Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Current Events 2: April-September 2020

[Durham]

I think that's Meghan, to be honest. I dotn think Harry would have gotten into all this stuff without her influence.. unless he's been holding out on us all these years and was a secret student radical...

Well not wishing to be patronising I do wonder whether Harry even knows what something like "institutional racism" actually means.

And I like Harry in so far as any of us can "like" someone we don't personally know. He worries me.

The duchess seems like a highly intelligent woman so I'm surprised she's not aware of the boundaries either.

 

[Denville]

Well not wishing to be patronising I do wonder whether Harry even knows what something like "institutional racism" actually means.

And I like Harry in so far as any of us can "like" someone we don't personally know. He worries me.

The duchess seems like a highly intelligent woman so I'm surprised she's not aware of the boundaries either.

I don't think either of them are highly intelligent.. but Meg has had more education than Harry. So I think she has been er um - pushing him towards this sort of stance on issues.. like institutional racism' and what have you..and he has gotten into it out of love for her...
But I think that she DOESNT understand the boundaries of royal life and Harry I suspect either doesn't understand them very well, or didn't want to have to tell her that there were these limitations if she became a Princess. .

 

[Durham]

Yes I don't think that they are often referred to as HRH The D of Sussex etc.. which of course they should not be. And I dont think that if people see that the 2 of them endorse something, that they will think "Oh the queen must agree with this as well."

I'm sure most people wouldn't but that's not why we have the unwritten rule about not being involved in controversies.

And I'm not so confident about everywhere in the world making that sort of distinction anyway to be honest.

 

[Claire]

I have several problems with this -
They a really appear to be jumping from one cause to another - yes Meghan has always championed anti-racism. But don't drum that at every cause - it is going to start to be ridiculous. Especially when it looks like you are jumping on the bandwagon of a serious cause. The Diana Awards was not the place for that speech. I expect that he will be making speeches about how they are single handedly going to eradicated racism around the world by the power of their privileged bi racial and white ass.
The Travelyst idea is not going to come off. it is very tone deaf to think that at the moment when whole countries economies are at sake and people are desperate to save jobs and the tourism industry in general to say pay more and travel environmental. Yes - we get it, just not now.
My biggest concern at the moment is that Harry is not sounding like himself in anything he said and does. There is no way he is writing his own speeches and people have for long believed that Meghan's influence on him is completely unequal. Eventual this will blow up. And that is not good for Harry's in general. He has given up everything here and if his current reality is pulled out from beneath him.

 

[Denville]

I have several problems with this -
Tt at the moment when whole countries economies are at sake and people are desperate to save jobs and the tourism industry in general to say pay more and travel environmental. Yes - we get it, just not now.
My biggest concern at the moment is that Harry is not sounding like himself in anything he said and does. There is no way he is writing his own speeches and people have for long believed that Meghan's influence on him is completely unequal. Eventual this will blow up. And that is not good for Harry's in general. He has given up everything here and if his current reality is pulled out from beneath him.

I agree that I dont recognise this Harry, but I think that he is a naive and not very clever young man, who is devoted to his wife. I think that he was hiding for many years the fact that he was depressed and mixed up, under a facade of being Jolly cheerful Jack the Lad Harry...and then he met Meghan and he's so knocked out that she has been willing to marry him and take him on, that he is truly devoted ot her. He wants to protect her, he is worried that she is depressed and did not like or could not cope with Royal life.. and he was prepared to do anything to keep her. So when she suggested to him that they leave R Life partially or completely he was willing to do it. And he's listening to her now about how they can arrange and finance their new life and what they are going to do with it.. ie have some kind of charity foundation, make speeches that are more edgy than those made by most of the RF etc etc. And unless something goes crash he'll be under her infleuence for a while yet.

 

[Osipi]

It very much could be also that being freed from the yoke of restraint, like a dog that finds himself free to run wherever he wants, they're running in all ways without a sense of direction. With freedom also comes responsibility.

To amplify this point, back when I had a household of young children, one area of conflict was bedtimes. They whined, they complained, they wanted to stay up later because so and so was allowed to. As they neared the teen years, we gave in and let them choose their own bedtimes with the stipulation that they were responsible for being on time for school and such things. Turns out that a lot of times (not all of them), they were in bed sleeping *before* the previous bedtime enforced.

