Harry’s podcast

[smilesy]

Carrying on the discussion about Harry’s podcast.

Privacy means sharing private aspects of your life on your own terms and with your consent. And they are doing that . If you don't want to listen, don’t 🤷‍♀️

@GlencoraP

They are not popular for their own sake and in their own right

This is absolutely where they have got it right and sadly H and M have failed to understand . For the monarchy to survive it must be possible for it to be ‘all things to all men’ the more bland and anonymous they are the more they are able to represent different things in the mind of different people and therefore maintain the popularity of ‘the institution’ . The more distinct their character and views the more likely there are to be people who take against them.

No one really knows anything about the Queen, she is just the coat hanger on which the mantel of monarchy is hung, William understands this I think, for the monarchy to persist it needs to be Everyman.

Harry and Meghan are just an entertaining but actually rather sad side show. They will keep drawing attention but in the meantime the monarchy will carry on as night follows day. I have no doubt that Charles will become King regardless, William probably, I think and hope that George will be spared.

Very astute comment. It’s the role and the duty that matters not the personalities despite what the press (and sometimes the person themselves) wants. Dull is good for longevity! M and H are misunderstanding this point. I also agree Harry and Meghan too feel very aggrieved probably starting with the titles ( hence the anyone can live like a princess comment, presumably to talk down Harry as he was annoyed about it). Harry does reveal his true feelings quite easily I think.

'Privacy means sharing private aspects of your life on your own terms and with your consent. And they are doing that . If you don't want to listen, don’t '

So when Thomas Markle next appears, maybe on Piers Morgan's life stories or something similarly as tacky, as long as it's on his terms it's ok? Riiiiight.

@Gorgeouslilgirl

Privacy means sharing private aspects of your life on your own terms and with your consent. And they are doing that . If you don't want to listen, don’t 🤷‍♀️

Actually no, that is not what 'privacy' means by any normal definition of the word.

And of course, in 'sharing' aspects of their own lives, they've also invaded the privacy of others who did not give their consent. They know the royals won't answer back, but they've lost whatever moral high ground they might have had should Thomas or Samantha Markle feel the need to share aspects of their own lives which also invade the Harkles' privacy. For their mental health, of course.

Most people see a monarchy for what it is, an anachronism in an age where we don’t believe in divine rights and our forefathers fought for all people to be equal.

Perhaps by being dull they can slip under the radar of public scrutiny. And hard questions regarding public funding

Coolandclamy I’m from a commonwealth country originally - HaM are not well regarded at all. They are disliked as where I’m from you do not disrespect your elders.

One of my dcs had an argument with my BIL. Irrespective of who was right or wrong my dc apologised to their uncle as the way they spoke to them was disrespectful. My in laws have said things to me. I’d never answer back out of respect. So no I don’t buy the thing about the commonwealth countries rooting for them. Some maybe but certainly not all.

They will be as pp says a footnote in history. As will Charlotte & Louis be one day also.

'And of course, in 'sharing' aspects of their own lives, they've also invaded the privacy of others who did not give their consent'

Yes and why don't they care about anyone else's mental health? Staggeringly self absorbed.

Eh? The monarchy is a public institution. A family firm funded by the taxpayer. And should be open to scrutiny like any other public sector organisation.

The TM stuff is irrelevant.

Harry explains why he gaslights at the start of the podcast. I’ll listen to it again and tell you what he said (basically to the effect of “I say what I think at the time and later I wake up and think duuuurrrrr why did I say that?)

No gorgeous, it’s exactly the same.

@Gorgeouslilgirl

Most people see a monarchy for what it is, an anachronism in an age where we don’t believe in divine rights and our forefathers fought for all people to be equal.

Perhaps by being dull they can slip under the radar of public scrutiny. And hard questions regarding public funding

There's a slight (actually, not slight at all) difference between the divine rights of kings (which no one has claimed for centuries) and a constitutional monarchy.

@Gorgeouslilgirl

Eh? The monarchy is a public institution. A family firm funded by the taxpayer. And should be open to scrutiny like any other public sector organisation.

The TM stuff is irrelevant.

I'm not sure how a pair who continue to hold royal titles are qualified to hold the monarchy up to public scrutiny. And this isn't what Harry was doing. He was just yet again moaning about his family. There really is no need for anyone to hear this, and from a pair who whined incessantly about 'press intrusion' it is the height of hypocrisy.

The Thomas Markle stuff is relevant because if Harry has the right to discuss private family matters without the consent of those involved, so too do Thomas and Samantha Markle. Maybe they need to share this because of the impact Meghan had on their mental health? If it's about 'mental health' then 'sharing' is a good thing, isn't it?

Coolandclamy I’m from a commonwealth country originally - HaM are not well regarded at all. They are disliked as where I’m from you do not disrespect your elders

This is what I'm hearing from the family members I have in three commonwealth countries

@Ocsetldil

No gorgeous, it’s exactly the same.

