The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1041  
Old 04-20-2021, 03:26 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
They wanted the half in, half out and the method of obtaining it as a manifesto failed miserably. They were either in or they were out and they opted for out. However, they were given a year and things would be reviewed again. Perhaps Harry and Meghan felt that "review" would swing in their favor and that they were so missed and needed by the "Firm", that they'd be given what they wanted. I sincerely believe that the interview came about because the review did not swing in their favor and they found themselves totally on their own with no financial help coming in and having to pay for any security they wanted.
I remember reading that the one-year review was moved up, so it wasn't quite a full year. This was just before the interview aired, and the consensus was that Harry and Meghan had timed it that way so they could do the interview without violating any rules, though that was never confirmed.
__________________

  #1042  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
I suspect you might be right and if so, it doesn't reflect well on the RF to not have taught him the difference. It isn't as if he was left to beg his bread by the side of the road while William was swimming in bucks. And it shouldn't have been this hard either. Why, when I was in my early teens, my brother got the best food, literally. I got the crap in comparison. It never occurred to me to complain or think I was less loved and valued. I could see that it was a matter of life and death. An ailment that necessitated certain foods. And with the economic crisis, coupons and so on the best for the two of us just wouldn't cut it, so the healthy one went with the crap option. It was just how things were. It's beyond me why someone who has had all his needs and likely whims met would have been allowed to form an opinion that money equaled love.

From where I stand, Harry has been going down Andrew's path for a while and it isn't a good look. I've always got a soft spot for Andrew and Fergie despite their massive mass of glorious failures but I never had much patience for his insistence to underline Beatrice and Eugenie's royal prominence. I only hope Diana's money hold so we won't see any shady business from Harry as well.
It's about time the BP learned their lesson but I suppose we'll see after some 20 years or so.
It could be an unconscious thing - I certainly don't blame the BRF IF Harry thinks that way. I think it goes hand in hand with his jealousy/resentment over William getting more attention/power...I'm sure his parents and his family as a whole made sure he knew he was loved, but as the spare, he didn't get as much attention as his brother, etc.. Harry is human - who knows why he developed those feelings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think it is a systemic problem that has to do with how younger children of monarchs (or future monarchs) are raised in the UK and what is expected of them. Other monarchies have/had this problem too, but most of them are now moving in the next generation to the "Dutch model" where younger siblings are cut off from state funding when they come of age, so they already grow up knowing they will have to have a career in the private sector.

The fact that some royal families, including the Windsors, are privately wealthy does help because, even if they are cut off from state funding, the collateral branches can tap on the family's private money and maybe, as other posters said, that is what Harry expected.

Note: for the purposes of this discussion, I am counting the income from the Duchy of Cornwall as "private money" although I understand that is controversial.

I think this makes a lot of sense.
__________________

  #1043  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:20 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I have never said that I expected a true reconciliation right away - that’s going to take time. You have to start from somewhere, though - and this was a good start.

We could go back and forth all day with “what if’s”...What if positive steps in these relationships are taken? What if lessons are learned? You’re getting too far ahead of yourself, and you’re only thinking negatively. Charles and his father managed to forge a close relationship despite many issues between them. This idea that Charles especially should throw his hands up and give up just doesn’t make sense to me. Keep in mind that he’s the head of the family now - I’m sure he wants to set a good example for his family.
You're right, I was getting ahead of myself and believe me, I'm trying to think more positively, but it's hard to do when you have been pessimistic for a long time. That said, I also think that reconciliation is the best path for both sides to take so this drama can finally be consigned to the history books.
  #1044  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:26 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
What kind of Middle aged couple, what kind of husband and father much less, with a child and one on the way expects their dad to financially fund them permanently(?)

I’d be embarrassed
I don’t think Charles would have had a problem funding part of Harry’s lifestyle indefinitely. What may have been murky was what Harry was getting the money for. Charles may have seen the money he gave Harry as sort of a salary for his work as a royal, while Harry saw it as just money from dad, with no conditions or strings attached. When Harry upset the apple cart with very little notice and expected the funding to continue, or even increase to cover the security costs, Charles may have balked.

