.

I don't think the public will be too keen on Beatrice or Eugenie representing the Crown, given their father.

Re the Queen Mother - Wallis Simpson used to call her ‘cookie’, presumably she knew about the gossip.

The York girls look sweet, but don’t have the pulling power of other more royal-y royals.

I think the problem for H and M is that the success they are seeking has two quite different aspects. They want to make a difference I the world, using their high profile s. They also want to make a lot of money so they can live luxuriously and cover security. It is hard to achieve both these aims at the same time.

It portrayed a side of the QM that I had never seen - just remember her as being a sweet old lady, whereas according to LCC she was as manipulative as they come

Wasn't there a famous joke that in the event of a nuclear war, the only things left would be Ronnie Wood, cockroaches and the Queen Mother? I don't think they were just talking about her longevity

Rousette raised an interesting point earlier

There are very many people, celebrities and otherwise who aren't the slightest bitqualifiedto do good with their name and/or their wealth, but they do it. Should we squash them as well and label them as not qualified?

I posted about this earlier on one of the now deleted threads. Basically, celebrities attract attention to a cause without having to have expertise in it. Often they have personal experience of it and that makes a difference in motivating an audience - as with Kylie Minogue talking about her breast cancer which prompted many women to get checked out. But that is likewise different to having actual expertise and knowledge of something. Where the Sussexes sometimes misstep, for me, is in talking about something in a way that implies they have expertise, when actually they just have personal experience. Mental health is one example. They are both clearly passionate about it, and Harry in particular has spoken about his personal experiences of mental health difficulties, but they aren't mental health professionals and should be careful not to give advice as if they are. To be clear, they are far from being the only celebrities who do this. I hope they can fulfill the potential to do good for the cause by bringing their own commitment and enthusiasm, and letting the professionals do the advising.

I haven't yet seen William's mental health documentary, so I don't know if he falls into this trap in that or manages to avoid it. Interested to hear from anyone who has watched it.

Also, on the York girls, they seem surprisingly well adjusted to me and I would be happy to see them doing royal duties if they wanted. I hope no one holds their awful dad against them - we can none of us help who our father is, and they shouldn't be blamed for what he's done.

I absolutely agree that Beatrice and Eugenie can't be in any way held responsible for their fathers behaviour. I'd be happy to see them take on royal duties. They will know the ropes and what is expected. I didn't used to like them that much but I think they would do well now they are more mature and hopefully have given up wearing ridiculous hats!

ButteryPuffin I agree with some of what you say.

William is talking a lot about mental health, and apart from some struggles with it, he is not qualified, no more qualified than Harry is. And W is now a volunteer for Shout. (My friend is also, and it does involve supporting those that are struggling, all anonymously of course). W announcing this will undoubtedly bring forward more volunteers and that can only be a good thing.

Celebrities and footballers and the like often pick charities that are local to them, or they knew someone who had help from a particular charity, not always is it not a personal experience to them that has led them to support a particular one, but something that strikes a chord.

Camilla has done wonders with the Osteoporosis Soc because both her mother and grandmother suffered with it. Some footballers support Air Ambulance for possibly obvious reasons (being injured on pitch and maybe needing an air ambulance). Someone else famous can't remember who and RNLI, etc.

I imagine it's just very normal in that it's something that touches a nerve and that's why a famous person supports it.
H&M no different probably.

As far as the Queen going on tour, crikey, no, she hasn't been abroad for over five years, understandable given her age. That decision was made many years ago.

I cannot see B&E being more prominent in the RF. Not in a million years. Unfair on them, (sins of their father etc) but given PA is the lead story on BBC News this morning, I would have thought it was near impossible for many years yet.

Buttery and Roussette

These very people must turn at least half of their audience off as well, though. One side of the argument is that they highlight the charity (but absolve other organisations such as governments from having to do anything about it so there is an important issue right there). However, the other side of the argument, where rich people ask poor ones to part with their meagre wealth in order to fulfil the rich person's self-serving motivations, must surely stick in a lot of people's craw.