Page 4 | Harry and Meghan want a royal summit — and an apology

whymewhynow · 17/12/2022 22:31

And I think H&M are crazy not to bear in mind that the RF have that grenade which - so far - they haven't pulled the pin on.

WhistlingInWhistler · 17/12/2022 22:36

Anyone who is old enough to remember the Charles versus Diana times knows that just because one party feeds something to the press, it doesn't mean it actually happened or even had a shred
of truth. It's perfectly likely that this is William or Charles briefing the media in return for some perceived favour. I'm surprised people naively just assume the article is true.

JustAnotherManicNameChange · 17/12/2022 22:40

Eyerollcentral · 17/12/2022 22:25

These two are hilarious. I love the way they keep wanting HR style meetings in the royal family. It’s not gonna happen babes. Meghan must be rageballs she is out of time with an employment tribunal claim. She is determined to make them out to be like a branch of wernham Hogg in a faux attempt to be down with the people in their little jobs with their little employment problems. Neither of them have ever had what any one on here would consider a ‘real job’ in a month of Sundays!!! They would be astounded that most HR involvement revolves around facts!!!
The book is going to be absolutely cut throat. They must be dreading it dropping. I don’t think they expected the queen to die before it came out. Now things have shifted substantially and granny isn’t there to take Harry’s side. They are screwed and want to try and claw back some place before it comes out and to be included in the coronation. Otherwise they’ve no story to sell going forward and they have nothing else but their brief royal past as a couple

She sold frozen yogurt, was a hostess at a restaurant, did freelance calligraphy work and also taught classes and then of course the commercial/TV side of it.

Some of those are definitely real work/jobs.

Eyerollcentral · 17/12/2022 22:40

Yes the bullying report is bad for Meghan personally but it’s also bad for the RF because they did nothing to stop her behaviour, which led to several members of staff becoming ill. At the end of the day it’s the Palace that employed those people and the Palace that paid them off. I sincerely doubt they would breach the ndas surrounding those individual cases. That would put the individuals in a precarious position. And anyway I would say that there are more confidentiality agreements not necessarily relating to Meghan tied in with generous payments that the palace are desperate not to publicise. It’s not the silver bullet it’s made out to be.
That said it would be very interesting if one of the nda signatories spoke out. It would then be up to the Palace how they responded

Jennybeans401 · 17/12/2022 22:40

If the RF don't apologise and have this meeting will H&M really not turn up to the coronation?

daretodenim · 17/12/2022 22:43

They will of course be at the coronation.

If they weren't invited (an apparently they are), they'd have made a big victim song and dance about it. In public - not "the media", but in ways "the media" would be talking about.

Inviting them keeps them quiet about not being invited.

Not going after being invited erodes their victim status.

Coming to the coronation keeps their profile up, plus gives opportunity to be at a major historical event. And gives them the opportunity to have another series/book next year/2024. If they choose. The only way they can continue being victims of the RF is, ironically, by attending. Unless they have a radical other business model, or have earned so much they don't need to earn any more, then the victimhood status is important.

But the other thing is that by going to "support" the King, they make themselves look like bigger twats to many. And I wonder actually if this is the real reason their invitation is public. H&M are playing chess with people who can plan ahead. Something they've not shown themselves skilled at (yet).

Eyerollcentral · 17/12/2022 22:45

@JustAnotherManicNameChange 1. Her father and friends say she never sold frozen yoghurt

She provided calligraphy services on an ad hoc self employed basis, not as an employee
Taught what classes and to whom? Again was that on a self employed basis, not as an employee? 4. Yes she did work as a hostess in a restaurant for a short period of time. Do you think she was running to HR in that environment every time someone made a sexist remark to her?
It’s my understanding that performers are generally under contract as self employed individuals for commercial or otherwise TV projects. They aren’t classed as employees.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 17/12/2022 22:49

over50andfab · 17/12/2022 22:12

Oh look, yet another biased newspaper article quoting random sources and people believing every word they read as it must be true. I can’t even see where H & M actually said this.

he said she said…

M&H have repeatedly and angrily attacked newspapers owned by News Corp, ie by Rupert Murdoch.

