Royalty Thread #11: Putting the "Fun" in Dysfunctional

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,894
Their security seems to me to be more complex than many celebrities. Princess Anne was almost kidnapped and her bodyguard was killed. I have read of plots to snatch Prince George. They ran into a bit of problem in one of the countries Meghan and Harry visited - was it Fiji? and security had to whisk her away as the crowds became somewhat out of control. I can see it being sustainable for a time but much more challenging for longer - especially when their whereabouts become known. I would assume the security arrangements for the royals while in England have been carefully worked out over decades by very experienced people. I was at a meals-on-wheels event for the stampede a few years back when Stephen Harper was prime minister and Mrs. Harper was there. She appeared to have one security person with her who stayed back and was very discreet as she mingled with the people. I just am not sure Canada really does that kind of intense, longer term, security. Don't know.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,411
Came across this on YouTube (yes, still on the couch and getting more bored by the minute.)


Kate endured years of this kind of hounding by the paparazzi. I completely agree that there has been a ton of really racist social media and comment section stuff about Meghan, but she has not been hounded like this day in and day out for years. I am not comparing the two very different problems, it is not a competition. Is am just saying that this “Meghan has been hounded by the press” talking point is not really true. This is what “ hounded by the press” looks like.

Kate is also referred to as a “bitch” and a “bimbo” among other things in the comment section.

I don’t think it is too late to edit this so I wanted to add another YouTube video. This is one from when Kate left the hospital when she was newly pregnant with George. There are some nice comments but there are also references to “coat hangers” and some who wants to “throw a hot bucket of piss on them.” Numerous référence to “waity” and “party girl.”

Now I am not saying because this happened to Kate it is okay for it to happen to Meghan. Just pushing back a bit on the idea that Kate has had it easy.

 
Last edited:

RoseRed

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,607
Their security seems to me to be more complex than many celebrities. Princess Anne was almost kidnapped and her bodyguard was killed. I have read of plots to snatch Prince George. They ran into a bit of problem in one of the countries Meghan and Harry visited - was it Fiji? and security had to whisk her away as the crowds became somewhat out of control. I can see it being sustainable for a time but much more challenging for longer - especially when their whereabouts become known. I would assume the security arrangements for the royals while in England have been carefully worked out over decades by very experienced people. I was at a meals-on-wheels event for the stampede a few years back when Stephen Harper was prime minister and Mrs. Harper was there. She appeared to have one security person with her who stayed back and was very discreet as she mingled with the people. I just am not sure Canada really does that kind of intense, longer term, security. Don't know.
And Stephen Harper's kids went to public school in Ottawa while he was in office.

Meghan and Harry definitely seem to have more security than Canadian Prime Ministers/their families typically have (I'm sure for good reason).
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,528
That is a good explanation (and thanks, I wasn't aware that had been posted) but they certainly aren't saying what @becca is characterizing them as saying. I don't see entitlement here. Maybe this is not as well thought out as it could be, but IMO at least some thought has gone into it.
Its not their money though. I mean look it is one thing for them to announce they want to leave.

it’s another for them to publically announce they Expect to keep 95 percent of their funds. Funded by the someone else and the public can pay for security too.

Charles has already funded a lot of their costs. Wedding etc. He may be willing to do that but that should have been discussed privately.

it comes across as entitled. And Harry and Meghan do have they say 40 mil to transition off with.
 

MacMadame

My G.O.A.T is better than your G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,701
I'm honestly not sure what H&M could do that the GGs and LGs aren't already doing.
I am assuming that some events where the BRF would have sent someone all the way from the UK, they will send Harry & Meghan instead (since they are already there). But that's about it and that wouldn't happen very often.

The rest of the time they will be private citizens, doing work for their charity, and so Canada should not be paying for their security IMO.
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,528
One thing I will say is Charles does use the Duchy to fund a lot of his charities not every Prince of Wales has done this.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
26,826
Its not their money though. I mean look it is one thing for them to announce they want to leave.

it’s another for them to publically announce they Expect to keep 95 percent of their funds. Funded by the someone else and the public can pay for security too.