That said, there were articles that came out just after the Oprah interview that refuted the idea that Charles had abruptly cut Harry off. These were anonymous sources, so who knows if they were accurate or not, but I tend to think it was the expectation that Charles would significantly increase the amount of money he gave to Harry, (again with very little warning), as well as - just a hunch - the somewhat entitled attitude coming from Team Sussex that may have led to discord.

To me there would be nothing embarrassing about Harry expecting Charles to fund him as long as he remained a working member of TRF. What’s embarrassing is that funding became an issue at all - Harry and Meghan should have made sure they had their financial ducks in a row well before they decided to leave. If that meant they couldn’t leave for another year or two, well, so be it.. plenty of people have to remain in much more difficult situations while they’re figuring out finances.
  #1045  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:32 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 427
I don't think Harry was jealous of William. Will's life was preordained the moment he was born. It's like when Princess Margaret said "poor you" to Princess Elizabeth after the abdication of Edward VIII and Elizabeth was direct heiress. Diana And Charles did make sure that the spare was treated the same as the heir.
  #1046  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:35 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, but Harry and Meghan didn’t just get up one morning and decide they didn’t want to undertake royal duties any more. It’s what led to their decision that causes debate

Some observers contend they were goaded out of the UK by tabloid persecution of Meghan while others hold directly opposite views and believe that they just wanted to become wealthy early in their marriage and consistently worked towards that.


I just think that much of what has come out has been coloured (tainted if you like) by media coverage and things may have been a lot more nuanced that any of us might countenance.
I have always wondered at what point they really decided to leave, until the interview when they said quite clearly that they had not side lined the family with their decision as it had been under discussion for 2 years.

They made the announcement in 2020 so 2 years takes it to 2018 either before or after the wedding. That is where I now have the problem as it appears there was always a plan, so I am not sure how they can say it was due to media coverage or the treatment Meghan received by the family/ institution or the media.
  #1047  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:35 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,653
Treated exactly the same way maybe the root of some of the issue. They aren’t the same and never will be.
  #1048  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:37 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
I don’t think Charles would have had a problem funding part of Harry’s lifestyle indefinitely. What may have been murky was what Harry was getting the money for. Charles may have seen the money he gave Harry as sort of a salary for his work as a royal, while Harry saw it as just money from dad, with no conditions or strings attached. When Harry upset the apple cart with very little notice and expected the funding to continue, or even increase to cover the security costs, Charles may have balked.

That said, there were articles that came out just after the Oprah interview that refuted the idea that Charles had abruptly cut Harry off. These were anonymous sources, so who knows if they were accurate or not, but I tend to think it was the expectation that Charles would significantly increase the amount of money he gave to Harry, (again with very little warning), as well as - just a hunch - the somewhat entitled attitude coming from Team Sussex that may have led to discord.

To me there would be nothing embarrassing about Harry expecting Charles to fund him as long as he remained a working member of TRF. What’s embarrassing is that funding became an issue at all - Harry and Meghan should have made sure they had their financial ducks in a row well before they decided to leave. If that meant they couldn’t leave for another year or two, well, so be it.. plenty of people have to remain in much more difficult situations while they’re figuring out finances.
I saw those articles as well. My theory is that Harry and Meghan were receiving a certain amount of money from Charles but that was not just for their personal spending but to cover staff, work clothing, transportation, etc. They had no housing expenses other than the cost of remodeling Frogmore. Security was provided by the government.

The Canadian Prime Minister initially said that the government would fund Harry and Meghan's security, which created a huge backlash and he had to withdraw the offer, so Harry and Meghan were caught by surprise.

I also saw articles that indicated Charles gave them some money and would be willing to give them more. Harry obviously felt that he should not be expected to pay for his own security because that the need was due to an accident of birth (of course, his wealth was also due to an accident of birth). I suspect that Charles declined to cover the cost of Harry and Meghan's security, which was considerable. That is what led to Charles refusing to take Harry's calls for a while.
  #1049  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:37 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 427
Although, some royals like the QUeen Mother would pay attention to William and ignore Harry.
  #1050  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:42 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
Although, some royals like the QUeen Mother would pay attention to William and ignore Harry.
WE do not know that,
  #1051  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:42 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I have always wondered at what point they really decided to leave, until the interview when they said quite clearly that they had not side lined the family with their decision as it had been under discussion for 2 years.

