Harry and Meghan stepping aside

1234568»

Comments

  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    shortfall said:

    rjsterry said:

    I don't see how insisting that her son and grandsons sort out a properly worked out plan before they go any further can be characterised as caving in, so yes, I would agree we do have a different view of human nature. A point worth considering: people in that sort of position will rely heavily on a team of advisers. And like all advisers they'll occasionally get it wrong.

    I think the Palace would've loved the time to work through a mutually agreeable solution. As it is Meghan and her advisors went nuclear, told the Queen that they were off, and basically held a gun to her head with the threat of a tell all interview. Given what happened to the Monarchy with Diana's divorce and subsequent death, it's not too much of a stretch to see the Queen having genuine fears for it's future. So yes she caved in. What else could she do? I honestly believe that had Harry and Meghan gone about this in a more dignified manner that they could've avoided looking like spoilt brats and humiliating the Queen and Prince Charles, but as Harry famously said, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets". It would appear he's right, with bells on.
    Appears Queen has been under estimated and has not caved in.
    (suss)ex Royal.com
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 8,744
    Harry is basically in the same position and Prince Andrew who seems to have had sufficient freedom to live a private life outside of the media. I wonder if they really just want a lower profile and more freedom if that couldn't have been achieved by not getting involved in media friendly campaigns such as those around mental health and the invictus games.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,789
    Green card is America.
    You need (or did*) a work permit or cash for Canada, so no problem.


    *Circa 1990 the cash figure was $500,000 Canadian.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    pblakeney said:

    Green card is America.
    You need (or did*) a work permit or cash for Canada, so no problem.


    *Circa 1990 the cash figure was $500,000 Canadian.

    That's why I said it.
    Canucks are not enthralled on having them.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,789
    edited January 2020
    Ah! I was just taking what you wrote as written.
    I'm not interested enough to check. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 51,355
    ballysmate said:

    No royal titles, no public money and paying back the money for Frogmore.

    Seems fair.

    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Does anybody else envisage them living in a remote wooden house in the Canadian Rockies and Harry chopping wood for the fire whilst wearing a lumberjack shirt?

    I can see a BBC documentary in 20 years time about the forgotten prince. Maybe somebody will get mauled by a bear.

  • capt_slog
    capt_slog Posts: 3,946
    pinno said:

    ballysmate said:

    No royal titles, no public money and paying back the money for Frogmore.

    Seems fair.

    yup. That was a sticking point for me.

    I watched a bit of 'news' where they interviewing Canadians at an expected location, they were saying that that the UK should foot any bills for security provided over there. I'm hoping that as private citizens, H&M* pay for their own.

    *I wonder if they'll trade mark that :D


    The older I get, the better I was.

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,729
    They’re not private citizens are they?

    They’re part of the royal family title or no title.

    If you don’t have a problem with having royals, you can’t have a problem with royals having their security paid for.

    _
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    If they are in the UK I would expect them to be given the security according to the perceived risk.
    When living abroad it is up to the host country to provide whatever security they deem warranted. Anything further should be provided by H&M.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,729
    Since when is it up to the home country?

    On what basis?
    _
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    The Home Office has a duty to safeguard our citizens in the UK.
    If a citizen chooses to live abroad they are under the protection of their host.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,729
    ballysmate said:

    The Home Office has a duty to safeguard our citizens in the UK.
    If a citizen chooses to live abroad they are under the protection of their host.


    They’re the queen’s grandchildren not any normal citizen.

    Do you not understand what that means?
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,729
    edited January 2020
    I think some people seem to be struggling with the entire premise of what it means to be born into the royal family.


    It is *not fair* and *privileged* that is existentially what royals are about.
    _
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    rick_chasey said:

    I think some people seem to be struggling with the entire premise of what it means to be born into the royal family.


    It is *not fair* and *privileged* that is existentially what royals are about.

    Is that deliberate irony?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,729
    What’s ironic about that?
    _
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    edited January 2020
    Harry, the nobody formerly known as Prince.