Charles has already funded a lot of their costs. Wedding etc. He may be willing to do that but that should have been discussed privately.

it comes across as entitled. And Harry and Meghan do have they say 40 mil to transition off with.
You are making a lot of assumptions about things that haven't been proven publicly. And not surprisingly you're making assumptions that fit your "H&M = greedy and lazy" narrative.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
26,826
Their security seems to me to be more complex than many celebrities. Princess Anne was almost kidnapped and her bodyguard was killed. I have read of plots to snatch Prince George. They ran into a bit of problem in one of the countries Meghan and Harry visited - was it Fiji? and security had to whisk her away as the crowds became somewhat out of control. I can see it being sustainable for a time but much more challenging for longer - especially when their whereabouts become known. I would assume the security arrangements for the royals while in England have been carefully worked out over decades by very experienced people. I was at a meals-on-wheels event for the stampede a few years back when Stephen Harper was prime minister and Mrs. Harper was there. She appeared to have one security person with her who stayed back and was very discreet as she mingled with the people. I just am not sure Canada really does that kind of intense, longer term, security. Don't know.
Good security is security that isn't noticeable. There is a lot going on to keep them safe that we probably don't see or know about.

FWIW I remember reading that both Meghan and Diana had to go through a "live hostage simulation exercise" before their respective wedding days. And I think Meghan was criticized after one of her first public appearances for closing the car door after she got out. She thought she was being polite and courteous, but apparently the safety protocol is that the officer with the Royal holds the door open and doesn't close it until the royal is safely inside the building. The door has to stay open in case there's an attack and the Royal has to be quickly pushed back into the car and driven away.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,411
Meghan has been out and about in Vancouver:

 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,320
Meghan has been out and about in Vancouver:

Cool! The Downtown East Side is only 20 minutes away from me. I am sure the women she met with were both tickled and touched. If Megan could partner with an organization that serves the DTES, I'm sure her contribution would be highly valued.
 

Rainbow

Active Member
Messages
378
You are making a lot of assumptions about things that haven't been proven publicly. And not surprisingly you're making assumptions that fit your "H&M = greedy and lazy" narrative.
But what Becca summerized just, what the Sussexes published on their own website. The website they also claim provides "factual Information" regarding their work. They make it clear that they view just the 5 percent from the souvereign grant as the money the cut themselves off from. That ist what they define on their own website as "financial Independence":

"As they step back as senior members of the Royal Family and no longer receive funding through the Sovereign Grant, they will become members of the Royal Family with financial independence which is something they look forward to. As The Duke and Duchess of Sussex prepare to make this change, the answers to the following questions aim to provide clarity on existing and future funding Arrangements."

Also, this passage is somewhat misleading:
"Do any other members of the Royal Family hold a title and earn an income?
Yes, there is precedent for this structure and applies to other current members of the Royal Family who support the monarch and also have full time jobs external to their commitment to the monarchy."

It is beside the point that people have titles and have full time Jobs, if they do not receive funding for doing work for the queen. Is there any current case of "working royals" who are also holding "normal" jobs? I thought the only example of this were the Wessexes, and that did not work?
 

antmanb

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,413

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,528
You are making a lot of assumptions about things that haven't been proven publicly. And not surprisingly you're making assumptions that fit your "H&M = greedy and lazy" narrative.
they posted they wanted the funds on their website. There was no agreement: As for as lazy not wanting to do a certain job does not make one lazy. So I never said that.
 

Judy

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,102
And Stephen Harper's kids went to public school in Ottawa while he was in office.

Meghan and Harry definitely seem to have more security than Canadian Prime Ministers/their families typically have (I'm sure for good reason).
Yes but the school is in Rockcliffe .. right across from the school I was working at and yes the kids had security. Likely Trudeau’s kids are there too.
 

kwanfan1818

I <3 Kozuka
Messages
31,896
I thought financial independence primarily meant that they are free to earn a living, something they were prohibited from doing as public-supported senior members of the Royal Family.