They made the announcement in 2020 so 2 years takes it to 2018 either before or after the wedding. That is where I now have the problem as it appears there was always a plan, so I am not sure how they can say it was due to media coverage or the treatment Meghan received by the family/ institution or the media.
But they continaully say things that contradict other things. If it was due to media cruelty to Meghan or the RF being unkind to her, how come they said that they had "not blindsided the queen" and that there had been discussions going on from 2018 even before they got married?
  #1052  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:44 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I saw those articles as well. My theory is that Harry and Meghan were receiving a certain amount of money from Charles but that was not just for their personal spending but to cover staff, work clothing, transportation, etc. They had no housing expenses other than the cost of remodeling Frogmore. Security was provided by the government.

The Canadian Prime Minister initially said that the government would fund Harry and Meghan's security, which created a huge backlash and he had to withdraw the offer, so Harry and Meghan were caught by surprise.

I also saw articles that indicated Charles gave them some money and would be willing to give them more. Harry obviously felt that he should not be expected to pay for his own security because that the need was due to an accident of birth (of course, his wealth was also due to an accident of birth). I suspect that Charles declined to cover the cost of Harry and Meghan's security, which was considerable. That is what led to Charles refusing to take Harry's calls for a while.
That makes sense but only if we accept that Canada was Plan A and Santa Barbara was just a spur of the moment decision. Personally, I find it hard to believe that Harry who clearly believed Meghan's star power was undermined by his jealous family, really planned to stay for years and years on a Canadian island. There are places in America where they could lead the same quiet life but no, they headed straight for Meghan's old place and the lifestyle many actors covet. The deals they're said to have planned well before they left (I never got to know if the youtube-rival thing was confirmed or not) all involved cameras, not peace and quiet and remote working. There's nothing wrong with this but all things considered, I can't really believe that Harry and Meghan were planning to set roots in Canada for more than a year or two, tops.
  #1053  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:47 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenobia View Post
I usually don't write much in this thread, and I only catch up with it occasionally. Why? Well, besides lack of time, I really don't enjoy the H&M-bashing. Pro-Harry and Meghan? I challenge people to find one post among the last 2-300 posts that is pro, not con. This thread is post after post about bashing H&M.

I'm not saying that I agree with everything that they have done, and especially not with how it's been handled. Not at all. But I do think that there's two sides - or more - to this story. I don't think that Meghan is the calculating mean woman that some posters seems to think she is. And I don't think that the Charles, William and the other side of the family is white as snow and has done everything right.

I come from a family where the importance of mental health and racism has been brutally highlighted the last couple of years. I've lost a niece and a nephew (not from the same family) to suicide. My nice was also biracial, and even though that wasn't a main reason why we lost her, it certainly didn't make life easier for her. So when someone says that they have mental health problems, I take that seriously. I cut them some extra slack. I do what I can to help if it's a friend.

Harry and Meghan aren't without guilt. I'm not on their side. I'm not on any side at all in this story, because I don't know enough about what has happened. And I dare to say that neither one of us do. We don't know these people. But I'm definitely on the side where I take mental health issues seriously.

I'll go back to reading other threads now. It's not good for my own mental health to read so much negativity and anger that's acumulating in this thread. I just wanted to speak up, because I don't think that I'm the only one.
This is very beautifully said. I couldn't agree more and I think anyone disagreeing that the thread isn't overwhelmingly negative towards every single thing the Sussexes do or say must be wearing blinders.

