Harry, Meghan and Netflix are go

[CathyorClaire]

The long awaited documentray is hitting the screen on December 8th:

www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/breaking-prince-harry-meghan-markles-28607547

What with the award in a few days and the book in January they're ramping up the game.

Of course. They're in charge of it. They're not going to put bad stuff out about themselves.

This is just a PR, hello style interview. Where they have rehearsed what they will be asked, can be asked, and what they want to reply. Like the Oprah Winfrey

Again, Oprah claimed that they didn't know what questions were going to be asked - and as I've said before some may even believe it

I think that criticizing the engagement interview is about throwing shade on specific PR agents and the BBC. I expect they will do the same regarding Sunshine Sachs in a few months. Nobody's work is ever good enough for them, that's why they haven't got anywhere is what they seem to believe.

Oprah Whinfrey said that she met them beforehand and asked them what they wanted from the interview and what message they wanted to convey. She said it wasn't intended to be an in depth interview (so I guess no booby trap questions) she was just interested in their side of the story. I guess that's why she didn't challenge anything. So they clearly knew what they were going to be asked, maybe not the verbatim question, because they'd talked it all through. And they will have rehearsed their responses to give the information they wanted released. Whatever they said was planned. I'm not being accusatory when I say that or anything, just factual.

@MrsFinkelstein
What a weird one sided interpretation

As I'm sure you are well aware - I wasn't criticising the breakdown of the marriage I was criticising the deceit, the cynical manipulation of a young girl as a brood mare and all the lies and gaslighting .
I'm not interested find any of them but you'll find that royalists divide into those who accept Camilla and those who never will

The whole toxic lot of them need removed . Let call themselves whatever they want but no more money 'crown' land ( a typical use of language to mislead - it's owned by the state) or power .

It's all about money . It's a cynical business and it's failing . There's no way those 3 men ( Charles , William - won't cause it to weaken further

Royal PR in a nutshell
Or does this only apply to H and M ?

Novella4 · Today 10:43
no more money 'crown' land ( a typical use of language to mislead - it's owned by the state)

I think "crown lands" were the monarch's private possessions, but passed over to the State and from the income of which comes the "sovereign grant". If the monarchy were abolished would the State have to give them their lands back?If so they could be even better off.
Does anyone know how this would work in practise?

Crown lands belong to the state

The concept is of crown lands being co owned by 'the idea of the crown' ( its not them as people -that is clear) and the state . Granted the name would confuse you if you weren't watching closely . That's how the Windsors get away with so much
No royals as head of state - no need for the 'idea of a monarch' - all land back to state .
This included the Dutchies btw .

@BadgerB
This explains it better than I can

https://www.republic.org.uk/theroyallfinancestitch-up

Novella4 · Today 15:25
@BadgerB
This explains it better than I can
www.republic.org.uk/theroyallfinancestitch-up

Thank you. That's interesting, but I'd like to read an explanation from a less partisan source. (my son is a member of Republic and I know their bias)

Novella4
From Wiki
The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it "the sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate.
The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it "the sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate.
Historically, Crown Estate properties were administered by the reigning monarch to help fund the business of governing the country. However, in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the Treasury,[5] thus relieving him of the responsibility of paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil List.

Seems extremely complicated but the idea of "all land back to the state" doesn't seem to fit. Without a monarchy the Govt would presumably still have to fund the Civil Service, the Forces etc etc, and the cost of a president, from the civil list as they do now with the monarchy. Would it be cheaper? Who knows

The French presidency costs €100m. If the monarch was replaced by an alternative head of state, everything the monarch funds would still have to be funded.

It's all about money . It's a cynical business and it's failing . There's no way those 3 men ( Charles , William - won't cause it to weaken further

Yes I think it is.

Dear Harry.
Please shine a light on this institution and the corrupt press because I want to know - we all deserve to know. If folk fall out with you so be it - you're telling your truth. Tell it like you have no fear of the consequences. You are the king's son so you'll always be royal and no one can take that away. You're a man with a voice and one thing you'll never be again is the family scapegoat. You don't have to fall into that role anymore. Call them out and good for you. You're a brave lad.

Best Wishes - Inkanta.

I think that criticizing the engagement interview is about throwing shade on specific PR agents and the BBC

I think it’s about disassociating themselves from the positivity they previously expressed about the Commonwealth which is a tad embarrassing now they’ve decided it’s colonialist.

Also, Catherine hasn’t been ‘wonderful’ any more.

And they lied about the proposal.

They are wronging a right just to bring it in line with all the wrongs they are flogging for cash. That rare 1% authentic and spontaneous reaction is , sadly, cancelled for profit.

They think it will improve their credibility but you know, all those thousands of left eye tear comments online are left by young people (the demographic they were trying to capture as their target market). It aint happening for them.

Without a monarchy the Govt would presumably still have to fund the Civil Service, the Forces etc etc, and the cost of a president

Mmm.

But there would be the very lucrative income from the secretive duchies whose tax status swings with the wind, the savings on 24/7 security for several rather than one (and I don't mind funding it for those who have formerly been democratically elected), savings on the use of armed service transport and helicopter hopping, no more expensive and strained visits to Commonwealth countries shaking the republic can, no guaranteed never to fall whatever the circumstances income (the royals were cushioned by this clause from their pandemic related drop in profits unlike every small business in the country) and let's not forget Charles still hasn't clarified whether a slimmed down monarchy means a slimmed down SG bill (shall we play a guessing game?)

All this set next to income from throwing open the doors to castles, palaces and grounds to all and I think it's a win.

I’ve said it before in one of these threads, there are very valid reasons for abolishing the monarchy but saving money isn’t one of them.

Its not like it would be an overnight seamless switch, everything single thing would have to be changed, there would likely need to be some sort of constitution drawn up, how would laws get passed etc.

It would cost absolutely billions.

Whether you think it would be worth the cost is one thing, but let’s not pretend in any way it would be cheap/er.

So no surprise there. British tabloids, having felt the hit of critical, negative public opinion are responding with more criticism of Harry and Meghan.

I’ve said it before in one of these threads, there are very valid reasons for abolishing the monarchy but saving money isn’t one of them

I was addressing the specific point raised on costs but as you say plenty of other valid reasons for ditching an archaic, venal and unrepresentative blight on public life.

I can’t see it happening anytime soon tbh.

Not because people are particularly royalist, but most people are just apathetic.

So many were convinced that when the queen died there would be some sort of uprising, and were genuinely shocked when it just kept rumbling on.

I remember reading on Twitter people genuinely were shocked that there wasn’t a period of ‘reflection’, and that Charles just became King.

Windfall tax on the Royals as a "Rexit" bill as it were - can make sure it is self-financing. Flog one of the royal palaces to a Qatari Prince maybe once the project is up and running we "the people" will find a way !

Which is roughly the current sovereign grant so pretty much fiscally neutral before we have a feeding frenzy on newly acquired republican assets.