The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

[kwanfan1818]

It does, though, seem to be part of what they lost as they changed their status in the royal family and I am not sure how there can be a special concession just for them.

If "a policy [could be] put in place" because the Home Secretary was pissed off at one partying royal, they could change the policy. It's not one of the Ten Commamdments or in the Magna Carta.

 

[taf2002]

I read MsZem's post as asking what specifically do you think Harry and Meghan could have done differently.

I feel that everything they should have done differently are things they've done after the split like bad-mouthing his family & airing some things that should have been private. Spare could detail Harry's feelings of worthlessness as a spare but he could describe it as the monarchy system rather than pointing fingers. I don't think asking to live their lives differently was a betrayal at all & it should not have been taken that way. I view most of what The Firm has done since they left has been spiteful.

PS H&M did not ask for the lives to be funded, they just asked for security since both Meghan & Archie had been threatened.

 

[Karen-W]

A lot of things could & should have been differently by all. And I do think the Queen was complicit in having this turned into a huge thing when it could have been more under the radar. They didn't need to leave the family. Eunice & Bea haven't left the family & they are allowed their own lives. Bea lives in Spain part of the time. No one told them they couldn't ever represent the family again or banned them from family occasions. And Harry's tale of the Queen just sitting there & not speaking when his father & brother were screaming at him tells a lot (if true). And Meghan being kept out of a meeting when her future is being decided was misogynistic.

The Queen was not present at the meeting in the Frogmore gardens between Harry, Charles and William.

Bea does not live part of the year in Spain. I believe that Eugenie (her name is not Eunice) and Jack (and August) are now in Portugal for his work.

The Sussexes were NOT kicked out of the family - that was made clear on multiple occasions by the Queen herself as well as by the new King when he addressed the nation (and the world, really) the day after he acceded to the throne. They were told that they would not be allowed to spend half their time as working royals and half their time monetizing that position. It simply does not work - unless you think that the way Andrew handled his position as UK trade rep to be acceptable.

The Sandringham Summit that Meghan was kept from also directly impacted the lives of Catherine, Camilla, Anne, Edward and Sophie, yet none of them were present. Beyond that, Harry and Meghan made a choice to return to the UK WITHOUT Archie in early January 2020. They were told that a meeting couldn't be arranged until near the end of the month and Meghan chose to fly back to Canada. She could have, easily, returned to the UK with Archie if she really wanted to be at that meeting, but she did not.

The Sussexes forced the hand of the Queen on the subject of how to reduce their role as working royals by unveiling their website and presenting their plan as a fait accompli when nothing had been agreed upon. Should the Queen, Charles and William just accepted that without any discussion, despite knowing the myriad of issues that needed to be addressed, some of which (security) were going to require government approval as well?

Most of this mess was because Harry, and by extension Meghan, simply didn't know or care how anything actually works in the British Royal Family. It would do you a world of good to study up on that in greater detail rather than just believing everything that Harry and Meghan have said. Harry has led a very privileged, sheltered, coddled life and it shows on every page of his memoir.

 

[Lemonade20]

Well said!

 

[becca]

Because she loved her grandson & wanted what was best for him & Meghan? I guess that's naive. But she didn't have to put roadblocks in his way. Which she did.

Where are their roadblocks. The queen has 8 grandchildren. William, Harry, Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, and James.

Of them only William and Harry wherever even given the opportunity to do royal engagements.

Every single one of the rest of them is being told to get a job. My understanding is Beatrice and Eugenie would like to do royal engagements but are being told no.

None of the other adult grand children have ever complained or thrown their family under the buss and they are just as much the Queens grandchildren as William and Harry were.

Harry and Meghan basically wanted all the fun parts of royal assignments the trips the free security but none of the boring jobs like cutting ribbons etc? Oh and certainly not the lack of being political

Pray tell me how fair is that arrangement to let’s say Edward and Sophie if Harry and Meghan get the fun jobs and they are stuck cutting the ribbons.

They and their kids don’t get full security either.

I was listening to a podcast and they were putting out the inaccuracies with Harry and Meghan they said they are journalists but no the palace does not send negative stories.