Some families cut the financial strings immediately after their children cross a milestone, like graduating, or coming back from the Peace Corps, or leaving the military, and other families continue to support children through a transition, like starting a business, as Bill Gates' father did by loaning him the money to start what became Microsoft and not demanding it back when BG decided to drop out of college. Or vice versa, when parents' financial conditions change. That's up to the families to decide, and the people who have the money have the upper hand. Their actions can be driven by lots of factors, whether that is love, awareness of public perception, maintaining some control, supporting the child's vision, preventing criticism down the line and having someone else's action support your ultimate goal, planned/encouraged/luck -- ex: ne successfully transitioned volunteer to help streamline the monarchy -- etc.
 

Rainbow

Active Member
Messages
378
Some families cut the financial strings immediately after their children cross a milestone, like graduating, or coming back from the Peace Corps, or leaving the military, and other families continue to support children through a transition, like starting a business, as Bill Gates' father did by loaning him the money to start what became Microsoft and not demanding it back when BG decided to drop out of college. Or vice versa, when parents' financial conditions change. That's up to the families to decide, and the people who have the money have the upper hand. Their actions can be driven by lots of factors, whether that is love, awareness of public perception, maintaining some control, supporting the child's vision, preventing criticism down the line and having someone else's action support your ultimate goal, planned/encouraged/luck -- ex: ne successfully transitioned volunteer to help streamline the monarchy -- etc.
True for the parents. But I personally would not necessarily extend that to siblings financially supporting their siblings, except for when one ist too sick or otherwise impaired to care for themselves. The Sussexes up to now have relied on the funding coming from the Duchy of Cornwall. That will go to William as soon as Charles will be King.
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
20,946
The difference is though that the Royal Family is also a business, as well as a public entity.
 

kwanfan1818

I <3 Kozuka
Messages
31,896
That will go to William as soon as Charles will be King.
Which hasn't happened yet. The Sussexes haven't launched what they are planning to launch, so how long it will take for them to transition fully is TBD.

There are plenty of people who subsidize their siblings for all kinds of reasons. (I'm not saying it should happen here.)
 

Husky

Member
Messages
32
I find it funny to worry about Harry's income. In one newspaper someone was even wondering how he would do as a clerk. :lol:

There are plenty of profitable opportunities. One of my mother's school friends for example married an ambassador. The embassy was stationed in a very poor country and after his early death she was not rich, but having already done a lot of charity work over there, she started her own foundation for education purposes. She became a well known fundraiser in my homecountry who frequently appears on tv at charity events and being so successful she made millions for herself. As a professional fundraiser you are allowed to keep a certain percentage of the donations. 30% are quite common in the field I worked in.

Now, not everybody is destined to become a fundraiser. You need self-esteem (because you will always meet rude people who call this begging), access to the rich people, charisma to convince donators, and you should be really devoted to humanitarian work. All these things I see in Harry.

But fundraising is just one example. I can see him also as a chairman for a big NGO. Red Cross maybe or some other.
 

Husky

Member
Messages
32
BTW my father told me some decades ago that the queen is the richest person in England. Maybe this is no longer the case? But she surely is still very rich. And with or without the title Harry is still a heir.
 

PRlady

Nerdy flack
Messages
33,643
BTW my father told me some decades ago that the queen is the richest person in England. Maybe this is no longer the case? But she surely is still very rich. And with or without the title Harry is still a heir.
I believe JK Rowling passed her. :lol:
 

Husky

Member
Messages
32

"Kate endured years of this kind of hounding by the paparazzi. I completely agree that there has been a ton of really racist social media and comment section stuff about Meghan, but she has not been hounded like this day in and day out for years. I am not comparing the two very different problems, it is not a competition. Is am just saying that this “Meghan has been hounded by the press” talking point is not really true. This is what “ hounded by the press” looks like.

Kate is also referred to as a “bitch” and a “bimbo” among other things in the comment section
."

