What now for M&H

[OliviaBean]

I find the whole family and royal family (The Firm) aspect of Megxit very interesting.

Just wondering what now for M&H? Will they continue on with the strategy of talking and writing about the royal family or will things now change? I think the half in half out strategy on their terms would have worked for M&H but I think the RF were right to knock it on the head, it would never have worked for the RF, Harry was ready to go and Meghan was never going to just slot in with the system.

Just looking at Harry, I think the guy really needs the whole circus of fighting with the RF in public to stop, for his own mental health. He obviously has issues that he needs to come to terms with, he really needs to do this in private but this is at odds with how they need to make money now. I really fear for him the person.

If they keep going with the fighting then I think that's it for them and the RF. If they are to reconcile with the RF, how then do they make a living? I would imagine QE has left quite a provision for Harry in her will so perhaps the money making aspect will be less of a priority. I could see Charles being more open to a reconciliation but not sure about William.

Not trying to start a thread to bash anyone, just interested in other opinions.

That post was for @wanda616

Oh and she didn't fancy Piers Morgan so he launched into a hate campaign which persists to this day

I think the problem is that there is a cross over between The Family and The Firm and one doesn't exist without the other. Perhaps a truce can be called within The Family but everyone involved would need to stop throwing digs at one another and I include the RF in that, both PR camps need to stop.

I don't know how they'll make the money they appear to want/need on their own so perhaps they might now come back into the family business as it were. It would be a good investment on Charles's part.

Anyway what do we know, it's all speculation. I do hope H is ok, I really think he's not great in himself regardless of QE dying.

It's good to see reasoned debate from both sides on here.

I agree Serenster that soft diplomacy has a role.

but how that is exercised has changed . The recent royal tours don’t cut it at all. The Wills and Kate one was particularly cringeworthy.

I think Charles had a somewhat better sense of how things need to be done. But he won’t have the time. I think he is trying to get H&M on.

the West is trying to exert influence in Africa and the East.
China and Russia are battling to do the same.

The role of the RF can be quite influential, if done properly.

are the Rf now up to this vital task? Remains to be seen.

While we are at it, I wouldn't mind a definition of what a 'right-wing media' is, a term bandied about frequently but never fully explained.

Hopefully they will bury the hatchet, H & M continue to build their lives abroad without selling stories about how hard done by they are.

I know many people don’t understand this - the Mau Mau uprising was within the lifetime of the Queen (the 1950s) and the crimes performed by the British forces were committed in her name. It has been interesting to hear from many people around the world (I’ve listened to Kenyans, Argentinians, Iraqis, Americans amongst others) who have explained very clearly why they will not mourn the passing of Elizabeth - precisely because of the actions of her government in her role as head of state.

I'm thinking the Queen was the link that kept Harry at least somewhat connected to his family. With her now gone and his father and brother now taking even more of the spotlight, I'm sure this will push him further away. When and if (and let's be honest, given the stats, it's likely) his marriage dissolves, there will be some tough choices on Harry's end. But Meghan will be fine.

Well said @DFOD

I think a lot of people are interested in the situation for the reasons you say in your third last paragraph. I agree, the unhinged deserved to be called out.

What would you like as an alternative?

President BoJo?

Because that is what we would have according to the last general election

It was a pretty pointed attack on the Family to say that someone had made a racist comment.

Why do we need a HoS? We can work with a PM, judiciary and apparatus of the state

It is laziest argument to say that if we don’t have a monarchy we would have BoJo (without noting that BoJo had to resign and there is no such simple recourse for a hereditary monarch). Then ffs, just do away with democracy if you dislike it so much!

discerning minds could note lots of exciting ways to reform. Only one head of state, not their wife, kids etc paid by the taxpayer (whether hereditary or appointed). Limited access to the public purse. Clear and measurable duties and deliverables. Within and answerable to the laws of the land. Transparency and so on

It depends on the generation. Remarks that seemed normal only a few decades ago are now seen as racist. My DD has children that are racially the same mix as the Sussex's. Lots of relatives joked about their appearance before they were born. Within the family it was seen as joking, the parents included, as everyone was happy whether they were dark or fair. No one was though of as racist. It was the same as wondering if they would have red hair.

One could argue that it brings him closer rather than pushes him away. His Father is now the King.We don't know what Charles will do from here. He clearly wants a relationship with his Son and may try to draw him back.

I don’t think you understand how this agreement between monarchy and parliament works.

But you are right that I am lazy because I really CBA to explain it to the hard of thinking.

I thought she looked like she was acting.

Only one head of state, not their wife, kids etc paid by the taxpayer

Wow, sexist, much!

A problem with only funding the head of state is that presumably their partner will then have to continue working (unless you pay them a lot of money - as your Head of State will have to give up all their existing interests in order to be officially neutral) and that can lead easily to conflicts of interest, or perceived conflicts, which come to the same thing. Unless you insist that your Head of State can’t ever brings a plus one on any engagements or work travel (not a great incentive to take the job…) then you’ll also need to reimburse their expenses also, which will be considerable.

Plus they and their family would need protection, and once they retire from the position would continue to need protection, so you’ll quickly end up with a pool of people with open-ended security needs.

These are not insolvable issues, but they are real issues that countries have to grapple with. Acting like it’s simple thing to move from one onto the other isn’t accurate.

We don’t pay salaries for the PM’s spouse and children.

why for the HoS?

Exactly, straight out of compton, Boris Johnson's sister saying she was going to dilute royal blood, the sun saying she was on porn hub etc Harry had to fire off a statement asking them to back off.

It is laziest argument to say that if we don’t have a monarchy we would have BoJo (without noting that BoJo had to resign and there is no such simple recourse for a hereditary monarch). Then ffs, just do away with democracy if you dislike it so much!

BTW, our having an elected government at the same time as an unelected head of state is precisely how BoJo was able to be ousted. It’s a system that lies at the heart of the constitution. We tried the alternative with Cromwell and quickly realised that actually we don’t want to give such power to parliament. It’s an agreement that works as we, the people, ultimately hold power. What we do with that power, well, that’s a while other discussion.

*whole

@Meanderings Ah yes, I'd forgotten all about Rachel's Johnson's "Exotic Blood" comment

Oh really?! Are you saying that if we didn’t have a monarchy BoJo could not have been ousted?

I would love to hear your explanation for that!

honestly, say you like the idea of grandeur of the past and you want a monarchy to pretend Uk is still a power.

but the rest, that somehow monarchy helps us be accountable as a democracy (while being the antithesis of a democratic institution) is just nonsense.