One pointed out that Meghan first royal engagement with the queen had positive stories but in the book Harry argued it was negative.

Harry and Meghan are making hundreds of millions of dollars they just aren’t working members of the royal family. How that is a roadblock I don’t know

 

[kwanfan1818]

It simply does not work - unless you think that the way Andrew handled his position as UK trade rep to be acceptable.

Andrew used his full-time goverment position for corrupt purposes, just as Edward and Sophie were selling influence as part of their business. Which they didn't put a stop to until it became public and inconvenient. That is very different from spending part of your year opening bridges and senior centers and representing the Royal family in the equivalent of meet and greets, and the other half working on projects where you were selling yourself as content, not access, instead of the press selling you as content.

I completely understand why the BRF wouldn't allow this: they want complete control over their public brand because that's what they're left with. They're props in front of and conduits to the power structure and liquid money, for whom they're very useful, as long as it stays behind the curtain.

 

[puglover]

If "a policy [could be] put in place" because the Home Secretary was pissed off at one partying royal, they could change the policy. It's not one of the Ten Commamdments or in the Magna Carta.

Well, there is clearly a move, and not just with the British royals, to reduce and streamline the actual titled and working royals. One need look no further than Denmark and Queen Margrethe's decision to strip the royal titles from 4 of her grandchildren, which has caused a great deal of backlash and angst but I do not think she has reversed it. She believes it is ultimately for the good of those grandchildren.

I am a great admirer of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie and often call them "my girls". They have certainly carved out lives for themselves and I rejoice in every little bit of happiness they have. Princess Eugenie paid for her trip from her own funds and she is entitled to a wild and fun trip - but it sounded like the cost of protection for that trip was sort of "the straw" and called for a reevaluation of what the taxpayers should be paying for. The royals with 24 hour guarding now is only the few you would suspect have it. As I said before, I think Harry and Meghan almost need a special category, but I am not sure how they could pull that off. Canadians, as a whole, were fine if they lived here but not so fine paying for the RCMP to guard them.

Just another small story about security I thought was amusing. In Feb. 1983 the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh arrived in San Diego Bay on the Britannia. It was referred to as the tour "where everything went wrong" . This apparently greatly amused their honoured guests who were said to love it when things went wrong. There was finally enough descent weather for them to walk around a bit and see the Royal Arches. The Secret Service followed them too closely, the British way was to keep their distance. When the royals sped up - so did their security. The Queen then had the cleaver idea to start walking backwards which forced the Secret Service to walk backwards as well. Must have been quite a sight!

 

[MacMadame]

But why, exactly, should QE2 have made concessions to Harry and Meghan?

To help usher the monarchy into a more modern era? Just a thought.

airing some things that should have been private

But then we would never have learned about his frozen willy. How could you deprive us of that revelation?!

The Sandringham Summit that Meghan was kept from also directly impacted the lives of Catherine, Camilla, Anne, Edward and Sophie, yet none of them were present.

Please explain how this discussion directly impacted the lives of those people. Indirectly, sure. But not directly. No one was asking them to move their residence, change their role(s), their finances, where their kids go to school, or their titles. Those are all direct impacts.

I completely understand why the BRF wouldn't allow this: they want complete control over their public brand because that's what they're left with. They're props in front of and conduits to the power structure and liquid money, for whom they're very useful, as long as it stays behind the curtain.

This. It summarizes the situation of the BRF in a nutshell.

 

[canbelto]

So I'm now up to the part where Harry is in the army training. He seems to resent Charles for a "goodbye" photo-op. It's actually very sad how every effort of Charles to be a good father is picked apart by Harry. Even Charles attending Harry's school Shakespeare performance is remembered as an embarrassing incident.

 

[starrynight]

To help usher the monarchy into a more modern era? Just a thought.

Honestly I don’t think anything about what Harry is doing is modern. If anything he’s yearning for a throwback to the days of when the royals had zero accountability to the public and there was no freedom of press around the royals.

 

[MsZem]

To help usher the monarchy into a more modern era? Just a thought.