I have never seen so much venom published in NEWSPAPERS as now about Meghan. Especially DailyMail (aka DailyFail aka DailyMeghan) published downright hateful AND fictional articles. I didn't know that this is allowed. Even when they correct a former story they leave the old one online. They published an article about Meghan's ancestors going back to the 18th century, allegedly slaves working on the cotton fields. WTF?
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,168
They published an article about Meghan's ancestors going back to the 18th century, allegedly slaves working on the cotton fields. WTF?
You know, if that's true I'm sure these ancestors would be impressed by, and proud of, Meghan and Doria.

But there was a lot of ugly coverage and stalking of Kate. Just not for the same reasons, obviously.
 

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,894
Time has a way of working things out. There will be growing pains but this could turn out to be very positive in the long run and set a much clearer path for those not in direct succession. Progress is rarely made without dishevel and pain. Meghan and Harry seem to want to make their mark and maybe this separation of sorts will make it easier for them to push the issues they truly believe in. The Queen may not live to see that day but she has seen many changes starting with the abdication of her uncle and that seems to have obviously been for the better even if it didn't seem that way at the time.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,530
I was thinking ... I think the Daily Mail escalated the racist coverage once Meghan was pregnant. And I truly think that's because a huge portion of the UK populace simply could not accept a BLOOD royal family member being mixed race. They can accept non-white UK citizens, maybe even a non-white person marrying into the Royal family, but not a child born of a prince being of mixed race.

It kind of reminds me of my friend whose parents were "fine" with her marrying outside her race until she became pregnant. Then they freaked out and ripped up all their pictures of her and ghosted her from their lives.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,411
"Kate endured years of this kind of hounding by the paparazzi. I completely agree that there has been a ton of really racist social media and comment section stuff about Meghan, but she has not been hounded like this day in and day out for years. I am not comparing the two very different problems, it is not a competition. Is am just saying that this “Meghan has been hounded by the press” talking point is not really true. This is what “ hounded by the press” looks like.

Kate is also referred to as a “bitch” and a “bimbo” among other things in the comment section
."

I have never seen so much venom published in NEWSPAPERS as now about Meghan. Especially DailyMail (aka DailyFail aka DailyMeghan) published downright hateful AND fictional articles. I didn't know that this is allowed. Even when they correct a former story they leave the old one online. They published an article about Meghan's ancestors going back to the 18th century, allegedly slaves working on the cotton fields. WTF?
If you really want an accurate comparison (and this is what annoys me about the buzzfeed article - other than they clearly didn’t read the articles before using them) you need to compare the coverage of Kate when she had been in the Royal Family for the same amount of time as Meghan. Then go back to both Sarah and Diana in the same time frame. There is a pattern: 1) look at this amazingly perfect person who engaged to the prince 2) they are a breath of fresh air and so much better than (insert royal who came before them) 3) they are going to “modernize the monarchy 4) they are the Queen’s favourite 5) they are difficult to work with and staff don’t like them 6) they are lazy 7) trouble in the marriage 8) they are nothing like the wonderful (insert name of royal before them) etc etc. Eventually, the narrative swings back towards the positive wash, rinse, repeat. This tried and true formula does not apply 100% but it is a pretty clear pattern. It also relies on the recipient just slogging through and ignoring it for the most part. Because of Kate’s long per marriage relationship, she went through the whole loop once before she even got engaged!

Unfortunately if you are in a down cycle and do something stupid (Wimbledon comes to mind for Meghan) you will get ripped even more than usual.

Not saying any of this is right or should happen. Just that there does seem to be a pattern. The press also uses whatever is on offer for criticism. For Sarah it was her weight and her perceived lack of fashion sense, for Kate it was her class and the fact that she waited around so long for William and never really had a “real” job. For Meghan it was her race, the fact that she is American, and later the fact that she complained that the coverage wasn’t fair, said she would always admit when she made a mistake, but then didn’t admit when she made a mistake (Wimbledon and private jets.)

As for fake articles, I have no idea about the tabloid rags - as far as I am concerned they are nasty fanfics and not newspapers, but the for real newspapers, much of what was called fake about Harry and Meghan has actually turned out to be true. Now I don’t live in the UK so it is quite possible I am not aware of some of it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 12, Guests: 7)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information