Removing E:R from Harry’s Uniform

[Zoom101]

I am certainly not one of H&M’s fans but I think that for someone to actually remove the ER initials from his military uniform for the vigil was beyond petty.

The decision was made to allow him to wear a military uniform, fine, Andrew was also given permission but to take the time and trouble to remove the Queen’s initials from the epaulettes was, I think, really childish. I know he has chosen to not be a working Royal but the initals were left on Andrew’s epaulettes so why were Harry’s removed?

Apart from anything else, this will just add grist to the mill of H&M’s litany of complaints but for once, I think they’d be justified in being upset by this.

Expect I’ll be flamed for this and there are many more important things going on in the world but I do think this was a snotty thing to do to Harry.

So if you know the meaning, why was it not ‘apt’?

Sounds like you knew the meaning, decided to ascribe to it a totally different meaning (When would monolith mean majority, rather than ‘one’), then told me I’ve not used an apt word, because I didn’t mean the (wrong) meaning you assumed I did?
It seems like you’ve caused the confusion all on your own.

You’re a funny person 🤣

Anyway, I’m done now, this is just massively derailing.

Funny how you’ve taken something completely neutral I’ve said, twisted it and then refused to back down once clarified, sole aim to prove your narrative correct.

Eerily similar to what you accuse people to doing to Meghan in fact.

Clear evidence such as the comment that being the “most trolled person in the world” was “unsurvivable”?

You’ve already accused them of “using their positions to make their own private money” and changing their story, so your negative approach is clear enough.

Nobody knew their motivation for leaving until they actually spoke for themselves in detail on Oprah. The main reason for leaving was the racism, bullying and lack of support from the Palace - despite that they still wanted to make it work by living in both places and working for the Palace part time. When that was not allowed they chose the US.

Not to forget through all of that they were being bullied about frog more renovations. I have never seen any other RF member paying for renovations of any property - but Meghan had to pay didn't she.

Yes and even though it's in the Royal accounts as having been paid back, there are posters on here just weeks ago saying they didn't

You’ve already accused them of “using their positions to make their own private money” and changing their story, so your negative approach is clear enough.

Their words, not mine:

Do The Duke and Duchess of Sussex earn income?
No, under the current structure and financing arrangements, they are prohibited from earning any income in any form.

As they step back as senior members of the Royal Family and no longer receive funding through the Sovereign Grant, they will become members of the Royal Family with financial independence which is something they look forward to.

In addition, they value the ability to earn a professional income, which in the current structure they are prohibited from doing. For this reason they have made the choice to become members of the Royal Family with financial independence

By becoming financially independent, will The Duke and Duchess of Sussex be cutting ties with the monarchy?
As working members of the Royal Family, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain dedicated to maximising Her Majesty’s legacy both in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. They will continue to proudly do so by supporting their patronages and carrying out works for The Monarchy within the UK or abroad, as called upon.

I know the meaning but you used it figuratively and imprecisely.

Monolith means one stone and it also means large - as ‘monolithic’ building or company. So whether you meant one opinion or a large body of opinion - wasn’t clear. I don’t think you know yourself.

@Farmerazza no, Meghan didn't have to pay. Harry and Meghan were obliged to pay even they resigned their working positions because they only had the work paid for by others because of their roles as a working royals.

As to your other point, there are both famous and not famous examples.

Non working royals granted grace and favour apartments in royal palaces do not have the refurbishment paid for by the taxpayer.

Most famously, of course, neither did the Queen. When Windsor Castle burned in 1992 and the Great Hall, amongst other rooms and buildings, was burned down, the Queen paid for the entire restoration- building works and refurbishment - herself, out of her private income.

To be fair, neither 'monopoly' or 'monolith' are great choices in that sentence. However clumsy though, they both do convey the meaning intended so the personal attacks seem a little much.

@Farmerazza

Nobody knew their motivation for leaving until they actually spoke for themselves in detail on Oprah. The main reason for leaving was the racism, bullying and lack of support from the Palace - despite that they still wanted to make it work by living in both places and working for the Palace part time. When that was not allowed they chose the US.

Quite.

Agreed, but the point of contention (and it'ds a huge point) which you overlook is that they expected they would still receive public funds for doing so.

Meaning, they still wanted their private security, living expenses, wardrobe expenses, etc paid for by the public while earning their own money on top of it which would not be used for the benefit of taxpayers.

No other 'part time' royal has those perks and it was not appropriate that they do so too.

The point of contention was actually that they wanted to be PT royals, to live abroad and still work as royals here.

But there are no part time royals. You’re either a FT working royal or you’re not. Non-working royals can be patrons of charities etc but they’re representing the monarch.