 

[Somebody]

I assumed that it was more to do with their future business practices that they would not get involved in anything shady, or dishonorable. Charles has certainly been involved in semi political issues, and has been criticized for it.

I assume the queen has higher values than not doing illegal things...

Harry is still one major accident (which I sincerely hope will never happen) away from the throne. So, even though he is no longer a working member of the royal family he needs to take his position as a prince of the UK into account in everything he does. So, that means, that while he is now allowed to earn a professional income as that was his priority over a life of service to the crown; he is not supposed to do anything that might reflect badly on the monarchy.

Unfortunately, I would say, a lot of what they are doing is reflecting badly... (even if we ignore how they handled their 'leave' and the current lawsuit). Using your position to promote yourselves imho is already contradictory to the values of the queen; actively asking companies to financially hurt another company doesn't seem to be something the queen would approve of either. Even though I think she sympathizes with the cause. And all of this within a few months of formally leaving the royal family. I wonder what more is to come.

 

[Denville]

It very much could be also that being freed from the yoke of restraint, like a dog that finds himself free to run wherever he wants, they're running in all ways without a sense of direction. With freedom also comes responsibility.

I dont think that Harry used to fret that he could not make political speeches.. and Meg has hardly been in the RF long enough to feel chained by it surely.

 

[Denville]

I assume the queen has higher values than not doing illegal things...

Harry is still one major accident (which I sincerely hope will never happen) away from the throne. So, even though he is no longer a working member of the royal family he needs to take his position as a prince of the UK into account in everything he does. So, that means, that while he is now allowed to earn a professional income as that was his priority over a life of service to the crown; he is not supposed to do anything that might reflect badly on the monarchy.

Unfortunately, I would say, a lot of what they are doing is reflecting badly... (even if we ignore how they handled their 'leave' and the current lawsuit). Using your position to promote yourselves imho is already contradictory to the values of the queen; actively asking companies to financially hurt another company doesn't seem to be something the queen would approve of either. Even though I think she sympathizes with the cause. And all of this within a few months of formally leaving the royal family. I wonder what more is to come.

But of course he will be using his position to promote himself if he goes into business. that's why the queen said that he could go into business but could n't use HRH. But he's still royal, he's still known as Prince Harry.. and that's bound to be a plus for him. Just as other royals who are in business are helped by the fact that they are the queen's cousins or nephews or whatever.

 

[Claire]

I agree that I dont recognise this Harry, but I think that he is a naive and not very clever young man, who is devoted to his wife. I think that he was hiding for many years the fact that he was depressed and mixed up, under a facade of being Jolly cheerful Jack the Lad Harry...and then he met Meghan and he's so knocked out that she has been willing to marry him and take him on, that he is truly devoted ot her. He wants to protect her, he is worried that she is depressed and did not like or could not cope with Royal life.. and he was prepared to do anything to keep her. So when she suggested to him that they leave R Life partially or completely he was willing to do it. And he's listening to her now about how they can arrange and finance their new life and what they are going to do with it.. ie have some kind of charity foundation, make speeches that are more edgy than those made by most of the RF etc etc. And unless something goes crash he'll be under her infleuence for a while yet.

I am concerned that they are going to be running directly into someone like Jefferey Epstein, or someone worse. There is nothing to protect them now and to make it worse they are acting like they are the saviors of the universe.

 

[Queen Claude]

I am concerned that they are going to be running directly into someone like Jefferey Epstein, or someone worse. There is nothing to protect them now and to make it worse they are acting like they are the saviors of the universe.

This is a valid concern but if the royal is the wrong combination of headstrong, greedy, egoistic, gullible, messianic, arrogant and whatnot, they are likely going to make bad choices whether working within The Firm or being independent of the Firm / BRF . The Firm was not able to stop Andrew from consorting with Epstein even after he served jail time, and if Harry and Meghan have the same mindset and proclivities that would lead to them hooking up with an Epstein type, then the monarchy / BRF are better off that they "stepped away" and should consider themselves lucky that they will not be put in a position of having to protect them.

 

[Mbruno]

They are now calling on companies telling them to join in an advertising boycott of a social network!

Extraordinary.

This is a statement by one of Facebook’s Vice Presidents :

https://about.fb.com/news/2020/07/facebook-does-not-benefit-from-hate/

Clearly this is a complex issue that cannot be reduced to simple sloganeering.

