Omid Scobie Endgame PART 3

[Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstotheyard]

La Pom Pom Girl is doing the Double Dutch. But who is turning the skipping ropes? Part three/trois/drie of the continuing discussion of Endgame by Omid Scobie. Previous thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4951834-omid-scobies-new-book-part-2

The trademark language. It’s all very bitter.

Yes all original, pics taken from their website.

To be fair I think the underlined bits are links?

Wow, don't think I have ever read that before, what a statement,😮 was it even necessary to go into all that detail.

@tattychicken Thank you for those links. That statement is written terribly. As @AliceOlive says, extremely bitter, and rather juvenile.

It also shows a naïveté on their part about how everything works.

I really don’t think H & M understood Charles funded them from the Duchy of Cornwall to do the public appearances etc.

They also didn’t grasp that “Royal” is reserved for official patronage and not commercial gain.

I’m just going to bite my tongue.

I do remember reading it at the time.

It strikes me as far too wordy.

And what I didn't really notice then, but leaps out now, is the comparison to the Cambridges. I suppose it's because the displays of bitterness continue (Finding Freedom and Spare for sure, probable in Endgame too)

And thinking how if they'd refrained from commenting on that, everyone would forget about the tabloid comments on trademarks that much quicker

I don’t understand why the logo was an M.

It's a fancy calligraphy of both their initials.
Looks like M but could also be a fancy H.
With a coronet on top.

When was the "Service is Universal" statement released? Was it after that ⬆️ one?

US lawyer/PR/MM speak . Completely fails to understand the complexities and the relationship between the state and The Crown. It’s like the Queen is just a major celebrity who happens to do charity work as an individual .

Interestingly even my two highly educated and intelligent US SILs struggle with the relationship the U.K. has with the royal family , they seem completely baffled by the constitutional issues and even bemused by the weird symbiotic relationship between the public and the crown . Sort of ; they turn up at hospitals charities etc , are on show at huge state occasions giving us an excuse to flag wave and dress in gold braided uniform and in return we turn a blind eye to their luxury lifestyle and holidays in Mustique.

The row over service rather than public service summed this up. The job of the royal is to use their profile to raise the profile of the charity/hospital/cause , but in MM eyes it was the other way around ; the charitable work is a way to raise her profile . It’s literally the reverse but it very much the US way where public philanthropy is an accepted way to raise your profile . Not wrong but completely different and a real clash of cultures.

It’s interesting to read it back now, because, taken in combination with their own plans, which they published in a manifesto published on he Sussex Royal website in January 2020, you can see what clearly that they did not get what they wanted (they say so in as many words in this extract!) and they are not happy.

Fast forward a year or so to Oprah and now we have the international splash - life in the Royal family was unsurvivable! Here are all the reasons why it was a matter of life or death for us or our children to escape! It’s hard not to see that as an act of revenge.

@cyclamenqueen
I totally agree. The monarch in this country is the Head of State, and as such is expected by the state (Government) to participate in state activities. eg; they recently hosted a state visit from South Korea. That is they were expected to host a state banquet; attend certain events with the South Korean officials; welcome the president, etc . This they did on behalf of the Government.
This is why the monarch (now K. Charles) is expected to remain out of politics.
One year they they may host President Trump, and the following year it could be President Biden, etc (I think this has happened).
In the past the Queen had to host Idi Amin, Nicolae Ceaușescu (Romanina president subsequently executed after a coup), and many others. And it is clear the monarch may not always agree with their politics.
Obviously Charles was the PoW for many years and in some cases his personal views have become known (I think he got out of a state banquet with the Chinese, or similar).
This is also why the RF are not allowed to accept freebies, etc, and all wedding presents had to be declared. The rules are the same as for MPs; remember all the fuss over whether Boris had a free holiday or not.
In other words, the main function of the RF is as Head of State. Senior members such as P. William, etc act on behalf of the state (Especially on their overseas tours, etc).
The Charity work of the RF is really a side issue, and the purpose is that the RF promote and support various charities. The late P. Philip started his Duke of E award, P. Charles (as he was then, started the Princes Trust, to support young people in business ventures, etc.

People like Holly Willoughby take a step back to put their family first

Harry removes them from their family ( apart from Doria )
Moves to a country where gun ownership is legal
Taunts terrorists with his kill list
Invades his own privacy and security

I don’t think these are the actions of someone who puts his family first

Reading that Harry didn’t have security at the coronation, but what they really mean is he didn’t have his own personal security at a heavily guarded event. But it’s enough to get the “poor Harry” narrative out.

New thread started:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4957618-omid-scobie-endgame-part-4

In effect, as @milveycrohn 's post shows, the RF are civil servants. Very highly paid and privileged civil servants, but if the government of the day says 'you entertain this president, whatever you think of him, because there are trade/diplomatic advantages to our country in putting him up at BP and throwing a state banquet' then that's what they do. In return they get the lifestyle; always with the knowledge that if the country wants them gone, they go.

It's already been confirmed at the trial that Harry's security will be reviewed for each and every trip to the UK (providing he gives them the required notice of when he'll be here) and it will be provided, paid for by the taxpayer, if the threat means he should receive it. That is actually a uniquely good deal (no one else has a deal of that kind)

If he stays in a property on a royal estate (something we understand he's been told he can do, providing he gives some notice) then physical security for his base is assured. If he's at a royal event, then he'd be covered (as all guests who are close to the principles would be)

I thought that remark was so immature and rude to the Queen, who had tried to be warm in her language about H and M. The whole leaving statement is arrogant and in retrospect, foolish. They thought they were going to smash it outside of the RF. Now they are lucky to be invited to watch someone else cut a ribbon.

I think they fudge that by calling it "acting under the government/Prime Minister's advice", Mrs D, and it doesn't always work if petulance gets in the way - as when Charles bunked off the Chinese state dinner around the time of the "ghastly old waxworks" remark

Same with Harry's security, which had already been settled sensibly by folk who know what they're doing, except that when refused something they think they should have the toddler-like behaviour appears again

What I remember from one statement of theirs, I forget which, was them saying they planned to ‘collaborate with HMTQ’.

I cringed myself inside out

Oh goodness yes . I joined you in your cringe ( as did half the population I suspect)

Omg yes!!

Yup - nice tiara, glittery dress, royal sash! A right royal fuck you to the pair of grifters in Montecito

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12829539/LIZ-JONES-Kate-wore-ultimate-REVENGE-DRESS-diplomats-night-Like-Diana-sent-message-world-not-cowed.html