To quote the Wikipedia article on The Times (ownership): "News UK (formerly News International, a wholly owned subsidiary of News Corp, run by Rupert Murdoch)"

I don't think this has all that much to do with the Royal Family, and it certainly isn't because The Times is a royal-supporting rag: Murdoch's other papers regularly shred the royal family, and I doubt The Times is run any differently.

H&M have picked a fight with someone who not only fights back, he fights dirty. Possibly a mistake.

antelopevalley · 17/12/2022 22:52

WhistlingInWhistler · 17/12/2022 22:36

Anyone who is old enough to remember the Charles versus Diana times knows that just because one party feeds something to the press, it doesn't mean it actually happened or even had a shred
of truth. It's perfectly likely that this is William or Charles briefing the media in return for some perceived favour. I'm surprised people naively just assume the article is true.

This

WhistlingInWhistler · 17/12/2022 22:52

Eyerollcentral · 17/12/2022 22:45

@JustAnotherManicNameChange 1. Her father and friends say she never sold frozen yoghurt

She provided calligraphy services on an ad hoc self employed basis, not as an employee
Taught what classes and to whom? Again was that on a self employed basis, not as an employee? 4. Yes she did work as a hostess in a restaurant for a short period of time. Do you think she was running to HR in that environment every time someone made a sexist remark to her?
It’s my understanding that performers are generally under contract as self employed individuals for commercial or otherwise TV projects. They aren’t classed as employees.

Are you saying that working on a self employed basis isn't a job?

PutinSmellsPassItOn · 17/12/2022 22:52

Why do you believe these articles with no proof either written or verbal that they've actually said this ? 🤔

The media is.making a fortune out of these clickbait articles and the fools that blindly believe them, maybe of their so called family had supported them and spoke out when this couple were being stalked and harassed by the press they wouldn't be so pissed off and wouldn't be speaking out 🙄

WhistlingInWhistler · 17/12/2022 22:54

PutinSmellsPassItOn · 17/12/2022 22:52

Why do you believe these articles with no proof either written or verbal that they've actually said this ? 🤔

The media is.making a fortune out of these clickbait articles and the fools that blindly believe them, maybe of their so called family had supported them and spoke out when this couple were being stalked and harassed by the press they wouldn't be so pissed off and wouldn't be speaking out 🙄

It's bizarre isn't it. So many people in this thread blithely believing that an article with unnamed sources is entirely true. It's like we've lost the power of critical thinking.

blacksax · 17/12/2022 22:55

Sandra1984 · 17/12/2022 21:19

Knowing that the Times is very English establishment and pro-monarchy I would take the article with a pinch of salt. the sources of the article are "a friend of harry said", "a friend of the King said" and a "friend of the royal family said". After following the media headlines I can see the royal family PR machine has been working full time the last two weeks. In the meanwhile Netflix is cashing in big bucks as this has been their most viewed and popular documentary. I'm not English but this couple have given their middle finger to the English establishment (being the monarchy one of it's biggest pillars) so I can understand why English people are pissed off at them. Personally I can give a rats ass what this couple is up to.

British. The word you are looking for is British, not English.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 17/12/2022 22:55

What exactly do they feel owed an apology for? Sincere question.

It seems to me that H&M are the ones who owe an abject apology. Too bad it's too late to deliver it to Her Majesty QEII.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 17/12/2022 22:59

So many people in this thread blithely believing that an article with unnamed sources is entirely true. It's like we've lost the power of critical thinking

Quite

nookierookie · 17/12/2022 23:01

Who knows what is true really - I think that both sides have been using the media to air grievances, whilst the media have made the cracks between them much worse.

This article does have a ring of slight truth about them in the sense that H&M do seem to want to believe that the Queen did not take unfavourable decisions. This is on public record - Harry's statement that he wanted to see that his grandmother had the right people around her when he saw her on the way to the Invictus games tends to suggest that this is his preferred interpretation of the situation, as does the "kind old grandmother" spin given in the Oprah interview.

I can well believe that this might be what Harry thinks he saw, in that I can quite believe that the queen said very little in the Sandringham summit, whilst her son and grandsons said a lot more given that they have all been reported as having a temper at one time or other. I know from being a lawyer that the people speaking the most in meetings are not always the ultimate decision makers though and I fully believe that the queen made the decision on half in half out herself and took full responsibility for that. I don't think she had lost her marbles, even if her health was failing somewhat.

