Harry & Meghan 8: Time's Most Insufferable

[DalmatianCat]

If there’s one thing the card told us, it’s that their money woes are apparently behind them since they now have enough to donate on the behalf of others.

[EmCatlyn]

On 12/26/2021 at 8:53 PM, Mama Mia said:

…
Donating some money in the name of each person or entity they sent a card to doesn’t seem any different than regular people giving a Heifer or UNICEF donation. 
 

I mostly agree with the rest of your message, but not with the above.

When you donate in someone’s name, it’s supposed to be a personal gesture, not a mass-produced public gesture.  Their announcement that their charitable organization is donating an unspecified amount to a long list of “good” causes in the name of (presumably) a long list of people is not the same as my letting [my fictional] Aunt Cathy know that I donated 1/2 a goat in her name through Heifer. 

I think they would have been better off saying something like, “your support of our organization has made it possible for us to make donations to the following good causes.”

It is also weird that they combine their holiday greetings and reflection on their new family with what appears to be a “card” addressed at both friends and supporters of their organization.  I don’t know how to “fit” that in with any custom I recognize.

 

[Xanariel]

I'm going to be fair to the Sussexes and say I don't actually attribute any malice to their statement. I think they love Archie dearly and truly would not want to imply that families of less than two children are not proper families. 

It's just that - as we see time and time again - they really do not think everything through, and suffer from terminal foot-in-the-mouthitis to boot. 

[LilaMae]

2 hours ago, Xanariel said:

I'm going to be fair to the Sussexes and say I don't actually attribute any malice to their statement. I think they love Archie dearly and truly would not want to imply that families of less than two children are not proper families. 

It's just that - as we see time and time again - they really do not think everything through, and suffer from terminal foot-in-the-mouthitis to boot. 

Although it makes me wonder whether they just aren't running anything by their PR company or if they are receiving bad advice.

[tabitha2]

They likely only want to hear what they want to hear…they are right, they are brilliant, what they want to do is amazing , innovative ETC.Any  criticism or perceived criticism or correction however valid and savvy and well meant is taken personally and completely ignored. Those persons in question are clearly against them and cut out. They are never wrong after all because it’s everyone else’s fault

[MomJeans]

I agree with others- yet again the Sussexes are terrible communicators, while likely thinking that communication is their strength! 

I mean, I get they were trying to say how much they love their new baby and it's going to be their last child, but wow, does it appear insensitive to one-child and no children families, especially after the "one kid is a hobby" quote (and Harry had already insulted 3+ child families ). They really need to embrace the KISS method of writing- keep it simple, stupid!

The kids are adorable. I don't care one way or another about the donations.  It is curious to me that their very expensive PR can't manage to highlight their charity donations in a less clunky way. 

[louisa05]

On 12/28/2021 at 5:55 PM, MomJeans said:

I agree with others- yet again the Sussexes are terrible communicators, while likely thinking that communication is their strength! 

I mean, I get they were trying to say how much they love their new baby and it's going to be their last child, but wow, does it appear insensitive to one-child and no children families, especially after the "one kid is a hobby" quote (and Harry had already insulted 3+ child families ). They really need to embrace the KISS method of writing- keep it simple, stupid!

The kids are adorable. I don't care one way or another about the donations.  It is curious to me that their very expensive PR can't manage to highlight their charity donations in a less clunky way. 

I always assume that they’re calling the shots. Meghan has a reputation for not listening to advice and Harry thinks any suggestion that he is do anything differently is criticism to the level of insults. So Sunshine Sachs is collecting a paycheck to just do exactly as they are asked. 
 

As for poor Archie, I suspect Meghan never wanted a son. There are all the stories of things she planned long ago for her future daughter; she had a pink baby shower before he was born and waxed eloquently (in her mind anyway) about the “embryonic kicks of feminism” while pregnant with him. And then she had a boy. 
Look at this photo: she is literally turned away from Harry and Archie with her focus solely on Lilli. 

Edited December 30, 2021 by louisa05

[tabitha2]

Real talk A daughter fits her song and dance about feminism and female empowerment better. I doubt she has the insight or wisdom to realize she could teach a son to be a feminist, to teach both of her children to use the money and name and influence if any they will have as adults to make a real change.  I doubt Harry will have any say in the matter FWIW

[viii]

I don’t think you can count the shower. She already knew she was having a son and there were blue gifts brought. Yes, it was decorated pink but that might have just been her style. 

