Harry & Meghan 8: Time's Most Insufferable

[viii]

Comparing Harry to Michael Jackson’s kids is laughable. The average person probably couldn’t name all three of his children. However I’m guessing pretty much everyone around the world knows who Harry is, as dumb as he’s been lately. 

[DalmatianCat]

47 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Then too, he is paranoid about the paparazzi and any public attention he can’t control.  Frankly, I don’t think very much of any therapy he may be getting, though (to be sure) for therapy to work you have to want to change. 

I understand how both William and Harry have very strong feelings towards the paparazzi, but I wonder if anyone has ever gently mentioned to them that while their mother was not always treated well by the paparazzi, had she been wearing her seatbelt the outcome of her accident could have been different. I’m a little surprised neither of them have ever advocated more for seatbelts, car seats, etc. I’m guessing it’s easier to solely blame the paparazzi then acknowledge that if their mother had made a different choice that night she could possibly still be with them.

[MomJeans]

Or drunk driving.  Imagine how much good it would do the world if the brothers had a platform to educate about the dangers of drunk driving.  Especially in America where Diana was worshipped. 

But that's not the narrative they want to present to the world.  Too common, maybe.  (Yet ironically, Diana was the type of royal to build platforms for less glamorous causes.)  

It really pisses me off to hear people say that the Queen had Diana killed, or similar B.S.  If the driver had lived, he would have been arrested, charged and convicted for vehicular homicide.  Hate the monarchy all you want, but it's simply disgusting to insinuate that the Queen has godlike powers to place drunk drivers in people's cars.

After Harry's Oprah interview, I recall morning hosts saying "We don't want another Diana in a tunnel situation to happen."  And I was just flabbergasted that all these years later it's still not widely understood that Diana was the victim of a drunk driver.  

(sorry, off my soap box, I'm just really against drunk driving).

[EmCatlyn]

So long as any Sussex visit to the Uk is essentially a family visit during which they will be staying in royal estates and properties, I don’t think they need anything more than private security.  If, however, they are going to make public appearances, then I assume their risk will be assessed by the MET and they will get  “official” security for the event just as any other public figures might have.

The whole thing about needing official police protection just to be able to visit the UK could be prompted by paranoia, or drama, or misguided “blackmail,” or wanting an excuse not to visit.  Or “all of the above.”😉   

The paranoia, of course, is strong in Harry.  I really wish he could get help for this.  A bunch of people wanting to take his picture is just normal life for a celebrity, not a threat on his life.  Anytime he and his family are visiting Charles or the Queen, they will have the additional protection.  If they are especially worried, hiring some extra security (maybe Brits) for the trip should be enough.  I would guess there are retired MET officials with the right connections who might be doing a spot of private security here and there and might be hired by the Sussexes.

The drama is connected to the paranoia and clearly feeds off Harry’s sense that he has not been treated fairly.  He wants this grievance to be very clear.  He wants it known that he isn’t getting what he should be getting, and because “worried about our safety” sounds better than, “annoyed that we aren’t considered important enough,” there is the whole drama. (If the MET had accepted the deal of giving him protection but charging for it, I am sure we would have heard about it. “How unfair that though it is not his fault he was born a prince, he has to pay for it,” etc.)

The “blackmail,” if it is at all deliberate, is connected to the drama of the “poor unwilling prince,” but goes further because it seeks to dramatize the disappointment of the Queen and the rest of the royal family if poor Harry and his family don’t feel safe to visit the UK.   I really don’t think the “blackmail” is aimed at Charles (whom Harry must know has no power) or the Queen (though Harry may hope that she will speak a word in his favor).   I see this more as an attempt to make the Home Office reconsider their decision not to offer the Sussexes protection by making the Home Office and the MET look bad. (It is misguided because it all comes down to taxpayers’ money and security risk assessments, not emotion.)

The “excuse” part could just be that they want the public to know that if they don’t visit it is because they are not being treated fairly and are not being protected enough. (See paranoia and drama above.😉) It “punishes” the Home Office and his grandmother for not letting him be a part-time royal, etc.  

I think Harry really wants to come back to the UK.  I doubt he ever envisioned being away for more than two years with only a couple of short, tense, visits. I think he would like to be able to visit a couple of times a year at least and have his kids grow up well-acquainted with the royal family.  However, I think Harry only wants to come back on his own terms, and this whole fuss about his family’s security is one more attempt to establish his terms. (All earlier attempts have failed.)

He may very well return to England only for the Queen’s funeral, and then by himself and only briefly if no one gives him some of what he wants.  It’s interesting.