In what way would Harry and Meghan doing their own thing have accomplished this?

But then we would never have learned about his frozen willy. How could you deprive us of that revelation?!

And new uses for Elizabeth Arden cream!

 

[Husky]

QEII ... allowed a lot more grace to her pedophile son than ...

"Pedophile" means having sex with a child! Child is usually (depending on the country) defined as younger than 14.

 

[Rainbow]

In the book "Spare" there is reference to the spare being available for organs in the event the heir needs one eg a kidney, bone marrow.

If this is true and someone actually told Harry that, I find it kind of creepy and mean?

The wording is that the idea was "made abundantly clear” to him and was “regularly reinforced", not that someone actually told him. Sounds pretty vague to me.

 

[jadingirl]

So I am finished the book and while I have no sympathy for Harry I am still saying kudos to getting all your stories out there so no one else can profit off of them. Drugs, sex, fights - its all covered sometimes vaguely sometimes too much detail.
I do feel for him when you think of him as a sad man who lost his mother too young and has never recovered from it - is it something you recover from? I don't know myself at this time and am happier for it.

I'm not sure about Meghan - either she is too good to be true or a much better actress than she's been given credit for.

It was interesting to see how little control he had over simple things - he states he wasn't allowed to buy a car or house etc. and had never even received an Amazon package. I would think this life of privilege has obviously stunted his growth in many ways - the problems of the megarich and priveleged lol. I thinking Meghan is either coddling him or helping him grow up - hopefully the latter for her sake.

And it is really too bad that there may be no healing this rift now.

 

[taf2002]

Mea culpa! I got the York girls & their husbands mixed up. It's Eunice Eugenie & Beatrice is the one with a step-son & Spanish husband. I often get them wrong.

 

[MLIS]

Eugenie, not Eugenia.

 

[MsZem]

Mea culpa! I got the York girls & their husbands mixed up. It's Eunice Eugenie & Beatrice is the one with a step-son & Spanish husband. I often get them wrong.

Beatrice's husband comes from an Italian family - Edoardo (Edo) Mapelli Mozzi.

 

[marbri]

Beatrice's husband comes from an Italian family - Edoardo (Edo) Mapelli Mozzi.

In taf's defense they get their facts from Meghan and Harry.

 

[taf2002]

Beatrice's husband comes from an Italian family - Edoardo (Edo) Mapelli Mozzi.

Ok I still didn't get it right. Sorry. Thanks to everyone in the thread who took the time to correct me. And so quickly too!

 

[Rainbow]

Please explain how this discussion directly impacted the lives of those people. Indirectly, sure. But not directly. No one was asking them to move their residence, change their role(s), their finances, where their kids go to school, or their titles. Those are all direct impacts.

It directly impacted them, because they would have more workload with two people less covering the existent comitments to charities and so on. I mean, Catherine is now royal patron for rugby. Harry was a much better fit.

 

[Jenny]

When in doubt I still go to thepeerage.com to sort things out - here is Beatrice's entry, and through the links you can easily get to all of them.

 

[kwanfan1818]

When in doubt I still go to thepeerage.com to sort things out - here is Beatrice's entry, and through the links you can easily get to all of them.

I love that just below hers is an entry for "Henry VIII Tudor, King of England."

 

[Rainbow]

Andrew used his full-time goverment position for corrupt purposes, just as Edward and Sophie were selling influence as part of their business. Which they didn't put a stop to until it became public and inconvenient. That is very different from spending part of your year opening bridges and senior centers and representing the Royal family in the equivalent of meet and greets, and the other half working on projects where you were selling yourself as content, not access, instead of the press selling you as content.

I completely understand why the BRF wouldn't allow this: they want complete control over their public brand because that's what they're left with. They're props in front of and conduits to the power structure and liquid money, for whom they're very useful, as long as it stays behind the curtain.

I work in public service and the decision the Queen made goes along with principles of public service and the duties and restrictions that go along with that. If, for example, you want to have a freelance job on the side, you have to go through official channels. If the freelance work or other/additional occupation is considered detrimental to your main employment, it will not be approved. As simple as that. As I understand it the royal households are not public service in the strictest sense, but adhere to similar rules for similar and very valid reasons.