It was reported that it was the Queen's decision to put the photos on the piano of just the line of succession that reportedly made H&M jump early as they saw it as a snub by the institution against them. I suspect that this was a perhaps cack handed attempt by the queen to emphasise the line of succession knowing that her body was failing and she actually wouldn't have that long left. It was just unfortunate that it made H&M feel pushed out of an institution that they already felt marginalised by.

It is very painful to think that one's grandmother and queen has rejected you and I quite understand why Harry prefers to focus on others.

eddiemairswife · 17/12/2022 23:04

I can remember those long ago innocent times when the most scandalous royal image was Princess Margaret exiting a night-club at 3 am smoking a cigarette in a long holder (Daily Express).

GoingtotheWinchester · 17/12/2022 23:05

Why is everyone treating the royals as if they can do no wrong? They’ve proved many times that they’re awful people - why would they not be awful to M&H if it suited them?

beautifulyoungmind · 17/12/2022 23:05

Sister in law worked at The Times in quite a senior position & maintains that when sources are referred to, as they are in this article, they always exist....it's not just 'made up' There has to be journalistic rigour to maintain the credibility & reputation of the publication.
Interestingly, I also saw this mentioned on some breakfast news programme last week...ie that there is no smoke without fire. It always makes me think twice now when I read articles that I might have previously mistrusted. I do believe 'proof' is available in house but obviously sources have to be protected.

JustAnotherManicNameChange · 17/12/2022 23:07

Eyerollcentral · 17/12/2022 22:45

@JustAnotherManicNameChange 1. Her father and friends say she never sold frozen yoghurt

She provided calligraphy services on an ad hoc self employed basis, not as an employee
Taught what classes and to whom? Again was that on a self employed basis, not as an employee? 4. Yes she did work as a hostess in a restaurant for a short period of time. Do you think she was running to HR in that environment every time someone made a sexist remark to her?
It’s my understanding that performers are generally under contract as self employed individuals for commercial or otherwise TV projects. They aren’t classed as employees.

"S he earned minimum wagee_ and was very popular with customers," her former boss, Paula Sheftel, told the Mirror. "She had to prove she had an outgoing personality and would work well with staff." That's from the frozen yogurt job.

In addition to her freelance work, Markle taught two-hour classes on the art of calligraphyy_ at her part-time job at the Paper Source store in Beverly Hills.
"It was her part-time job as she was going through auditions," the CEO of Paper Source, Winnie Park, told PEOPLE. "She taught calligraphy, and hosted a group of customers and instructed them during a two-hour class on how to do calligraphy." That's from the other one.

Tbh, I'm willing to accept that MM, the person writing the article and the people quoted are lying. What I'm not willing to accept is that only MM is lying and everyone else including unnamed sources and (highly biased )media are telling the truth .

PutinSmellsPassItOn · 17/12/2022 23:08

Whistling it's really fucking worrying how people lose their inability to think for themselves and blindly believe nonsense because it's online. 😬

Eyerollcentral · 17/12/2022 23:10

@WhistlingInWhistler job implies you are employed by someone else. My point is that both Meghan and harry have very limited experience of being in positions that most of us would define as a job - that is paid by someone else to do the work they tell you to do on an ongoing basis. Of course self employment is real work?

LolaSmiles · 17/12/2022 23:12

Why is everyone treating the royals as if they can do no wrong? They’ve proved many times that they’re awful people - why would they not be awful to M&H if it suited them?
I don't think the royals can do no wrong.

It wouldn't surprise me that H&M had some bad experiences, but I think they should stick to their guns, be private citizens and get on with living a happy family life with their children.

For a couple claiming the royal family was so horrendous, they were very keen on wanting a half in, half out role.For a couple claiming they want privacy, they spend a lot of time making sure they're in the press.

SoupDragon · 17/12/2022 23:12

Why is everyone treating the royals as if they can do no wrong?

I imagine that for some it is their job to post like that.

MarshaMelrose · 17/12/2022 23:15

GoingtotheWinchester · 17/12/2022 23:05

Why is everyone treating the royals as if they can do no wrong? They’ve proved many times that they’re awful people - why would they not be awful to M&H if it suited them?

By your argument, isn't Harry royal fam? Surely that means he's an awful person too? So why can't you believe that he was awful to his grandmother, father and brother too? Why are you not sympathetic towards them?