Harry's latest ventures

[Viviennemary]

Now being reported in the Daily Express that Harry is working on a new tell all documtary about royal life. This is according to his biographer Angela Levin. And even more disclosures about the royal family are forthcoming. Is this going to go on for years. We shall have to wait and sed. I think its very very wrong of him.

They are certainly not popular in Australia and New Zealand. They are down to earth folk and can see right through their fakeness.

Do you know everyone in those countries?

Sounds a bit of a sweeping statement there!

I just referred to friends of mine in the US as being positive towards them and that appears to be mocked, yet you're talking about two whole countries!

@Marmaladeagain We don't need to elect interesting/learned people as a Head of State, that's not what is required here.

Such high standards for your head of state. Requirement for the job: must have dna of person who won a war and self appointed themselves royal family back in the day. Doesn’t matter if they’re stupid/racist/ potential rapists/cheaters with no morals...as long as the DNA is there you will bow and scrape before them!

Why have someone intelligent with a distinguished career representing your country when you can have an inbred unintelligent person with unsavoury morals

I wholeheartedly agree with @DeRigueurMortis

Also, I’m not sure how accurate the Express so I think I’d take the news of a new tell-all documentary with a pinch of salt. It is possible that someone from Harry & Meghan’s team is testing the waters to see how this documentary is perceived, but I really doubt that this idea of a new tell-all documentary is even true. If there was credible evidence then fair enough but speculating based on what Angela Levin may have said is not the same thing as an official spokesperson saying something.

After all, Harry and Meghan have their new ventures and children to focus on so they really wouldn’t have time to work on yet another documentary.

Oh so true.

My post was to @ForeverAintEnough12

[quote ForeverAintEnough12]**@Marmaladeagain* We don't need to elect interesting/learned people as a Head of State, that's not what is required here.*

Such high standards for your head of state. Requirement for the job: must have dna of person who won a war and self appointed themselves royal family back in the day. Doesn’t matter if they’re stupid/racist/ potential rapists/cheaters with no morals...as long as the DNA is there you will bow and scrape before them!

Why have someone intelligent with a distinguished career representing your country when you can have an inbred unintelligent person with unsavoury morals [/quote]

You're assumption is that the electorate will vote for someone "worthy".

The best argument against your post can be summed up in one word: Trump.

By way of comparison the heirs to the throne know they occupy that position by the grace of the people.

Do a poor job and republicanism will rise.

As for the argument that the palaces etc would be such a draw for tourism without the RF that's simply not true.

There's a more recent study that supports the same conclusions but I cba to search for it.

www.flexsa.co.uk/blog/brand-finance-plc-values-the-uk-monarchy-brand-at-44-billion-

"The Monarchy’s contribution to the UK economy is considerable and in this Diamond Jubilee year of 2012 Brand Finance estimates the revenue uplift to the UK economy will be £2.4 billion offset by costs of £1.4 billion giving a net uplift of £1 billion to GDP.
UK businesses also benefit from Royal Warrants and Brand Finance research has valued the scheme at £4 billion and there is also a significant reputational benefit to individual UK businesses from the Monarchy once they have been granted a Coat of Arms which Brand Finance valued at £400 million.
Brand Finance’s new study has also taken into account the costs of the Monarchy which in the long term are valued at £7.6 billion after including the Civil List (valued at £461 million), Property Maintenance (valued at £387 million) and Security for the Royal Family which is valued at £3.2 billion."

I used to quite like Harry but I now think he really is rather unpleasant.

If he could stop whining for a minute he might realise what a complete and utter hypocrite he is. I feel embarassed for him.

@DeRigueurMortis your best response is to mention the leader of the US government? Why not use ‘Boris Johnson’ as an example of elections going wrong?

Why would you use trump as an example instead of an actual ceremonial presidential head of state, I don’t know like maybe the last 3 successful presidencies of your nearest neighbour all of whom were intelligent, distinguished individuals with excellent credentials and were elected to two terms each....

Is the bigger issue you don’t believe your fellow citizens capable of electing someone decent so instead you go down the ‘they may be invited unintelligent and without morals but they have the DNA route’ instead?

[quote ForeverAintEnough12]@DeRigueurMortis your best response is to mention the leader of the US government? Why not use ‘Boris Johnson’ as an example of elections going wrong?

Why would you use trump as an example instead of an actual ceremonial presidential head of state, I don’t know like maybe the last 3 successful presidencies of your nearest neighbour all of whom were intelligent, distinguished individuals with excellent credentials and were elected to two terms each....

Is the bigger issue you don’t believe your fellow citizens capable of electing someone decent so instead you go down the ‘they may be invited unintelligent and without morals but they have the DNA route’ instead?[/quote]

You're actually citing the current and last French Presidents as people we should aspire to being our head of state 😂.

Goodness me!!!

I'm by no means suggesting that a monarchy is a perfect solution, but frankly I think on balance it's a better solution for the U.K. both politically and economically.

That's not to say I don't think the current system could be improved. I think there should be far more transparency and accountability. The privileges afforded of being royal are just that - and if you abuse them (see my post on Andrew) then frankly I don't care about you're birthright, you should be "out".

