Harry & Meghan - to hope the Royals answer back?

[DontReallyCareBut]

I think the allegations in the Oprah interview are serious enough that protocol should be breached and the Royals should have a voice to give their side too.

Can I ask, are any of the news media over there covering the other view? Has anyone pointed out all the inaccuracies and inconsistencies or explained the protocol regarding titles etc? Or has the interview just been swallowed whole and gone unchallenged?

Of course no inaccuracies have been pointed out, and nothing has been explained.

Why do you think anyone is going to go to bat for the Queen and Charles?

Why do you think anyone in the US even cares? The interview got a couple of seconds on local mainstream TV news. All that matters is that a vague impression has been created in the minds of the 17 million who watched, with a good deal of ill will generated, especially among African American viewers. British people living in the US will be asked questions by their colleagues. Any interest in the subject will soon be replaced by other preoccupations.

The UK's class system and the monarchy are seen as very quaint anachronisms that are not worth spending too much time or energy bothering about in the US. They are seen as part of a way of life and thinking about society that Americans are well shot of. Everything M&H said about it served to reinforce the (vague) impression the American public have about it all. This is an impression gleaned from history books on the American Revolution as well as tourism ads that focus on afternoon tea, and the pomp and ceremony of televised royal weddings, as well as tv series like Downton Abbey.

Why do you think anyone in the US even cares?

All right.

I feel like I’ve rattled your cage by even asking.

Why do you think anyone in the US even cares?

Well if no one actually cares about them and what they had to say genuine question why the fuck did they bother doing it? Surely they want people to care about them in America as this is where they are planning on making all the money the claim they need?

We don't actually know for certain when Charles stopped paying

Neither do we know for certain if he stopped paying. Never assume hearsay to be evidence, especially when some of it's already been shown to be questionable

According to the (still live) Sussex Royal website, H+M are fully aware where funding for royal security comes from ... they know the Queen/Royal family are not responsible for paying for security. Who gets it and who doesn't is decided by the Government and the Metropolitan police Why blame the family, when they know that security is not within their remit to either grant or remove?

Because it makes a better story ...?

The interview was a huge PR blow to the U.K. but on the other hand nobody really cares and it only got a few seconds of coverage and will be forgotten soon? Which one is it?

The interview was a huge PR blow to the U.K. but on the other hand nobody really cares and it only got a few seconds of coverage and will be forgotten soon? Which one is it?
Exactly , can't have it both ways

I totally understand Hs desire to be a private citizen and live a life away from the media. What I dont understand is his courting of same media for publicity. He needs to decide what he wants and stick to it

@dementedma

I totally understand Hs desire to be a private citizen and live a life away from the media. What I dont understand is his courting of same media for publicity. He needs to decide what he wants and stick to it

I refuse to believe you're this obtuse

People have lied about them, they feel wronged, so are going to want to clear up things. What's not clicking?

...but nobody ever needed to know, really, they made a big show about it. If I was concerned for my own and especially my DC safety the last thing I'd do is noisily make everyone aware of the fact that anything had changed at all, particularly if it was due to refusing to put my hand in my own very deep pockets. They made any security team's job instantly harder by drawing attention to it. Can nobody see that? Is it me?

@redspecial,
You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick.

Harry and Meghan were afforded security by the government of Canada because they had the status of Internationally Protected Persons. Under pressure from taxpayer groups in Canada, the Canadian Government found it necessary in February of 2020 to announce it would no longer be providing this protection after March 31, 2020. It had been doing so up to then in collaboration with the Met.
Harry and Meghan did not make this announcement.

Many celebrities also are at risk as such they can't all afford security. Even as a normal person I am at risk , our risk level is pretty high all round
@donewithitalltodayandxmas,
There is a huge difference between you and members of the Royal family. You are not specifically targeted by any terrorist group. Nobody is going to stalk you and plant a bomb under your car or kidnap your child.

@Truelymadlydeeplysomeonesmum
Wrt the idea that the Met could respond effectively to any threat if a risk was identified, the notion that Scotland Yard could jump in in response to any threat against H&M in Montecito, CA, and be up to speed in time to foil any plot against them is ludicrous, especially given that the process involves relaying of information, evaluation, recommendation to a committee, and further relaying of info and co-ordination among multiple policing and security agencies and jurisdictions.

There is enormous potential for mutual blaming and recriminations if lines are crossed and things go horribly wrong. Within the US itself, the multiple layers of police agencies was a contributing factor in the recent Capitol riots.

The same day that Mountbatten was blown to bits off the Irish coast, 18 soldiers were blown up in NI. Nobody has learned anything from security debacles involving terrorists and different jurisdictions, it seems.

