A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)

[Mummy195]

@rousette

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'.

Some of the things MM did before marrying H.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282990766097301504.html

No, it wasn't in the article itself but the article prompted me to idly google other royals wedding cakes and I discovered William had a chocolate digestive cake made by Mcvities and Sophie/Edward has a red velvet cake. Every day truly is a school day thanks to MN 😂

The thing I'd also add about the baby post is that in the US, the target audience for this publication, they wouldn't be criticised for that level of spending by default the way they would here. The sort of demographic they move in would be very much:"So what?" At those figures.

I'll say it again: big cultural clash here.

You learn something new every day

All of the wedding talk reminds me of how embraced they were at the time by the public here and shows the RF did lots to welcome her That's what we saw, but we didn't see it all. We only know what the RF wants us to know, we don't know how welcoming the men in grey suits, the royal household were. No, not comparing with W&K, I agree.

OVienna yes to the big culture clash

That article talks of M and H ‘modernising’ the monarchy and starts with the Queen agreeing she could come to Balmoral - so that would be the Queen modernising then.

Sycophantic barrel scraping. How does a baby shower in the US affect the monarchy in the UK?

And I am sure the UK will reap the benefits of their elderflower and butter cream cakes for centuries to come

Where is the critical thread on M&H where we actually get to discuss the full range of newspaper stories and articles, not just the positive ones?

Thing is Harry and Meghan weren't coming in as the CEO. They were running the Sussex department within a large organisation of the whole RF where they were junior to Will, Charles and HMQ. All their work was to support the overall objectives of the larger organisation. They had a huge opportunity to put their own stamp on things but they were never going to change the whole nature and direction of the beast. And quitting after 18 months while expecting full status, pay and benefits is naive to day the least.

The Cambridge household had a higher turnover of household staff during the first years of their marriage than the Sussex household did. It was well-commented on at the time by the British media, who published numerous ridiculous nasty stories about how DOC Kate was a horrendous boss, that she was a demanding diva, that she had no idea how to be royal, that she frustrated staff with her ignorance of royal protocol, and that her mother was secretly running the household and was clashing with staff.

The hours seem very long and there are many responsibilities:
www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4549356/amp/Prince-William-Kate-s-maid-quits-demanding-job.html

H&M staff leaving:

• Police protection officer: left the police force altogether. "At the time, a Scotland Yard spokesman said: 'It's for personal reasons and absolutely nothing to do with the duke or duchess, who are hugely disappointed at losing her.'"
• Amy Pickerill - "Friends of Pickerill insist that the departure is on good term, telling the Mail: “She has agreed to stay on to help them with the birth of the baby and organise their new household." (stayed longer than contracted). Amy was photographed with Meghan after leaving (attached) at a launch that Meghan did
• Samantha Cohen was going to leave the royal family (she was working for the Queen) but agreed to stay a little longer to help H&M through pre/during the wedding. (Stayed longer than agreed, pictured happily visiting them after leaving).
• Melissa:"left her post after six months, however, Kensington Palace suggest she was only intended to be taken on for that long." (Had a short term contract)
• Heather Wong: worked until they left and was then transferred to Harry's Travelyst (so still working for them)
• Natalie Campbell: only left after H&M left the royal family and got a job as a chief executive
• Jason Knauf: was a Cambridge hire and worked as a communications secretary for both the Sussexes and the Cambridges. He was promoted to chief executive of The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Surely, a positive thread about H&M does not mean comparing them to W&K and commenting that H&M have done better
Not really in the spirit of the thread

@OVienna

That is an old link. The baby shower was done at much less a price, by MM's friend.

Travelyst has not yet put up the summit, but here is a snippet of H talking.

@Nanasueathome I agree that is what I would hope for. Bit not the case sadly.

Rousette, It may well be that they have started a change, I agree with this. I also agree that a lot in the royal family may well need changing.

The thing I have a bit of an issue with is that H&M seem to be complaining about people resisting change . To me that is such an obvious thing, people always resist change. You need to choose your battles wisely, work hard to lobby for what you want and accept that some people will resent what you do 🤷‍♀️

Interested in some of these comments on royal staff.

I imagine some of the courtiers have a job for life and maybe as they move on, and Charles becomes King, the RF can modernise and change in years to come.

It makes sense that when new managers /CEOs arrive there should be a shake up of personnel until the balance is right and H&M would want a clear out of anyone not on their wavelength and likely to be unsupportive.

Are posters with these views advocating that job security should give way to the ability for royals to fire at will? Including firing people who are 'not on their wavelength'? Because that doesn't sound terribly modern to me. It sounds more like the kind of old school aristocratic power that we supposedly want a modern royal family to move further away from.

For change to be successful it needs to be brought in slowly and gradually. I think people who were expecting the Sussexes to modernise the royal family within the first year of their marriage (possibly including the Sussexes themselves) were sorely deluded.

The fact that the Queen allowed Meghan to spend Christmas with the family at Sandringham was considered a sign of modernisation. Little victories but a victory none the less.

Lol, re disputing the story on costings but the other one is "accurate". No one has challenged the $56k engagement dress figure. I do wonder if her friends really did cough up for the Jet etc.

@Nishky how ironic.
You sharply pull me up for saying that I am not contributing to reasonable discussion,then come out with a couple of gems like this..
'Sycophantic barrel scraping. How does a baby shower in the US affect the monarchy in the UK?
And I am sure the UK will reap the benefits of their elderflower and butter cream cakes for centuries to come'
You couldn't make it up.

Morehippo
The thing I have a bit of an issue with is that H&M seem to be complaining about people resisting change confused. To me that is such an obvious thing, people always resist change. You need to choose your battles wisely, work hard to lobby for what you want and accept that some people will resent what you do

I agree with this. They've gone about it arse about tit AFAIC. Everyone resists change.

Buttery
You pinned my quote first and that is not what I mean. Firing people at will. I was talking about those in the royal household who've been there for decades, and retiring. Hence 'move on'

As I said though I realise I come across as critical but in the world she has been moving in her choices wouldn't be considered odd.

So @thisenglishlife, that suggests to me that the criticism of MM was par for the course.

@ThisEnglishLife Good post.

Where is the critical thread on M&H where we actually get to discuss the full range of newspaper stories and articles, not just the positive ones?*

There isn’t another thread now as MN only want one thread on the boards and keep closing down the others. So those of us who are persevering with this forum have moved here. Others have left the forum to find another home.

Ok Rousette, so what sort of change are you thinking of as long overdue (as I think you put it?) People grow older and retire from jobs - that's normal and to be expected. (Though your comment about 'jobs for life' to me did suggest you think they should be employed on less secure terms.) But these posts about the staff suggest that they're doing things in a way that's incompatible with the desires of a 'modern royal family' so can posters spell out what the staff are doing wrong that should be changed? There's been lots said about the need for modernisation and change, so what do we actually mean by that? I think it would be fairly easy for us to agree that dictating what colour nail polish someone wears isn't very in keeping with the contemporary world. But what about the staff and the way households are run is the problem?

Good point Buttery