Ham pr disasters 36! The clap backs continue!

[jeffgoldblum]

A continuation of our continuing discussion of our favourite private citizens! 😁

See PP posted about H as a kidnap risk. Who on earth would kidnap him?? Unless it's MI6 for the sake of national security as a previous PP suggested 😀

Er, I was replying to a point put to me on this thread in response to one of my posts! This is how a discussion forum generally works!

Especially on a thread which is on its 36th iteration! The discussion is bound to broaden in those circumstances.

Or is it that points made in favour of hereditary monarchy are classed as interesting embellishments to these threads whereas points highlighting the downsides of hereditary monarchy count as “derailments”?

Is Invictus a registered charity because if it is then their expenses shoould be audited each year and available for public inspection?

I’ve just realised I was singing Kumbaya in my head when reading the post from @Leafteaandbiscuits543. 😊

I don't have legal knowledge but from RAVEC's perspective the difference is not wording but that his geography has changed. The wording is simply a reminder of what happened 6 years ago.

He is now a non-working royal living in the UK, so his risk assessment starts on that basis, rather than him having the rather cumbersome 'bespoke' plan he previously had.

Assessing the risk, and making provision for the risk, will be the same.

The difference being that ordinary people with ordinary disputes aren’t given £132 million annually by the tax payer to do a professional job.

Whatever the pitfalls of our constitutional monarchy, nowhere does it say that someone who does not officially represent the HoS can conduct themselves as if they do. That is why this letter was necessary. It was to clarify to those who
needed to know that the Sussexes do not represent the HoS and as such cannot expect the State to pay for their adventures either in the UK or elsewhere. It was also necessary to emphasise that any bollocks spouting forth from the pair is not representative of the position of the HoS. It was not a continuation of hostilities or a dispute being played out on public. It was a “we see you” and “we are not playing your game”. Other aspects of the constitution are obviously up for debate, but not in this context

I think the fundamentally annoying thing about Harry is that he doesn't understand that "you have to follow the rules" applies to literally all of us.

Now, there are different sets of rules. There are rules about being king, there are rules about living in a hippy commune, there are rules about working at a FTSE 100 corporation and rules about working at a local cafe. We are all bound by our community rules. You can change community, but that's just moving to a different set of rules.

But he doesn't think ANY set of rules should apply to him, or his wife.

Meghan is different. I think she probably gets that there are rules, but a) thinks she's better than the rules, or is an exception and b) thinks she's so brilliant she can change the rules.

Oooh he could fake his own kidnap. Imagine the clicks.

I may be naive but I like to think that KC learned a lot from the AMW debacle and realises that his late mother made many mistakes . This might explain a slightly different approach.

I am happy to see a comment like this because it indicates avoidance of addressing the post itself.

No, he is a private citizen. Being in the LOS doesn’t make you royal.

I disagree fully!
and would also like to point out that this thread is not about monarchists/ royalists ( or whatever label you are using to defend Harry ) supporting the rf against ham , there are a great many true republicans on here , who like the rest of the posters are united in criticism of the behaviour of Harry and Meghan!

I would also like to point out that whether you like it or not Andrew was the son of the queen and brother of the heir and future ( now present) king,
look how well that worked out for him!

I doubt anyone will turn out and cheer for him again. I

I remember his face when they turned up for the jubilee church service thing and got booed by the crowd. To be fair to Meghan she did smile and brazen it out but H was obviously still expecting adoring applause and looked utterly fucking furious.

I’m glad you’re happy.

As for addressing the post - Im sorry but I’m not interested in it enough to address it in its entirety. It bored me and I say that without any ill will at all.

No one is obliged to address every post on here if they don’t want to agree or disagree with it. Given that you have had many replies that you have not addressed individually, you must understand this 🤷‍♀️

edited for clarity

Now you are straying into derailment territory!
this thread and its predecessors are clear about the topic , there are already threads dedicated to discussing this subject, I would respectfully ask you to take this line of conversation to the appropriate threads or stick to the actual topic at hand.

They’re a family with a problem child regardless of how much they’re worth and in that sense they’re as ordinary as the rest of us.

Maybe. I don’t think KC comes across as very decisive.

I suspect the statement was a result of the RF getting together at the Balmoral “summit” and everyone got a little carried away.

To me the statement legitimises Harry’s position if anything bc they wouldn’t have to publish it in the first place if there wasn’t some ambivalence over his position.

This is what happens when you mix entitlement through family succession with a position or role that should be strictly professional, accountable and transparent in 2026.

Ditto the murkiness over public v private wealth.

.

👆 this.
I am neither a raging monarchist nor a Will & Kate superfan (absolutely no offence intended to those that are) and get really bored of being branded that as a put down. I have nothing against the royals, actually quite like some of them but have no issues with criticising any of them if I think their behaviour warrants it.

To me the statement legitimises Harry’s position if anything bc they wouldn’t have to publish it if in the first place if there wasn’t some ambivalence over his position
What?

The topic of the thread is clear!
please don’t derail the thread .
do you have anything to say about Harry and Meghans PR disasters ?

Parliament having set different laws for a monarch doesn’t mean parliament is not sovereign. Just as Kier Starmer having a law just for him and his pension didn’t stop Parliament being sovereign over him.

A separate charity is set up for every games - you can see this if you look on the Charity Commission website.

I assume this allows them to keep fundraising, sponsorship etc for games events separate to the other core activities that run all the time - community support, grants for equipment, challenges etc.

Telling your children they can’t fly just legitimises their position that they can fly or you wouldn’t have told them they couldn’t…..^^