Harry and Meghan stepping aside

but Id come at it from the position the monarchy survives with the publics consent, if by taking the proverbial royal wee wee living off royal benefits but not doing the hard graft that goes with it, erodes that public consent, it will reach a point where you end with no monarchy left at all and then they can all lead the private life and live off their earnings from duchies, and pay for their own stuff, then they are no different from the rest of the aristocracy, who most notably arent celebs, dont spend alot of time telling everyone how to do things and dont feature in newspapers unless they muck up because actually they arent very interesting people, just wealthy.

so at the moment whilst we can quibble the details of how much financial independence is independent, the public largely consent to the monarchy living the royal life by doing the royal things thats expected of them, if royals choose not to want to do that anymore, thats their choice but I dont think they have the public consent to carry on living the royal life and expecting to be treated as royals anymore.

and I dont understand how the implication from their statement is they wanted to lead a more normal,albeit incredibly wealthy, private life with more control over their media interactions, and yet today Meghans picture is in all the papers because she visited a Vancouver womens refuge who all posed for a photo with her which they posted on their facebook page. do Vancouver womens refuges always publish photos when wealthy private individuals visit, or is this just somekind of celeb positive pr style game

surrey_commuter said:

That is about 100 engagements each, allow a couple of hours for each and it does not sound to onerous in exchange for several properties that are a constant financial headache and a shedload of cash which you'll need for personal security and you'll just have to put up with a few curious and pesky Journo's picturing your every move and newspapers talking about you and making stuff up all the time as well as admirers gushing every time they see you...

FTFY

Forget popping down to the chippy/restaurant, going to the pub, walking down the road just for a jolly, jumping on your bike for a spin and getting lost (on your own), driving through a city. town, village or even along the motorway (without company)...

You see where i'm going? Would you really like that sort of existence?

Harry was born into it. Not through choice. It's not through choice that the media need to be 'handled' and the intrusion is permanent.

I think it would be a curse to be a Royal and far from a 'privilege'.

surrey_commuter said:

pinno said:

shortfall said:

Not sure if you understand where I'm coming from Pinno but it boils down to this, half the country think MM is a woman of colour who has been singled out for appalling treatment by a racist press and media simply because.of her skin colour. The other half see her as a cynical social climber who has made an informed decision as an adult to join the Royal family with all that entails in terms of press intrusion, public service and sacrifice but who after only a couple of years has decided she only wants to keep the half of the bargain that bestows her with fabulous wealth, privilege, servants and palaces. I know where I am on the debate, and yes you're right, I'm a cynic.

Right, I see where you're coming from and if you still want a fight; back of Gregg's at 6pm?

I question this whole idea of privilege. Servants, heaps of money... sounds great but is it?

No freedom. Out of touch with reality. Tons of Royal engagements - did you click on that link? 3000 Royal engagements per annum. I don't know by whom but even if you spread it out amongst the 27 (?), that's a hell of a schedule.

Not for me thanks. Yes, be a multimillionaire with a house in Monaco ~ (if that's your thing) without notoriety but would you ever know who your friends are or even if your wife/partner loves you?

That is about 100 engagements each, allow a couple of hours for each and it does not sound to onerous in exchange for several properties and a shedload of cash

It's a lot of tedious small talk, hand shaking and politeness. I'm not willing to swap.

You would not do that for free luxury housing, free holidays and several million pounds a year? That gives you 11 months off to play naked pool in Vegas, play golf or procure underage girls.

surrey_commuter said:

You would not do that for free luxury housing, free holidays and several million pounds a year? That gives you 11 months off to play naked pool in Vegas, play golf or procure underage girls.

My turn to point out your calculations are off . Princess Anne alone had 447 UK engagements and 71 overseas engagements in 2018. Spread those over a 270-day working year and that's about 2 a day. There might be only an hour or two of meet and greet but it's pretty obvious that each whole event will average out at quite a bit longer.

Figures for Charles are similar: 398 UK and 109 overseas engagements. William 150/70; Harry 108/85. That's still 3-4 a week. It's not the hardest job in the world by any measure, but they do keep fairly busy.

surrey_commuter said:

I was assuming that I would be an indolent royal so more at the Harry end of the scale. Surely they do not go to Bradford for one “engagement”? They must be able to squeeze in at least three a day. That would only drop me to about 10 months holiday a year

Correct 3 engagements for whichever of them is the Cambridges in Bradford:

Kensington Palace
15th January, 2020
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge today visited Bradford City Hall, Centenary Square, Bradford, and were received by Her Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of West Midlands (Mr Edmund Anderson).

Their Royal Highnesses this afternoon visited MyLahore British Asian Kitchen, 52 Great Horton Road, Bradford.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge afterwards joined representatives from Near Neighbours and Better Start Bradford at the Khidmat Centre, 36 Spencer Road, Bradford.

surrey_commuter said:

I was assuming that I would be an indolent royal so more at the Harry end of the scale. Surely they do not go to Bradford for one “engagement”? They must be able to squeeze in at least three a day. That would only drop me to about 10 months holiday a year

Two meetings on different sides of London can fill up most of the day once you factor in travel time. Bradford is about 3-4hrs by road or rail from Kensington; even a helicopter will be a couple of hours all in. Plus those stats are just the public meet and greet stuff; there'll be private meetings as well.

I'd imagine their diaries are comparable with senior politicians or other public figures.

