The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #821  
Old 03-06-2021, 07:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
I agree. The allegations appear to be far more serious than receiving emails at an early hour.
It depends on what happened after. If Meghan was sending an email at 3 am.. and then demanding that she had a reply a couple of hours later, before people were in the office or could make a sensible reply, and throwing an angry fit because she didn't get a fairly immediate reply, then it is a serious issue. Or throwing an angry fit about blankets? Or being ultra nice to someone one day and then turning on them angrily the next.. those are things that can be very difficult to coep with.
__________________

  #822  
Old 03-06-2021, 07:59 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is online now
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Emails are not text messages. Its not like they are going to wake you up.

I could send my boss an email at 4am in the morning or 11 at night. It wouldn't matter. They wouldnt get the email until they opened their computer to start the day. Does anyone actually read the time stamp on an email?


Sorry it speaks worse of the employee. OMG I had an email waiting for me when I started work this morning. Seriously you are getting paid to handle that. Its not like Meghan called them at 4 am and woke them up.


It screams an employee 'I didn't get enough gold stars for showing up to work today'.
As it has already been explained - more like beaten to death, at this point - it's not about "5 am emails". Yes, they might've added to the overall wrong atmosphere of the workplace, but they wouldn't leave people afraid of failure and shaking from fear... But "going mental" on an employee for ordering blankets in the wrong shade of red for a shooting weekend can.

No one would be traumatized, no one would quit their job, no one would contact the higher ups about what to do when member of BRF is behaving inappropriately towards their employees, if it was a case of 5 am emails. Or 3 am emails. Or 11 pm emails.
__________________

  #823  
Old 03-06-2021, 08:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
As it has already been explained - more like beaten to death, at this point - it's not about "5 am emails". Yes, they might've added to the overall wrong atmosphere of the workplace, but they wouldn't leave people afraid of failure and shaking from fear... But "going mental" on an employee for ordering blankets in the wrong shade of red for a shooting weekend can.

No one would be traumatized, no one would quit their job, no one would contact the higher ups about what to do when member of BRF is behaving inappropriately towards their employees, if it was a case of 5 am emails. Or 3 am emails. Or 11 pm emails.
and yes people do read the time on an email. it can be done by people who are anxious to prove that they are working long hours (I.e. sending one late at night).. or people reading the email may note that the person sent it early that morning and is expecting an urgent reply.. so of course people read and notice the time of an email.
  #824  
Old 03-06-2021, 08:10 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Emails are not text messages. Its not like they are going to wake you up.

I could send my boss an email at 4am in the morning or 11 at night. It wouldn't matter. They wouldnt get the email until they opened their computer to start the day. Does anyone actually read the time stamp on an email?


Sorry it speaks worse of the employee. OMG I had an email waiting for me when I started work this morning. Seriously you are getting paid to handle that. Its not like Meghan called them at 4 am and woke them up.


It screams an employee 'I didn't get enough gold stars for showing up to work today'.
Actually, your iPhone is tied up with your email, so you get a buzzer when you receive an email unless you turn off your phone.
  #825  
Old 03-06-2021, 08:11 PM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 1,072
Whoa!!! Meghan and Harry's behavior has even put a republican (anti-monarchist) on the side of the Queen:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/0...-royal-family/
  #826  
Old 03-06-2021, 08:16 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Emails are not text messages. Its not like they are going to wake you up.

I could send my boss an email at 4am in the morning or 11 at night. It wouldn't matter. They wouldnt get the email until they opened their computer to start the day. Does anyone actually read the time stamp on an email?


Sorry it speaks worse of the employee. OMG I had an email waiting for me when I started work this morning. Seriously you are getting paid to handle that. Its not like Meghan called them at 4 am and woke them up.


It screams an employee 'I didn't get enough gold stars for showing up to work today'.
Are you aware that there are entire countries where bosses sending emails to employees outside working hours is considered an abuse of power to the extent that it is illegal?

How nice to our posters from those countries to describe their cultural differences as "employees just asking for gold stars for showing up to work."

Just because in your cultural context and the cultural context of your country something is not considered an abuse, there is no need no be sarcastic and demeaning with comments like "OMG I had an email waiting for me." These are considered serious abuses elsewhere.
  #827  
Old 03-06-2021, 08:17 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is online now
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
Whoa!!! Meghan and Harry's behavior has even put a republican (anti-monarchist) on the side of the Queen:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/0...-royal-family/
And he did not hold back. At all. No holding back in sight

