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

@KatherineParr4

* 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.

That's not the the case. MNHQ posted yesterday to say they don't have a problem with another thread.

@Mummy195 The baby shower was done at much less a price, by MM's friend.
Ok, have you got a link showing the accurate cost?

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.

I do agree that they weren’t coming in as CEO and usually (unless otherwise stated in your contract) when you come into a company at a lower level you abide by the rules and I think this is at odds with their wish to modernise the monarchy - which effectively says modernise HMQ who is mid 90s and still in the job. It’ll be Charles who the next lot of modernising will fall to, and then William.

Of all the RF, the one most likely to be respected and liked worldwide is HMQ so I’d argue that in many respects from a business point of view she is doing the job well and it’s working.

MNHQ posted yesterday to say they don't have a problem with another thread.

In theory, no. In practice those threads get deleted in what might be considered a fairly trigger happy way. So I for one have decided not to waste my time creating a new thread that has a high probability of being zapped. I will contribute here instead as MN seem very fond of, as they said, these 'long running threads', and since they've also said posters should not be made to feel unwelcome on threads, I assume that also applies here for everyone who wants to contribute - provided they don't break Talk guidelines of course.

Buttery I did not mean that. If you read that into my post I do not know why. I meant that the courtiers, the advisers, the men in suits who have been with the Palace forever will be retiring at some point soon and fresh blood coming in.

I don't understand your comment about 'jobs for life' either. No one has that nowadays. Employment law applies for everyone.

I wish I could answer your question with more knowledge. If I knew someone who worked in a royal household I probably could. But I don't. I have to talk in general terms because everything is behind closed doors with NDAs probably.

I have ideas about it but it is pure hearsay and I know I will be typing all day in answer to what I put on here.. So... just slimmed down, less competing royal households, maybe merging them more, that sort of thing.
I would love to know more about how the households were run so that I could give a fuller answer, but I don't.

I'm all for change , but for the right reasons.
Change for change sake , seems wrong to me , I've worked in a lot of places where the new broom implemented change for the sake of it .
In my experience the result was less than amicable and normally wasn't better than established practices!

Roussette (apologies, missed out an s last time)

I don't understand your comment about 'jobs for life' either. No one has that nowadays. Employment law applies for everyone.

Indeed it does - which is why posts about how H&M should be able dispense with people 'not on their wavelength' as another poster said (I know that wasn't you!) are concerning. There seems to be a propensity among the more pro-Sussex posters that the staff are somehow at fault here and that the Royals should have the ability to get rid of staff who are 'not supportive'. To which we can say - as you've done - that actually, we don't know much about the workings of royal households. In spite of that, people often seem to assume they are all stuck in their ways and need to change, even though many high level, named staff will be younger and fully versed in the ways of the contemporary world.

Don't think the staff are wholly at fault here and I'm mulling that over because it's new to me. When typing something out, it sometimes comes over as sarky, I just mean that wasn't something that necessarily entered my head, but it might be true.

Not worried about the missing 's'. I've been called all sorts

[quote ButteryPuffin]**@Mummy195* The baby shower was done at much less a price, by MM's friend.*
Ok, have you got a link showing the accurate cost?[/quote]
This is all laid out in the original court documents. By MM. I know she has been labeled a liar on here, but I doubt she would lie in the court of law.

@SunbathingDragon I agree. HMQ is respected and admired all over the world. M & H would have done well to watch and learn from her for a while, then gradually added their personal stamp on their roles. One thing I like about the Queen is how carefully she handles world leaders. In fact, she charms them. One of my favourite things she did was driving the King of Saudi Arabia round her estate a couple of years ago- a subtle show of support for Saudi women campaigning to be able to drive.
In contrast, I will never forget Harry's scowling face at BP when Trump visited. That's just bad manners. I say that as someone who despises Trump.

I'm all for change , but for the right reasons.
Change for change sake , seems wrong to me , I've worked in a lot of places where the new broom implemented change for the sake of it .
In my experience the result was less than amicable and normally wasn't better than established practices!

I actually am not sure I agree. If nothing moves with the times, we get set in archaic old practices that hinder rather than help. Just my opinion of course jeff

Thinking of old archaic stuff (me included) I remember when 'word processors' came in to replace typewriters (yes, I'm that old!) I was an office manager at the time and they more or less had a walk out, they loved their typewriters
I know this is nothing like we're talking about, because small careful changes are needed in the royal households.

@Roussette

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.

The special treatment thing about the invite is being maid much bigger than it is. Sophie was allowed to stay in the palace while she was still a girlfriend, before the engagement. Something that was never done before.
Diana went on the Britannia to Cowes. She was also invited to Balmoral. All before the proposal and wedding.

The special treatment thing about the invite is being maid much bigger than it is. Sophie was allowed to stay in the palace while she was still a girlfriend, before the engagement. Something that was never done before.

