Harry appointed senior exec at $1bn startup

[porcelaine]

Just seen that Harry has been appointed Chief Impact Officer at a billion dollar valued Silicon Valley startup.
This feels so unfair. I know people who have worked for years first qualifying then gaining experience in their field, without a hope of a job like this. Harry of the 2 A levels and zero formal work experience outside of the army. He can bleat about the hardships of privilege all he wants but he’d never get near a job like this as a private “normal” citizen.

of course they do. to you.

whatever.

Thanks merrymouse your post explaining democratic vs undemocratic, HoC vs HoL hits the nail on the head.

This is an interesting article if anyone wants more on how it all works.

@redspecial

of course they do. to you.

whatever.

Rousette's posts were also very clear to me. Your weird rant calling them Vladimir and suggesting they supported beheading was just that. Weird. I think your hate for 2 strangers must be having a strange effect on you. Try thinking nice thoughts, it may help your cognitive processing.

• this is not a rant, but apologies if a bit garbled I haven't had coffee yet.

That was a total rant.😂😂😂

"hate" "racist" "bigot" same old, same old.

No-one hates them, we leave that for the supporters to post silly words and accuse others of "hate" such infantile behaviour.

It isn't hateful to question Harry's motives for lying about his demotion to a much lesser role of "support" to William - not a star of the show anymore - next generation no-one will really know who he was as the line goes down through George etc.

Harry presenting his dwindling and lesser role going forward is due racism is outrageous.

Pretending it means you're a kind poster because you won't use any critical thinking and choose to believe all he says about royal protocol and line of succession - fill your boots, feel good about yourself calling others full of hate etc. Doesn't fool most people though that kind of "love" for others.

Harry is a very silly boy having a massive tantrum, he had a job as a Royal and now he doesn't. Drop the titles and get on with the new life not selling stories about your family as your wife really doesn't like that (ask her dad, who he's never met). How disrespectful can Harry really be and still have people saying it's hate.

He's knocking 40 and people still cutting him way too much slack.

Is he “Prince Harry” or “Harry, Duke of Sussex”? Can he be both? And is his title hereditary so that Archie will be the 2nd Duke of Sussex?

@Marmaladeagain

"hate" "racist" "bigot" same old, same old.

No-one hates them, we leave that for the supporters to post silly words and accuse others of "hate" such infantile behaviour.

It isn't hateful to question Harry's motives for lying about his demotion to a much lesser role of "support" to William - not a star of the show anymore - next generation no-one will really know who he was as the line goes down through George etc.

Harry presenting his dwindling and lesser role going forward is due racism is outrageous.

Pretending it means you're a kind poster because you won't use any critical thinking and choose to believe all he says about royal protocol and line of succession - fill your boots, feel good about yourself calling others full of hate etc. Doesn't fool most people though that kind of "love" for others.

Harry is a very silly boy having a massive tantrum, he had a job as a Royal and now he doesn't. Drop the titles and get on with the new life not selling stories about your family as your wife really doesn't like that (ask her dad, who he's never met). How disrespectful can Harry really be and still have people saying it's hate.

He's knocking 40 and people still cutting him way too much slack.

I think you might be another poster having difficulty with cognitive processing. I was responding to a very odd and specific rant accusing a poster of being anti-democtratic for suggesting reform of the House of Lords - now there is irony for you

The RF is plainly the most undemocratic of institutions and to wish it abolished does not mean you hate your country, support beheadings or should be called Vladimir.

Would you agree?

Oh sorry, no definitely not responding to anyone in particular - just a thread post - I don't catch up exactly and scroll through some names quickly without reading. Sorry if seemed to address you, didn't mean to.

@Marmaladeagain

Oh sorry, no definitely not responding to anyone in particular - just a thread post - I don't catch up exactly and scroll through some names quickly without reading. Sorry if seemed to address you, didn't mean to.

I agree with you totally @Marmaladeagain

I also scroll through posts especially one very bored poster who doesn't seem too busy.

@Diptyque

Is he “Prince Harry” or “Harry, Duke of Sussex”? Can he be both? And is his title hereditary so that Archie will be the 2nd Duke of Sussex?

Yes gosh hadn’t cottoned onto this.

I don’t understand the personal attacks on Roussette.

I'm used to it ImAncient. Had it all last year too.

One of the main reasons I get noticed is because I don't NC. So my name stands out. There are posters on here who undoubtedly do NC so obviously are unrecognisable from the past.

If they were to keep their previous names, I would recognise them.

@Diptyque

Is he “Prince Harry” or “Harry, Duke of Sussex”? Can he be both? And is his title hereditary so that Archie will be the 2nd Duke of Sussex?

Do you know - I think he might be. It hadn't crossed my mind. But the current Dukes of Gloucester, Kent, & probably others, are descendants of the sons of George V. As was the Queen's father

@Diptyque

Is he “Prince Harry” or “Harry, Duke of Sussex”? Can he be both? And is his title hereditary so that Archie will be the 2nd Duke of Sussex?

His parents were HRH The Prince & Princess of Wales. Charles still is the Prince of Wales, Diana on divorce and a bit of pressure became Diana Princess of Wales. I think they tried to strip her of the title completely but settled on her name first. The same with Fergie, Sarah Duchess of York.