[omilona]

Lie-Lie will clearly  be the designated Golden Child of the Narcissist (you made us a FAMILY). Merchie will be the Scapegoat (you were a hobby). Trust me, as someone who has lived through it, it's going to be a problem. God help Merchie if he is also the Truth Teller. Because I can tell you right now, the Narcissist is almost unsurvivable then. I've lived through 50+ years of it and now she has started with my  19 year old DD. Luckily DD is made from sterner stuff. She just called her out  big time on lying about huge items ($4,000,000+). We are now no contact.

Edited December 31, 2021 by omilona

[EmCatlyn]

There is a report that the Sussexes are trying to sell their Montecito house. According to undisclosed sources (of course), they would stay in the area, but they aren’t satisfied with the house.

The report says the house isn’t openly on the market because of privacy but is being shown to potential buyers who have proof of funds.  The report in the Daily Mail implies that they may be looking for a fancier house, but I wonder if it’s the opposite.  Have they been making enough to support such a large estate?

One of the comments on the DM site suggests that the next book about the Sussexes might be, “Finding Homes.”  😀

Of course, we can’t be sure this report is true—consider that it first cane from the Sun—but if it is, I find it interesting that they want to move so soon for any reason. 

Daily Mail-Jan 2022

[WiseGirl]

14 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Of course, we can’t be sure this report is true—consider that it first cane from the Sun—but if it is, I find it interesting that they want to move so soon for any reason. 

Sometimes I think that the tabloid stories always have so a kernel of truth (no matter how tiny) to them. I remember back to when Bruce Jenner was transitioning and the National Enquirer first had the stories and it seemed everyone scoffed at the idea becsuse it was in the Enquirer . Turns out they were true.

Time will tell on this one. Maybe they are like me and want to downsize 🤣

[viii]

Considering their lack of work, I wouldn’t be surprised if they couldn’t afford the house. 

[FrumperedCat]

And now Harry is wanting to personally fund police protection when in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60012238

I'm sure there's a lot of people who can afford for high level protection like that and would want it. It shouldn't be that police protection can be purchased of sold.

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

Prince Harry has applied for a judicial review of a Home Office decision not to allow him to personally pay for police protection for himself and his family when they are in the UK.

The Duke of Sussex wants to bring son Archie and baby daughter Lilibetto visit from the US, but he and his family are “unable to return to his home” because it is too dangerous, a legal representative for the prince said.

They added that the duke wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill for police protection.

The claim follows an incident in London in the summer of 2021 when his security was compromised after his car was chased by paparazzi photographers as he left a charity event.

Prince Harry is arguing his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information which is needed keep the Sussex family safe.

ITV Jan 15, 2022

 

[EmCatlyn]

Just now, FrumperedCat said:

And now Harry is wanting to personally fund police protection when in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60012238

I'm sure there's a lot of people who can afford for high level protection like that and would want it. It shouldn't be that police protection can be purchased of sold.

We posted this information at the same time!  Each source gives a little more detail.  I linked to ITV earlier because of the focus on making it possible for him to bring his kids to England, but the Fox News report has an interesting bit.  

As highlighted below, the Sussex lawyers’ statement has a little “dig” that implies that other celebrities get free protection from the police but they aren’t even allowed to pay for it.

Quote

“"The Duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham," the statement [From the Sussex legal team] continued. “That offer was dismissed. He remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer. As is widely known, others who have left public office and have an inherent threat risk receive police protection at no cost to them. The goal for Prince Harry has been simple – to ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the UK so his children can know his home country.  During his last visit to the UK in July 2021 – to unveil a statue in honour of his late mother – his security was compromised due to the absence of police protection, whilst leaving a charity event."

 Fox — Prince Harry Jan 15, 2022

 

[MomJeans]

(I didn't mean to write so much- sorry in advance)

It's an interesting situation, because I imagine there really isn't much precedent.  And the U.K. doesn't have a simple definition of who gets security when it comes to relatives of the Queen.  