[MomJeans]

I know it's the Daily Mail, but this is a good article that articulates the probable timeline as to why Harry became pissed off about all of this. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10408855/Royal-protection-officer-KEN-WHARFE-Prince-Harrys-demands-security-trips-UK.html

1.  April 2021:  When Harry went to Phillip's funeral, he was given MET protection, because the event was assessed for possible terrorist attacks. (Again, if there are specific threats, protection will be provided)

2.  July 2021:  When Harry went in July to unveil the statue, he was not given MET protection.  And his private security cannot have guns in the U.K. (that's normal for all private security- the U.K. has very strict gun control.  And the Beckhams and other celebs have security with the same restrictions.)  It is implied that there may have been further conflict because Harry's private security doesn't get blanket access to the royal properties, which, of course, that's true, and it's unnecessary for his security to have that kind of access.  

3. September 2021:  In September was when Harry filed his demand for MET protection for his family.  So he came home from the statue unveiling pissed off (likely about many things), and 2 months later made his official demand. Which is about how long his legal representation would need to bill $$$$$ and prepare the demand.  (I think the Sussex attorney team has had a very good year).

Edited January 16, 2022 by MomJeans

[just_ordinary]

I think the people assuming this could also be the start of a strategy to explain why they are not part of the jubilee next year might have a point. I don’t think they are unwanted, but I can see them being unhappy with the conditions. They have a tendency to jump the gun to make themselves look good and thereby making everything worse for them. 
I can definitely see them not taking part in any official engagement around it or being stuffed far in the back. That would definitely not work for them and their need for footage with the royals (especially he goes to great lengths to appear in headlines with content centred around his past royal life).

As I said, I wonder where that leaves Meghan. She puts lots of emphasis on her being American and goes all in for US centred topics (and the occasional general thing that she jumps in because it’s the next big thing). I think it might have been better if they really had moved to South Africa. A clean slate for both. Because it seems both have a massive problem finding their way in the other ones world. 
Maybe he would find some peace, if he decided to really stop pursuing the public light and basically lives as a stay at home dad? Most families of four could live extremely comfortably with their wealth. Get a good investor and scale back till you can live very well from the money those millions work up for you every year. Yes, it might not be as luxurious, but maybe much happier. Consider giving up all professional royal titles and positions. It would reduce the (imagined) security risks for everyone in his family. (To be clear: I talk the business side of the RF only. I still hope for everyone their private relationships can be restored.) No worries about money, less worries about security, no need to engage with the press at all (because you cannot completely control what they write and how it’s received) and a good excuse the complain about intrusions by them, less solving the world’s problems and more concentrating on raising happy, content children (you know, start little). He seems to be a complete mess and it must be a strain on his family life at this point. But he also seems unwilling to put them first for a change. Just as he never really put Meghan first unconditionally. He always tried to play his own angle too. Find some self worth and pleasure outside royalty and big public charity stunts. Pick up sports, gardening, Aquarelle painting, music, reading…. find something more to define you. Maybe after a couple of years(!)- like 5-10- he is ready for more public engagements again. And then he won’t have to have this massive chip on his shoulder. 

[hoipolloi]

6 hours ago, DalmatianCat said:

had she been wearing her seatbelt the outcome of her accident could have been different.

As some have said, the proximate cause of Diana's death has three components: she was in a speeding vehicle driven by a drunk, and not wearing her seatbelt. Had any one of those elements been absent, she might have survived. Had two or more elements been absent, she could well have survived.

[just_ordinary]

2 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

As some have said, the proximate cause of Diana's death has three components: she was in a speeding vehicle driven by a drunk, and not wearing her seatbelt. Had any one of those elements been absent, she might have survived. Had two or more elements been absent, she could well have survived.

I think it’s a pointless game of what ifs. She could have survived with no seatbelt, speeding and drunken driver, just as she could have just as well died in a slower car, wearing a seatbelt and a driver that hadn’t have a drink. 
She died and it very possible wasn’t due to one single cause but a chain of unfortunate decisions/things. But we really cannot say if this and that were different she wouldn’t have died. We will never know. Statistics only apply so much to the individual incident.

So while it’s fair to say that there have been multiple reasons that are likely to have brought on this tragic outcome, we really can’t say anything more.

I think both of her son’s must be horrified by all those chatter about their grandmother and father playing a role in her death. Can you imagine reading something like this as a teenager? I get why they want to stick to the version were only one party is at fault. That’s a very natural response. William seems to have mostly overcome his mother’s death (as well as one ever can) and appears to be more reasonable in his relations with the press. Harry seems to have fallen into the deep end and lives almost an alternative reality. 