Though I have to say, I completely agree a hundred times over with this quote:
Quote:
They don’t know what service means. Here’s the difference: the Meghans of this world primarily serve themselves, always seeking new opportunities for self-expression, virtuous preening, ‘emotional growth’. The queen, in contrast, serves the crown. She has negated the self. She suppresses her self-expression, her political views and her emotions, to the end of submitting to something bigger than herself: the crown, the monarchy, the constitution. Now, we can discuss whether the crown is good or bad – I’m a republican, so I’m not a fan. But it is clear that Meghan and Elizabeth II have unbridgeably different understandings of ‘service’. Meghan’s idea of service always involves her expressing herself and revealing herself and reminding us how virtuous she is; the queen’s idea of service is to hide the self, to fold it into a larger, apparently more important project. The queen is about service, Meghan is about self-service.
And that's why the "Meghan in the monarchy" project could never work out.
  #828  
Old 03-06-2021, 09:49 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
Whoa!!! Meghan and Harry's behavior has even put a republican (anti-monarchist) on the side of the Queen:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/0...-royal-family/


That was a powerful article. He didn’t hold back at all. I really liked how he laid out how HM understands service versus The Sussexes. Very well said.
  #829  
Old 03-06-2021, 10:06 PM
RJC's Avatar
RJC RJC is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 272
It's not going to be good for her if the tea throwing rumour turns out to be true

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/142569...ullying-probe/
  #830  
Old 03-06-2021, 10:42 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
That was a powerful article. He didn’t hold back at all. I really liked how he laid out how HM understands service versus The Sussexes. Very well said.
I'm in agreement with you, Erin9. This is a powerful article that encapsulates in a nutshell the complete difference between being of service to the people without ego and making a name for oneself by promoting and supporting issues by being "of service" to them.

It's not often that you hear a dedicated republican announce he's "Team Queen".
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #831  
Old 03-06-2021, 11:37 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 508
It’s seems The Times editor did an interview with Good Morning America that was put and than taken down from their social media
  #832  
Old 03-07-2021, 12:21 AM
Reinosa's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
The palace /queen can't take their ducal titles away..
Why? The Queen gave them the titles, why can't she take them away?

(I'm really asking, I don't know)
  #833  
Old 03-07-2021, 12:36 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
Whoa!!! Meghan and Harry's behavior has even put a republican (anti-monarchist) on the side of the Queen:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/0...-royal-family/
That article is amazing! It really encapsulates so much of why I take issue with the way Meghan & Harry have been conducting themselves post-Megxit, but even before based on what is now starting to come out from former staffers.
  #834  
Old 03-07-2021, 12:49 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reinosa View Post
Why? The Queen gave them the titles, why can't she take them away?

(I'm really asking, I don't know)
Because it would take an act of Parliament to remove the titles. It's my understanding that the only reason Parliament would consider it is if there was treason involved.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #835  
Old 03-07-2021, 12:50 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reinosa View Post
Why? The Queen gave them the titles, why can't she take them away?

(I'm really asking, I don't know)
Harry's dukedom is a title in the peerage of the United Kingdom, which the Queen does not have the power to rescind. This would require an Act of Parliament, which is almost certainly not going to happen.

I believe the Queen *could* remove the style of HRH and the title of Prince, through the issuance of Letters Patent to that effect, but I think this is also highly unlikely.
  #836  
Old 03-07-2021, 12:59 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
It’s seems The Times editor did an interview with Good Morning America that was put and than taken down from their social media
Yeah, I found it strange as well. Why would Good Morning America took down the tweet with the video of Valentine Low speaking? Even Chris Ship retweeted the GMA tweet and actually recommended people to listen/watch it. So Valentine Low's interview was not derogatory or offensive. Perhaps his opinion is too controversial for GMA audience (i.e. the replies to the GMA tweet become like a "war zone")?
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
So @valentinelow from @thetimes who broke the story of the bullying complaint against Meghan, tells @GMA what he knows about the victims and the working environment.
It is worth listening to these 4 minutes if you are confused about what these “bullying allegations” are all about
9:25 AM · Mar 7, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...26836896342042

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reinosa View Post
Why? The Queen gave them the titles, why can't she take them away?

(I'm really asking, I don't know)
I think Osipi and Sionevar summarised the answer here. Without going off-topic I would recommend reading Iluvbertie's posts in the now closed thread, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Step Back as Senior Royals: January 2020 (Post #1208 & Post #1577), who does a much better job than I do in explaining royal peerages.

Post #1208
Quote:
A note if I may about the titles:

1. The Queen gives titles but ...

2. It is parliament who has to pass the legislation to strip peers of their titles. The last time they stripped a 'peer of the realm' of their title was 1914 when they passed the Titles Deprivation Act to remove the titles Duke of Cumberland and Duke of Albany from two men who had joined the German Army and were fighting against Britain (basically had committed treason although they were never charged or convicted as such). They didn't lose their place in the line of succession however ... and their descendants are still in that list today.

3. There have been a number of 'senior royals' who have 'stepped back' from royal duties in the past 80 or so years: a) Edward VIII - can't get more senior than the King. When he was about to be introduced by the BBC they said they were going to introduce him as Mr Edward Windsor but George VI said 'no, he is still the son of a monarch and so is HRH The Prince Edward'. That is how he was introduced. Some months later George VI gave him a dukedom.
b) The Duke of Edinburgh - consort of the monarch - retired from public duties after a life time but no one considered asking for him to lose his titles because he didn't want to do the work anymore (and nor they should, in my opinion ... I am pointing out facts)
c) The Duke of York - another second son, stepped back after an appalling interview and some allegations (not allegations but no charges or convictions of a crime ... that may come but so far there doesn't seem to be any interest in charging him with a crime anywhere).