As for the comment about trusting the electorate to vote for a good head of state - no I don't.

That's not a reflection on the U.K. it's the result of seeing electorates world wide making poor choices as a result of slick PR and more recently social media manipulation.

The two big differences between a U.K. monarch and POTUS is that one is required to be politically neutral whilst the other is a very political appointment.

The other is one of longevity. Elected heads of states (in democratic countries) have a maximum term of office. As a political appointee that's a good thing.

However, the flip side is that a politically neutral monarch has the benefit of a longevity of experience from which to draw and assist (as required) the Prime Minister.

I can't get past that everything they say is a complete contradiction. I also think she is being very thoughtful about her approach.

[quote nicenicenice]Posted this on another thread but look what princess Di best friend Julia Samuel has to say on over sharing pain in a public space... speaks volumes I think. Speaks directly to what they are doing - to their families and themselves.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9c872878-b174-11eb-9055-64edaa2be8dd?shareToken=f4b6687b5e9cd5cd29bd89b565b14ca2[/quote]
Off on a bit of a tangent here, but Julia Samuel is an incredible woman.

Indeed we all must have misunderstood what he meant in the Oprah Winfrey interview when he talked about wanting to work hard to re-build his relationship with his father if this report is accurate.

It does seem a strange way to go about repairing family relations. Didn't he also express a hope of reconciliation with William one day?

@SunbathingDragon

Whether it’s true or not, Harry has to earn money somehow and his link to the royal family is his only way of getting it.

It does seem odd to me that he is so keen to keep his titles and line of succession, despite how much he despises the royal family and all it stands for. Then again, the royal family was fine when he wanted to be half in and half out. All the things he is now complaining about happened before he requested the half in/half out position. It’s almost as if he is having a lengthy public tantrum at not being allowed what he wanted rather than having a genuine issue with it all...

agree.

@Viviennemary

If being royal is such a poisoned chalice I can't understand why Harry is determined to maintain his royal status and hang on to his titles and keep his place in the line of succession. My opinion is that if nothing is going to change in his approach he should relinquish them voluntarily. If not they need to be removed.

totally agree.

Very well said Riguer - France now being held up as Heads of state to be proud of or statesman like? no thanks.

Yes the continuing presence of a monarch does lead to a more stable backdrop to political life - couldn’t bear further self interested people trying to get themselves elected.

No- one thinks it’s perfect but lots think our system has benefits that outweigh negatives. The good thing about monarch is they will learn from experience, instead of that experience being wasted every four years or so.

@ExitChasedByABee

I wholeheartedly agree with *@DeRigueurMortis*

Also, I’m not sure how accurate the Express so I think I’d take the news of a new tell-all documentary with a pinch of salt. It is possible that someone from Harry & Meghan’s team is testing the waters to see how this documentary is perceived, but I really doubt that this idea of a new tell-all documentary is even true. If there was credible evidence then fair enough but speculating based on what Angela Levin may have said is not the same thing as an official spokesperson saying something.

After all, Harry and Meghan have their new ventures and children to focus on so they really wouldn’t have time to work on yet another documentary.

the documentary could be for their existing multi million dollars deals.

The good thing about monarch is they will learn from experience, instead of that experience being wasted every four years or so.
so true.

@Marmaladeagain

Very well said Riguer - France now being held up as Heads of state to be proud of or statesman like? no thanks.

Yes the continuing presence of a monarch does lead to a more stable backdrop to political life - couldn’t bear further self interested people trying to get themselves elected.

No- one thinks it’s perfect but lots think our system has benefits that outweigh negatives. The good thing about monarch is they will learn from experience, instead of that experience being wasted every four years or so.

Well to be fair I might have made an error in talking of France as our nearest Presidential neighbour.

Ireland has a President that serves for 7 years and the current incumbent is indeed a person of notable achievements.

That said I think it's telling that I forgot this.

I'm not denigrating President Higgins but rather questioning who actually knows who he is on a world stage?

Being worthy is indeed a great aspiration for someone to be a head of state but simultaneously their ability to effect change is limited by their platform and global appeal.

Like it or not, the RF have a huge platform and i think for the most part (with some pretty serious FU's like Andrew) they try their best to use that to the benefit of the U.K.

Do the titles actually mean anything in USA?

Even without them Harry is surely still known as HMQ's GS & PC's son?

I think that removing them would create a distance that the RF don't want creating-yet(?).

Would it seem petty?

Harry will always be a “Prince” though, wouldn’t he?

smilesy The Queen could remove the Prince title, but she's previously been reluctant to officially remove titles from her family.

Harry will always be a member of the royal family, it doesn't matter what is removed from him, he will be called Prince Harry or whatever. I just don't think you would see much difference!

Looking at this...
"What should be kept in mind is that the style and title HRH and prince is quite separate to the peerage of Sussex.

"The peerage can be disclaimed by the duke under legislation passed in 1963, but the peerage remains live and can be inherited by the next male heir upon the death of the holder, albeit disclaimed - in this instance Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, otherwise the earl of Dumbarton.

"Alternatively it would require an act of parliament and royal assent to remove the peerage under forfeiture'

So it really isn't as simple as some suggest.

Ah ok. Thanks Katherine!