[hoipolloi]

27 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I think it’s a pointless game of what ifs.

Perhaps, but I'd still advise you and anyone else to wear your seatbelt always, never get in a vehicle with a drunken driver, and avoid riding with speeders.

The conspiracy theories about her death are just ridiculous although I agree they must be very hurtful for her sons & other family members to read or hear about. 

 

[LilaMae]

12 hours ago, viii said:

Harry is Diana’s son. He is the grandson and eventually son of the most famous monarchy. The world has grown up with him and for the majority of his life, the public has had a fierce protective claim on him. His fame, even if he lives in LA until his dying day, will not fade away. He is always going to be a source of public interest, solely due to who he is. Dislike him all you want, but assuming someday he’s going to be an average person nobody cares about is just dumb. 

Truer words have never been spoken. 

No, he is not going to be completely average, but he could live a fairly normal life if he wanted to. 

His mother died 25 years ago. For a decade or so, she was treated as though she was a saint and people (particularly the older generation) swore that Camilla would never be accepted. While Diana is still respected and loved, social media, plus her portrayal in media like The Crown, has created a more nuanced view of Diana as a real person with strengths and flaws like any other. The older generation who worshipped Diana is dying off, and the new generation never knew her. Hell, I'm in my thirties and my only real memory of Diana is her death. We've even finally got to the point where more people have a positive opinion of Camilla than negative. 

The "spares" tend to be forgotten unless they do something larger than life. If Anne and Edward weren't working royals , we would likely never hear about them except for random bits in gossip mags. 

 

[MamaJunebug]

I retesting conversation to follow, thank you all!

Question I’ve had since the big news about them “stepping back as senior royals:”

Could they have “stepped back” but only a little?  Become part-time senior royals with reduced benefits? 
 

Asking out of curiosity and desire to learn how those things work. 
 

(And of course to be a Type 3 and learn from others’ mistakes, should I ever find myself married into a royal family and stressing out over the situation.  Thank you. [practicing my Windsor wave])  

[just_ordinary]

2 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

I retesting conversation to follow, thank you all!

Question I’ve had since the big news about them “stepping back as senior royals:”

Could they have “stepped back” but only a little?  Become part-time senior royals with reduced benefits? 
 

Asking out of curiosity and desire to learn how those things work. 
 

(And of course to be a Type 3 and learn from others’ mistakes, should I ever find myself married into a royal family and stressing out over the situation.  Thank you. [practicing my Windsor wave])  

It’s complicated because it is always an individual assessment. Adding that it seems as if there is a long term process on rebuilding certain aspects of the BRF already being worked out. 
They very probably could have stepped back a little. I am not even sure if they had to live in the UK for that. But reduced engagements and doing qcharity stunts while living a comfortable life would have been possible. BUT this would always have had an impact on the things they are complaining about now. Definitely less protection, less expenses being paid for (surely no support for living outside the UK), no earning money just how they seem fit (even though you wonder how Andrew’s shady business involvements over the years made the cut), more boring than big  engagements, very probably no tours, further in the back on the balcony and other hierarchy driven events, very probably still no to titles for the children (and rightly so), no power over who reports on them….

I think they didn’t like the prospect of what stepping back a little meant. Also their statement was never about not wanting to be full time working royals but about the restrictions it puts them under. Their exit statement changed 4 or 5 times in quick succession and their claims as to why they left also. Was it the abusive press, the financial dependence, the grey suits, the institution, the family, the internet????

Harry might be sixth in line, but that doesn’t really mean a thing in the big picture. If he and his children loose their spot there are enough contenders. With five people in front of him, he is utterly irrelevant. Just as Louis is already and Charlotte very probably will be soon enough. With the glimpses we got from the possible changes, we will see a massive drop in titled people actually doing work for the RF. The Queen’s cousins will be gone soon, Andrew’s title will fall back, Edward might not get a dukedom (and with how they handled their children’s titles I don’t think they really care that much)… those changes have effected the decision about H&M and I think we cannot look at similar cases with different underlying ideas of the monarchy set up to draw analogies.

I am absolutely fine if all three Cambridglings hold a dukedom of their own, but not the children of Charlotte and Louis. We very probably will not see a similar situation of three heirs in s long time. Charles might be as good as dead when George has children of his own (assuming he follows this path and sticks to the conventional age of the first child in the tertiary education group)

Edited January 17, 2022 by just_ordinary

[MomJeans]

3 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

Question I’ve had since the big news about them “stepping back as senior royals:”

Could they have “stepped back” but only a little?  Become part-time senior royals with reduced benefits? 
 

