Harry and Meghan want a royal summit — and an apology

[susan12345678]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghan-want-a-royal-summit-and-an-apology-hm58n8s6p

Oh dear...

I don’t know. He clearly has poor mental health and was going through a few major life changing events at the same time. He may have felt that way.

Maybe they have the summit 2.0 with Charles and camilla, will anf Kate, Harry and Meghan on podiums like a game show - quiz host ….. what would you do….type questions and out shoots prince andrew and on the buzzers what would you do with him type answers
and then the British public get to eliminate one couple who have to be totally silent and go into obscurity with no media and the other two couples go head to head …..

all televised for Netflix

*So why excuse does the Queen have for failing to defend the faith properly?

Faith numbers dropped throughout her reign. So you’ll be hard pressed to argue she did well as ‘defender of the faith’.

Can you imagine her appraisal with God?*

Defender of the Faith does not mean Recruitment Officer for the Faith.

Tbh at this point were I the royal family I would be completely ignoring them, outside of seasonal pleasantries. I wouldn't especially care what they want. The whole thing is ridiculous and becoming dull as anything. Why would they even want another meeting with them?

Apologise for what?

They can (and probably will) make money on the after dinner circuit, in the way that eg Boris Johnson does. I don't know how much money, but it's how a lot of famous people make extra cash, and would fit with the idea of being thought leaders.

If I was advising the Royal family, I'd recommend waiting until after the book is out before deciding whether or not to meet with H&M. There's too much risk of something else being in the book to do anything beforehand. On balance, I think it probably would be better for all concerned if H&M were at the coronation, but (for either side) not at any cost.

On Elizabeth II, it's incredibly difficult to know what is an accurate depiction of her as she was really very good at not giving anything much away. She definitely had advisors, and it is widely believed that towards the end of her life, Charles had more of a say in her decisions than previously (given he would have to live with them, not her). Harry's interpretation of events is possible, but as others have said it's perhaps more likely that she made the decision and/or fundamentally agreed with it.

Past evidence (eg her sister) is that she has a lot of sympathy for family members who want to pursue their own happiness and will offer options. But not at the expense of what she considers is important the institution (which has changed over time eg in relation to divorce).

Weakest Link ??

Those are very good points, @limoncello23 and there's evidence to suggest Meghan was welcomed and included - she herself refers to the first Christmas at Sandringham, which seems to have been warm and enjoyable.
I read that the late Queen was concerned that it was all quite a change for Meghan and she suggested a low key start, a quiet wedding if they chose, and to live on a property with privacy and seclusion, no engagements while she settled in, and continuing her acting career if she wanted.
Meghan wanted to "hit the ground running", her choice, but other options were available.
I'm not saying Harry and Meghan are villains, but they could have chosen a different life from the get go.

Stop giving her the publicity she hates but craves!

I never used to watch the Queen’s speech but I might just tune in for this one.

I think Harry must be on MN where people scream and shout while the OP remains calm .
I fully believe William probably raised his voice out of sheer frustration but scream and shout in front of The Queen ? Never ? Nor do I believe HM said nothing , it’s all part of Harry’s narrative .
In any case how could a grown man who has served in Afghanistan etc be terrified of his brother shouting ?
My support of H and M diminishes by the day .

They can (and probably will) make money on the after dinner circuit, in the way that eg Boris Johnson does. I don't know how much money, but it's how a lot of famous people make extra cash, and would fit with the idea of being thought leaders

I'm not sure they'd make particularly interesting speakers, TBH. Hardly anyone turned up to hear Harry speak at the UN, and there's only so many times that MM can trot out her dishwashing soap anecdote

Ok. So what do you think ‘defender of the faith’ means?

If numbers were falling you’d think it was her job as head of the church to try and do something about it like hiring a Recruitment Officer for the Faith or something to try. The late Queen was very popular and that means she was in a position to defend the faith well. But clearly, she did not defend well and therefore didn’t do her god-given job properly or to the best of her potential.

Defender according to the dictionary:

noun
1.
a person who defends someone or something.
"a determined defender of British interests"
2.
(in sport) a player whose task it is to protect their own side's goal.
"Owen surged between two defenders, then drove the ball out of the reach of the goalkeeper"

"they seem to think the public will forget that they were very happy to have a half in, half out relationship"

Their gamble seems to have partly paid off then, because it seems half the public have forgotten this bit, judging by a good chunk of responses across SM.
Moreso from Americans - and that's the audience they were aiming for.