Yes, it’s clear that for you and many in the thread they are.

Luckily we have legal institutions that can distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is of interest to the public

Maybe oprah could have Thomas & Samatha on?

@Whenwillitmakesense

Maybe oprah could have Thomas & Samatha on?

Maybe Cressida or Chelsy would like to tell the tabloids about what Harry is really like. For mental health purposes, obviously.

That would be Jeremy Kyle territory (or the US equivalent).

Dissing your Dad is the same whoever you are.

I reckon the U.K. press are publishing what he's saying, again and again, to hoist him by his own petard. I think if the two of them had just got their heads down and did some work that didn't involve being on screens every month or so the media would have become bored. But Harry is just giving them himself on a platter and, to the joy of those in the media who are fed up with both him and MM, he's giving them an insanely easy way to criticise him. It's at the point now where articles don't even need to criticise him, they just need to print/play the words that come out if his mouth, sometimes in contrast to words that came out of his mouth earlier and the comments section does the job.

I am neither a fan nor a hater.
btw, I just watch.

And to someone upthread who said that its low level stalking to read/watch these guys, no, it absolutely isn't. Stalking is something quite horrific and reading or listening to what someone puts out into the public sphere is completely different.

God its cringy really. They were 2 adults in their 30's who knew exactly what they were taking on when they chose to join The Firm.

Now they want out, fair enough.

All this banging on about MH doesn't filter down to the peasants does it who can't get an appointment with a GP. And forget abotu accessign therapy.

Good points about royalty being a “diplomatic job” and it being a bit like a family business. Harry is absolutely within his rights to reject that life/role, just like someone born into a family of farmers or circus performers, whether early on or when he met his wife who decided it wasn’t for her either. It’s the sense of entitlement to live like a prince, in protection, luxury and beyond criticism while picking and choosing glamorous roles and never having to struggle with the realities of life that puts people’s backs up I think.

I do get what he’s saying. I think most people could lie on a therapists couch and dig deep to find childhood wrongs to blame their family for. That may be a good thing if it meant pain processed privately, achieving acceptance that their parents weren’t perfect but did their best, and to forgive them (without assassinating their character to the world press.)

I sincerely hope that he can protect his children from the struggles of his childhood - right from choosing to marry someone he was genuinely in love with in the first place, to making sure he and his family have good mental health, not exposing them to the media glare before they have a right to choose it etc etc. I think he has this absolutely right.

But there were so many other things he could talk about - childhood bereavement, mental health in the army, ptsd etc etc without poking that bruise with his family over and over. So hurtful to them and unfair when they have no ability to respond.

Some big generalisations about the 'British Public' above. The sole reason most of us think anything at all about them, is the manner they left the Royal Family, making grand statements about their roles, which had not been agreed, and subsequent tell-alls. They have by themselves made it very difficult for us to go back to barely noticing them.

If it’s a diplomatic job then those two have certainly written themselves out of that!

So I'd be looking for consistency if I were going to buy into the Harry and Meghan philosophy. I say philosophy, because changing the world one act of compassion at a time, and systemic change imply grand-scale transformation . I'm inferring that Harry and Meghan are driving a movement in their work, rather than setting out to model how they think life should be led by the way they behave as private individuals.

I think that the royal family are an anachronism. We choose because the manner of their training makes them suited to making high-risk public performances around the world, and indeed, the training from a young age prepares then for the mental health battering experiences which they can expect.

Also, Politics and life is about pragmatics. It isn't sound to have politicians representing Britain because if they say something politically insensitive, they won't easily be able to welcome heads of state whose actions they have critisized. The royals public personas are limited and controlled, and this contains their scope to cause the nation embarrassment.

After the mess of Brexit and tragedy of Covid, I doubt if the country could afford more costly legislation to take royal coats of arms off letter headings, and decide what to do with grand residences which may partially belong to royal families, and to decide whether the ex-royals will still be at risk and need security.

Please don't say the word referendum to any of us. We know what happened last time. It would take years for a party to table a movement for change and to get it accepted. So yes, there are illogicalities with having a RF, but it might the best solution there is, though not ideal...

What's the biggest inconsistency and distasteful strand of royalty? What do I think Well, democratically, it's picking an area of England out of a hat and calling one of your relations the 'Duke of that place' and their wife the Duchess. People don't identify with Sussex, they say 'Im from Brighton' or whichever town. How do they feel about being cast as plebes and serfs again, like in the fourteenth century and having a Duke appointed for their elected councillors to call ' Sir' and their council tax money spent on creating plaques. Pretty underwhelmed, I should think. Wouldn't the silly title be the first thing you'd ditch on ploughing your own furrow in another country...

If anyone can explain this contradiction without saying ' Other royals do it and you don't critisize tgem', I'd like to hear it.