This senior Facebook executive just happens to be the former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

Sir Nick is a retired Lib Dem politician who now has a career in the private sector, so I don't think there is any embarrassment to the current British government.


I would be more concerned with the fact that this so-called boycott originated from a demand to ban tweets from the incumbent 45th President of the United States in a presidential election year ,and that is a highly political issue! It is also clear that, by aligning themselves with that campaign, H&M are taking a partisan stance, even if it is unintentional.

 

[Leopoldine]

What does upholding the values of the queen mean in this context? THe queen can't get involved in politics but that does not mean that her grandson can't if he has given up working Royal life. He may be simplifying a complex issue but he's not saying anything that is WRONG per se...

Even minor royals who are 20th or 30th in line to the throne avoid politics. If Lady Helen Taylor votes, we don't know about it. One thing is certain -- none of them go near the House of Commons.

Harry is 6th in the Line of Succession, and at some point, there is the slim sliver of a microscopic chance he might be called on to be a Regent if George ascends as a minor. Harry has to keep this in mind and stay neutral. He also has to think about exactly which companies have the means to pay him a million dollars for a speech.

 

[Leopoldine]

I am concerned that they are going to be running directly into someone like Jefferey Epstein, or someone worse. There is nothing to protect them now and to make it worse they are acting like they are the saviors of the universe.

Quite right. Do-gooder Charles had Jimmy Saville and Bishop Ball sucking up to him. It wasn't just Andrew who had unsavory criminals in his orbit to get Royal approval.

 

[Mbruno]

Even minor royals who are 20th or 30th in line to the throne avoid politics. If Lady Helen Taylor votes, we don't know about it. One thing is certain -- none of them go near the House of Commons.

Harry is 6th in the Line of Succession, and at some point, there is the slim sliver of a microscopic chance he might be called on to be a Regent if George ascends as a minor. Harry has to keep this in mind and stay neutral..

Actually, if Harry were no longer domiciled in the United Kingdom when George ascended as a minor, then I believe that, under the Regency Acts, the regency would pass to the next over-21 in line to the Crown who is a British subject and a resident of the UK, in this case, Andrew (or Beatrice if Andrew were also deceased).


For the same reason, i.e. Harry living now in LA, he can no longer serve as a Counsellor of State.

 

[Curryong]

Harry has a house, classed as a primary residence in the UK, Frogmore Cottage. He is still a Counsellor of State.

 

[Eskimo]

Actually, if Harry were no longer domiciled in the United Kingdom when George ascended as a minor, then I believe that, under the Regency Acts, the regency would pass to the next over-21 in line to the Crown who is a British subject and a resident of the UK, in this case, Andrew (or Beatrice if Andrew were also deceased).


For the same reason, i.e. Harry living now in LA, he can no longer serve as a Counsellor of State.

It seems that both Harry and Andrew are still councilors of state

 

[Jacknch]

Time to move on now back to the topic of the thread.

Recent discussions over the last day or so should be taking place in the GENERAL NEWS thread. Please continue it there and remember this thread is for Current Events only. Thank you.

 

[Denville]

I am concerned that they are going to be running directly into someone like Jefferey Epstein, or someone worse. There is nothing to protect them now and to make it worse they are acting like they are the saviors of the universe.

I dont know. For All Harry's faults, I think he's a more decent man than Andrew. I do think he wants to make money and he's naive and may not recognize dodgy people.. (A lot of the royals have this problem as they do all to some extent have a sheltered life)..But I dont think he would be cuaght up in the lifestyle that Andrew was in, mixing with people who could provide him and Fergie with money making opportunities on the side and for Andy women.
All the same, I feel that he will need to grab at money making opportunities now wherever tehy come up and he may well find himself caught up in things that he didn't mean to get into.

We dont know what he's going to do, from now on but it does seem that speech making is part of the plan. But I dont think there will be that many opportunities in the near future, adn they wotn pay as well as they mgiht have done a year ago.

 

[Durham]

Sir Nick is a retired Lib Dem politician who now has a career in the private sector, so I don't think there is any embarrassment to the current British government.


I would be more concerned with the fact that this so-called boycott originated from a demand to ban tweets from the incumbent 45th President of the United States in a presidential election year ,and that is a highly political issue! It is also clear that, by aligning themselves with that campaign, H&M are taking a partisan stance, even if it is unintentional.