I personally have no issue with them having police protection in the U.K. (I am a U.K. citizen, but I hardly speak for the masses, and I don't live there.).  At the end of the day, since they don't live there either, the costs are not likely to be excessive anyway. Charles will be King someday.  No matter what I think of their actions, I'm in favor of safety. 

But there are plenty of celebrities who do appear to have adequate private security in the U.K.  (It's weird to me that Harry is publicly announcing that his private security isn't protecting him enough in the U.K.  I would think he could make his legal arguments without making that public, for his safety's sake.)

I always go back to the words on the ill-fated SussexRoyal website- on it, they claimed that as internationally protected persons, they were entitled to police security.  IPP's are pretty narrowly defined, and that claim was widely questioned at the time. because as non-working royals, they didn't fit.  I think Harry got very bad advice before he decided to dump being a full-time royal, and I'm not sure he understands that.   

 

[just_ordinary]

I really wonder why they are not able to hire the same class of protection that say, Beoncey/Adele/George Clooney etc. have. 
I mean, sure the hype about a snap of them will be probably much higher the first time around. It will be pretty crazy. But than my wish would be the press completely ignores them. They wouldn’t like that either.

I do think though they should pay for their own security. Just because your family is famous is not enough of an excuse that others have to chime in. Even rich people get cut off by their parents. And we still don’t have to pay for other trust fund babies as well. And let’s not forget- they do have millions of their own. They can scale back on other expenses if security swallows a chunk of money. Just like everyone else has to budget in stuff. 
That said, of course they should have all the resources for hiring a available than other celebrities. If they can hire police personal, than they should be able to as well under the same rules. 

[LilaMae]

From Harry's statement on the issue-

"Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life.

"He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats."

For life? As soon as the Cambridge children grow up and start having children of their own, Harry falls into irrelevance, particularly as a non-working member of the Royal Family who lives in a different country. 

Regardless, people in the UK, even the rich and famous, are not allowed to purchase police protection. He can hire his own personal security. The statement also mentions that there was a "breach in security" during his last visit to the UK when press chased his car. But that seems like the precise thing that private security does anyway? 

[Coconut Flan]

Harry seems to be close to the situation of Eugenie and Beatrice who do not have government funded security.  If he didn't want the job, it's odd to ask for the perks.  I don't think anyone anywhere should be able to purchase police provided security.  Doesn't that muddy the line too much?  The police are not and should not be a commercial enterprise.  If his security fell down on the job, then he needs to hire a different firm.  

I still think it was the draw of thinking they could earn millions in Hollywood that pulled them.  If they had merely wanted private lives, I'm sure granny would have tucked them away on a country estate.  That would likely have been able to accommodate what they said at the time they wanted better than what they've done.  They could have lived privately in the country and then shown up at state occasions agreed upon in advance and kept most of the perks by not making a huge deal of things. 

[DalmatianCat]

This seems like another over-thinking scenario on Harry’s end combined with a conflated sense of his own importance and paranoia. Or maybe he just needs better hiring practices.
There will definitely be paparazzi interest the first few times his kids come to the UK, but interest in them will fade over time. If he wants to avoid paparazzi in the present the royal family owns plenty of private properties they can stay on and still have space to run around while easily avoiding the public without anyone even knowing they’re in the UK.

Claiming his own security doesn’t have all the information they need to protect him and therefore he needs police protection seems like boundaries can get tricky because Harry no longer has security clearance to know all the threats are against the royal family (I’m assuming).

Overall, the fact that Harry is planning to bring his family to the UK seems to be a positive sign for family relationships. Harry must be missing “home” and wanting to show off his kids and I’m glad he’s working on a plan to make it happen.  Considering he is concerned about security makes me think his is not planning on a quiet, private family trip to Sandringham and is probably excited to show Archie all his favorite haunts in London. Now that he’s had a few years away he’s probably feeling nostalgic and wanting to connect his kids to their British roots (for all the drama over leaving the royal family, I think his family heritage and his children’s place in it is very important to Harry).

Edited January 16, 2022 by DalmatianCat
More thoughts

[rosamundi]

9 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

As highlighted below, the Sussex lawyers’ statement has a little “dig” that implies that other celebrities get free protection from the police but they aren’t even allowed to pay for it.

