The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News March 2021 -

[Denville]

I think they can do so for a time.. but what If Harry's not very good at this being a face thing? What if he indiscreetly says something critical about his new employer? What if people DO start to question some fo the things that were said in the interview and begin to see him in a new light and he's less popular. Even if it is not exaclty hard work, Harry is new to having some job/commitment where he doesn't have staff minding him and making him appear to the best light. He may find endless re takes of a TV appearance tiresome and be told "suck it up and do it" and now he will have to..
I thoguht that he was basiclaly not bright but a good tempered guy.. now I can see the anger and volatilty adn hostility that simmer beneath...

[Alison H]

As I've said before, there was a big change in attitudes in the 1990s, largely due to the arguments over whether the costs of repairing Windsor Castle after the fire should be paid for by the Queen or the taxpayer. That then spilled over into the Queen paying tax, and then, later, to the decommissioning of the Royal Yacht Britannia.


That was after Beatrice and Eugenie were born, but before Louise and James were born. It was nothing personal against anyone, but I think the mood shifted to slimming down the monarchy. Anne and Andrew both had big weddings at Westminster Abbey: Edward, who got married after the change of mood in the 1990s, had a much smaller wedding, at Windsor. And then it was decided that the state would no longer fund Beatrice and Eugenie's security.


All of these ideas about slimming down the Royal Family date back to long before Harry and Meghan ever met, and none of them are in any way an insult to or reflection on any individual.

[Denville]

Yes but also when Beat and Eugenie were born, they were automatically HRH.. but that didn't necessarily mean that they were earmarked to do royal duties. I think that Andrew did maybe kick up a bit about this issue when they were 18 or so, because he felt that his girls should be "important"..and Charles disagreed and felt that they were not really needed for royal duties, that he didn't want to pay for them and that if they lost their security, Andrew should pay for them...
and by then Louise and James had been born but it was pretty definite that htey were never likley to be called on to do royal duties....
I beleive that back in the 1960s Pss Alexandra wasn't expected to do royal duties but since there was only the queen adn Margaret, she was asked to chip in... and did so...so being HRH even back in the 60s didn't necessarily mean you were going to be doing the royal duties...

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I don't quite agree. Beatrice and Eugenie got HRHs because they are granddaughters in paternal line of a British Sovereign and all children of a Sovereign's son are HRHs in the UK. It has nothing to do with being a "working royal" and it is a rule that has been in place for a long time, actuallv before 1917, since the Hanoverian period. Andrew didn't have to fight for it as there are no indications AFAIK that the Queen planned to change that rule during her reign.


Similarly, Edward's children, who are in the same position that Archie will be when Charles is King and in the same position as Beatrice and Eugenie now, could (actually should) be HRHs too. But, in their case, conversely, their parents "fought", or rather asked the Queen (which is a more accurate description) to have them styled only as children of a peer, which she agreed to without, however, making any formal changes to current rules by issuing new LPs.


I interpret the way James and Louise's case was handled as a signal that the Queen saw it as an exception that applied to Edward's children only by special dispensation of her will and pleasure, and not as a rule of general application, such as e.g. all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales becoming HRHs, which was effected by means of new LPs in 2012.

Wait, that was my mistake, sorry The titles were never meant to be part of "fighting". What I wanted to say is that Prince Andrew - as it was widely reported - fought for his daughters to be working royals and to be treated on the same level as Harry and William, which was of course criticized to hell and back, because it's a ridiculous notion. But now some people expect Archie to be treated the same as George, Charlotte and Louis, because it would "look bad because he's mixed-race", not looking at bigger picture.

And I think the Wessexes' children will be the future standard, due to the public not wanting to have a huge amount of royals with titles and HRHs. So while yes, this generation will be left alone as it is, no matter who Harry married their children would not be HRHs.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by Denville

I think they can do so for a time.. but what If Harry's not very good at this being a face thing? What if he indiscreetly says something critical about his new employer? What if people DO start to question some fo the things that were said in the interview and begin to see him in a new light and he's less popular. Even if it is not exaclty hard work, Harry is new to having some job/commitment where he doesn't have staff minding him and making him appear to the best light. He may find endless re takes of a TV appearance tiresome and be told "suck it up and do it" and now he will have to..
I thoguht that he was basiclaly not bright but a good tempered guy.. now I can see the anger and volatilty adn hostility that simmer beneath...

yes, i get what you're saying; i think Harry has a chance to prove himself now in that 'face' role, but if somewhere in the future he says something indiscrete or discredit an employer or associate, this interview will come back to haunt him...
Especially because as some point, he could do it to someone who isn't hesitant about talking back in public..

Imo the interview was a bad idea, both with regards to the RF but also for H&M themselves, and with all the comments i have read about it, none has changed my opinion on that:
bad idea...bad...bad..

[Heavs]

A Telegraph reporter has tested the BetterUp App and thought it was okay, the article is worth a read for anyone with a subscription.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-coaching-app/

After the free trial it costs $499.00 per month or £394.00 per month, so it's definitely for those who have a well paying job or work for a big company that pays for all of its employees to use it:

Given the Prince's words, it may surprise you to learn that BetterUp is not a mental health app – at least not for individual users. Instead, it is wholly focused on performance and wellbeing at work, and seems designed primarily for corporate use as an employee benefit (which can include a "mental fitness" service called Care).