4. Under the law Harry can't renounce the title. He had to do that within a year of gaining the title. Until 1963 it wasn't even possible to do that but now it is ... for the title-holder only and only if done within the first year of gaining the title.

HM could use LPs to strip Harry of HRH but on what grounds? He is still a male-line grandchild of the monarch so she would have to basically rescind the LPs she issued in 2012 and remove HRH from all children, male-line grandchildren and great-grandchildren of a monarch except the eldest son/child in each generation. You can't strip HRH from the second son of Charles without removing it from the second son of The Queen and the second child of William. It would be unreasonable for Andrew and Charlotte to lose it because of a decision to remove HRH from the second son/child and then let the third/fourth keep that title.

Harry will remain HRH The Duke of Sussex.

I suspect there were be very strong limitations on using the title Sussex, or any of his other titles, for commercial gain for themselves.

(...)
Post #1577
Quote:
One of the little quirks about titles in the UK - the monarch gives them but only parliament can remove them.

HRH isn't a title but a style but Sussex is a title.

The British parliament, in the 20th Century removed TWO royal titles in the 20th via the Titles Deprivation Act, 1914. The reason - the two dukes were fighting against Britain in WW1 - effectively committing treason.

The only more senior royal to 'step back' from royal duties, in the 20th century - had the highest title he held removed (His Majesty The King) but the HRH was retained and months later he was given a peerage.
If you have any more question about British Styles and Titles (not limited to British Royal Family, but also including Nobility), feel free to ask it in Questions about British Styles and Titles thread.
  #837  
Old 03-07-2021, 01:00 AM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sionevar View Post
Harry's dukedom is a title in the peerage of the United Kingdom, which the Queen does not have the power to rescind. This would require an Act of Parliament, which is almost certainly not going to happen.

I believe the Queen *could* remove the style of HRH and the title of Prince, through the issuance of Letters Patent to that effect, but I think this is also highly unlikely.
I don’t think Harry’s HRH is in danger but I can see Letters Patent being issued saying that only the immediate heir and their immediate heir etc. (so Charles, William and George) are entitled to the HRH
  #838  
Old 03-07-2021, 02:31 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,154
Good Morning America has taken down the interview with Valentine Low (The Times) on twitter, but it's still up on instagram
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CMFpfKg...d=q3m6g6l3wsta

In the case, the video would be taken down on instagram as well, here is another link (captured on twitter):
https://streamable.com/amp_player/j3...mpression=true
  #839  
Old 03-07-2021, 04:39 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 22,500
The communication style from the British court never fails to amaze me.

Do they even have an official spokesperson? Does the press actually have somebody to turn to when they have questions? Or can they only rely on a steady stream of leaks?

In the Benelux a situation like this would be simply impossible. The prime Minister would be forced to put him/herself in front of the RF and explain and defend their actions in parlament. In the UK it seems nobody is making an effort to do this in an official capacity but they spoil us with a never ending stream of leaks.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
  #840  
Old 03-07-2021, 05:02 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
This thing about the bullying allegations is one of the reasons I think that picking sides "Team Meghan" or "Team Palace" is far too simplistic. Nobody is perfect or evil: there will be faults and virtues amongst all the people involved. There will also be a variety of perspectives on what constitutes reasonable behaviour from a boss or an employee. It's entirely possible that some bullying happened at the same time as some obstructive staff actions or leaking stories and briefing against M & H. Having read many royal biographies by reputable authors, my overall perception of the various households is that they can be a challenging environment in which to operate due to jostling for positions and petty power struggles. In addition to that, the main players have to ride the roller-coaster of press coverage, which can range from flattering to smears and lies. It can be highly stressful for everyone involved, resulting in raw emotions and explosive episodes.

You shouldn't portray yourself as a victim if you've also created victims. You shouldn't portray yourself as innocent if you've briefed the press against others. You shouldn't complain about people's behaviour if your own isn't a role model or you at least acknowledge and apologise for your mistakes.

Further down the line in this unsavoury episode of 'The Windsors', it might become clearer who is more at fault but at the moment it looks like there are many lessons to be learned by everyone.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
archie mountbatten-windsor, duchess of sussex, duke of sussex, meghan markle, prince harry, sussex


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 1: September-December 2020 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2223 12-19-2020 01:13 AM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes american anastasia 2020 baby names biography bridal gown britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace canada china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing cpr dna duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii elizabeth ii emperor family life fantasy movie fashion and style george vi hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg hypothetical monarchs interesting introduction jewellery jewelry king willem-alexander list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family plantinum jubilee pless prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess ariane princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen louise resusci anne royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress spain stuart thailand thai royal family united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×