There's reasonable criticism of H&M's thoroughly stupid decisions (of which there are several) and then there's whatever compels people to vilify their every move, read malicious intent into everything they do and have radically different standards for them than for every other royal. The first I understand, the latter is unfathomable to me. Imagine holding on to so much anger over two people who have nothing to do with you and whose actions don't affect you personally in the slightest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PetticoatLane View Post
I'm sorry but thinking that the RF can stop 'leaks' is completely ludicrous and utterly unrealistic. How do they do it? How would this 'professional formal inquiry' figure out which of the staff members (of which there are hundreds across the households) are responsible for the 'leaks'? Should they all be hooked up to lie detector tests? Should they be put under interrogation? Or should the RF simply do a 'night of the long knives' and purge them all, the innocent included? The scandal which would follow, not to mention the employment tribunals and the inevitable incredibly costly compensation would make the Sussex drama look like child's play in comparison.

People who work for the royals have always and will always speak to journalists off the record. Some people who work in politics, business, entertainment, sport etc. do as well. Without leaks and insiders speaking to journalists off the record we wouldn't have a free press holding the powerful to account that would be worth the name. These off the record leaks to reputable journalists appear to be the only way the victims of Meghan's bullying feel able to set the record straight and affect change in how such things are handled internally (...)
I think it's equally ludicrous to think the various members of the BRF (or any other royal family for that matter – press leaks aren't exclusive to the Brits) aren't at least is aware of (and probably often also have a hand in) a good chunk of the leaks. Trying to change the narrative in your favour is the cornerstone of PR and pretending the BRF – especially after the War of the Waleses – don't make use of that is terribly naïve IMO.
__________________
"Hope is like the sun. If you only believe it when you see it you'll never make it through the night."
Our Princess

  #1054  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:50 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
That makes sense but only if we accept that Canada was Plan A and Santa Barbara was just a spur of the moment decision. Personally, I find it hard to believe that Harry who clearly believed Meghan's star power was undermined by his jealous family, really planned to stay for years and years on a Canadian island. There are places in America where they could lead the same quiet life but no, they headed straight for Meghan's old place and the lifestyle many actors covet. The deals they're said to have planned well before they left (I never got to know if the youtube-rival thing was confirmed or not) all involved cameras, not peace and quiet and remote working. There's nothing wrong with this but all things considered, I can't really believe that Harry and Meghan were planning to set roots in Canada for more than a year or two, tops.
I think its obvious that Canada was a blind, to make their departure seem more acceptable to the public.. ie "they're not leaving the UK to live the high life, they are going to settle in a quiet place, and lead a quiet life, doing a bit of charity work".. but I'm sure it was never more than a short term plan. They may have thought of staying in Canada for a few years as it is close to the US and they could (before Covid) have taken on speaking engagements or whatever, in the US and flitted back and forth...
But when the borders were closing they headed for the US like homing pigeons.
  #1055  
Old 04-20-2021, 04:57 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post

I think it's equally ludicrous to think the various members of the BRF (or any other royal family for that matter – press leaks aren't exclusive to the Brits) aren't at least is aware of (and probably often also have a hand in) a good chunk of the leaks. Trying to change the narrative in your favour is the cornerstone of PR and pretending the BRF – especially after the War of the Waleses – don't make use of that is terribly naïve IMO.
Perhaps the Royal Family has been using leaks against Harry and Meghan but if so, it would have been in response to Harry and Meghan publicly complaining about them. According to the royal family's "truth," Harry and Meghan treated them unfairly. None of the recent leaks by the palace would have occurred if Harry and Meghan hadn't given the interview.
  #1056  
Old 04-20-2021, 05:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
There are places in America where they could lead the same quiet life but no, they headed straight for Meghan's old place and the lifestyle many actors covet. The deals they're said to have planned well before they left (I never got to know if the youtube-rival thing was confirmed or not) all involved cameras, not peace and quiet and remote working. There's nothing wrong with this but all things considered, I can't really believe that Harry and Meghan were planning to set roots in Canada for more than a year or two, tops.
Yes their spokesperson confirmed that they had been in talks with Quibi after The Telegraph broke the story. That was before Archie was born in Jan 2019. KP staff were apparently frustrated because they knew the talks were happening but didn't know the content so couldn't advise/plan. Allegedly.