  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 12,690

    formerly known as...
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    rick_chasey said:

    I think some people seem to be struggling with the entire premise of what it means to be born into the royal family.


    It is *not fair* and *privileged* that is existentially what royals are about.


    If you are still struggling to see the irony, the biggest culprit is Harry, himself.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,729
    edited January 2020
    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I think some people seem to be struggling with the entire premise of what it means to be born into the royal family.


    It is *not fair* and *privileged* that is existentially what royals are about.


    If you are still struggling to see the irony, the biggest culprit is Harry, himself.
    Culprit? Why what crime or misdeed has been committed?

    He's a royal - even if he gives up the title. He can do what he like as long as the family OKs it.
    _
  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    morstar said:

    Does anybody else envisage them living in a remote wooden house in the Canadian Rockies and Harry chopping wood for the fire whilst wearing a lumberjack shirt?

    I can see a BBC documentary in 20 years time about the forgotten prince. Maybe somebody will get mauled by a bear.

    Ben Fogle's with ITV isn't he?
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I think some people seem to be struggling with the entire premise of what it means to be born into the royal family.


    It is *not fair* and *privileged* that is existentially what royals are about.


    If you are still struggling to see the irony, the biggest culprit is Harry, himself.
    Culprit? Why what crime or misdeed has been committed?

    He's a royal - even if he gives up the title. He can do what he like as long as the family OKs it.
    If you have to ask for the ok to do something, how is that being able to do what you want?
    Your statement contradicts itself.

    No crime or misdeed, just, as I said, a culprit of not understanding what it means to be born into the royal family.
    He and his wife put out their original statement and the Palace have said, "Hang on, it doesn't quite work that way"

  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    Oh the horror of it. Second son rebels against family tradition and tries to break away.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I think some people seem to be struggling with the entire premise of what it means to be born into the royal family.


    It is *not fair* and *privileged* that is existentially what royals are about.


    If you are still struggling to see the irony, the biggest culprit is Harry, himself.
    Culprit? Why what crime or misdeed has been committed?

    He's a royal - even if he gives up the title. He can do what he like as long as the family OKs it.
    If you have to ask for the ok to do something, how is that being able to do what you want?
    Your statement contradicts itself.

    No crime or misdeed, just, as I said, a culprit of not understanding what it means to be born into the royal family.
    He and his wife put out their original statement and the Palace have said, "Hang on, it doesn't quite work that way"

    if he grew some bigger balls it could work that way - just could not bring himself to fully remove himself from the family teat
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    edited January 2020
    surrey_commuter said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    ballysmate said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I think some people seem to be struggling with the entire premise of what it means to be born into the royal family.


    It is *not fair* and *privileged* that is existentially what royals are about.


    If you are still struggling to see the irony, the biggest culprit is Harry, himself.
    Culprit? Why what crime or misdeed has been committed?

    He's a royal - even if he gives up the title. He can do what he like as long as the family OKs it.
    If you have to ask for the ok to do something, how is that being able to do what you want?
    Your statement contradicts itself.

    No crime or misdeed, just, as I said, a culprit of not understanding what it means to be born into the royal family.
    He and his wife put out their original statement and the Palace have said, "Hang on, it doesn't quite work that way"

    if he grew some bigger balls it could work that way - just could not bring himself to fully remove himself from the family teat
    Perhaps he could ask Meghan for them back.

    Edit

    Ps. just in case of confusion. Joke
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,261
    I challenge anyone to still take any of this seriously after hearing that they are keeping their HRH titles but not ever using them, because otherwise they would have to bow or curtsy to Prince Andrew's daughters.

    That's "have to".
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,631
    kingstongraham said:

    I challenge anyone to still take any of this seriously after hearing that they are keeping their HRH titles but not ever using them, because otherwise they would have to bow or curtsy to Prince Andrew's daughters.

    That's "have to".

    Isn't it just to offer Harry (and Meghan even) a way back? There was talk of the whole thing being a trial.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 12,690
    Who gives a flying F?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,261
    It has, however given us this masterpiece from Cold War Steve:


Categories