Clegg of course is of no concern to the government. His statement was included to highlight the complexities around a topic that too many try to simplify. The fact that he & the couple are on opposing sides in this debate is an absurd coincidence.

As you say the fact that this is an election year in their new country of residence just adds to the concern that they're becoming too political, in more than one sense of the word.

 

[Queen Claude]

Even minor royals who are 20th or 30th in line to the throne avoid politics. If Lady Helen Taylor votes, we don't know about it. One thing is certain -- none of them go near the House of Commons.

Harry is 6th in the Line of Succession, and at some point, there is the slim sliver of a microscopic chance he might be called on to be a Regent if George ascends as a minor. Harry has to keep this in mind and stay neutral. He also has to think about exactly which companies have the means to pay him a million dollars for a speech.

I don't agree with everything that Harry has done but I absolutely do not believe that he should be forced to live his live based on the "the slim sliver of a microscopic chance" that he will be called on to be Regent, or as noted in another post I recently read, ascend.

Quite right. Do-gooder Charles had Jimmy Saville and Bishop Ball sucking up to him. It wasn't just Andrew who had unsavory criminals in his orbit to get Royal approval.

Yep, thanks for the reminder.

 

[Somebody]

I don't agree with everything that Harry has done but I absolutely do not believe that he should be forced to live his live based on the "the slim sliver of a microscopic chance" that he will be called on to be Regent, or as noted in another post I recently read, ascend.

So, what would that mean in practice? That he can do as he pleases even though that might severely damage the royal family? Or that he needs to keep in mind that he is still closely associated to the monarch and therefore is held to higher or at least different standards than others?

 

[Denville]

So, what would that mean in practice? That he can do as he pleases even though that might severely damage the royal family? Or that he needs to keep in mind that he is still closely associated to the monarch and therefore is held to higher or at least different standards than others?

what can he do that will severely damage the RF? The queen set up a situation to make it clear that although he is a member of her blood family he is not representing her any more. He isn't allowed to use his HRH...
If he gets involved in politics, I suspect he' will soon get out of it because he's not experienced and I dont believe it is really his thing.. but if it is clear that he's not a representing member of the RF, he is free to have political views and to express them. He's not likely to damage teh RF unless he takes up some very hateful political philosophy....

 

[Queen Claude]

So, what would that mean in practice? That he can do as he pleases even though that might severely damage the royal family? Or that he needs to keep in mind that he is still closely associated to the monarch and therefore is held to higher or at least different standards than others?

No adult can do as he or she pleases without consequences or repercussions. If the monarchy is so fragile that if Harry leaving the institution and making missteps is a true threat to the monarchy then that is more a reflection on the monarch herself and how she leads The Firm and/or the institution itself.


ETA:
I hope that Harry (and Meghan) will hold themselves to a certain standard of decorum. I don't want to see them posting scantily clad selfies of themselves on Instagram or going on chat shows and spilling tacky details about themselves, or worse their royal relatives, nevertheless if such a thing happened, the monarchy should be strong enough to endure it.

 

[Denville]

No adult can do as he or she pleases without consequences or repercussions. If the monarchy is so fragile that if Harry leaving the institution making missteps is a true threat to the monarchy then that is more a reflection on the monarch herself and how she leads The Firm and/or the institution itself.

I can't see how the queen can be blamed. Harry's leaving has not been good, esp. coming on top oF Andrew's disgrace. Its caused controversy and the monarchy exists at the will of the people. If they feel that members are going to walk out, confidence is eroded... but If harry was determined to leave, htere was nothing the queen coudl do. She has made it clear to him that if he goes, there are restrictions on what he can do...

 

[Queen Claude]

I can't see how the queen can be blamed. Harry's leaving has not been good, esp. coming on top oF Andrew's disgrace. Its caused controversy and the monarchy exists at the will of the people. If they feel that members are going to walk out, confidence is eroded... but If harry was determined to leave, htere was nothing the queen coudl do. She has made it clear to him that if he goes, there are restrictions on what he can do...

The Queen and/or the existence of the monarchy can be blamed if the actions of non-heirs apparent like Andrew and Harry present a true threat to the existence of the monarchy. Yes I believe that missteps and shenanigans by non-heirs apparent can tarnish the monarchy in the short term and become small chinks in the sturdy armor but (based on what has happened thus far) I do not think that the Andrew and Harry situations threaten the monarchy, however of the two I think that the things involving Andrew were more worrisome. And I am not referring to the sexual misconduct charges against Andrew (not that I am minimizing that), rather some of his money making schemes. As I stated in another recent post, if a royal is problematic for whatever reason, it should actually be considered good fortune that that royal is outside the royal fold.