Here's the thing, either the RF have kept a dignified silence (which so many are praising them for), which means most of the comments from palace courtier, king's friend etc are bullshit, or the comments are real and approved ( being used as mouth pieces) which means there's no silence, dignified or otherwise. You can't have it both ways.

Just an over-entitled and over privileged couple cashing in on 'celebrity' and keeping the cash flowing by judicious PR output. Completely out of touch with real life and the cost of living for normal people.

IF the source quoted really is speaking for Haitch and Meg, then it suggests they are so blinded by righteous anger they can't see straight. The apology was offered and given by someone who worked for the Royal Family – it wasn't the Royal Family's to give. Yes, it took place at Buck Palace, but that's where the offence occurred so it made sense to give and receive the apology in the same place. It's not double standards because it's simply not comparable, whatever Haitch and Meg might think.

And the time to sit down and talk was surely after the Oprah interview and before the Netflix doc aired. But I don't think deep down they actually WANT an apology, because if they get one, their grievances must surely be put to bed at last – but that means they cannot possibly continue in their current vein of criticising and denigrating the Royals for income.

They wanted to carve "a progressive new role" - they didn't want to leave. They set up the Sussex Royal website and began to patent its use.

As pp have said, the Defender of the Faith is an antiquated Papal title bestowed pre Reformation. Irrelevant now.
Recently Charles has visited a Sikh temple and a Jewish community centre where he joined in traditional dancing for Chanukah.
I think he tries to acknowledge the multi faith nature of the UK.
Meghan joined the Anglican communion, but I'm sure it wouldn't have been a problem if she chose not to.

I find it hard to believe that W shouting at H scared him - I mean, Harry was an army officer, he got through sandhurst where they don’t wrap you up in cotton wool, and he fought in wars where he was at risk of being shot / killed so I do find it a stretch to believe that a raised voice or two caused him significant psychological harm.

fact is, in the US (which is now their primary target) H&M are seen in a favourable light - that won’t care what we in Britain are saying, overly much, unless they can use it to feed into their ‘victim’ persona and script that sells so well in the USA.

(and as an aside, where a newspaper quotes ‘a source’ without giving a name, that source exists - failure to have a source on record would leave the newspaper open to a libel action so the lawyers working for the paper would be all over this story like a rash, checking the sources do actually exist)

That’s awesome - for Charles. And this book should be interesting because it’s geared towards his coronation and the future, but also by looking at the last too.

But my point was in relation to the late Queen, a different monarch.

Charles has been criticised for not adopting his mother’s never complain and never explain line as rigidly. We know roughly what Charles thinks and feels because he has spoken about things in ways the late Queen would never dare. I am saying that using his god-given voice is a good thing, even if he makes mistakes because at least he’s trying.

I don’t understand why the late Queen’s never complain and never explain line was praised when it meant she couldn’t do her job as defender of faith properly or at all. It looked like a winning strategy, but the numbers show she failed by default.

Meghan joined the Anglican communion, but I'm sure it wouldn't have been a problem if she chose not to

I'm not sure they could have married in the CofE if she hadn't been baptised as some kind of Christian.

DH is RC and I remember our Church in Wales minister saying "as long as he's Christian..."

@Maireas ”As pp have said, the Defender of the Faith is an antiquated Papal title bestowed pre Reformation. Irrelevant now.”

Is it as antiquated as the title ‘King’ and ‘Queen’?

If numbers were falling you’d think it was her job as head of the church to try and do something about it like hiring a Recruitment Officer for the Faith or something to try. The late Queen was very popular and that means she was in a position to defend the faith well. But clearly, she did not defend well and therefore didn’t do her god-given job properly or to the best of her potential.

No monarch, regardless of their popularity, was going to hold back the 21st century, or the increased atheism that accompanies the passage of time.

Those with faith should have the freedom to practise their faith. This is defence of the faith.

Those without faith are also free to live their lives as they see fit.

How this can be seen as a personal failing of the late Queen, I have not the foggiest clue.

There is no job, no role as Defender of the Faith.
There is a role and job of king and Queen whether you agree with it or not