I think LA was always their plan, at least part time (if the "half and half" thing had worked out). But they probably would have stayed in Canada longer if Trudeau's promise had worked out.

There were rumours before the SA trip that there was an idea that they could go and live in SA for a few years and we learned later that Sara Latham was prepared to go with them. Now I don't think that was ever going to work out but it shows that the family were indeed aware and trying to find solutions for them.

It is hard to know exactly what they planned when because they contradicted themselves quite a bit and their "manifesto" definitely looked hurried and half cocked after Bradby started hinting to the rest of the press that they wanted to leave. And of course they hadn't actually agreed anything. So long in the pie in the sky hypothesising, short on the practical "what if we have to pay for X Y Z ? and the family doesn't agree details".

There were also rumours that Charles did give them some money for the 16 bathrooms but we don't know if that's at all true. Keeping them in the style of A listers and multi billionaire neighbours in Montecito, complete with 24 hour security, private schools, memberships etc indefinitely is *a lot* of money. If they had gone for a different, cheaper area Charles might have been more willing to keep doing it but we don't know exactly what triggered this "cutting off".

There are hypothesises that the interview was supposed to come out *before* the 1 year review ended and they wanted to try and use it as leverage to keep their patronages and things had to be reshot after the plug was pulled early but there's no clear source for that at all.
  #1057  
Old 04-20-2021, 05:14 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Perhaps the Royal Family has been using leaks against Harry and Meghan but if so, it would have been in response to Harry and Meghan publicly complaining about them. According to the royal family's "truth," Harry and Meghan treated them unfairly. None of the recent leaks by the palace would have occurred if Harry and Meghan hadn't given the interview.
No, just the opposite. In fact that is one of the things Harry and Meghan complained about in the interview- the fact that there were leaks and falsehoods being allowed to perpetuate about in media and press.

Leaking stories to a royal's advantage is nothing new. Charles notoriously did this in the 1990s and well up to when he married Camilla. Anyone remember Mark Bolland?
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
  #1058  
Old 04-20-2021, 05:21 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
No, just the opposite. In fact that is one of the things Harry and Meghan complained about in the interview- the fact that there were leaks and falsehoods being allowed to perpetuate about in media and press.

Leaking stories to a royal's advantage is nothing new. Charles notoriously did this in the 1990s and well up to when he married Camilla. Anyone remember Mark Bolland?
I know they complained about leaks and misinformation. The silly story about making Meghan cry and the allegations that Meghan bullied her staff - which is under investigation by an independent organization. As we all know, all the royals are subject to untrue stories and they have all used the media from time to time. None of that excuses Harry and Meghan publicly trashing their own family with untrue allegations - such as Archie isn't a prince because of his heritage.
  #1059  
Old 04-20-2021, 05:22 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I think its obvious that Canada was a blind, to make their departure seem more acceptable to the public.. ie "they're not leaving the UK to live the high life, they are going to settle in a quiet place, and lead a quiet life, doing a bit of charity work".. but I'm sure it was never more than a short term plan. They may have thought of staying in Canada for a few years as it is close to the US and they could (before Covid) have taken on speaking engagements or whatever, in the US and flitted back and forth...
But when the borders were closing they headed for the US like homing pigeons.
Which makes me wonder if they still thought that it was the RF throwing a tantrum before admitting their star power and irreplaceable qualities and begging them to come back at the end of the one year long review. Given what Harry said, they do seem blindsided by the actions of the RF who didn't adhere to the script Harry and Meghan had drawn in their heads. There's no other reason for them to try and make themselves acceptable to the British public but the expectation to get their half in, half out scenario at the end. The American public was always going to embrace them.
  #1060  
Old 04-20-2021, 05:23 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
WE do not know that,
Diana did and commented on it.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 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 & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2203 04-06-2021 12:08 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american baby names biography britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles canada carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house cpr dna dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii elizabeth ii emperor family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jewellery jewelry kensington palace list of rulers maxima 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 elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria resusci anne royal court royal jewels royalty of taiwan russian court dress spain stuart thailand thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:15 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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