He is Prince Henry.....of Wales on marriage he became HRH the Duke of Sussex. Upon leaving the RF he became Harry Duke of Sussex.

If Harry was still a working Royal, Archie would be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex.

Incidentally Charles has a few titles but at birth was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh, his Dad being the Duke of Edinburgh. I'll guess that the Queen has Duchess of Edinburgh in amongst her titles too.

I've just done a google, I think he was HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex.

And the Queen was styled HRH Princess Elizabeth Duchess of Edinburgh when she got married.

These names and titles are fascinating

@Diptyque

Is he “Prince Harry” or “Harry, Duke of Sussex”? Can he be both? And is his title hereditary so that Archie will be the 2nd Duke of Sussex?

He “should” be a Lord and using whatever Harry’s subsidiary title now. If H&M wanted to. I can’t see that the BRF can have removed his right to thy without issuing new Letters Patent, which would be public.

So then he becomes a Prince when Charles accedes the throne, and inherits the Dukedom of Sussex when Harry dies. I think that’s all automatic. So am bemused he’s just plain “Mr Archie MW”.

I cant make sense of it all. Meg alleged that he was denied the title “Prince”, but I don’t remember her commenting on the subsidiary title business.

@Marmaladeagain

Oh sorry, no definitely not responding to anyone in particular - just a thread post - I don't catch up exactly and scroll through some names quickly without reading. Sorry if seemed to address you, didn't mean to.

Nae worries - I suggested the weird ranty poster think kind thoughts to help then think more clearly, so your mention of being kind a struck nerve - my bad.

Anyway we should all try to think kind thoughts when we can, there are no heroes or villians here, just ordinary muddled people. I don't have any truck with the institution or inherited titles in general, but I guess if I had been lucky enough to have been born with one I would keep it.

Why are you on every single Harry threadRousette?

Why are you on every single Harry thread @Ocsetldil?🤔

If Harry was still a working Royal, Archie would be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex.

As I understand it Archie is not entitled to be a Prince until Prince Charles becomes king. Nothing to do with whether Harry is a working royal AFAIK.

@ImAncient

If Harry was still a working Royal, Archie would be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex.

As I understand it Archie is not entitled to be a Prince until Prince Charles becomes king. Nothing to do with whether Harry is a working royal AFAIK.

That's true. I was jumping the gun think to Charles being king.

What I was thinking is if Harry has given up Royal life and the HRH Duke of Sussex and remains Harry DoS, it becomes very odd for his kids to be HRH Prince/ess Archie, little Sis of Sussex.

They'd effectively out rank their father.

@DioneTheDiabolist

Why are you on every single Harry threadRousette?

Why are you on every single Harry thread @Ocsetldil?🤔

It’s so weird when people ask things like this. ‘Why are you on so many of these threads?’ ‘You do seem over invested’ ‘I think you’ve got an agenda’

....er maybe because it’s a public forum and I can post on whatever threads I like, saying whatever I like as long as not breaking talk guidelines?

Maybe Roussette is just interested in the monarchy threads?! Is that really so gobsmacking and sinister? She could post on every single one if she fancied, why not?

Yes Minnie Agree. But the ridiculous thing is, I don't.

Threads within the Royal Family section, I'm on maybe 1 in 5 of them. Similar H&M threads, maybe 1 in 3 or 4. But my name gets recognised and I get asked it continually.

What about those posters who have been on all the H&M threads but continually NC so no one realises? Because that's what they do. At least I stand by my posts, unlike others, it's very easy to have a poke at someone then NC, rinse and repeat.

I comment on a lot of the same type of threads - it makes perfect sense, we all have topics we are more interested in than others. I would never think to ask another poster why they’re on ‘so many threads to do with X’ - the answer is clear to me, because they find it interesting to discuss.

why do people think we need B&E to do more?
(just catching up with thread)
surely the main royals like PC and W &K could just do more.

why do people think we need B&E to do more?

If you go back say 15 years you had HMQ supported by PP, Charles, Camilla, Andrew, Anne, and Ed & Sophie. 1 & 7 supporting.

William and Harry were both doing other stuff. They were asked to become full-time Royals as HMQ and PP were aging.

PP has retired, HMQ is 94,
Charles must be doing a chunk of HMQs work. So really you have Camilla - over 70, Anne - over 70, Andrew - no more, Ed & Sophie - working away, William & Kate, Harry - gone to become a filmmaker.

So at the moment you have HMQ / PC & 6 supporting. Give it another 15 years HMQ will be gone, PC, Camilla and Anne late 80s, Ed & Sophie, in their 70s. William & Kate. But their kids will still be quite young to be taking on the Royal roles.

Hence a gap for B & E to fill. Harry has left a big gap.

I'm very confused by the whole titles issue. At birth, Archie could have been styled Lord Archie, the Earl of Dumbarton, or Lord Dumbarton (on Harry's death, the next Duke of Sussex) I thought Harry and Meghan had rejected this for plain Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. Fair enough.
Then in the interview there was the "Prince" issue. If they wanted that, why reject Lord then and have no title? Plus, will they also reject Prince in due course, and the Duke of Sussex? Am genuinely confused.