Diana went on the Britannia to Cowes. She was also invited to Balmoral. All before the proposal and wedding.

But surely this proves she was accepted and treated the same as others?

@Roussette

*I'm all for change , but for the right reasons. Change for change sake , seems wrong to me , I've worked in a lot of places where the new broom implemented change for the sake of it . In my experience the result was less than amicable and normally wasn't better than established practices!*

I actually am not sure I agree. If nothing moves with the times, we get set in archaic old practices that hinder rather than help. Just my opinion of course jeff

Thinking of old archaic stuff (me included) I remember when 'word processors' came in to replace typewriters (yes, I'm that old!) I was an office manager at the time and they more or less had a walk out, they loved their typewriters
I know this is nothing like we're talking about, because small careful changes are needed in the royal households.

I think one of the big things for MM is the palace not looking at the stack contrast on her press coverage compared to everyone else. No, others did not have it worse. All sorts of things were made up about her and all the palace said was no comment. Which made things worse. It's a pity the BLM movement was not around back then, maybe the courtiers would have been a bit more aware of how black ppl are viewed and received and how they feel as their living experience.

It was something very easy to look at and fix really. It's the Comms dept's duty to count how many articles are written, what are the negatives and positives, how do they compare to everyone else. That is what PR is there for. It looks like they did not evaluate and make changes accordingly.

Weren't the original court documents criticised by the judge for not making the case clear and including all sorts of irrelevant material? I'm not convinced that documentation provided by the Sussexes is necessarily bang on accurate in every detail. They and/or their people have been pulled up several times on not getting things right, e.g. the signature missing on documents registering Archwell and so on. So if a figure is given in documentation they have provided, I wouldn't want to go as far as saying 'that must be accurate, no question'.

So who is making the special treatment about the invite being much bigger than it really is?
Again, you are comparing (Diana and Sophie this time)
Surely comparisons as such are not really in the spirit of the thread

@jeffgoldblumlovespenguins

*The special treatment thing about the invite is being maid much bigger than it is. Sophie was allowed to stay in the palace while she was still a girlfriend, before the engagement. Something that was never done before. Diana went on the Britannia to Cowes. She was also invited to Balmoral. All before the proposal and wedding.*

But surely this proves she was accepted and treated the same as others?

Yes, the same as others, no special treatment.

It was always made as if she got special treatment.

@ButteryPuffin

MNHQ posted yesterday to say they don't have a problem with another thread.

In theory, no. In practice those threads get deleted in what might be considered a fairly trigger happy way. So I for one have decided not to waste my time creating a new thread that has a high probability of being zapped. I will contribute here instead as MN seem very fond of, as they said, these 'long running threads', and since they've also said posters should not be made to feel unwelcome on threads, I assume that also applies here for everyone who wants to contribute - provided they don't break Talk guidelines of course.

Completely agree with this - there is strict censorship on MM and Harry threads that isn't applied to other people in the public eye.

Rousette So... just slimmed down, less competing royal households, maybe merging them more, that sort of thing.

I thought they tried that though with the joint W&K H&M staff but then H&M wanted to do their own thing.

The competing courts thing has been going on for years though. I can remember reports of tension between PC's advisors and those of HMQ.

Perhaps the only way of unifying the court is to have a single staff looking after them all but then those lower in the hierarchy might well feel that they are not taken care of so well. Perhaps they all just need to grow up a bit?

*Yes, the same as others, no special treatment.

It was always made as if she got special treatment.*

I haven't seen this said myself,so apologies.
But surely you can't think she should have
Preferential treatment?
If so , why?

@ButteryPuffin

Weren't the original court documents criticised by the judge for not making the case clear and including all sorts of irrelevant material? I'm not convinced that documentation provided by the Sussexes is necessarily bang on accurate in every detail. They and/or their people have been pulled up several times on not getting things right, e.g. the signature missing on documents registering Archwell and so on. So if a figure is given in documentation they have provided, I wouldn't want to go as far as saying 'that must be accurate, no question'.

Providing lies in court of law is against the law. That would be perjury. I think it's quite a reach to think MM and the lawyers would risk that.

It does not matter if they are relevant or not.

The copyright signatures have nothing to do with anything here, that is probably some clerical era, totally different to submitting lies in court. That is a serious accusation.

The other girlfriends/fiancees weren't asked for Christmas, no. And didn't MM's mum come? I am sure that the Royal Watchers counting the bodies entering and exiting Sandringham wouldn't have got that bit of the reporting wrong.

The competing courts is definitely old news.

So what did everyone think about Prince Harry’s eco tourist speech (the one alikened to a carnivore advocating vegetarianism by the former undersecretary of State for transport)?

The competing courts thing has been going on for years though. I can remember reports of tension between PC's advisors and those of HMQ

That to me means it doesn't 100% work.