The police don't routinely protect celebrities. If there is specific intelligence of a threat, then the police would get involved with protection until that threat is passed, but otherwise celebrities are expected to pay for their own security. By "others who have left public office and have an inherent threat risk receive police protection at no cost to them" Harry is referring to former Prime Ministers and certain other Ministers of State. Off the top of my head:

• Former Prime Ministers
• Former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland (due to the specific risk associated with that role)
• Former Home Secretaries
• Former Defence Secretaries

They can forgo it if they want to, it's assessed on the specific level of risk relative to what they were dealing with in office. Provision for other former Ministers is assessed on a case by case basis (a lot of even junior ministers in the Northern Ireland Office got police protection for years).

[HerNameIsBuffy]

9 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Harry seems to be close to the situation of Eugenie and Beatrice who do not have government funded security.  If he didn't want the job, it's odd to ask for the perks. 

The situations look similar on paper, but in practice it's wildly different.  Harry is the son of the future monarch, people world wide watched Diana's boys grow up, public interest in him and his family will always eclipse interest in Andrew's daughters by ordered of magnitude.  That makes his need for security a lot more legit than it would be for them.

I don't think people should be able to purchase police time either, and agree with you  that if the security firm he used last time had issues he should hire another firm.  

His security threats would be there whether he kept the job or walked away, being born to his parents created a life long security problem for him - it's not like it was only applicable because he accepted some job, it's because of who he is.

[Coconut Flan]

I see that, but I'm guessing the British security analysis on paper is looking at him in his objective situation which is not going to weigh on his being Diana's son.  Yes, he was born with a job, but one he has left.  No, he can't quit being Charles' son, but he walked away from the responsibilities that normally go with that birth.  He has put himself in an extremely awkward situation and now he's living with the consequences.  That he did not foresee the issues goes to his entitlement and apparently refusing to listen to advisors who could have helped him see what the results of the decisions the Sussexes were making would be.  

That said I'm rather surprised that the people who make these decisions would not provide the son of the future king protection when he's in the country.  I can understand the basis of their decision, but I didn't expect it.  I don't think the Diana issue would make a difference in their assessment, but son of the relatively soon to be king perhaps should.  At least I thought that until I read Anne and Edward only have state paid security when they do official duties.  By that, Harry would only have security for official duties.  He doesn't do official duties, so no security.  It makes sense in a bureaucratic review way which is what they do.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

9 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

I see that, but I'm guessing the British security analysis on paper is looking at him in his objective situation which is not going to weigh on his being Diana's son.  Yes, he was born with a job, but one he has left.  No, he can't quit being Charles' son, but he walked away from the responsibilities that normally go with that birth.  He has put himself in an extremely awkward situation and now he's living with the consequences.  That he did not foresee the issues goes to his entitlement and apparently refusing to listen to advisors who could have helped him see what the results of the decisions the Sussexes were making would be.  

That said I'm rather surprised that the people who make these decisions would not provide the son of the future king protection when he's in the country.  I can understand the basis of their decision, but I didn't expect it.  I don't think the Diana issue would make a difference in their assessment, but son of the relatively soon to be king perhaps should.  At least I thought that until I read Anne and Edward only have state paid security when they do official duties.  By that, Harry would only have security for official duties.  He doesn't do official duties, so no security.  It makes sense in a bureaucratic review way which is what they do.  

What baffles me is why this is even an issue for the public at all.  As a parent, if my kids had security needs because of who I am I'd pay for it if I could out of my own pocket.  Why isn't Charles just taking care of this?  

I know Harry's choices complicate everything and God knows he needs to stop speaking because he comes off as a giant entitled toddler, but Charles knew when he had kids they'd have security needs at least in some situations.  A visit home with a new baby and to see Archie again I can't understand why Grandpa isn't helping him arrange private security for this visit.  

I'm not saying he should be on the hook for security for the rest of his life, because the cost of that depends on H and M's choices so they need to buck up and pay for it or live a quieter life so less is needed.  But knowing the chaos of the press his first visit home with Lilibet as a parent I'd be throwing my kid an assist.

Edited January 16, 2022 by HerNameIsBuffy