Thread about Harry and Meghan that has no deletions

[OverUnderSidewaysDown]

Play nicely and don’t say anything that will get your post (or the thread) deleted. I’ll start. Archie is cute and it would be lovely to see him more often.

It'll surely seem less messy when they've been gone a bit longer

They've only just gone, there's a review of arrangements pending, debts not yet cleared etc. It'll be much clearer in a couple of years

It'll surely seem less messy when they've been gone a bit longer
It might hence why I said this 'current' situation. But, it may never resolve because, as we've already seen, this split from the RF has thrown up situations and questions that had never been considered. I wouldn't have an expectation that they can forsee every eventuality which might occur.
I'm sure in some circles within the RF, they might have thought they would never need to explain the background to arranging Charles' birthday photo; or defend a staff member against vicious Twitter attacks caused by a gossipy and injudicious book; or whether they could stop someone standing for office in another country; or whether it's wise to publicly buy large-ticket items from Russian oligarchs (although they should have guidelines on the latter because there have been rumours for years about Russian influence in London, etc).

I think they would be in their rights to stop security if Meghan becomes a political figure. I bet there are plans under way to pull the rug.

I feel conflicted about the security question.
It's unquestionable that their choices have made their security both more difficult and more expensive. There's not much chance of a drone taking photos of Royal children in their own gardens in the UK, etc.
But I also think that a lot of private security firms are inadequate and don't have the experience to manage the security for the DS, DIL, GS of the future King.

@Viviennemary

I wonder if it will be dealt with. Or will they just go for their usual head in the sand politics. I'd go for the latter. Wouldn't it be rich if Meghan ended up as President and the Queen would have to host her at BP.

I’ve said this before on previous threads, but it won’t be the Queen hosting it will be when William and Kate are King and Queen and it will be them rolling out the red carpet for a Meghan and Harry......

@BottomOfMyPencilCase you're absolutely right. You only have to look at the chaotic security arrangements which led to Diana's death. Ken Wharfe said they would never have tried to outrun the paparazzi. Does anyone know if Diana refused protection officers or they were taken off her?

I think she was using Dodi's security on the night in question.

iirc Diana was offered Royal protection officers but refused because she felt they'd be spying on her.

Does anyone know if Diana refused protection officers or they were taken off her?

She refused them for herself.

She could not however refuse for the princes, so she had security when they were with her.

Happy to pay for security for royal family in the U.K. .
Not if they live abroad!

If the plethora of deletions etc are because HaM's lawyers are breathing down Mumsnet's necks, I wish MNHQ would just say so out loud!

I would have total sympathy in that case, and would be happy to leave the HaM subject completely alone while I'm on this website.

We are living in difficult COVID times and organizations like MN have enough to deal with already, without the additional worry of lawsuits.

But I'd prefer MNHQ to just say so openly---like they did re Madeleine McCann's family.

I was under the impression that when Diana lost her HRH she lost her entitlement to Royal Protection/Security.
I also understand that the Queen was happy for Diana to keep her HRH as she was the Mother of a future King, but Charles allegedly demanded the removal of Diana's HRH as at the time he was aware of her popularity & worried that she may undermine him.

I just checked. Diana refused them. But as a PP said, when she had the boys with her, she had to have Royal security.

@Kokeshi123
I agree. Come on MN if you have received warning lawyers letters about H & M then let us know.
Nobody wants MN shut down.

I hardly think they'd have the power or the reasons to shut MN down. I've been critical of them but even I don't think they have reached the power of dictators of a police state. Nevertheless I can see why most organisations wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. AN are a different matter altogether and it seems as if they are quite relishing it all.

There’s an article in DM
H&M have been helping at a Baby2Baby charity event

And another one about supposed freebies. AN is not letting up.

[quote Fairyliz]@Kokeshi123
I agree. Come on MN if you have received warning lawyers letters about H & M then let us know.
Nobody wants MN shut down.[/quote]
I doubt that mn hq have received anything from H&M, most likely they are fed up with the constant trollong.

Well considering that many of the MN threads get pilfered by The Daily Mail, maybe some folk think that we are affiliated to the DM & are fair game for complaints etc.

@LittleBearPad

And another one about supposed freebies. AN is not letting up.

Meghan is first and foremost an American woman with a high profile and has every right to voice her opinion on the upcoming USA election. She isn't an HRH who has to sit on the fence, at least outwardly. Go Meghan!

Regarding the 'freebies' headline which I saw earlier, the DM are making a lot out of very little as usual. The Sussexes are rich and mix with rich people who are bound to offer them hospitality; that's quite normal in those circles and nobody else's business.

'Finding Freedom' is very good. I read it and read some bits of it again, I was not unimpressed. I had 'got' the idea beforehand that it was going to be controversial and it wasn't but I was not disappointed.

@ jessstan2 H and M are still HRH but have been asked not to use the titles . They have not been stripped of HRH as Diana and Sarah were .
If they are so happy to be away from the “ toxic” RF why not drop Duke and Duchess ?

I can entirely understand why they would not want the kind of life that being senior members of the RF entails. I can entirely understand that they want to be able to speak out on issues that concern them. However, the UK has a constitutional monarchy and the deal is that they get to stay royal as long as they stay out of politics. They can't have it both ways which is why there was so much debate and concern when it emerged that PC writes to government ministers on issues that concern him etc.

The issue about H&M speaking out is not simply to do with royal titles it is to do with royal status. H&M have royal status. They can speak out on whatever issues that are important to them. But they cannot have both.

If they want to be free to speak out on political issues they would need to give up royal status.renouncing the titles and privileges they hold.

In the future they may choose to do this. If they want to be involved in political issues the clamour for royal status and privilege to be withdrawn from them will become louder.

One speech about the importance of voting is not, in itself, very serious in my view but the level of debate about it gives an indication of how things will go in they want to be more involved in political issues

They cannot keep royal status and privilege and get involved in politics.

@Kokeshi123

If the plethora of deletions etc are because HaM's lawyers are breathing down Mumsnet's necks, I wish MNHQ would just say so out loud!

I would have total sympathy in that case, and would be happy to leave the HaM subject completely alone while I'm on this website.

We are living in difficult COVID times and organizations like MN have enough to deal with already, without the additional worry of lawsuits.

But I'd prefer MNHQ to just say so openly---like they did re Madeleine McCann's family.

Agree completely.

If MM wants to speak out on political issues she cares passionately about, she needs to stop using her title.