Thats why the freebies thing baffles me. If your boss wants to keep freebies against official policies, fine, their problem. Do it secretly, please, without impacting your staff. But distributing them among part of the employees puts them into a very uncomfortable position. Because by refusing to accept the freebies themselves, which they have to to not jeopardize their employment, they have to tell their boss, that they are wrong to keep them, too. Even our 17 year old trainee knew, that there are rules to accepting work-related gifts.

 

[Jenny]

I love that just below hers is an entry for "Henry VIII Tudor, King of England."

I know! That made me smile too

 

[Andora]

All these posts defending the monarchy vs. H&M just underline for me that there is NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO HAVE ONE. It would be great if y'all could see that, too.

Andrew used his full-time goverment position for corrupt purposes, just as Edward and Sophie were selling influence as part of their business. Which they didn't put a stop to until it became public and inconvenient. That is very different from spending part of your year opening bridges and senior centers and representing the Royal family in the equivalent of meet and greets, and the other half working on projects where you were selling yourself as content, not access, instead of the press selling you as content.

I completely understand why the BRF wouldn't allow this: they want complete control over their public brand because that's what they're left with. They're props in front of and conduits to the power structure and liquid money, for whom they're very useful, as long as it stays behind the curtain.

This is my issue - the palace has all sorts of scandals and issues where money is made or even just changes hands for various corrupt reasons. It's only a problem when it's discovered-- and even then, not always. Andrew was shilling that ridiculous "Pitch @ Palace" nonsense at one point.

I think it's, yes, partially the palace's need for control, but additionally to protect the very structure and line of importance. H&M's work made them popular and sometimes could dwarf the importance of William or Catherine's meet & greets. I don't think for one second it was simply so altruistic as protecting the sanctity of the crown and titles from Netflix's nefarious reach.

If the BRF had been smart, they'd have let H&M have that half in/half out approach, in an effort to keep some element of control. But H&M weren't secretive enough about making money

"Pedophile" means having sex with a child! Child is usually (depending on the country) defined as younger than 14.

Yes, let's make sure we're careful with the accusations against Prince Andrew. Not because he deserves it, of course, but for victims sake.

Let's be specific then: Andrew had to pay a victim of his own friend's sex trafficking. He was intimately acquainted with Epstein and his girlfriend Maxwell. His actions cost his mother/family directly, without being a contributing member of the firm.

I'm not sure about Meghan - either she is too good to be true or a much better actress than she's been given credit for.

It was interesting to see how little control he had over simple things - he states he wasn't allowed to buy a car or house etc. and had never even received an Amazon package. I would think this life of privilege has obviously stunted his growth in many ways - the problems of the megarich and priveleged lol. I thinking Meghan is either coddling him or helping him grow up - hopefully the latter for her sake.

And it is really too bad that there may be no healing this rift now.

I think two things here are interesting. One, it does underline for me how confusing Harry's upbringing must have been. Everything decided for him, what he did, where he went, had to be in service to the very family that didn't have his best interests at heart.

It's hard to feel sorry for people with champagne problems, for sure, but even when he benefitted from certain decisions, his benefit was not the reason for said decisions-- it was a bonus side effect. I'm not sure why people think this was simply acceptable, and because he was rich he's not allowed to be upset and open about it. Why even attempt to heal that rift? Why go back to such a system? Not family, a system.

Secondly, the point about Meghan is completely fair. Coming out of the netflix doc, the book, etc, I don't think we learn that much more about her, which is impressive. I think she's going to prove legendarily good at image control, which is another missed opportunity for the BRF. I do wonder how she's really dealing with Harry regarding how clueless he is when it comes to real life. I wonder if she screams into a pillow of money or something to avoid leaving him. I'm sure she is equal parts lovely and ruthless, based on what I've heard from people who knew her before all of this. If there's anyone who's going to come out fine from this situation, I would put money on her fareing better than Harry or any of his relatives in the UK.