 

The issue was that they wanted to engage in commercial work, as well as work that would likely run afoul of being politically neutral. The Sussexes quite clearly pointed out on the Sussex Royal website that they wanted to do work for the Commonwealth, which meant international tours. 

At the time that they made their big announcement, they were actually on a short break from all duties but were still considered senior working royals. I was hoping they would extend their break, because I thought they fairly needed more time to all of the major life changes they had been going through.

William and Kate in particular have set a pretty minimal standard for royal work.  So if the Sussexes only wanted to step back a little, it would have been no problem.  The issue was what they wanted to do when they weren't doing royal work.

(Edward and Sophie had been permitted to have a half in, half out arrangement, and it was widely considered a disaster.  Edward's work stemmed from his relationship to the royal family, and Sophie was caught on camera promising access to the royal family.  I think the lesson learned was that the family member can have the best of intentions about not using their status and relationships, but the people around them will naturally flock to them because of relationships and statuses)

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by MomJeans

[viii]

6 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

Could they have “stepped back” but only a little?  Become part-time senior royals with reduced benefits? 

This is what they tried doing and the Queen shut them down, so I would assume no. You're either in or you're out. 

[MamaJunebug]

Thank you, @just_ordinary, @MomJeans, @viii  Explains it all!

I used to get tickled when Michael K at dlisted referred to Harry as Prince Hot Ginge (PHG for short), back in the days when Harry just seemed like a not-too-bright partyer who kept his brother and sister-in-law from getting too dour.  

I miss those days. 

And that’s all I mean to say here. Nothing more, nothing about why things changed, etc.  I hereby return to lurking & enjoying the commentary and snark you all provide.

(I do have to say, Kate’s got a heckuva wardrobe.  But I know that’s off-topic, so… apologies. Back to the lurker throne recliner!)

[EmCatlyn]

10 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I think it’s a pointless game of what ifs. She could have survived with no seatbelt, speeding and drunken driver, just as she could have just as well died in a slower car, wearing a seatbelt and a driver that hadn’t have a drink. 
She died and it very possible wasn’t due to one single cause but a chain of unfortunate decisions/things. But we really cannot say if this and that were different she wouldn’t have died. We will never know. Statistics only apply so much to the individual incident.

So while it’s fair to say that there have been multiple reasons that are likely to have brought on this tragic outcome, we really can’t say anything more.

I think both of her son’s must be horrified by all those chatter about their grandmother and father playing a role in her death. Can you imagine reading something like this as a teenager? I get why they want to stick to the version were only one party is at fault. That’s a very natural response. William seems to have mostly overcome his mother’s death (as well as one ever can) and appears to be more reasonable in his relations with the press. Harry seems to have fallen into the deep end and lives almost an alternative reality. 

I think that the “what ifs” are relevant in the context of questioning the narrative that “the press” killed Diana.  You are right that there is something problematic about Harry’s attachment to this narrative (as opposed to a more nuanced one that sees that the paparazzi were obnoxious, the driver was drunk, and Diana made bad choices).

[viii]

I know it's the theme of this thread to judge Harry, but to nitpick his grief just seems like a new level of low. Don't get me wrong, Harry's an idiot, but he was 12 when his mom died. Of course he didn't process his grief and pin the blame on the "right" people, he most likely wasn't even aware for years the full situation. At that point, whose going to come out and admit that their beloved mother was in the wrong? I'm sure he's made all these logical thoughts privately, but it's another thing to expect him to criticize her publicly. 

[MamaJunebug]

One quick seatbelt comment:  The bodyguard was wearing his and survived, albeit without any memory of the crash.  
 

#lurkingContentedly

[just_ordinary]

He doesn’t have to criticise her publicly at all. I don’t think that’s a fair expectation. He could just stop playing up the „press killer my mother“ narrative.
He even made it into the „… and now they are out to kill my wife”. I have lots of sympathy, but there comes a point where you either move on to a more healthy grieve or should get treatment. And I think it’s fine to always say the press played a part in this event. If they hadn’t been there or stopped at one point the other bad choices might not have mattered. But he deliberately perpetuates this single cause bad press story for himself. I don’t think it’s just grieve anymore but also highly manipulative (both sons have used the poor boys narrative to get sympathy) and shows some paranoia. 