@mathanxiety you still don't get how it works , most mps don't have security either and they can be targets, most if the RF don't get it all the time , thats how it is
Do the US provide security for former presidents ?

The interview was a huge PR blow to the U.K. but on the other hand nobody really cares and it only got a few seconds of coverage and will be forgotten soon? Which one is it?

The impression caused will be hard to shake whenever the topic of the UK and Royal family comes up, even if the specifics of the interview itself will be put to the back of people's minds.

What impression springs to people's minds when the word 'Russia' is mentioned?

There is a level of obtuseness on this thread that is mind boggling.

@mathanxiety tbf we have impressions about the US as well I guess

you still don't get how it works , most mps don't have security either and they can be targets, most if the RF don't get it all the time , thats how it is
Do the US provide security for former presidents ?

1 - Yes, of course the US provides security for former presidents. Also their spouses, and the protection lasts for their entire lifetime. This has been the case since 1965, because the US understands how terrorism while the UK persists in being ridiculously careless.

2 - Most MPS are nobodies.

3 - Members of the RF are famous and very recognisable. Their weddings are broadcast around the world. It is wildly irresponsible not to provide 24/7 security for members of the RF, and that policy has already resulted in tragedy.

[quote donewithitalltodayandxmas]@mathanxiety you still don't get how it works , most mps don't have security either and they can be targets, most if the RF don't get it all the time , thats how it is
Do the US provide security for former presidents ? [/quote]
I believe the ex presidents do retain a secret service detail, yes. Don't know about more junior politicians. As you say, over here most politicians don't have security normally (despite an MP being murdered)

@mathanxiety also why are people being obtuse just because they disagree with your point of view?
For now we all have a right to an opinion mine doesn't overide yours or vice versa

• Most MPs are nobodies, but maybe the assumption that that should make them safe should be reconsidered. Jo Cox was murdered by a knife wielding assassin, and Airey Neave was blown up.

The suggestion that people in the US aren't that interested in the RF is ludicrous.

@mathanxiety most mp's are not nobodys , do you actually understand British politics ? You are aware an MP was actually killed ? Anyway how the usa runs is the us business , how the uk runs is different and the uk business
You don't have a royal family so not really a direct comparison

@mathanxiety the presidents children are they given security for life ? Or the grandchildren
It may be different if we are talking about royals with no money and no way to fund their own , but that isn't the case
It is how it is and their are a lot of royals so the bill would be huge , I guess there always has to be a cut off
Maybe not great for those cut off but decisons have to be made

You mean like when we hear US and we think of cop with knee on neck, that sort of shorthand? Damaging forever and we're now in same league as Russia...

I think you do a discredit to everyone with the idea that people won't take individual issues on balance and see how things play out and make their own mind up.

See how it plays out once H&M's conflicting story of when the question about skin colour took place etc and the Palace statement on "varying" views etc.

Must be good timing for the US to focus on UK - distracts from own problems playing out over there.

...also why are people being obtuse just because they disagree with your point of view?
That's not what makes certain posters obtuse. Thanks for proving my assertion about the obtuseness.

For now we all have a right to an opinion mine doesn't overide yours or vice versa
Of course you have the right to an opinion. You even have the right to have the wrong opinion. Nobody has to take wrong opinions seriously all the same.

@mathanxiety we would be paying protection for everyone then , we have a lot of mp's , a large royal family , some celebrities could be at risk,- a line has to be drawn somewhere

Of course you have the right to an opinion. You even have the right to have the wrong opinion. Nobody has to take wrong opinions seriously all the same.
I think that comment kind of says it all really and no point having a discussion with someone who is always right and maybe look up the word obtuse

You mean like when we hear US and we think of cop with knee on neck, that sort of shorthand?
Yes, exactly that.
The RF is now a racist clique consisting of people who live in another century, and whose culture is completely alien to that to which the US aspires, in the minds of many Americans.

Damaging forever and we're now in same league as Russia...
My rhetorical question that happened to have the word 'Russia' in it wasn't an implication that the UK is in the same league as Russia.

Substitute 'Australia' or 'France' or 'the EU' if you want to do a little mental exercising.

and MP Stephen Timms was stabbed during a surgery (UK politics)

We don't bankroll loads of security here. Charles has been reacting to pressure from republicans who wish for presidential system and working to slim the role. They're adapting and looking to the future, Harry and Meghan are looking backwards and expecting royal treatment in a world where there won't be any.

As I said I think US and EU etc struggle to grasp - it isn't about history, it's about the future, adaption, survival of the monarchy and Harry won't be brining it down as the last thing we want is a US presidential system here and having a Trump swinging into town. Harry is not very bright and has clearly missed all this happening now (not history) NOW.