So they had to choose either FT royal or nothing, and they chose nothing.

The main issue seems to have been with the loss of security cover that comes with royal status. On the one hand H’s mother died because her security was slack - royal security would never have let her get in the car with a drunk driver, speeding, with no seat belt, and his wife was getting extreme abuse seen just for marrying into his family; on the other, it’s difficult to provide full palace security in a different country, so they rather need to be here and fully protected or not.

That's nonsense - all of the Royal properties are renovated by the UK get as part of an agreement with the RF. All of them - a lot of these people do not work for the RF yet they live there and pay under £100 a month for rent.

The most disappointing thing was the father and granny watching the bullying and doing nothing. Only Harry released a statement. Some ministers in parliament wrote and signed a letter of support - but absolutely nothing from the family he loves so much. That in itself is quite telling. The family failed Harry. I would have moved too if I had to fight alone.

It's good that Charles is correcting those wrongs and standing up for his son now. It seems the brother is doing the same too.

Yes, 72 Cross Party female MPs signing a letter to stop the hounding of women in public life is quite something.

In the interview, Harry told Winfrey that he had felt more solidarity from those MPs than from members of his own family. “I guess one of the most telling parts, and the saddest parts, was over 70 … female members of parliament, both Conservative and Labour, came out and called out the colonial undertones of articles and headlines written about Meghan,” he said. “Yet no one from my family ever said anything over those three years. And that hurts.”

I don't think anyone can dispute this.

Best thing they ever did was leaving.

It isn't nonsense, the Queen did pay for Windsor Castle to be restored after the fire

After a massive public outcry

Only Harry released a statement. Some ministers in parliament wrote and signed a letter of support - but absolutely nothing from the family he loves so much. That in itself is quite telling.

Not true, actually - Prince William issued an unprecedented personal statement himself supporting the statement Prince Harry released, that you mentioned above.

William issued a statement following the vicious racism and abuse in the press when H&M’s relationship was first announced. He issued another statement following false allegations in the press about the state of his and H’s relationship post H&M’s decision to stay in the US.

Neither of them addressed the escalation of bullying that occurred after H&M’s wedding.

I don't think William should say anything about the alleged bullying - it was investigated and hasn't been taken further as far as I know. It could just be that Meghan had a different style of dealing with staff, to be fair.

Neither of them addressed the escalation of bullying that occurred after H&M’s wedding.

Firstly, if anyone should have been asking further statements, it was her husband, with the backing of his own press team, who took on the job of defending his wife.

Secondly, that kind of assertion completely ignores the fact that this isn’t an academic problem, there were real life relationship dynamics going on here. To take an example from each side’s point of view, Meghan and Harry have told us that the Palace stopped protecting them because the other members of the family were jealous of how successful their tour of Australia and New Zealand had been. On the other hand, we are told that William and Harry’s relationship had already fractured and he then moved to separate their households to try and protect his staff from being bullied. Even if the truth is, as is inevitably the case, somewhere in the middle, in neither of those scenarios make it remotely likely that people would have been open to talking behind the scenes to take unprecedented action as you suggest should have happened

So setting up a strawman on this topic and asserting that it shows the other members if the royal family in a bad light is just nonsense.

I was referring to the escalation of bullying of Meghan in the media that contributed to their leaving.

I agree with you about different styles.

That was to @Maireas

@Serenster Not sure what you’re labelling a strawman.

A pp quoted M&H commenting that they got more support from MPs than they did from their family wrt to the bullying of M post marriage.

You claimed William had issued a statement but that was much earlier at the start of their relationship before the bullying really escalated.

So the pp’s point stands.

Your speculative waffle about shenanigans within the household is irrelevant to an ethical obligation to a person who has joined the royal firm and taking abuse on that account. If they are genuinely unable to put ethics ahead of internecine fighting - that is strong argument in favour of a republic.

Your speculative waffle about shenanigans within the household is irrelevant to an ethical obligation to a person who has joined the royal firm and taking abuse on that account. If they are genuinely unable to put ethics ahead of internecine fighting - that is strong argument in favour of a republic.

Much as I would love to get into a discussion over whose waffle is the more speculative here (what fun that would be for everyone! 😀) I’ll sidestep that and just say it would be helpful if you could point out exactly what ethical obligation you have identified here that means independent adults have a moral imperative to step in to take some kind of action for a grown adult, with an experienced adult spouse, with their own advisers and communications teams, and who moreover have clearly deliberately started to engage in a personal battle with the press?

It would be helpful, once you’ve identified that, to then show us why it doesn’t seem to have applied to anyone, and Harry in particular, when, say, Kate was being physically harassed by paparazzi regularly.