 

[Denville]

The Queen and/or the existence of the monarchy can be blamed if the actions of non-heirs apparent like Andrew and Harry present a true threat to the existence of the monarchy. Yes I believe that missteps and shenanigans by non-heirs apparent can tarnish the monarchy in the short term and become small chinks in the sturdy armor but (based on what has happened thus far) I do not think that the Andrew and Harry situations threaten the monarchy, however of the two I think that the things involving Andrew were more worrisome. And I am not referring to the sexual misconduct charges against Andrew (not that I am minimizing that), rather some of his money making schemes. As I stated in another recent post, if a royal is problematic for whatever reason, it should actually be considered good fortune that that royal is outside the royal fold.

If a prince, a working prince like Andrew behaves the way he did, of course it tarnishes the image of the monarchy and a lot of scandals could destroy it. But its not the queens' fault that Andrew behaved as he did. Perhaps she should have been stricter with him.. but the behaviour, the sexual scandals and the money issues are on him.
Nor IMO is it her fault that Harry wanted to quit and is right now trying to find a new life and doesn't seem to be very sure what he's doing.
But in the past few months, Andrew has been seen as behaving very badly and has had to quit his duties. Harryand Meg have left their duties and seem to ahve been unhappy with royal life. It isn't a good image..

 

[Queen Claude]

I don't think you read my comments and/or the comments I was originally replying to. I am not blaming the Queen for Harry stepping back, in fact I actually stated that it should be considered good fortune if a problematic royal steps back so that the monarchy is not forced to protect him/her/them.

The comments that I originally replied to were about Harry needing to conduct himself in a certain way due to the infinitesimal possibility that he may become regent or ascend, and that his actions as a stepped back royal can damage the monarchy. In fact I think one of your recent comments aligns with one of the points I am making.

 

[Somebody]

what can he do that will severely damage the RF? The queen set up a situation to make it clear that although he is a member of her blood family he is not representing her any more. He isn't allowed to use his HRH...
If he gets involved in politics, I suspect he' will soon get out of it because he's not experienced and I dont believe it is really his thing.. but if it is clear that he's not a representing member of the RF, he is free to have political views and to express them. He's not likely to damage teh RF unless he takes up some very hateful political philosophy....

He could do lots of things that could severely damage the monarchy. I hope he doesn't but whatever he does reflects on the royal family whether he likes it or not. The fact that the queen said he doesn't represent her in his business efforts, doesn't mean that the association is gone. Especially not when Harry and Meghan monetize on them being famous precisely because he is her grandson.

Do you really think that if for example Peter Phillips would head a big pharma company that raises the prices of medicines to extreme heights that it would not damage the monarchy? Or more realistically, if he decides to lobby for them or the tobacco industry, that it would end well when it would become known? And he is only a commoner that happens to be a member of the royal family... Harry's visibility and connection to the throne is much higher.

However, my question wasn't to you but the Queen Claude as I already noticed that we won't see eye to eye on this topic (which is fine; we can have different opinions on this board), so I'll refrain from further discussing it with you to avoid going around in circles.

 

[Somebody]

No adult can do as he or she pleases without consequences or repercussions. If the monarchy is so fragile that if Harry leaving the institution and making missteps is a true threat to the monarchy then that is more a reflection on the monarch herself and how she leads The Firm and/or the institution itself.

ETA:
I hope that Harry (and Meghan) will hold themselves to a certain standard of decorum. I don't want to see them posting scantily clad selfies of themselves on Instagram or going on chat shows and spilling tacky details about themselves, or worse their royal relatives, nevertheless if such a thing happened, the monarchy should be strong enough to endure it.

I agree that the monarchy should be able to endure. They endured many scandals in the past and recent months (caused by Andrew and Harry). However, it seems we agree that it will reflect badly on the monarchy; and Harry cannot pretend to live in some kind of vacuum in which he is completely free of the monarchy. Am I right in assuming that you also agree that in such a case he would not be upholding the values of the queen... but how problematic that is and what that exactly means for the expectations put on Harry and Meghan, is probably where we differ. Would that be a fair representation?