[MomJeans]

No one is nitpicking his grief.  He can process his grief however he wants. He can believe whatever he wants.  

But if he uses his voice as a public figure to communicate disinformation, then he opens himself up to fact-correction, just like any other public figure.  And he very much has chosen to remain a public figure.

 

 

[louisa05]

On 1/16/2022 at 1:05 PM, hoipolloi said:

In some, maybe many, US jurisdictions a local government's police officers can be hired for private purposes -- where I live they're called "special duty officers." Usually, it's something like managing traffic for roadway construction or a parade. They are in uniform, with all their weapons & other tools, and have the full authority of a regular duty PO. Apparently, this is not a possibility in the UK. 

Too bad for Harry, if so, but it's hardly personal and he needs to figure out a reasonable alternative rather than have public tantrums.

 

This is the equivalent of someone wanting to privately hire the secret service, though. 

[viii]

34 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

He doesn’t have to criticise her publicly at all. I don’t think that’s a fair expectation. He could just stop playing up the „press killer my mother“ narrative.
He even made it into the „… and now they are out to kill my wife”. I have lots of sympathy, but there comes a point where you either move on to a more healthy grieve or should get treatment. And I think it’s fine to always say the press played a part in this event. If they hadn’t been there or stopped at one point the other bad choices might not have mattered. But he deliberately perpetuates this single cause bad press story for himself. I don’t think it’s just grieve anymore but also highly manipulative (both sons have used the poor boys narrative to get sympathy) and shows some paranoia. 

The media DID play a part in killing his mother, though. She was hounded and chased for years, driving her fragile mental health to even worse levels where she made bad decisions. I mean, there’s lots that can be said and done but I don’t know anyone can say he’s paranoid about the press. The media is ruthless and used to be far worse than what they are now. 

[EmCatlyn]

On 1/16/2022 at 3:04 PM, just_ordinary said:

…  I often write they, but I actually mostly mean him. I do still have a soft spot for Meghan and think of anyone can claim to have drawn the short stick it’s her.

This is where I disagree.  I do not feel Meghan has “drawn the short stick” at all.   She was at best a third tier actress. Most of the world had never heard of her.  She did not hang out with Oprah.  She did not have a title to use whenever she wanted to make a pronouncement. She lived well, but not with the level of luxury she enjoys now.

She is now an A-list celebrity.  The mega-rich lend her houses and provide security while she and her husband get their act together.  They make huge deals that bring them money because of who he is.  They own a house that might as well be a small resort. (Swimming pool, spa, playground, tennis courts, etc. etc.)  It appears that her husband adores her.

How is that the “short stick”?

Harry may have been unrealistic about what Meghan could do or not do once they were married, but Meghan had many friends who warned her what being a royal would be like.  If she was “surprised” it was because she entered the marriage without a strong grip on reality either.  I think both of them are responsible for any misperception of what their lives as royals would be like.

Since they “stepped down,” Harry has been separated from his family and found himself in a public feud with some of the people he presumably loves most.  He no longer has to perform tedious royal duties, but he now has to scramble to make financial deals to keep the money coming in.  The police security he took for granted all his life has been taken away.  It is clear that he adores Meghan and his kids, and he seems to be happy, but this happiness has come at a cost.  I don’t think the cost has been as great for Meghan.

In most ways, I’d say Harry has given up more and Meghan has gained more in this marriage rather than the other way around.  However, since it appears that Harry wanted to “get rid of” some of what he gave up, in a sense neither is the loser.

As far as we can tell, they are happy together and they have shared goals.  Even if we snark at how they do things, I would not see one as better or worse off than the other.

[Coconut Flan]

If the article is true, then Charles has made overtures to try to make a trip work.  At least while with Charles, they'd have protection.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1551500/prince-charles-news-meghan-markle-prince-harry-uk-visit-invitation

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, viii said:

I know it's the theme of this thread to judge Harry, but to nitpick his grief just seems like a new level of low. Don't get me wrong, Harry's an idiot, but he was 12 when his mom died. Of course he didn't process his grief and pin the blame on the "right" people, he most likely wasn't even aware for years the full situation. At that point, whose going to come out and admit that their beloved mother was in the wrong? I'm sure he's made all these logical thoughts privately, but it's another thing to expect him to criticize her publicly. 

I wouldn’t expect anyone to criticize their mother publicly.  However, the “the press killed my mother” rhetoric and what sounds like a paranoid fear that “history will repeat itself” and the press will kill (cause the death of) Meghan or his kids is definitely a problem.