As for your 11 months on holiday even maxed-out junior doctors are only at work for 6-7months of the year.

pblakeney said:

The important part in the above is choice, or lack there of.
You don’t have the choice of doing it.
They don’t have the choice of not doing it.

This isn't true of Meghan Markle who made and informed decision as an adult woman to marry into the Royal Family. She has now exercised the same adult decision making to have her cake and eat it after about 2 minutes.

I doubt that anyone on here has ever experienced life under the constant spotlight of the public and the media, so what's been t written thus far is pure speculation.

As for 'Harry at the supermarket' doing 'normal' things... ...with his security. Hmm. How 'normal' is that?!

It would not be a privilege to need 24h security because you are a target and simultaneously, a target for the media.

. . . the benefits from the outside at least seem to outweigh the hassles . . .

Not to me they don't! - nowhere even close to outweiging the hassles.

I would hate it.

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

The important part in the above is choice, or lack there of.
You don’t have the choice of doing it.
They don’t have the choice of not doing it.

Sure they do. See Harry

Okay, as long as they remain royals on the public purse.
FWIW, my opinion is that they are either 100% in or 100% out and shouldn’t whine about either circumstance.

You going to vote them out?

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

pblakeney said:

The important part in the above is choice, or lack there of.
You don’t have the choice of doing it.
They don’t have the choice of not doing it.

This isn't true of Meghan Markle who made and informed decision as an adult woman to marry into the Royal Family. She has now exercised the same adult decision making to have her cake and eat it after about 2 minutes.

I still don't get how this is any more than a guess. She certainly seems to want out of people writing inane articles about where she puts her hands. The rest is just supposition. And ultimately the terms of any step-back will be determined by HM.

Yes it's supposition, like most of the 40,000 posts on the Brexit thread. It's a discussion forum, we offer our opinions based on knowledge, press and media reporting and intuition. We can wait and see what happens before commenting if you like but then we'd all be experts after the event.

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

pblakeney said:

The important part in the above is choice, or lack there of.
You don’t have the choice of doing it.
They don’t have the choice of not doing it.

This isn't true of Meghan Markle who made and informed decision as an adult woman to marry into the Royal Family. She has now exercised the same adult decision making to have her cake and eat it after about 2 minutes.

I still don't get how this is any more than a guess. She certainly seems to want out of people writing inane articles about where she puts her hands. The rest is just supposition. And ultimately the terms of any step-back will be determined by HM.

Yes it's supposition, like most of the 40,000 posts on the Brexit thread. It's a discussion forum, we offer our opinions based on knowledge, press and media reporting and intuition. We can wait and see what happens before commenting if you like but then we'd all be experts after the event.

So what knowledge are you applying here? She's said herself that her friends warned her about press intrusion before she married Harry. She clearly ignored that advice and has realised that it was more accurate than she wanted to admit. Whatever arrangements they come to, the financial implications are clearly pending so what are you basing the pantomime golddigger accusations on?

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

pblakeney said:

The important part in the above is choice, or lack there of.
You don’t have the choice of doing it.
They don’t have the choice of not doing it.

This isn't true of Meghan Markle who made and informed decision as an adult woman to marry into the Royal Family. She has now exercised the same adult decision making to have her cake and eat it after about 2 minutes.

I still don't get how this is any more than a guess. She certainly seems to want out of people writing inane articles about where she puts her hands. The rest is just supposition. And ultimately the terms of any step-back will be determined by HM.

Yes it's supposition, like most of the 40,000 posts on the Brexit thread. It's a discussion forum, we offer our opinions based on knowledge, press and media reporting and intuition. We can wait and see what happens before commenting if you like but then we'd all be experts after the event.

So what knowledge are you applying here? She's said herself that her friends warned her about press intrusion before she married Harry. She clearly ignored that advice and has realised that it was more accurate than she wanted to admit. Whatever arrangements they come to, the financial implications are clearly pending so what are you basing the pantomime golddigger accusations on?

I'm basing it on the fact that she married one of the most eligible and famous men in the world, whose Mother, Father, Step Mother and Aunts have all been on the receiving end of the worst aspects of the world's tabloid press and media and then, decided after a short space of time ( and after her multi million pound tax payer funded fairy tale wedding and house refurbishments) that actually she didn't like any negative press coverage herself. She and her husband then used their tame press poodle Tim Brabury to brief the papers that they were prepared to do a damaging kiss and tell interview if their demands for a drastically reduced role were not met. Unsurprisingly the Queen caved in because she didn't want a repeat of the disastrous PR the Royal Family suffered when Diana was stripped of her title following her divorce from Charles. Time will tell what exactly the terms of their future arrangements are (or maybe they won't) but the fact that she's just reregistered her company in a US state notorious for blocking scrutiny hints at how she operates. If you want me to believe that Meghan Markle isn't a very smart operator who is out to milk her situation for all it's worth then I'm afraid we have a very different take on human nature.

slowbike said:

It's already been said ....

No thanks - I'd hate it ...

the inability to just jump on my bike for a ride or like over Christmas - meet up with a guy I met online - with his kids and mine - for a MTB ride ...

Sure, it can still happen - but with security around watching your every move ....

Could probably cope, if it wasn't for the made up stories - I've seen a story published online about me - friendly solicitor wrote a threatening letter to get it removed - it wasn't nice and pretty hurtful - and I'm a nobody.

Hey, don't put yourself down.
You're not a nobody on here.