 

[canbelto]

It's really gross that Andrew has such a devoted online following.

 

[marbri]

All these posts defending the monarchy vs. H&M just underline for me that there is NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO HAVE ONE. It would be great if y'all could see that, too.



This is my issue - the palace has all sorts of scandals and issues where money is made or even just changes hands for various corrupt reasons. It's only a problem when it's discovered-- and even then, not always. Andrew was shilling that ridiculous "Pitch @ Palace" nonsense at one point.

I think it's, yes, partially the palace's need for control, but additionally to protect the very structure and line of importance. H&M's work made them popular and sometimes could dwarf the importance of William or Catherine's meet & greets. I don't think for one second it was simply so altruistic as protecting the sanctity of the crown and titles from Netflix's nefarious reach.

If the BRF had been smart, they'd have let H&M have that half in/half out approach, in an effort to keep some element of control. But H&M weren't secretive enough about making money



Yes, let's make sure we're careful with the accusations against Prince Andrew. Not because he deserves it, of course, but for victims sake.

Let's be specific then: Andrew had to pay a victim of his own friend's sex trafficking. He was intimately acquainted with Epstein and his girlfriend Maxwell. His actions cost his mother/family directly, without being a contributing member of the firm.



I think two things here are interesting. One, it does underline for me how confusing Harry's upbringing must have been. Everything decided for him, what he did, where he went, had to be in service to the very family that didn't have his best interests at heart.

It's hard to feel sorry for people with champagne problems, for sure, but even when he benefitted from certain decisions, his benefit was not the reason for said decisions-- it was a bonus side effect. I'm not sure why people think this was simply acceptable, and because he was rich he's not allowed to be upset and open about it. Why even attempt to heal that rift? Why go back to such a system? Not family, a system.

Secondly, the point about Meghan is completely fair. Coming out of the netflix doc, the book, etc, I don't think we learn that much more about her, which is impressive. I think she's going to prove legendarily good at image control, which is another missed opportunity for the BRF. I do wonder how she's really dealing with Harry regarding how clueless he is when it comes to real life. I wonder if she screams into a pillow of money or something to avoid leaving him. I'm sure she is equal parts lovely and ruthless, based on what I've heard from people who knew her before all of this. If there's anyone who's going to come out fine from this situation, I would put money on her fareing better than Harry or any of his relatives in the UK.

You are aware Harry doesn't agree with this right?

 

[MsZem]

I think it's, yes, partially the palace's need for control, but additionally to protect the very structure and line of importance. H&M's work made them popular and sometimes could dwarf the importance of William or Catherine's meet & greets.

I keep seeing this argument (also made by Harry himself), and I honestly don't get it. Both couples were/are very popular.

It's really gross that Andrew has such a devoted online following.

He does?

 

[Andora]

You are aware Harry doesn't agree with this right?

I am aware. I believe I've said myself that it's too bad he doesn't see it that way. At least he can claim some sort of Stockholm syndrome if he ever gets wise down the line.

But also, he's not posting in this thread. Royal stans are.

I keep seeing this argument (also made by Harry himself), and I honestly don't get it. Both couples were/are very popular.

Sure, both couples are popular, and in very different ways currently. Certainly H&M pull ahead in the infamy column. I can't think it would be easy to measure who's more popular now, and I don't think it matters. But it did matter when H&M were working members of the royal family, and it certainly mattered when their events were scheduled on the same day as Charles or W&C's events. It was a completely different discussion then.

 

[marbri]

I am aware. I believe I've said myself that it's too bad he doesn't see it that way. At least he can claim some sort of Stockholm syndrome if he ever gets wise down the line.

But also, he's not posting in this thread. Royal stans are.



Sure, both couples are popular, and in very different ways currently. Certainly H&M pull ahead in the infamy column. I can't think it would be easy to measure who's more popular now, and I don't think it matters. But it did matter when H&M were working members of the royal family, and it certainly mattered when their events were scheduled on the same day as Charles or W&C's events. It was a completely different discussion then.

I didn't realise you saw yourself that way.