This is less Californian mysticism and meditation than high-flying Business Wellness, with TED talks about "empowerment" and "strategic planning" and a personality assessment that frames your high scores as "strengths" and your weaknesses as "development areas".

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by Denville

I dont think so..not for a long time. Harry's admitted that his father stopped taking his calls a while ago. Considering that he has been very indulgent towards his son, I think that shows how angry and upset he is and how he feels that its not possible to talk sensibly to H. And now, Harry has humiliated him, insinuated that he or SOME member of his family, is a racist, that he wants to deprive his grandson of security... etc etc. I think it is very clear that the RF are furious and feel they can't trust H.. and they'll be very wary with him from now on.

I agree. And, unlike most other families, Charles also has the Monarchy to consider and the feelings of a nation of people that the Monarchy represents. This is not just a family argument. Harry and Meghan made a full on assault of the Monarchy.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by duchessrachel

I agree. And, unlike most other families, Charles also has the Monarchy to consider and the feelings of a nation of people that the Monarchy represents. This is not just a family argument. Harry and Meghan made a full on assault of the Monarchy.

I wouldn’t take Charles as a model of treating the Monarchy and the feelings of the people with respect. Yet he was forgiven and not cast out. One would presume he keeps this in mind.

[SLV]

The time that Blauw Bloed was a really serious Royalty program, based on proper journalism instead of sensation has long passed, if they ever even were such a program.

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

Yes, as hard as it seems that people could have missed that, i think many have..

in the Netherlands we have a 'Royalty' TV show Blauw Bloed, and it struck me that when they reported about the interview, they mentioned none of the arguments that we have managed to fill 100+ pages with here on TRF, not about the facts that could be disproven, not about the money (and that for a *dutch* show, we always complain about money), not about Harry not helping Meghan..

Just the parts that i mentioned in my earlier post...

i was very surprised by that, and if a royalty friendly tv show only sees those parts, imagine people who are only interested in royalty for reasons like
- Diana's son is on tv
- we always thought The Crown was real, and now we know for sure

it's a shallow shallow world out there, but i think if H&M don't overbid their hand, they can make a good living out of this

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Meghan has donated £10,000 to UK charity @Wearehimmah, a Nottingham community project which donates food parcels and serves meals across the Nottingham area. The project helps tackle poverty, racism and social exclusion.

https://mobile.twitter.com/scobie/st...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Pocket change for the couple who silicon valley is throwing millions at.

[Curryong]

Silicon Valley ‘Throwing millions of dollars at’ the Sussexes? How can anybody possibly know that? And the ten thousand pounds donation has, according to the original info, already allowed the organisation to expand their supply of food to those who need it.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by ladongas

I wouldn’t take Charles as a model of treating the Monarchy and the feelings of the people with respect. Yet he was forgiven and not cast out. One would presume he keeps this in mind.

And where was Harry "cast out"??? He left voluntarily "to make money". Charles has been dedicated to the monarchy and to serving the country for 50 odd years....

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde

Pocket change for the couple who silicon valley is throwing millions at.

It's not to be sneezed at, IMO. Not only is it a substantial donation that probably was very welcomed but it also shows that the UK organizations and charities have not been forgotten. That has to count for something.

[Denville]

But where is it coming from? Is it from Meghan personally? Or From Archewell?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Denville

But where is it coming from? Is it from Meghan personally? Or From Archewell?

Does it matter? Really?

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Does it matter? Really?

I think it makes a major difference. Archewell is a foundation, which may include money that has been donated from other people. This money would not necessarily come from Harry and Meghan personally.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I think it makes a major difference. Archewell is a foundation, which may include money that has been donated from other people. This money would not necessarily come from Harry and Meghan personally.

It doesn't seem Archewell has any donors or at the moment mich really. It may have in the future but at the moment it isn't much.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I think it makes a major difference. Archewell is a foundation, which may include money that has been donated from other people. This money would not necessarily come from Harry and Meghan personally.

I agree, I dot think that people should publicise personal donations, but as I said in another post, I think there's a blurring iwth Archwell of whehter it is there to make money, or to give money.. and where the money comes from, donations, money put in by the Sussexes ? Where?

[Alison H]

I don't know how it's constituted, but the name "Foundation" suggests that it's a non profit making organisation.

[carlota]

Originally Posted by Heavs

Actually BetterUp is a for profit business, although it seems to be working hard to disguise this fact in all the recent publicity.

oh, how misleading! so much to be said also for harry, who is now also on a commision on 'misinformation'. how about he starts by BetterUp's 'misinformation'? harry is combatting misinformation via the aspen commision whilst his company betterup camouflages the fact that they are a for profit venture + harry working for betterup having acknowledged how he didn't know what to do when meghan had mental health issues, despite his many connections in the mental health realm.... it is rather annoying that all they seem to do seems to contradict itself. makes it hard to give them credibility and take them seriously.

they also tell you they won't use their titles and that's all you see all over their media/PR.

Originally Posted by Durham

He's really milking his titles for commercial gain isn't he.

"Call me Harry" never lets you forget who he really is does he?

issue is that without their titles they don't have very much to offer...